Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4410)	2/2/2001 6:19:22 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Prohibition is in one sense a useful analogy, in a way that I think has been overlooked in the discussion of morality and absolute rightness or wrongness. Proposed legal changes have to be evaluated in light of not only rightness or wrongness, but also practical consequence. People have been having abortions for a long time, legal or illegal; there is no reason to suspect that they will stop having abortions simply because they are illegal, especially if they are legal in a neighboring state. In practice, people that are having abortions for convenience will still have them. The only people who will be prevented from having abortions are those too poor to travel or to take advantage of illegal abortions (which will inevitably be more expensive). In other words, the only people who won't be able to have abortions are the ones who really need them. Like prohibition, it is a case of trying to ban behaviour that we don't like - and which in the case of alcohol has serious social costs - but which has become so customary that it will continue whether banned or not.