betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (08/14/84)
Forgive me if I'm rehashing old arguments; I never read articles
more than 100 lines long.
Here's my syllogism:
Thesis : Unenforceable or unenforced laws are bad for Society
as a whole. Example: Prohibition in the U.S.
Thesis : Any law which made abortion illegal would be unenforceable..
Example: My own experience, historical records.
Conclusion: Any law which made abortion illegal would be
bad for Society as a whole.
Brief defense of Thesis 1: The Constitutional Amendment against
the consumption of alcohol (otherwise known as the Volstead Act)
was passed in the spirit of high-minded altruism. 'Alcohol is
bad for THEM, so let's take the temptation away.' Unfortunately
for the altruists, nobody took this thesis personally. Everybody
broke the law. This led to several notable results:
1. There was a strong niche for organized crime to fill:
guaranteed income, no public outcry against the 'crime',
bilked suppliers had no legal recourse, etc.
2. Respect for the law in general plummeted. Everybody knew
that policemen were corrupt, because everybody's favorite
speakeasy was exempt from the law.
3. Many people were permanently injured by drinking illicit
alcohol.
Brief defense of Thesis 2: I'm 24, well-paid, and strong-minded.
If I chose to have an illegal abortion, there are at least three ways
that I could do so:
1. Suborning the family doctor (a reasonably common practice
among the upper and middle classes)
2. Flying to Mexico, Canada, Sweden, et.al. for the procedure
3. Paying a psychologist to testify that an abortion was necessary
for my sanity.
If I were only poor and strong-minded, I would probably go to an
illegal back-alley abortionist, putting my own life at severe
risk. (Note parallels to subpoint (3) above.)
In short, a law forbidding abortions would NOT stop them from
occurring; it would, at most, make them more dangerous
to the mother's life.
I claim that my two theses are adequately proven; if so, the
conclusion must follow. Leaving aside the question of when
life begins (It's 'when the dog dies and the children leave
home', by the way), can anybody out there disprove either
thesis or the conclusion? I think that laws against abortion
would not prevent abortion and would cause widespread contempt
for the law. I'd be interested in proof otherwise.
--
Betsy Perry
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth
ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relaylaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/16/84)
Right now we have laws against murder. Still murders are committed. In some very real way, then, murder laws are unenforceable -- as are all laws. Thus your argument is either: we should have no laws, or we should only have the laws which are easy to enforce by weight of public opinion. Are you sure this is what you want to say? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/16/84)
>from Betsy Perry >Here's my syllogism: > > Thesis : Unenforceable or unenforced laws are bad for Society > as a whole. Example: Prohibition in the U.S. I don't think Prohibition is a good comparison. Making abortion illegal is a proscription of killing another human. Even so the example does not support your thesis. Laws, even unenforcable ones, express the desires of society. People do not obey laws only under threat of enforcement. Let's take an example of the most unenforceable law I can think of: A law against committing suicide. This is a good example to relate to abortion because it too, involves killing. I suppose you would argue that a law against suicide should not exist (because it's unenforcable) and is bad for society. How would this law be bad for society? If there was a possibility that a law against suicide would make even one person think twice about doing it and change their mind, whould you think such a law worth having? > > Thesis : Any law which made abortion illegal would be unenforceable.. > Example: My own experience, historical records. Of course it wouldn't be enforcable in every case, but no law is. If the point of the law is to save human lives, then it can be argued that the law is worth it if it does so. Legalized abortion conveys the idea that society approves of abortion. This in itself makes it easier for a woman to justify having one. Removing that justification would make many women change their minds (not you, I know) and perhaps avail themselves of some other way to deal with the problem of their pregnancy. Notice I am not even talking about enforcement here. > > Conclusion: Any law which made abortion illegal would be > bad for Society as a whole. Only if we didn't care to provide workable alternatives for the problems women who normally get abortions face. That must be done if abortion is made illegal. If we care more for human life than easy "final solutions" to our problems, then we will provide alternatives. > >Brief defense of Thesis 1: The Constitutional Amendment against >the consumption of alcohol (otherwise known as the Volstead Act) >was passed in the spirit of high-minded altruism. 'Alcohol is >bad for THEM, so let's take the temptation away.' Unfortunately >for the altruists, nobody took this thesis personally. Everybody >broke the law. Did everyone break the law? I have already said that proscription of alcohol cunsumption is not a good comparison with that of killing. The object of the abortion is to kill the fetus. You're forgetting the possiblility of the third party here. The consumption of alcohol was never a crime. Prohibition failed in its attempt to make it one. There was a least one thing right about Prohibition. It was a legislative act. Legislative acts are at least invoked by elective officials who are somewhat accountable to their constituents. Prohibition was also repealed by a legislative act (another Constitutional Amendment). Contrast this with the Row vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision in 1973. The abortion laws of all 50 states were repealed (some were more liberal than others) by an act of raw judicial power. Supreme court Justices are not elected officials. They are not accountable to voters. No one convinced the public of the right to abortion. In 1973, 80 percent of the Americian people thought elective abortion should not be legalized. The supposed constitutionality of a woman's right to an abortion is a fabrication. It is supposedly included in a constitutional "right to privacy". There is no right to privacy mentioned in the Constitution. That right is an extrapolation of the 14th Amendment. It has no specific legal definition. The Court included abortion "rights" in their own extrapolation of the law. Where is our Republic going when judges start making and repealing laws? It's becoming more of an oligarchy every year. >Brief defense of Thesis 2: I'm 24, well-paid, and strong-minded. >If I chose to have an illegal abortion, there are at least three ways >that I could do so: > 1. Suborning the family doctor (a reasonably common practice > among the upper and middle classes) > 2. Flying to Mexico, Canada, Sweden, et.al. for the procedure > 3. Paying a psychologist to testify that an abortion was necessary > for my sanity. People can always find ways to break or avoid any law. So what? That doesn't support the conclusion that they shouldn't exist. Options 1 and 3 could get your doctor or psychologist in a lot of trouble if abortion were illegal. Option 2 is always available to break any U.S. law that is not also a law in another country. > >If I were only poor and strong-minded, I would probably go to an >illegal back-alley abortionist, putting my own life at severe >risk. (Note parallels to subpoint (3) above.) >In short, a law forbidding abortions would NOT stop them from >occurring; it would, at most, make them more dangerous >to the mother's life. You seem to assume that the number of abortions will remain constant if abortion is legalized. Don't you think more women would rather go through with the pregnancy (perhaps placing the child for adoption) rather than risk a back alley abortion. Some interesting information on the pre-1973 occurance of back alley abortions comes from Dr. Bernard Nathanson's book "Aborting America". Nathanson used to run the largest abortion facility in the world and co-founded NARAL. He has stated that NARAL deliberately lied and inflated the statistics on back alley abortions in order to instill sympathy for their cause in the public. > >I claim that my two theses are adequately proven; if so, the >conclusion must follow. Leaving aside the question of when >life begins (It's 'when the dog dies and the children leave >home', by the way), can anybody out there disprove either >thesis or the conclusion? I think that laws against abortion >would not prevent abortion and would cause widespread contempt >for the law. I'd be interested in proof otherwise. Of course you have to leave aside the question of when life begins in order for your argument to carry any weight. Why should we do that? Should a hunter shoot at a movement in the bush leaving aside the question of whether or not he is shooting a human being? It's an interesting position you take now that legalized abortion is the status quo. You seem to be saying that society should not express its disapproval of abortion (through law) irrespective of whether abortion is really a crime. That it would be too difficult to change our mind and again affirm that abortion is wrong, so we shouldn't do it. I could accept the idea that we have entered into legalized abortion on demand in ignorance. But if the debate continues and we find that abortion is indeed a crime I hope that we would have the backbone to face up to that. I would hope that the momentum built up since Row vs Wade will not cause us to sweep our mistakes under a rug and continue on our way. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (08/19/84)
m Right now we have laws against murder. Still murders are committed. In
m some very real way, then, murder laws are unenforceable -- as are all
m laws. Thus your argument is either: we should have no laws, or
m we should only have the laws which are easy to enforce by weight of
m public opinion. Are you sure this is what you want to say?
m Laura Creighton
Maybe laws against murder prevent 72.93% of the murders, thus are useful.
If a law is not enforceable because it goes against the ways of the people,
maybe the thing to do is not to crank out Commandments, but try to
discover what the root of the problem is. Find the cause, don't just
ban the symptom. Especially if the ban causes more trouble.
Maybe this is what whoever wanted to say.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianpbetsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (08/21/84)
As several people have pointed out,
I defined my major premise badly. I said 'Unenforceable or unenforced
laws are bad for society.' What I meant by 'unenforceable/unenforced laws'
was 'laws which do not reflect the moral consensus of the community.'
Notice the word consensus here; it's important. If a man kills his wife,
his neighbors will certainly disapprove. What he has done is not only
illegal, but violates their common moral standard. If a man smokes
marijuana, the results will not be as clear-cut. Some of his neighbors
will be offended, and others will not. There isn't a moral consensus
against marijuana in the United States; some do, and some don't.
Similarly, Prohibition was disobeyed because most adults saw nothing
immoral in their own drinking.
By and large, people obey laws because the laws agree with their
own feelings about right and wrong, not simply because they're laws.
If a law does not jibe with the community consensus, policemen
will be reluctant to arrest offenders, juries to convict, and
judges to sentence them. Laws which conflict with community moral
standards tend to be under- or un-enforced. The laws against theft
are well-enforced: some culprits may go free, but the police
investigate theft reports vigorously. Historically, the laws against
abortion have not been so well-enforced. I claim that this reflects
community ambivalence about the criminality of abortion.
The best evidence for future disregard of an anti-abortion law
is past disregard of such laws. I quote "Encyclopedia of Crime
and Justice", edited by Sanford Kadish, 1983, v.1, p.4.
The book says that in the mid-twentieth-century (before Roe vs. Wade),
"As many as 90% of all abortions were sought by married women seeking
to limit family size, and 90%-95% of all premarital pregnancies ended
in abortion. ... Despite numerous statutes incriminating the abortion patient,
prosecutions were exceedingly rare and reported cases indescoverable.
- Model Penal code 1959, commentary section 207.11 ".
On the same page, it is noted that "Physicians performed more than half
of all illegal abortions." To summarize, the laws existed, but were widely
ignored. What evidence is there that future laws would be any more successful?
I believe that laws which enforce a minority moral code are bad for the
country, and it seems clear to me that laws against first-trimester
abortion would do just that: enforce a minority's moral code on the majority.
Past experience with the Volstead act has shown just how futile such laws
can be.
Betsy Perry
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth
ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay
--
Betsy Perry
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth
ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relaydubois@uwmacc.UUCP (08/23/84)
> [Betsy Hanes Perry] > As several people have pointed out, > I defined my major premise badly. I said 'Unenforceable or unenforced > laws are bad for society.' What I meant by 'unenforceable/unenforced laws' > was 'laws which do not reflect the moral consensus of the community.' > Notice the word consensus here; it's important. If a man kills his wife, > his neighbors will certainly disapprove. What he has done is not only > illegal, but violates their common moral standard. Therefore, if killing wives reflects the community consensus, it's ok? Come, now! -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17