From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:09:49 GMT

In article <43940@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
}In article <1992Sep11.165627.2516@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
}gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:

}>I doubt that anyone I know of would stop you from voting...

}In supporting a Constitutional restriction on certain types of legislation,
}you render the vote invalid.

I don't support the constitution because of the limits it places on 
legislation, I support it because of its principles.  I'm not sure if
the constitution forbids abortion legislation.  By saying this I don't
mean to imply that it doesn't -- simply that I am not equiped to argue
constitutional rights -- there are others far more knowledgeable and
better prepared than I could ever hope to be.

}>Gee, I'm not proposing any legislation whatsoever.  And you feel the burden
}>of proof is on me?  I'm supposed to prove that your (unspecified) legislation
}>wouldn't work?  What a curious notion!

}More curious is your request for evidence on the efficacy of an extension of
}child support legislation.  Why shouldn't it work? 

Perhaps you see "extension of child support legislation" as specifying 
the legislation you might propose.  I'm sorry, I don't see clearly yet.
You'll have to spell it out.

}Murder laws work.
}Rape laws work.
}Or do you disagree?

I disagree.  I have yet to see someone be stopped from murder or
rape "because it is illegal."  I would suppose if you were to 
make murder and rape legal in a place that they were previously
illegal and the rates went up, you might have a case, and moreso
if when you returned their (illegal) status the respective rates
went down.  I tend to think someone won't kill me because of their
own reluctance to kill me, not because of the cop on the corner.  

}If you proposed a hang-gliding festival, would it be reasonable for me to
}demand that you first show that there would be no danger from low flying
}jets - considering that the past 10 years of festivals had had no such
}problems?

That is sort of what you have to do, at least in one place.  On the Outer 
Banks of North Carolina we have what is called the Hang Gliding 
Spectacular every year (for longer than 10 years).  It is also a place 
frequented by low flying jets (F-14,15,16 and 18s with varying frequency) 
from up near Norfolk.  So would it be reasonable for *you*, Tommy Kelly,
to make such a demand?  I don't know if it would be reasonable, but
it would be pretty silly.  Still, *someone* demands it.  We fly
VFR rules there, as does just about everyone there on a clear day.
That means see and avoid.  By the time you see a jet you haven't
much time to avoid it, so we have to demonstrate (at least to 
ourselves) that low flying jets won't be a problem, even though
they haven't been in past years.  I'm sure someone thinks about it.

}Besides, what does the efficacy or otherwise of a proposed law have to
}do with whether or not I should be permitted to have that law - providing
}that a sufficient democratic majority demands it?

Stupidity, Tommy.  And, oh yes, every law requires money -- cost savings
at least.

}>...Consider two unprincipled,
}>corruption-ridden candidates.  A law is proposed mandating
}>killing Tommy Kelly.  The candidate who finds abortion no more
}>repugnant than ordering a hamburger states that he/she wouldn't 
}>even consider such a law.  However, the candidate who things
}>abortion is evil responds that they would take such a law into
}>consideration.  You'd vote for the one who'd consider the law,
}>right?

}In your scenario, all things are not equal.  I would have to
}compare the two evils: 1. A law to kill me on the one hand, and
}2. A lack of an abortion law on the other.

No, the only law mentioned is the law concerning killing Tommy Kelly.
There is no mention or proposal of an "abortion law."  One person
wouldn't consider a law manditating the death of Tommy Kelly.  One
would consider such a law.  All else is equal.  You'd choose the
one who would consider the law, right?

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
 I'm not into astrology.  We Aries folk aren't fooled by stuff like that.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity