arndt@lymph.DEC (04/10/85)
Subject: inconsistencies Posted: Fri Apr 5 11:46:10 1985 >Ken has made an important point, which many people on both sides overlook: > > If you believe abortion is murder, > then it is INCONSISTENT to condemn > the people who are bombing abortion clinics. > Not really. It is INCONSISTENT to condemn people who believe abortion is murder from acting within the LAW on their beliefs (a point that I don't feel anyone has overlooked), but it is not inconsistant to expect everyone, on each side of the issue or in the middle, to act within the laws of our country. When abortion was illegal, each woman who had an abortion was a criminal-- she didn't get off because her personal beliefs made abortion o.k. The laws are made, supposedly, on the basis of majority opinion. When everybody else thinks something is o.k., you are certainly entitled to think it isn't o.k., and not do it yourself, but you aren't entitled to break other laws to demonstrate your belief. *********************************************** From Ken Arndt: The above dialog is VERY interesting. The reposter directly above believes we must all obey the LAW even if we hold to other moral views. The LAW is the final court of appeal - not conscience!! Never mind that this kind of thinking stands against yonks of moral philosophy throughout the history of mankind, or that it displays a child-like 'faith' in the rightness of the LAW and complete ignorance of how it is formulated or what it is based on. HE APPEARS NEVER TO HAVE HEARD OF 'UNJUST' LAWS, EITHER TODAY OR IN THE PAST (SUCH AS THE AMERICAN DEC. OF INDP.) According to him, all a dictator has to do is pass a LAW that the LAW can no longer be changed or resisted and hey presto! Captive nation. WHAT THE HECK WERE WWII AND THE WAR CRIMES TRIALS ALL ABOUT???? Remember, "I was just following orders.", is not a defense!!!!! Back to my point - make it legal to bomb abortion clinics!!!!!!! The poster above should have no trouble with that once it is LAW. He even, if he were a member of the police, protect those who do the bombing, eh? Regards indeed, Ken Arndt
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/15/85)
[...........................] >The above dialog is VERY interesting. The reposter directly above believes >we must all obey the LAW even if we hold to other moral views. The LAW is >the final court of appeal - not conscience!! Then I would ask you what are laws for? If we all can decide to ignore laws because we don't agree with them, they are useless. (do you propose that laws are useless? ) Conscience can say some pretty strange things to some people. >Never mind that this kind of thinking stands against yonks of moral philosophy >throughout the history of mankind, or that it displays a child-like 'faith' in >the rightness of the LAW and complete ignorance of how it is formulated or >what it is based on. There are laws, and there are laws. Most of the laws in this country were arrived at through public opinion and majority voting. We are living in a democracy you know. >HE APPEARS NEVER TO HAVE HEARD OF 'UNJUST' LAWS, EITHER TODAY OR IN THE PAST >(SUCH AS THE AMERICAN DEC. OF INDP.) Certainly some laws are unjust. If I were a woman, and felt that laws prohibiting abortions were unjust, does that mean I should just go out and have one anyway? What about laws prohibiting child abuse? Murder? Do you draw a line, and if so, where? Wouldn't it be better if we worked to change unjust law? >According to him, all a dictator has to do is pass a LAW that the LAW can >no longer be changed or resisted and hey presto! Captive nation. What dictator? As I said above, we are living in a democracy. When a dictator takes over the U.S. THEN we can talk about ignoring his laws. >WHAT THE HECK WERE WWII AND THE WAR CRIMES TRIALS ALL ABOUT???? > >Remember, "I was just following orders.", is not a defense!!!!! Neither is "I don't agree with the laws". >Regards indeed, > >Ken Arndt Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd