On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:37:53 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Yeah, that's why so many people make their living debating how to
interpret law.

In law school we had a required course called "Conflict of Laws." What to do
when one law requires something that another law prohibits. This condition
often arises in Constitutional arenas.

A basic rule is this: Whenever there exists a "right" for one person, there
is a simultaneous "duty" on the part of another. When this imposed "duty"
conflicts with another "right," sometimes the only answer is a balancing
test.

The classic - and easily understandable - case is abortion.


I remember reading something about that recently. We have no need for
a law specifically dealing with abortion.

A developing fetus is a parasite that makes demands(sometimes very
heavy demands) on the mother's body. She has a right to be free from
such demands unless she chooses to allow them.

BTW, I also remember an episode of "House, MD" where he is
unexpectedly honest about a fetus being a parasite.
--
60 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy