Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp
From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Prohibition and Abortion Laws
Message-ID: <992@shark.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-Aug-84 03:00:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.992
Posted: Sun Aug 19 03:00:55 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Aug-84 01:51:57 EDT
References: <2297@dartvax.UUCP>, <4223@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 15

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!brianp