"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , John Flanagan
says...

My understanding is that abortion rights (are) based on the notion of
freedom of conscience, ie privacy, which also is the basis of freedom
of speech. I may be wrong though.

John you need to give this discussion with ed up. He is talking
in a knowledgeable way about the legal implications. He is
talking about specific features of the existing case law that
cannot be wished away. They are the present law of the land
and no matter how much you feel otherwise, you are bound
by those laws. You are free to move to another country where
the laws regarding this issue are different and more to your
liking.

Your part in this is to discuss what you personally feel is
moral and correct. But you can never change Ed's reports because
he is not talking about his personal opinion here. He will
always report what is legal fact and therefore you and he
will invariably disagree because you feel that the existing
law is immoral and wrong.

Let me point out that I don't disparage John's stance on the moral issues in
abortion. I do have opinions about them but I usually avoid getting into
discussions about what is right or wrong about it.

This issue, like many other social and moral issues that we wrestle with in
the US, has a legal component and a moral component. Roe is a landmark case,
in legal terms, and is worth examining as a Constitutional argument. I'm
trying to keep my moral opinions out of it, and just to focus on the legal
issues. Among other things, they're a good way to see how our Supreme Court
actually operates, and how desired outcomes -- what Bork has called
"adjudication for results" -- become tangled up with logic and with
Constitutional history.

Ed Huntress