ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (01/22/85)
Dubuc claims that "Polls show that most people (over 70%, I think) would favor a law prohibiting abortion except in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life and severe birth defects." First, if abortion is murder, it's wrong regardless of whether any of the exceptional cases apply or not, so any law that allows for these exceptions is hypocritical on its face. Second, as has been pointed out in several related contexts, mere popularity does not justify a law. In particular, the fact that 70% of the population feel a certain way does not give them the right to force the other 30% to go along with them. That is what minority rights are all about. I was told about a poll a number of years ago in which people on the street were asked how they felt about the part of the Declaration of Independence that begins: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." and goes on to say that the people have a moral duty to overthrow any government that does not protect their inalienable rights. More than half the people questioned saied that that statement should not be permitted to be published. Would you claim that that poll would justify the establishment of political censorship in the USA?
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/23/85)
>Dubuc claims that "Polls show that most people (over 70%, I think) would >favor a law prohibiting abortion except in cases of rape, incest, danger >to the mother's life and severe birth defects." > >First, if abortion is murder, it's wrong regardless of whether any of >the exceptional cases apply or not, so any law that allows for these >exceptions is hypocritical on its face. The issue is whether Abortion is killing a human being. It is quite possible that not all killing of humans is murder. Therefore in cases where it isn't exceptions are not hypocritical. I do not agree with all the exceptions. I was merely listing them. >Second, as has been pointed out in several related contexts, mere >popularity does not justify a law. In particular, the fact >that 70% of the population feel a certain way does not give them the >right to force the other 30% to go along with them. That is what >minority rights are all about. No one is making an argument based on popularity alone. However, our democratic form of government should generally allow for laws to reflect the popular consensus since are legislators are elected. The pro-choice camp habitually points to a supposed lack of consensus in arguing against changing laws. The legal rights of all people (majority and minorty) are defined by our legislation (especially the Constitution). Our judicial system exists to prevent laws from being unjustly applied by a majority (on a case law basis) but it should not be making laws on its own. If laws should not be tied to the will of the majority, what group of people *should* justify laws? Our legislative system does contain checks to prevent a simple majority form enacting laws (e.g. larger majority and state ratification needed for constitutional amendments and debate by the minorty often modifies proposed laws), but if a proposed law passes these checks it should be put on the books and enforced--no matter if the remaining minorty still opposes it. Laws in a republic such as ours are meaningless otherwise. Yes, it doesn't insure that the laws are right, but what system *will* gaurentee that they are and still have any laws? The whole point of banning abortion on demand is to recognise the rights of a the prenatal humans, who are effectively a minority by reason of their being unable to speak for their own rights. >I was told about a poll a number of years ago in which people on the >street were asked how they felt about the part of the Declaration >of Independence that begins: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." >and goes on to say that the people have a moral duty to overthrow >any government that does not protect their inalienable rights. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--except for the fetus? >More than half the people questioned saied that that statement should >not be permitted to be published. Would you claim that that poll >would justify the establishment of political censorship in the USA? Probably not. Popular polls alone don't justify laws. As I said above, I wasn't making an argument based on popularity alone. Your example is a little vague in comparison with the abortion issue. The former deals with the rights people have, the latter with who are the people with the rights. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (01/24/85)
> in arguing against changing laws. The legal rights of all people > (majority and minorty) are defined by our legislation (especially > the Constitution). Our judicial system exists to prevent laws from > being unjustly applied by a majority (on a case law basis) but it > should not be making laws on its own. If laws should not be > tied to the will of the majority, what group of people *should* justify > laws? Our legislative system does contain checks to prevent a simple > majority form enacting laws (e.g. larger majority and state ratification > needed for constitutional amendments and debate by the minorty often > modifies proposed laws), but if a proposed law passes these checks it > should be put on the books and enforced--no matter if the remaining > minorty still opposes it. Laws in a republic such as ours are meaningless > otherwise. Yes, it doesn't insure that the laws are right, but what > system *will* gaurentee that they are and still have any laws? Nope, only the legal rights of adult male people are guaranteed by our legal system last time I checked. If everyone agreed that adult female people had all of the same rights (like the right to control their own bodies) we wouldn't have this newsgroup. -- Susan Finkelman (415) 945-2274 Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Dr. Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598 {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/27/85)
It is more than just your own body there, there is another human being you are failing to take into account. Brad