From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Tommy Kelly and the Law (was Re: In Suzanne's Defense)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:35:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180412.20323@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}In article <1992Oct2.161248.25485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
}
}>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
}
}>> Or are you saying that abortion laws would be ineffective
}>> for reducing the number of abortions?  I think that would be 
}>> difficult to prove or disprove.  
}
}> You say that you suspect that the
}> deterent effect would be difficult to prove or disprove.  Yet
}> you still want a law for this effect.  Why do you think it might
}> have your desired effect if you can't prove or disprove it?  
}
}I also said that it would be difficult to prove that murder, rape, 
}and robbery laws are effective.  

Deterrent effect, Doug, deterrent effect.  There is little doubt that 
locking someone up for robbery is effective in getting that person
to no longer engage in robbery.  It doesn't say much about how
much deterrent effect the law has.  The effectiveness of the law
as retribution or vengence is something that is related to how
much a society wishes to express its collective outrage at having
a particular act committed.  Time and time again the cost of 
enforcing a law is weighed against its perceived effectiveness 
as vengence.  Most of the time this is expressed as efficiency
in police work, sometimes it is expressed in sentencing, but is 
held in check somewhat by the prohibition against having 
"cruel and unusual" punishment or by the notion of "let
the punishment fit the crime."

Murder laws, rape laws, robbery laws, virtually any law on the
books has debatable deterrent effect.  As a matter of fact,
the deterrent effect of law in general is somewhat debatable.

One thing that seems rather unique in the thinking of those who
would legislate against abortion is their insistance that the
law not punish, but rather the effect of the law would be to 
reduce the rate of abortion.  I would ask again, what evidence
is there that such a law would do that?  As a matter of fact,
in case you missed it, what law are we talking about, the
legislation related to Guam, Utah, Pennsylvania or perhaps
something else?

}Abortion laws would be no different
}in this respect.  Does a lack of proof mean that these laws should
}not be on the books?  

Well, if their only purpose were to deter what they address, I think
that we could probably do away with a bunch of them.  I have made no
secret that I would hardly feel threatened if "murder" were made legal
tommorrow.

}>> But if the issue is merely a question of formulating an abortion
}>> policy which would reduce the number of abortions, then doesn't it 
}>> follow that abortion could no longer be considered an unrestricted
}>> right?  
}
}> No.  It doesn't follow.  It is unrelated.
}
}Why?  If our only consideration is to reduce the number of abortions
}through an "effective" abortion policy, then we have clearly ignored
}the issue of abortion rights.  

I'll agree that abortion rights would be pretty much ignored.  I
hope you don't mean to imply that ignoring a right is tantamount to
no longer considering it an unrestricted right.  When you ignore
something you don't form a relation, neither do you change the 
importance of that something.  You simply ignore it.  

}This doesn't necessarily mean that
}abortion must become illegal (as admittedly there are some undesirable 
}side effects to such a law), but that simple restrictions like "informed
}consent" and "waiting periods" could be enacted if they could be shown 
}to be "effective" laws. 

Do you have any evidence that your "informed consent" or "waiting
periods" would be an effective deterrent?  Does anyone?

Not only has the efficacy of such legislation not been shown, it hasn't
been shown that such legislation is necessary.  From a strictly pragmatic
standpoint, it seems to be rather wasteful to charge our police and
courts with enforcing legislation that have nothing to recommend it 
except that it might be passed.  

This also ignores the fact that there is significant opposition to
any legislation which has been proposed.  Hearts may be in the right
place, but so far every heart -> legislation -> effect scenerio that
I have seen has the end effect rather different that what is expressed
in the heart.  

I'm a pacifist.  A real extreme pro-life nutcase.  I imagine I
am more pro-life (and have risked more) than many of the participants
in this group hwho calm to be pro-life.  I have also said I'm a sucker 
for the argument that if we make a mistake, lets make the mistake on the 
side of life.  I don't think legislation or politics is a proper way to 
address this issue.  I don't think it does anyone any good, and a lot of
folks object that it does them harm.  I have seen no evidence that 
legislation or politics is a worthwhile or clever avenue to follow.
As a matter of fact, history shows that legislation (where life,
and particulary abortion is concerned) is often ignored or 
rather ineffective.

If you are really concerned about life, and preserving it, I
would imagine you would seek out ways you could save life effectively.
I doubt legislation would be very high on your list.  If, however
you are merely concerned with enforcing your own rationalizations
of when society should or should not extract a price for killing,
legislation might be right up your alley. 


--
       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...