arndt@lymph.DEC (08/10/85)
Mr. Matt Rosenblatt, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, look . . ., would it set the cause back if I called someone from the Blisstic Missle Lab "Stupie"??? I know the law says abortion is not 'murder'. I also know the law says that I can have one leg in one state where I can drink and the other leg in another state where I can't drink. See, the 'law' as you define, or should I say confine, it is merely geographical. I'll bet that even that guy (Hi guy) from that techie palace down the road from here knew I was using the term murder to mean a 'higher law'. Did you think I thought abortion was against the law or that murder had been approved by the law? I know the current law does not consider abortion murder. WHEN I SAY 'ABORTION IS MURDER' I AM APPEALING TO THAT MORAL CONSENSUS WHICH ALL MEN POINT TO FOR THE BASIS OF 'LAWS' GEOGRAPHICAL AND SEEKING TO SHOW THAT IT FITS THERE IN THAT MORAL CONSENSUS BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. The 'laws' go back and forth with location and over time. Now you can, now you can't. But there are a few based upon the 'higher moral consensus' that don't change - stealing for selfish gain, murder (with malace etc.) - you know, the Golden Rule and it's working out into the daily decisions of how to treat people. One should look on abortion as killing for gain. That's murder for gain, see. Now some do it without believing that's really what they ARE doing. Ergo, my arguments to them. They are no more or less guilty of murder than those convinced the Jews, etc they were shooting were subhuman creatures. They OUGHT to have known better - and perhaps they did, for when one reads about the killing squads one finds they didn't sleep well and even Himmler had the moral sense to throw up when he witnessed a live execution. But not so some of the morally dead on this net, eh? I once sat in the audience of a TV show about fetal development and a doctor who spoke about experiments with an aborted fetus kept saying "It's LEGAL". At what point does one start to ask the question, "Yes, but is it MORAL?" OUGHT it to be against the law, IS IT AGAINST THE LAW, whether or not this particular governmental body of law says it's not? Wern't the Jim Crow laws just this kind? One person says saying 'abortion is murder' is name calling. To agree, as I posted in reply, is to give up the REASON to be against abortion! You say to say 'abortion is murder' is to make a false statement because it is NOT murder as the 'law' defines it. But to agree murder is only what a particular law in a particular time and place allows is to give up any concept of law above the lawmakers! Remember, our country's laws are founded upon the concept Lex Rex (the law is king) not Rex Lex. Right and wrong become a Garden Teaparty if the King is above the law. (You do see that if any man or body of men are above the law then he/they can make the law anything they can make stick? I know one can be cynical and say, "but that's the way it IS now, but that's not what I'm talking about - I mean what it ought to be!) So when a 'law' is passed which is againt the law I am obligated not to obey it. Like turning in blacks or Jews, etc. Remember the '60s? Wasn't a lot of the protest against 'laws'?? Aren't you glad I've cleared this up for you? Er, . . . do you still like my style? Keep chargin' Ken Arndt PS Did I really call that guy from MIT "stupid"? How many years do you think I set us back? I should have said "flatulent ass". They like longer words at MIT!
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)
> WHEN I SAY 'ABORTION IS MURDER' I AM APPEALING TO > THAT MORAL CONSENSUS WHICH ALL MEN POINT TO FOR THE BASIS OF 'LAWS' > GEOGRAPHICAL AND SEEKING TO SHOW THAT IT FITS THERE IN THAT MORAL CONSENSUS > BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. [Kenny Arndt] Well, that says it all. Morality by consensus. That's what I always said Arndt's game was. But not even that by a long shot. No, morality by PAST consensus, by prehistoric people in pre-rational times. How to change that morality? Well, in Ken's book it would require an eleven-tenths majority to "pass" a change in the rigid moral code. Ever stop to think about what rights a society might have to limit its people's rights? I didn't think so. Makes sense? Hardly. Only if you accept the past moral code at its word. Sure, a lot of sheep do just that. Lucky for humankind, with each generation there are fewer sheep. (That may be why the Puerile Pejority is on the march with their other rightwing colleagues: if they don't work fast, the whole herd of sheep will be gone, and their flock will disintegrate. Get that darned secular humanism, whatever it is, out of the dang schools!) -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/12/85)
Mr. Arndt, Surely you don't think that I was saying or implying that just because something is legal, it's right. If that were the case, I would not be arguing against abortion on demand -- after all, THAT'S legal now. > Did you think I thought . . . > that murder had been approved by the law? Well, yes, I thought you were saying that a form of murder, namely abortion, had been approved by the law. > WHEN I SAY 'ABORTION IS MURDER' I AM APPEALING TO > THAT MORAL CONSENSUS WHICH ALL MEN POINT TO FOR THE BASIS OF 'LAWS' > GEOGRAPHICAL AND SEEKING TO SHOW THAT IT FITS THERE IN THAT MORAL CONSENSUS > BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. And I'm very glad you're doing so! Although people have a variety of moral codes they live by, and although I would not want all of my morals imposed on the next guy (and certainly not all of his imposed on me!), there is such a moral consensus here in America, sort of an intersection, a bare minimum of things considered right or wrong. And killing for selfish gain is one of the things considered wrong. > One should look on abortion as killing for gain. That's murder > for gain, see. I see you're saying it OUGHT to be murder for gain, and I don't oppose you. > Now some do it without believing that's really what they ARE doing. > Ergo, my arguments to them. They are no more or less guilty of murder than > those convinced the Jews, etc they were shooting were subhuman creatures. They were guilty of murder (a legal term) because we judged them according to our laws based on our moral code, under which the people they killed were human. And I have no problem with saying that one moral code can be "better" than another, as the Western code is better than the code of the ancient Spartans, or the modern Communist Chinese, or the Nazis. I am not a believer in moral relativism. > You say to say 'abortion is murder' is to make a false statement because it > is NOT murder as the 'law' defines it. But to agree murder is only what a > particular law in a particular time and place allows is to give up any > concept of law above the lawmakers! The law can be "wrong" (i.e., conflict with the universal moral consensus you mentioned earlier). The law is NOT the true embodiment of everything that's excellent. The Nazis made legal what before Hitler was considereed "murder" by Weimar law. The Supreme Court made legal what before was illegal but not considered "murder" by American State law. In both cases, they went against the "higher law" -- if you agree that the higher law considers abortion on demand "murder." The problem I have with the word "murder" applied to abortion is that the "higher law" in that respect has NEVER been in effect in Anglo-American jurisprudence. That makes it hard for me to use the word, because my background is in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Actually, you can fit your definition of murder together with the common law definition by making one change: Murder is the killing of a human being with malice aforethought and without justification or excuse, according to the common law. If the law were to recognize the fetus as a human being, as you and I do, then MOST abortions would be murders. Yes, you've made clear the basis for your use of the word "murder." And yes, I still like your style. -- Matt Rosenblatt
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/12/85)
Ken Arndt states that when he is calling abortion murder he is referring to a higher law. I presume that this higher law is the law that Jesus related to when he said "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone". richard foy
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/14/85)
>> WHEN I SAY 'ABORTION IS MURDER' I AM APPEALING TO >>THAT MORAL CONSENSUS WHICH ALL MEN POINT TO FOR THE BASIS OF 'LAWS' >>GEOGRAPHICAL AND SEEKING TO SHOW THAT IT FITS THERE IN THAT MORAL CONSENSUS >>BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. [ARNDT] > And I'm very glad you're doing so! Although people have a variety of > moral codes they live by, and although I would not want all of my morals > imposed on the next guy (and certainly not all of his imposed on me!), > there is such a moral consensus here in America, sort of an intersection, > a bare minimum of things considered right or wrong. [ROSENBLATT] You have a sick idea of the meaning of the phrase "bare minimum". Repression of non-standard lifestyles (sexual and otherwise)? Sanctification of an institution that puts itself above the law (the "nuclear family") where one member can abuse other members of the household without fear of reprisal? Insistence on other religious requirements in a country that's not supposed to be involved in religion? Some bare minimum! I only hope we can get to that real bare minimum (minimal morality) some day. > And killing for selfish gain is one of the things considered wrong. Thus, the burden is on you to prove it is indeed "killing", and selfishly (whatever that means) motivated. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (08/19/85)
In article <350@aero.ARPA> foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy (Veh. Systems)) writes: >Ken Arndt states that when he is calling abortion murder he is referring to >a higher law. I presume that this higher law is the law that Jesus related >to when he said "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone". > That's what he said to the crowd that was about to stone the adulterous woman, and he was certainly right to say that. But he was equally right to say to the woman "Go and sin no more". (That part of the story seems to get edited out a lot.) >richard foy Cloyd Goodrum III University Of North Carolina
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (08/22/85)
In article <172@unc.unc.UUCP> goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) writes: > That's what he said to the crowd that was about to stone the adulterous >woman, and he was certainly right to say that. But he was equally right to >say to the woman "Go and sin no more". (That part of the story seems to get >edited out a lot.) > > Cloyd Goodrum III > University Of North Carolina You are absolutely right. That is a very important part of the story. The thing that I find interesting is to think what Jesus would say to the people on this net. In thinking about it, it seems to me that the part of Jesus teachings most appropriate to the net are the incidents and stories realted to Judge Not etc. I personally find that a much more difficult sin to let go of than the sexual sins, if for no other reason than the greater frequency of opportunity to commit judgement. richard foy