steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/22/85)
** Pro-life advocates (anti-abortionists) frequently try to pass legislation that prohibit abortions. I think there is a strong parallel between this and the anti-drug laws. Drug laws do not prevent drug use. In fact, there is little evidence that they affect drug use at all. The use of tobbacco, a legal drug, is going down, while the use of cocaine, an illegal drug, is going up. As long as people want to use drugs, they will keep using them. The key to lowering drug use is social pressure and education. Abortion is something a woman is going to decide about herself. If abortions are illegal, then it might be more expensive or difficult to get one, but that will not prevent her from having one any more than the laws against cocaine prevent her from buying cocaine. If a woman is opposed to murder and she believes that abortion is murder, then she won't have an abortion. It is her own choice. Anti-abortionists promote legislation to prohibit abortion because of their inability to convince people of the merits of their arguments. If there really was a compelling reason for people not to have abortions, say in the same way that aviodance of lung cancer is a compelling reason to stop smoking cigarettes, then women would have less abortions simply because it is the reasonable thing to do. All the anti-abortion legislation shows the inherant weakness in the postion of the anti-abortionsts. Laws that prevent people from doing things they would like to do are a type of violence. Basically, it is the old, "you have to agree with me or I'll beat you up" argument. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
edw@ihopa.UUCP (Edwin Windes) (07/23/85)
> Pro-life advocates (anti-abortionists) frequently try to > pass legislation that prohibit abortions. > ... Laws that > prevent people from doing things they would like to do are > a type of violence. Basically, it is the old, "you have to > agree with me or I'll beat you up" argument. Well, what do you think society is? Basically it is a group of people saying "agree with us or we'll beat you up!" So what's your point? Should all laws be abolished? I want to drive 95mph. Can I? How 'bout if I want your money. Should I be allowed to just take it? What if I decide that I want to kill you instead of just writing a followup article? Is it wrong for the law to prevent me from taking your life? In other words, what I am saying is that society invents laws to promote the general welfare. These laws are based on principles of fairness, rights, freedoms, etc. What these laws should be is open to discussion among the members of a society, and that discussion is what we are involved in here. But to say "laws shouldn't legislate morality" doesn't make any sense at all. -- Edwin D. Windes ...!ihnp4!ihopa!edw AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il "Are we having fun yet? ...wake me when it starts."
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/25/85)
In article <331@ihopa.UUCP> edw@ihopa.UUCP (Edwin Windes) writes: > I want to drive 95mph. Can I? I do. >How 'bout if I want your money. Should I be allowed to just take it? If you don't, somebody else will. It's only money, really. >What if I decide that I want to kill you instead of just writing a >followup article? Is it wrong for the law to prevent me from taking >your life? In case you haven't noticed from my previous comments, the law isn't stopping you or anyone else from doing anything. It merely promises to punish those who are caught. > In other words, what I am saying is that society invents laws >to promote the general welfare. Actually, you just got finished saying that society invents laws to protect society. Some people, and I'm one of them, don't think that protecting parts of this society is particularly benificial. >But to say "laws shouldn't legislate morality" >doesn't make any sense at all. Very true. What else do laws do besides legislate morality? (Even the most mundane law could find its roots in morality with a long winded argument.) I don't think anyone (except Ken Arndt :-) will argue that some morality is BAD and some is GOOD. (Disclaimer: I don't place these labels, I merely acknowledge their existance.) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/25/85)
> > Pro-life advocates (anti-abortionists) frequently try to > > pass legislation that prohibit abortions. > > ... Laws that > > prevent people from doing things they would like to do are > > a type of violence. Basically, it is the old, "you have to > > agree with me or I'll beat you up" argument. > > Well, what do you think society is? Basically it is a group > of people saying "agree with us or we'll beat you up!" So what's your > point? Should all laws be abolished? > How Freudian. I read "Civilization and Its Discontents" too. I would hardly go around saying that because a few people have made the statement that society is a group of people saying "agree with us or we'll beat you up" that that is what it is. > > I want to drive 95mph. Can I? How 'bout if I want your money. > Should I be allowed to just take it? What if I decide that I want to > kill you instead of just writing a followup article? > Is it wrong for the law to prevent me from taking your life? > Give me a break!! How does the law "prevent" you from killing me? I have a freind that was chopped up by one of the local mass murders a few years ago. The law did not stop that. People speed all the time, the law does not "prevent" people from speeding. I was mugged at gunpoint once . . . a lot of good it would have done for me to inform the muggers that what they were doing was illegal. Many societies throughout history did not have "laws" and there are not "laws against murder" (speeding or whatever) in those societies. Laws against murder do not prevent murder, there are more murders in this society where they are illegal that their are in the society of the Kalahari bushmen, who have no written laws. In fact, they have "traditions" and not laws. There is nothing about a law that prevents you from killing me or taking my money. I good semi-automatic weapon might help, but laws are worthless for that. They provide a means for getting even. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (07/26/85)
