Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site vaxwaller.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!varian!vaxwaller!susan
From: susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Reply to Paul Dubuc
Message-ID: <198@vaxwaller.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 10:49:26 EST
Article-I.D.: vaxwalle.198
Posted: Thu Jan 24 10:49:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 04:27:25 EST
References: <3322@alice.UUCP> <4652@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Varian, Walnut Creek, CA
Lines: 24

> in arguing against changing laws.  The legal rights of all people
> (majority and minorty) are defined by our legislation (especially
> the Constitution).  Our judicial system exists to prevent laws from
> being unjustly applied by a majority (on a case law basis) but it
> should not be making laws on its own.  If laws should not be
> tied to the will of the majority, what group of people *should* justify
> laws?  Our legislative system does contain checks to prevent a simple
> majority form enacting laws (e.g. larger majority and state ratification
> needed for constitutional amendments and debate by the minorty often
> modifies proposed laws), but if a proposed law passes these checks it
> should be put on the books and enforced--no matter if the remaining
> minorty still opposes it.  Laws in a republic such as ours are meaningless
> otherwise.  Yes, it doesn't insure that the laws are right, but what
> system *will* gaurentee that they are and still have any laws?

Nope, only the legal rights of adult male people are guaranteed by our
legal system last time I checked.  If everyone agreed that adult female
people had all of the same rights (like the right to control their own
bodies) we wouldn't have this newsgroup.

-- 
	Susan Finkelman (415) 945-2274
	Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Dr.  Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598
	{zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan