From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Tommy Kelly and the Law (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:38:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <BvCBBG.K5u@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> tommyk@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk 
(Tommy Kelly) writes:
}In article <1992Sep28.124635.18081@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}>Simply because you have neither shown that such a law is necessary nor
}>have you shown that it would be effective.

}Since laws against murder, rape, robbery, speeding, tax evasion, child abuse,
}you-name-it, all seem to have some effect - why should I suspect that a law
}restricting abortion wouldn't?

I wouldn't exactly equate "having some effect" with "effective," but maybe
you do.  In any event, there is quite a bit of debate as to whether
murder laws have any deterent effect at all, especially where the death
penalty is concerned.  There is little doubt that it deters one in prison
from murdering one outside, but that isn't exactly the same situation now,
is it?  As for rape laws, there is some contraversy there too.  Many rapists
have already served time in jail for that exact crime.  In that particular
instance I would agree that rape laws seem to have some effect, but not
perhaps the expected one.  Robbery laws seem to deter only those who
are undetered by their own morals and who are not clever enough to
not violate the letter of the law.  Speeding laws and posted speed
limits have, in my opinion, not been very effective, neither
have the laws against tax evasion.  Whether I name it or not, I
can't think of many laws that have been effective at deterence, their
main purpose seems to be some kind of retribution.

Besides, you are proposing enacting a law.  It is up to you to 
demonstrate that such a law would be effective (generally that 
involves examples or statistics) not up to me to demonstrate that
other laws don't have "some effect."  I'm not saying that you can't
get an ineffective law passed, merely that your embrace of legislation
should be based on some personal conviction (besides faith) that such
an action would be effective.

}My evidence for the efficacy of an anti-abortion law - eg extend the current
}law to first and second trimestre's - is the similar efficacy of most other 
}laws.

Sheer speculation, hardly evidence.  When you say "eg extend the current
law to..." exactly what do you mean?  There is no "current law" in the 
singular.  There are a lot of proposed laws, differing widely, across
the United States.  Do I get to pick the state?  Suppose I pick one
with a law that there shall be no law regarding abortion in the third
trimester.  (I don't know there is oe.)  Should we extend that to the 
first and second trimester?  According to what you state above that
should make you happy.

}>Tommy, why shouldn't you press for laws to repeal gravity when you
}>press for other laws?  I've conceded you the ability to pass such 
}>a law.  

}Because I cannot affect gravity with a law.
}I cannot use the threat of punishment to try to stop the earth from pulling
}me towards it.

You probably have some evidence to back that up.  Shortly after I explain
the concept of "lift" and going up in a glider I am often met with a 
bit of disbelief when I propose that it is gravity, and not another
force which is responsible for this.  Gliders only appear to fly, they
are always falling.  That is what gives them their energy to convert
to foward motion.  They go up only because they are falling through
air that is rising faster than they fall.  When they actually seem
to go nose up balistic, it is because they were loaned that specific
energy by gravity in a dive shortly before then.  Sometimes that
energy conversion is a bit spectacular.  Gravity sometimes repossesses
its loans rather violently -- oftentimes we refer to that as a "crash."

}But I can use such a threat to try and stop doctors from killing foetuses
}of all gestations (life-threat to mother excepted).  I believe that such
}a "try" would be effective, because other laws are.

You suspect that you might be able to.  But once again you provide
evidence.  You refer to "other laws" for which you have provided 
no evidence either.

And gee, you haven't even begun to explain why such a law might be 
necessary.  Passing a highly effective law where there isn't a need
doesn't seem too smart to me...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
               A man's screech should exceed his gasp...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright