From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:52:49 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1bhc2nINN7au@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>Bill 'n' me.

>>>Bill, in what material way was your life affected by the decisions in
>>>Roe?

I don't know about Bill, but I can tell you about Will (Steeves, that is):
his life was very drastically effected by RvW and its progeny.  You
probably know more about that than I do, actually, yet you keep throwing
this inane line at people like Bill and Martin.

Though I personally haven't had my life affected in the way Will's has
been, I care about him and innumerable women (and other men) whose lives 
has been affected for the worse.  It's called compassion.

>what way do you figure the 'values/beliefs' 'endorsed' in Roe are different
>than other laws?  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?

The interpretation seems to be built into Roe alongside the laws themselves.

>> It broadly
>>sanctions the notion that the choice to abort is potentially an 
>>ethical one, depending on the personal morals of the individual 
>>woman.  

>>It also endorses the notion that the only overriding value 
>>that should apply to the country as a whole, is the concept of 
>>individual freedom, and that everything else is subordinate to 
>>that. 

This last paragraph of Bill's does seem to go beyond what is more or less
explicitly in Roe.

>See, either laws DO endorse values/beliefs, and we are arging about which
>set of toughs get to impose their values/beliefs,

You acted like a tough when arguing with Martin, Adrienne.  In my limited
experience, there are a lot more toughs on the pro-choice side than on
the pro-life side.

>>make such a decision that I question; rather, it is the nature 
>>of abortion itself, i.e. a life and death affecting decision 
>>that warrants stricter regulation.  

>See, *you* have defined abortion within a specific sphere, then object to
>having this definition 'endorsed' upon you.  

>Consider, for example, the possibility that your definition is incorrect. 

"We currently kill [the fetus] and remove it..."  Your words, Adrienne.
Don't tell me it's not a life and death affecting decision.

>Consider, for example, that the 'nature of abortion' is REALLY "a highly
>personal decision about the use of one's body that government should
>definitely remain out of".

That's written into Roe, explicitly as regards first trimester abortions.
That's the kind of imposition of values by Blackmun & Co. that Bill and I
object to.

>   Because you are using the *wrong*
>underlying 'belief'..... one you made up that has zip to do with the
>*real* situation.

There's that word "zip" again.  Reminds me of an underlying belief that
Adrienne made up, the belief that a woman has an absolute right to have
a fetus removed from her body, at any time, for any reason, and "survival
of the fetus after the fact has zip nada nothing to do with the woman's
right to have it removed."

>I'm not particularly arguing the 'nature of abortion', nota bene (although
>I consider your definition to be far too narrow).  I'm pointing out that
>*you* are the one who defined the values/beliefs that you are arguing are
>'endorsed' upon you by the government. 

And you mentioned one yourself up there, Adrienne, about the "highly personal
decision..."

Peter Ny.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity