"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, as long as we're trying to be objective about the law, let's pick your
statement apart. FWIW, my opinion about abortion, as with many other things,
happens to fall right on the 50-yard line of American opinion about it,
according to polls: I object to third-trimester abortion except in case of a
real threat to the mother's life, and I'm squirrely about late
second-trimester abortion. It doesn't matter why, although I'd talk about it
if it meant anything.

You're right that it's difficult to separate the law and emotions on this
issue. That's why it's worth doing. And that's why it's worth examining the
Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, to see if we can figure out whether they
adjudicated for results, or if they produced a correct, honest
Constitutional opinion.

And no, it's quite rightfully possible to say that someone else's moral
decision is incorrect. Like John, I tend to be a moral absolutist. But I
recognize that there are competing absolutes. g

Finally, you sure as hell can b.s. the law. Read Rehnquist's dissenting
opinion in Roe. I can point out a couple of places where he flat-out b.s.'d
it. And there is a critical point in Bush v. Gore that is complete b.s.

But the Justices got away with it. They usually get away with it.

Ed Huntress