rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (08/13/86)
In article <530@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> marco@andromeda (the wharf rat) writes: >> Question: suppose pro-lifers want to picket an abortion clinic forcibly >> preventing anyone from entering. [...] Do you want >> our legal system to stop them? Aha ... If so, you are giving your >> opinion the force of law! > > It is not an opinion that it is wrong to restrain another's >freedom of movement unlawfully. [...] These are logically wrong, since to >allow these actions is to allow society to degenerate into anarchy. So some moral issues aren't matters of opinion, eh? (E.g., anarchy.) OK, well that makes it a little harder to argue against you -- but only a little. Restrain another's freedom of movement *unlawfully*? When arguing about what the law *should be*, you can't use what the law *is* as an argument (unless you have some fetish about the status quo). You have yet to answer my question: why should I vote for a law that makes it unlawful to interfere with people's freedom to move in and out of abortion clinics? In other words, why should I vote to LEGISLATE the OPINION that fetuses aren't "human"? Remember, your answer must be consistent with your view that it is wrong to legislate opinions. Your general argument -- "if we allowed that sort of thing, society would fall apart" -- doesn't work because we aren't talking about allowing any SORT of thing, only about allowing ONE thing: allowing "pro-lifers" to act according to THEIR opinions. The alternative is to legislate that they should act according to YOUR opinion. (Which isn't such a bad idea in my view, but I'm playing devil's advocate.) The only thing "just plain silly" about this discussion is your argument about the wrongness of legislating "opinions". Paul Torek, not necessarily reflecting the views of: rat@tybalt.caltech.edu