[2/2] [1/2] Abortion Deba
FRANK SCHEIDT
>>> Part 2 of 2...
BE> Modern economics, for example, is based
BE> on the psychological interpretation of utilitarianism, which makes
BE> its appearance in systematic form as an ethical theory only in the
BE> Modern period.
>Here I cannot reply, not being familiar with what you mean
>by "utilitarianism" though I might guess.
BE> Take a few university courses in economics and ethical
BE> philosophy; you'll become familiar soon enough.
In other words you cannot define the term you used ...
interesting ...
BE> And you'll realise that none of what you study had origins in
BE> the ancient world.
Actually everything we *do* or *have* has roots stretching
back centuries into the past. How do you think things are
invented? Do you think each inventor must first re-invent
the wheel? No! Science moves forward based on past
achievements.
>Furthermore do you think women are *less* law-abiding than
>are men? I suspect most abortions involve men as well as
>women. Also it has been largely *male* legislatures which
>have mandated the death penalty for capital crimes -- a
>penalty they (the men) *knew* would be exacted almost
>entirely on *men*. Thus the sex of the legislature doesn't
>seem to be a hindrance WRT application of the law to that
>same sex.
BE> -This is primarily due to the fact that murder rates are far lower
BE> -than abortion rates. The murder rate in the US today is of the
BE> -order of 8 per 100,000 population (in Canada it is 2 per
BE> -100,000). The abortion rate is about 5 per 1,000 population in
BE> -the US, and about 3 per 1,000 in Canada.
BE> -
BE> -With abortion you're talking about an "offence" rate of the order
BE> -of 60-100 times the murder rate. Nobody would vote for a law
BE> -which would expand the expense of building prisons by a factor of
BE> -60.
>I doubt that a great deal of thought is put into the budget
>for prison-building. After all, laws within recent years
>have guaranteed an explosion in prison-construction. Did
>the legislators think about that, about the expense to the
>tax-payer? I doubt it. What will happen when abortion is
>classified along with *other* kinds of murder is anyone's
>guess. I suspect what will happen is that, assuming your
>data above are accurate, some smart legislator will realize
>the monumental expense to be incurred. *Something* will be
>done which will insure abortions are cut drastically (no pun
>intended). What that "something" will be I don't know, but
>the type of expenses you've envisioned will guarantee that
>*some* inventive and alert legislator will come up with
>something.
BE> I'll tell you what the alert legislator will recommend to the
BE> executive department: He'll recommend virtual non-enforcement.
Some would, undoubtedly, but the majority certainly
wouldn't. I think you're insulting the average legislator.
BE> The law will become a laughable farce. The press will be full of
BE> stories about the Governor's wife had an abortion, and his
BE> daughter as well, and how he told friends where to get abortions.
BE> The prisons will not fill with abortion malfeasors; rather, the
BE> press will fill its pages with stories about the hypocrisy of
BE> the law.
That's your opinion, which, as has been amply demonstrated,
isn't of much value ... [sigh] ...