On 27-Jul-05, at 12:13 PM, Blanton, William E wrote:
> As I understand it, we have a right to privacy. A woman has a right to
> privacy. Therefore a woman has the right to make a private decision
> about reproduction. This is fairly stable meaning and been for
> decades. Others have a different sense of a right to privacy. Its
> meaning has been disputed daily. Who knows, eventually local senses
> may eventually author a new meaning of this segment of right to
> privacy. Until then its current meaning coordinates.
I appreciate your deliberations, but do not feel that we have moved any
further. It is my understanding that the a woman's right to
reproductive decisions--i.e., abortion--is NOT shared in the US.
Catholics and fundamentalists of all sorts in the Bible belt never
accepted Roe vs. Wade.
Right now we have something like that in Canada. We just passed a law
allowing homosexuals to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual
couples when they marry. Whereas "most Canadians" support this, there
is a vocal lobby group saying that they do neither share this position
(i.., meaning of "marriage") nor will they stop their actions aiming at
overturning the law--although this requires them to use the
So is this shared meaning of "marriage"? If we believe the media, then
"most Canadians" share it to be "the union of two people" whereas there
are, I don't know how many, for whom it is "the union between a man and
So I don't think that this helps us out. We may have to use new avenues.
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:10 PDT