In article <509@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: >... Anti-abortionists promote legislation to prohibit >abortion because of their inability to convince people of the >merits of their arguments. "Anti-discriminationists promote legislation ... because of their inability to convince people ...". Seriously folks, similar arguments were heard a few decades ago, but we all (except libertarians and a few other dogmatists) reject that line of argument now. And part of the reason discrimination came to be seen as wrong was the existence of the laws. Of course, a lot of convincing people has to occur before the anti-abortionists could get any laws passed -- fortunately. I hope that some convincing will occur on both sides and they meet somewhere near the middle (somewhere near MY position! :->). Convincing is important, but so is passing laws, at least once a critical level of consensus is reached. I won't say what that critical point is, but it's definitely NOT unanimity, and probably not even close. --Paul V Torek, author of "How to Win Enemies and Infuriate People"
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (07/28/85)
> > >... Anti-abortionists promote legislation to prohibit > >abortion because of their inability to convince people of the > >merits of their arguments. > > "Anti-discriminationists promote legislation ... because of their > inability to convince people ...". Again, the laws provide a means of revenge, not control. People who are discriminated against want to have some means of enforcing changes. Fetuses have no interest in such things, because because even if you do believe they feel discriminated aginst, you will never convince me of that. > Seriously folks, similar arguments > were heard a few decades ago, but we all (except libertarians and a > few other dogmatists) reject that line of argument now. "WE ALL"!! My, who could you mean? Everyone on the net? Everyone in the world? Everyone that is you? > And part of > the reason discrimination came to be seen as wrong was the existence > of the laws. How do you know that? What does discrimination have to do with it anyway? I distinctly remember the civil rights movement. I remember living in the South before the civil rights movement began, and "colored" bathrooms. You might be shocked to know that the human rights fairy did not come from the sky and initiate legislation that ended discrimination. Cities were in flames, it was a violent period. Many people were killed on both sides. The long and the short of it is that black people TOOK their rights and they were not handed to thems. Fetuses are incabible of it. Perhaps a good way to clarify who or what has "rights" is to specify that whatever it is has to ask for them. That would certainly make sense in history. Women don't really even have equal rights and they have been working hard for them for a long time. > Of course, a lot of convincing people has to occur before > the anti-abortionists could get any laws passed -- fortunately. I hope > that some convincing will occur on both sides and they meet somewhere > near the middle (somewhere near MY position! :->). > That is also not true. Every year, and I mean every single year, certain legislators in California tack an anti-abortion amendement to the California state budget. The amendment does not allow the state to fund abortions. the fact that 58% of Californians believe that the state should pay for abortions as part of basic medical care, a percentage that has been INCREASING, does not alter the behavior of the legislators. It is passed every year, because by now eveyone knows it is blatently unconstitutional and the courts through it out every year. That is just expensive harrassement as far as I am concerned. Legislators can make laws about anything they please. > > Convincing is important, but so is passing laws, at least once a critical > level of consensus is reached. I won't say what that critical point is, > but it's definitely NOT unanimity, and probably not even close. > > --Paul V Torek, author of "How to Win Enemies and Infuriate People" What is the purpose of the laws? Who would they benefit. Fetuses don't count, because I cannot ask them how they feel about things. Shit . . . I don't think people should blow their car horns. I have read studies that show that in areas where people are not permitted to user their car horns there are less accidents. If I decided that I had some God given duty to make the world right, I am sure I could work myself into a tizzy every time a car horn beeped. There is a well known prayer, used by AA among others: Lord give us the courage to change the things we can the strength to accept the things we cannot change and the wisdom to know the difference. There has been a steady increase in the number of people that believe that Medi-Cal, the California state medical aid program for poor people, should pay for abortions on demand. 8% over the last five years. I am saying that it points to a fundemental weakness in whole pro-life logic. The movement is not only failing to convince pople that their position has merit, people who originally saw merit in the pro-life postion are revising their opinions. If the pro-life people cannot even convince others that there is anything wrong with abortions, why try to pass laws? Will people suddely be convinced or will they think the government is more stupid than ever? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/30/85)
