rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.Caltech.Edu (Ray Trent) (08/15/86)
In article <531@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> marco (the wharf rat) writes: >[assorted stuff] Have you ever heard of a "reductio ad absurdum" argument? It works like this: Someone says something I disagree with. I take their premise and use it to derive an absurd conclusion. I then conclude that because the conclusion is absurd, the premise must be false. Usually my opponent is smart enough to figure out that I reject the conclusion, without my having to say so explicitly. Apparently, this time is different. So let me make crystal clear: I think it would be crazy not to prohibit anti-abortionists from doing the things I mentioned. We should impose our moral views on them. We should legislate our "opinion" about the legitimacy of such actions. >[...] I can only say >that dis-allowing this sort of might-makes-right violence in society is >not a moral decision, but in fact based on logic. [...] Why not both? > By refusing to legislate that it is acceptable to bomb >abortion clinics, you are not legislating the opinion that fetuses are not >human beings; The issue was destroying property, not bombing, but: Sure I am! > you are legislating my right to control my own life >without fear of violence from those who do not agree with my actions. That too. It's not either/or. > A ridiculous question : If anti-abortion violence is acceptable >because it merely expresses your opinion, is anti-anti-abortion violence >also acceptable ? Will the abortion question be solved by which side >has the best marksmen ? It would be. And that's the reductio ad absurdum of your premise. Paul Torek, not necessarily reflecting the views of: rat@tybalt.caltech.edu