From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 16 Oct 1992 08:31:40 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

>Bill 'n' me.: >>


I'm actually enjoying this one, Bill.  I apologise for baiting you earlier
today.

>>>At any rate, the Roe decision
>>>is a legal endorsement of a set of values/beliefs. 
>>In what way?  Laws about driving on the right hand side of the road,
>>as opposed to the left, do not 'endorse' a set of values/beliefs.  
>True enough (unless it might obliquely pertain to "public safety").  
>I do contend (deja vu) that most criminal law endorses particular 
>standards that appeal to philosophical notions of right and wrong, 
>as does most constitutional law.  

But there is a similarly perfectly valid argument that most law --- 
criminal and civil -- is based upon economic principles where by
theft, killing and other nastiness wreaks havoc on the stability of
a society.  "right" and "wrong" doesn't come into it:  "order" does.
With _that_ philosophy, which is a perfectly useful one to hold, the
right/wrong dichotomy disappears.

>>And how do you defend your interpretation below, and ignore 
>>the other interpretations of values/beliefs that anybody else 
>>on this net could dream up to support their position?
>I don't ignore the interpretations of others.  I acknowledge
>that my position represents a different set of values.  But
>Roe isn't value neutral simply because it leaves the decision
>up to the individual.  

I suppose if you buy the right/wrong 'imposition' of law, then it
isn't value neutral in it's assumption that individual choice is a 
Good Thing (tm), but it certainly is the most  value neutral in it's
IMPLEMENTATION, because it creates a framework in which the competing
beliefs in our society can be satisfied and act in accordance with their
own (competing) beliefs.

Now, given that the notion of a pluralistic society incorporates com-
peting beliefs and attempts to still move forward, what compromise is 
best?  The kind that starts with a non-value-neutral assumption that 
individuals should be allowed to decide individual things and results in
a fairly evenhanded IMPLEMENTATION, or a value-neutral assumption that
results in a proscriptive, inflexible and fascist implementation?  (and
I think you'd have a hard time figuring out a pro-life law that would
do *that* well!).

Of course, since we have a constitution that itself acknowledges the
value of individual choice, I personally think you are on very weak 
legs ascribing that underlying belief to Roe.  It's the underlyinb
belief in practically EVERYTHING within our social construct, Bill.

>>Wait a minute.  These may be *your* personal values (you are welcome to
>>'em), but you've just objected to having one set of values/beliefs 
>>'endorsed' into law.  How, IF Roe does this (and you object) do we then
>>write a law that doesn't do this?  
>
>We can't, IMO.  It's simply a matter of whose morality will be
>codified (again, IMO).  And the reason you folks will probably 
>maintain this right in the end, is for that very reason.  The 
>*diversity* of opinion over the issue lends itself most clearly
>to allowing the individual to choose.  I don't think it speaks
>well of us as a society (wrt the value we place on unborn humans,
>etc. - but you know all that), but I imagine that's how it will
>end up.

Then, having taken the theory, and looked at the reality of the situation,
you come to the conclusion that we probably can't do better, what are
you arguing about?

>>See, either laws DO endorse values/beliefs, and we are arging about which
>>set of toughs get to impose their values/beliefs,
>>OR
>>laws DON'T (or shouldn't) endorse values/beliefs, and we should avoid any
>>law making that would impose such.
>>Which is your view of the right approach?
>I don't think it's a matter of a right or wrong approach.  The

Now WAIT A MINUTE, Mr. Bill.  You are telling us that Roe imposes a notion
of right and wrong on you, and now you don't want to talk about right and
wrong!  Come on....you can do better than this.

If someone died and made you king, what would *you* impose, and how would
it be a better imposition?  How would it be more "right" than what we have
now? 

>Can of worms.  At one level, I see your point.  But it seems to beg
>the question:  what ethic is such a definition based on?  

Presumably the ethics of the woman invovled.  Why aren't those ethics
"good enough"?

>Hmm.  I own a gun. 
>2nd (?) Amendment.  Therefore, the government endorses the value
>that gun ownership is a fine thing.  The same arguments (IMO) are
>relevant to the abortion debate.  Do you still disagree?

Absolutely.  I think the government (actually meaning the framers of the
constitution, but the opposition currently keeping the bill of rights in 
place does, inactively, support the amendments) figures that forcing stuff
on the people of the United States is so terrible and awful and abhorrent
that the keeping of arms is JUSTIFIED by the people.  A recognition of how
bad things *could* get, not an endorsement of weapons themselves, for 
their own intrinsic recreational value.  The right to keep and bear arms
doesn't endorse the idea that we should all shoot clay pigeons, Bill.


Adrienne Regard