ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (03/28/85)
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. Here is a hypothetical similar situation: suppose that some criminal organization was rounding up people by the millions and executing them, with the full sanction of the government, and that the places where these executions took place were widely known. Suppose also that some anonymous collection of people took it upon themselves to try to stem the tide by blowing up some of these buildings. Certainly the enormity of the situation would give moral justification to such desperate action. Therefore, when Reagan says that he believes that abortion is murder, and then goes on to condemn the violence directed at those who pracice it, he is making two statements THAT CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE AT ONCE! He is lying about one or the other. I don't know which one it is.
tmh@ihldt.UUCP (Tom Harris) (03/29/85)
> Therefore, when Reagan says that he believes that abortion is > murder, and then goes on to condemn the violence directed at > those who pracice it, he is making two statements THAT CANNOT > BOTH BE TRUE AT ONCE! He is lying about one or the other. > > I don't know which one it is. Actually I think he truly believed the accuracy of both statements. After all, any one who can condem abortion and then ask congress for a billion plus dollars to buy MX missles (which will enable him to kill millions of people) certainly is not in the least concerned about consistency. Tom H.
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (03/29/85)
In article <3496@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >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. > >Here is a hypothetical similar situation: suppose that some >criminal organization was rounding up people by the millions >and executing them, with the full sanction of the government, >and that the places where these executions took place were >widely known. Suppose also that some anonymous collection of >people took it upon themselves to try to stem the tide by blowing >up some of these buildings. Certainly the enormity of the >situation would give moral justification to such desperate action. That is of course based on your moral standards of outrage and justification. Being a pacifist, I can not morally support the bombing of abortion clinics, nor, as outrageous as it may sound, would I support the destruction of such genocide buildings. I would protest, to the limits of my peaceful powers. But, murder for murder, destruction for destruction are not viable alternatives in an increasingly violent world. > >Therefore, when Reagan says that he believes that abortion is >murder, and then goes on to condemn the violence directed at >those who pracice it, he is making two statements THAT CANNOT >BOTH BE TRUE AT ONCE! He is lying about one or the other. > >I don't know which one it is. I don't know about Ronnie Reagan, but I do not think that the ends justify the means. You are argueing with something that is not applicable to many people. Breaking the law, which is what bombing of clinics is, is not a viable "Christian"(I assume that these bombers are Christian) alternative to abortion. Such lawlessness breaks another of the ten commandments and also breaks Jesus' Golden Rule. It is sin in God's eyes; however, I should not judge, lest I be judged. Yours, DAVE BROWN