In article , Ed Huntress says...

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.

It's pretty clear that's what you are doing. g I think that
this topic always runs a *high* risk of folks getting their law
and their morals and their emotions in a tangle. I don't think
anyone can rightfully say that somebody else's moral position is
flat out incorrect. But the law is another thing, you can't
BS that.

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.


Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================