regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/05/85)
>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.
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/07/85)
>>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. If you believe abortion is a form of mass murder, then you have absolutely no right to insist that people use only legal means to try to stop it. If the government were rounding up random citizens and shooting them, and people started bombing the executioners' offices, would you say that they shouldn't do that because it's illegal? Have you heard of Auschwitz? My point is that if you condemn the bombers, then you do not believe that abortion is such a terrible crime as to require people to act outside the law. But surely mass murder would require extra-legal action. Thus I stand by my earlier statement.
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (04/09/85)
In article <3535@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >If you believe abortion is a form of mass murder, then you have >absolutely no right to insist that people use only legal means >to try to stop it. Yes, and anarchy will reign supreme. Everybody who considers something WORTH going above the law and committing violence will thus be able to do so. Hmmmmmmmmm. Oh well, DAVE BROWN
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/09/85)
>>>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. >If you believe abortion is a form of mass murder, then you have >absolutely no right to insist that people use only legal means >to try to stop it. Whoa, now. "absolutely no right"? I have EVERY right to insist that everyone in the U.S. follows the laws of the U.S. At all times, and for all causes. This is what "civilization" means. This is what law enforcement is for. IF we are going to condone anarchy, (which I don't - do you?) well, I'd be a little uncomfortable as an anti-abortionist with all them murdering heathens knowing who I was! (-: I've known for years that if somebody raped me and beat me that I couldn't go out and blow the sucker to smithereens on my own -- which action would have some arguable justice. Why are the anti-abortionists somehow exempt from laws because of their beliefs but the rest of us have to abide by laws, regardless of our beliefs? >If the government were rounding up random citizens and shooting them, >and people started bombing the executioners' offices, would you >say that they shouldn't do that because it's illegal? Have you >heard of Auschwitz? Seriously, there are dividing lines. After all, we are arguing (ahem, discussing) one of the most problematic right now. Calling in visions of the attempted genocide of the Jews to illustrate a point about abortion is tenuous, and you know that. You don't even have to reach that far for an analogy. The jews were viable organisms - independent people. And the Nazi's were gonna do away with them _all_. The heart of the abortion argument (to some anyway) is whether or not fetuses are human beings. Given that that is still in debate, we certainly can recognise that they are NOT viable, NOR independent. And the whole political machine ISN'T out there waiting to do away with all of them. The Government ISN'T rounding up RANDOM citizens and shooting them. Yet another analogy bites the dust. I expect that a law which has been examined by the legal minds of our country, as well as by the populace should be followed and enforced. I don't grant anti-abortionists the "right" to bomb clinics on some misguided analogy. The abortion issue wasn't forced upon us like it was on the populus of China, and the anti-abortion issue can't be forced upon us by excusing a bunch of bomb-toters, either. The Nazi's haven't taken over the politics of our country, confiscated the weapons the collective citizenry registered in good faith, and forced us all to have abortions (or, hell, why not -- forced us all to get pregnant). >My point is that if you condemn the bombers, then you do not >believe that abortion is such a terrible crime as to require >people to act outside the law. But surely mass murder would >require extra-legal action. Thus I stand by my earlier statement. What I do or don't believe on the abortion issue has little to do with what I do or don't believe about changing laws within the democracy as it is practiced by the U.S. Mass murder is illegal in the U.S., therefore it does not require extra-legal action -- it is the focus of one of the (slowest, most expensive) most powerful legal systems in the world. How- ever, our government does not define abortion as mass murder. It is in- cumbent upon those who believe abortion is murder to use the system to create the definition they believe in. This definition is under scrutiny (legally) in a number of other fields as well -- "brain death" versus failure of body functions, withholding medical treatment, refusing medical treatment, suicide in terminal cases. The whole ball of wax. Seems to me the bombers (hopefully a VERY small proportion of the otherwise law abiding anti-abortionists) have just decided to take the shortcut, and use the Nazi's methods themselves. Blow up some property, punish the people who "profit", kill some lousy unneeded liberals if they get in the way. Hey, might makes right, right?
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/11/85)
>> If the government were rounding up random citizens and shooting them, >> and people started bombing the executioners' offices, would you >> say that they shouldn't do that because it's illegal? Have you >> heard of Auschwitz? > Calling in visions of the attempted genocide of the Jews to illustrate a > point about abortion is tenuous, and you know that. You don't even have > to reach that far for an analogy. The jews were viable organisms - > independent people. And the Nazi's were gonna do away with them _all_. No it's not tenuous. Various people have tried to convince me that legal abortion is equivalent to government-condoned slaughter of one and a half MILLION innocent human beings a year. I am saying that if you really believe this, then you have no choice to believe that the situation is indeed comparable to the atrocities committed by the Nazis before and during World War II. That is why, when someone tells me that millions of people are being murdered a year, but violent protest is inappropriate, my response is: "If you really believe what you're saying, then of COURSE violent protest is appropriate. On the other hand, if you really believe that violence is out, then you don't really think abortion is murder." Please note that I am equating two beliefs, and not saying anything about whether or not I hold either one.