> Pro-life advocates (anti-abortionists) frequently try to > pass legislation that prohibit abortions. > > I think there is a strong parallel between this and the > anti-drug laws. Drug laws do not prevent drug use. In fact, > there is little evidence that they affect drug use at all. > The use of tobbacco, a legal drug, is going down, while the use > of cocaine, an illegal drug, is going up. As long as people > want to use drugs, they will keep using them. The key to > lowering drug use is social pressure and education. > > Abortion is something a woman is going to decide about > herself. If abortions are illegal, then it might be more > expensive or difficult to get one, but that will not prevent > her from having one any more than the laws against cocaine > prevent her from buying cocaine. This sounds a little like solutions to the problem of prostitution that were being proposed in my hometown of Dayton, OH a few years back. Since anti-prostitution laws, some said, were not controlling prostitution, why not just set up a red-light district and make it legal in that area? The proposal lost. > If a woman is opposed to murder and she believes that > abortion is murder, then she won't have an abortion. It is her > own choice. Anti-abortionists promote legislation to prohibit > abortion because of their inability to convince people of the > merits of their arguments. If there really was a compelling > reason for people not to have abortions, say in the same way > that aviodance of lung cancer is a compelling reason to > stop smoking cigarettes, then women would have less abortions > simply because it is the reasonable thing to do. The average person does not do something because of the merits of the principle involved. The average person decides how CONVENIENT it is for him/her to perform a certain act, and THEN does/does not perform it. Even with all the evidence that 'avoidance of lung cancer is a compelling reason to stop smoking', we are still passing laws about smoking in public places. I'd think that people would not smoke simply because it's the reasonable thing to do, but that's apparently not so. > Don Steiny
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/01/85)
> > Abortion is something a woman is going to decide about > > herself. If abortions are illegal, then it might be more > > expensive or difficult to get one, but that will not prevent > > her from having one any more than the laws against cocaine > > prevent her from buying cocaine. > > This sounds a little like solutions to the problem of prostitution that > were being proposed in my hometown of Dayton, OH a few years back. > Since anti-prostitution laws, some said, were not controlling prostitution, > why not just set up a red-light district and make it legal in that area? > The proposal lost. So then you will never know whether this would have worked or not... > The average person does not do something because of the merits of the > principle involved. The average person decides how CONVENIENT it is for > him/her to perform a certain act, and THEN does/does not perform it. > Even with all the evidence that 'avoidance of lung cancer is a compelling > reason to stop smoking', we are still passing laws about smoking in > public places. I'd think that people would not smoke simply because > it's the reasonable thing to do, but that's apparently not so. Yes, you're right there. People who would be better off having abortions are still deciding to keep the child anyway. Do you think that there should be laws enforcing abortion for people who obviously can't take care of their children. I certainly don't believe so. Don't you think then that maybe your analogy is a bit off? PS: laws against public place smoking are not there to protect smokers against themselves. They are there to protect non-smokers against smokers. (OK, shoot ahead about laws against abortions being there to protect fetuses !!!) -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (08/02/85)
> > Abortion is something a woman is going to decide about > > herself. If abortions are illegal, then it might be more > > expensive or difficult to get one, but that will not prevent > > her from having one any more than the laws against cocaine > > prevent her from buying cocaine. > > This sounds a little like solutions to the problem of prostitution that > were being proposed in my hometown of Dayton, OH a few years back. > Since anti-prostitution laws, some said, were not controlling prostitution, > why not just set up a red-light district and make it legal in that area? > The proposal lost. But perhaps it should have won? This is something I discussed in a class I took last semester on the Criminal Justice System. I feel fairly strongly that it is more important for people (i.e. prostitutes) not to be abused (by pimps, customers, etc.) than for our laws to forbid something based on (to my mind) a silly and hypocritical morality. Same goes for abortions. > > If a woman is opposed to murder and she believes that > > abortion is murder, then she won't have an abortion. It is her > > own choice. Anti-abortionists promote legislation to prohibit > > abortion because of their inability to convince people of the > > merits of their arguments. If there really was a compelling > > reason for people not to have abortions, say in the same way > > that aviodance of lung cancer is a compelling reason to > > stop smoking cigarettes, then women would have less abortions > > simply because it is the reasonable thing to do. > > The average person does not do something because of the merits of the > principle involved. The average person decides how CONVENIENT it is for > him/her to perform a certain act, and THEN does/does not perform it. > Even with all the evidence that 'avoidance of lung cancer is a compelling > reason to stop smoking', we are still passing laws about smoking in > public places. I'd think that people would not smoke simply because > it's the reasonable thing to do, but that's apparently not so. I have to agree with Don here (single > ) but I think there are other arguments against outlawing abortion. marie desjardins park
howard@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) (08/14/85)
>> Since anti-prostitution laws, some said, were not controlling prostitution, >> why not just set up a red-light district and make it legal in that area? >> The proposal lost. > But perhaps it should have won? This is something I discussed in > a class I took ... I would have voted against it. I agree that protection from violence is more important than "rounding up prostitues" in the short run, but I'm not sure that legalizing prostitution would make the situation better. >> If a woman is opposed to murder and she believes that >> abortion is murder, then she won't have an abortion. The whole issue of abortion is too complicated to say that abortion should be illegal. I'm opposed to abortion as a birth control method, and would favor *appropriate* legislation to discourage such abortions, but such policies are hard to come by.