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