Hello Dan!

15 Jun 19 10:37, Dan Clough wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:


 GK>> No, not in the first place. My point would be then, that changing
 GK>> your laws does not primarily change facts (i.e., lower the number
 GK>> of abortions),

 DC> I believe that it would (lower the number of abortions).

Yeah, it probably would on the paper the politicians would present.

 GK>> but rather just increases inequality between
 GK>> people with and without money... which is not what people usually
 GK>> will tell you the new laws are made for.

 DC> I don't think it would measureably cause that.

No? So who is having abortions these days in the US? All wealthy people who
could also go abroad?

 GK>> And these days laws are usually made to overcome this, not to put
 GK>> unfairness and inequality into stone, aren't they?

 DC> No, I would not agree that laws are usually made to overcome 
 DC> inequality.

Well, certainly not all of them. I guess you know what I was trying to say.

 DC> They are made for whatever the perceived need is, not 
 DC> directly to reduce inequality.  For example, a new law regarding 
 DC> the property tax rate in a county is not directed at reducing 
 DC> inequality.

But it should take into account that people having a more valuable
lot/house/whatever probably could also afford paying a higher tax. I don't know
how property tax works in the US, is it that way? Ours is just about to be
reformed because it didn't do that anymore, and the federal court required the
government to change that.

 DC> I know that atrocities exist and happen.  No amount of legislating 
 DC> is going to stop that.

On the contrary: the legislation propsed would foster that.

 GK>> If you want to lower the number of abortions, you don't need to
 GK>> change "too liberal" abortion laws. This will just drive people
 GK>> who can afford out of the country and people who cannot afford
 GK>> into solutions nobody wants. Can you imagine people doing an
 GK>> abortion just "for the fun" in it, or just because "they can"?

 DC> Could you please help convince other liberals, using that *EXACT* 
 DC> logic, that changing "too liberal" firearm laws is not going to 
 DC> solve/change the gun-violence problems?  The bottom line is this:  
 DC> Criminals don't follow laws, and will do what they're going to do 
 DC> regardless of what the law says.

I don't think I'm going to follow that line of argument. However, it's good
that we agree on the fact that the US is indeed having a gun-violence problem.

 DC> I think education is already there/available.  If we need more, 
 DC> use the funds currently going to Planned Parenthood that are used 
 DC> to kill babies.  Isn't education one of PP's intended functions?

I don't know about the details of your PP programme, but education certainly
sounds like a logical part of that. Don't they do that?

 DC> Same logic applies to contraceptives.  Let PP hand them out, using 
 DC> the money saved by NOT doing abortions.  Simple!

Again: Don't they do that already? Why not?

 DC> I'm not sure what a "baby hatch" is.



Something intended to prevent people from abandoning newborn children somewhere
outside (risking that they die very quickly).


Regards,
Gerrit

...  9:18PM  up 60 days,  5:39, 8 users, load averages: 0.42, 0.41, 0.38

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2