From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Sarah Weddington
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:48:36 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <26341@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil
>   (Ron Bense) writes: >
>In talk.abortion, wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>

>>>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
...
>>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-

The SC does not necessary make popular opinion decisions.

>ports/endorses the right to individual choice (based on indivi-
>dual values).

What's your point? The last statement just repeats what I said. It doesn't
answer the question, however, of exactly what beliefs being forced upon
you you have a problem with.

You're still being contradictory. Please answer this question:

Exactly what belief is being forced upon you since you have admitted
that the ruling follows individual beliefs/morals/opinions?

>>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.

Pardon? What's the difference? Religion is a set of values, in the general
sense. That it includes a few words here and there about this or that
superior being is irrelevant.

>A big hearted guy.

Why thank you...

>>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 is individual freedom restricted through abortion?

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

True, but never to force another's body to support a person, even if
they are close relatives.

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

No. Nice swipe. It only states that I believe what you've stated of
your opinion so far has totally missed the reality mark.

>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 still believe that cars are bad, telephones are bad, mixers
are bad, electricity is bad,etc... but these things have all been legal
for decades....

Their ethics and beliefs prevent them from using these items. You still
want to defend the above position?

>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.

I note that you quoted "Problem", and therefore it isn't really a problem.
Why do you refer to it as a problem, then? Is someone you know about
to have one, and are you having problems with this fact?

As for the government, it allows them to be performed, it also allows
cigarettes to be manufactured and sold. Does it mean that it sanctions
smoking and its related problems?

>>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.

Well, I at least attempted to show you why some of your statements were
incorrect. Perhaps we should make it open season on the rest? I don't
have the time to nit-pick each one.

And you are right, it is my opinion. That it appears to be a logical
one probably is irksome.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.