Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!decvax!dartvax!betsy
From: betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Prohibition and Abortion Laws
Message-ID: <2322@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Aug-84 16:47:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.2322
Posted: Tue Aug 21 16:47:49 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Aug-84 04:56:38 EDT
References: <2297@dartvax.UUCP>, <3453@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College
Lines: 52

As several people have pointed out,
I defined my major premise badly.  I said 'Unenforceable or unenforced
laws are bad for society.'  What I meant by 'unenforceable/unenforced laws'
was 'laws which do not reflect the moral consensus of the community.'
Notice the word consensus here; it's important.  If a man kills his wife,
his neighbors will certainly disapprove.  What he has done is not only
illegal, but violates their common moral standard.  If a man smokes
marijuana, the results will not be as clear-cut.  Some of his neighbors
will be offended, and others will not.  There isn't a moral consensus
against marijuana in the United States; some do, and some don't.
Similarly, Prohibition was disobeyed because most adults saw nothing
immoral in their own drinking.
 
  By and large, people obey laws because the laws agree with their
own feelings about right and wrong, not simply because they're laws.
If a law does not jibe with the community consensus, policemen
will be reluctant to arrest offenders, juries to convict, and
judges to sentence them.  Laws which conflict with community moral
standards tend to be under- or un-enforced.  The laws against theft
are well-enforced: some culprits may go free, but the police
investigate theft reports vigorously.  Historically, the laws against 
abortion have not been so well-enforced.  I claim that this reflects
community ambivalence about the criminality of abortion.
 
The best evidence for future disregard of an anti-abortion law
is past disregard of such laws.  I quote "Encyclopedia of Crime
and Justice", edited by Sanford Kadish, 1983, v.1, p.4.
The book says that in the mid-twentieth-century (before Roe vs. Wade),
"As many as 90% of all abortions were sought by married women seeking
to limit family size, and 90%-95% of all premarital pregnancies ended
in abortion. ... Despite numerous statutes incriminating the abortion patient,
prosecutions were exceedingly rare and reported cases indescoverable.
- Model Penal code 1959, commentary section 207.11 ".
On the same page, it is noted that "Physicians performed more than half
of all illegal abortions."  To summarize, the laws existed, but were widely
ignored.  What evidence is there that future laws would be any more successful?
 
I believe that laws which enforce a minority moral code are bad for the
country, and it seems clear to me that laws against first-trimester
abortion would do just that: enforce a minority's moral code on the majority.
Past experience with the Volstead act has shown just how futile such laws
can be.
 
Betsy Perry
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth
ARPA:  betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay
-- 
Betsy Perry
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth
ARPA:  betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay