From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:41:47 GMT

In <26341@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
   (Ron Bense) writes: >
In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1b4pu3INNg6k@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
   (Adrienne Regard) writes: >>>

>>>Bill, in what material way was your life affected by the decisions in
>>>Roe?  What belief was imposed upon you?  What did you have to stop doing?
>>>Start doing?
>
>>Your last two questions are valid criticisms, the answers being
>>"nothing" and "nothing", respectively.  
>
>>At any rate, the Roe decision is a legal endorsement of a set of values/
>>beliefs. ... depending on the personal morals of the individual woman.
>
>Bill, you're not making sense here. On the one hand you're saying that
>Roe is an endorsement of a set of values/beliefs, and on the other you
>say that those values beliefs depend on the personal morals of the individual
>woman. Now which is it? A legal set of beliefs? Or what ever set of
>beliefs an individual may have?

Ethics exist on numerous levels.  There is no contradiction here,
Ron.  The 'meta' set of ethics that I'm referring to is the en-
dorsement of the 'sub' set.  The SC rules that women have the 
constitutional right to choose based on their personal beliefs.
The *decision* of the Court is believed (by the members of the
majority et al) to be the "right" decision.  That decision sup-
ports/endorses the right to individual choice (based on indivi-
dual values).  

>Note that this is akin to saying that the first amendment endorses a
>religion...depending on the religious views of the individual. 

Set of values, yes.  Religion, no.

>At this
>point I'll assume that you've not thought this through to its conclusion
>yet, instead of assuming that you'll twist anything into your personal
>agenda and belief system.

A big hearted guy.

>>I believe in maximizing individual freedom within broad
>>limits; I simply think that (unregulated) abortion exceeds the
>>limits of what is reasonable and good for the culture as a whole.
>
>So Bill, you don't belive in individual freedom? Or are you saying 
>individual freedom is restricted when an abortion is done? 

The latter.  There are a great many restrictions on individual 
freedom.  That a given behavior is labeled a "right" (or even a 
"fundamental right") does not imply the absence of any restrictions.  

>How about we give the little munchkin a choice, get out or we'll 
>remove you? 

Our country has a history of offering legal protection to those
who are unable to protect themselves.  

>And how is this bad for society as a whole? (Or is this merely 
>your opinion, and as such has no real basis in reality besides 
>what you believe?)

Some opinion reflects reality and some doesn't.  Your exclusionary
description of mine suggests that perhaps only your opinion has
any objective value.  True?

>>Roe, on the other hand, sets standard for how we as a society
>>should think about abortion.
>
>This is your opinion, and it can be shown as flawed. 

Possibly, but I suspect that if the FOCA is passed and abortion
rights are retained in their present form, our grandchildren 
won't give a second thought to the ethics of abortion - and my
opinion won't seem so flawed then.

>The Amish 
>would probably say the same about the first amendment, if they 
>were that type of folk. Roe is similar to the freedom of religion 
>(or was that freedom from religion?:) in that it allows for 
>individual choice. You can choose or not choose it. You can think 
>what you want about another choice, and even say so. The first 
>amendment prevents some from forcing others to think like they 
>think. Roe, until now, has followed a similar path.

Roe is our (corporate) response to the "problem" of abortion.
Insofar as the government sanctions the *right* to abort, it
also sanctions the act itself.  Not a hard concept.

>Every objection you've had to this point only sounds liike an 
>opinion that you wish to force onto others under the guise that 
>Roe forces others to think in any certain way. 

This whole debate is about opinion, Ron.

You are completely, 100% wrong.  

Ha!  And that is an eloquent (though direct) reflection of
*your* opinion.  Neither of us has anything objective to
trot out that *demonstrates* our "rightness".  It's all
about values and opinions. 

Bill