regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (03/13/85)
>> I think that most persons on each side of the abortion issue are honest in >> their convictions. . . >> However, those who believe it is murder cannot square their >> belief with the current laws of the land. The belief itself requires >> enactment of anti-abortion laws and penalty for the choice. >> A. Regard > Lets's say murder is unlawful but not everybody considers it immoral. And > then one day the supreme court decides that states can't make laws > proscribing murder. But you think murder is immoral and should be outlawed. > Would you consider action by you and others who felt like you to legislate > against murder to be "shoving" morality down other people's throats? Presuming the "other people" disagreed with me, yes. (I would righteously choose to say it was shoving my _opinion_ down their throat, since I can't really shove my morality, but that is semantic play.) Presuming our attempt to legislate was successful, that shove would be the majority opinion enforced on the minority opinion. What is law and morality after all? The opinion of those in power enforced on dissenters through various means. However, if I couldn't muster a majority, and remained a minority opinion, I'd have to settle for having their morality/opinion shoved down my throat, wouldn't I? I sure as h**l do feel that anybody who does any shoving _without_ the sanction of a majority opinion (democratic process, which supposedly we all agree with) upheld in the courts (to cover all legal complexities) ought to be "shoved" a little bit themselves -- right into jail. > Would this stop you from attempting to right what you consider to be wrong? > Mike Johnston (actually, it would stop me dead in my tracks - the minute I opened my mouth somebody would murder me, and that would be the end of the argument. BUT, that consideration aside. . .) Mike, it wouldn't stop me one bit. And please don't read between the lines of my original statement that I propose anti-abortion people should be stopped from dealing on the basis of their own convictions. The ques- tion I was responding to had to do with the _motivation_ of the various opposing parties, and my response indicates what I believe those motiva- tions to be -- AND my support for their motivations, as well as their rights to try to gain legislation in line with their motivations. I point out in the citation above that (any) belief (presuming one holds it strongly) impells one to act for change. The question is, how strongly? What I find no excuse for are the lawless acts of some anti-abortionists, even in the highest moral context. Our country and our laws are _not_ based on moral judgement but on majority opinion. And each of us has the daily choice and responsibility to love it, change it, or leave it. In your scenario, if I could not live in a country that condoned murder because of my strong moral stance against murder, AND if I could not, through the "change channels" provided by the laws of that country, gain the change to a law I considered immoral, I would have to face the choice of swallowing my own notion of immoral vs. moral and remain in that country, or leave it for another who's laws more closely reflected my stance. Even in the face of something as disgusting to my personal ethics as murder, I would not and do not condone terrorism. At any rate, that is a tangent from the original question about motivation, and MAY BE MISCONSTRUED to be a tirade against all anti-abortionists. However, I am clearly drawing a line between anti-abortionists who work within the confines of our laws (and I support completely their right to say whatever they like - and work for whatever legislative change they like even though I disagree with their stance completely) and the anti- abortionists who are terrorists. I guess that makes me a little stupid, since I'm upholding the right of umpteen million strongly emotional people to help decide for me what is or is not to be a law, but I'm afraid that is the choice one makes in living as a citizen here. If I didn't like it enough, there are plenty of other countries with different philosophical bases that I would like who would appreciate my skill set and would accept my citizenship application. And, assuming a dissatisfaction strong enough with this country, I'd probably be much happier there. A. Regard Just my opinion: nobody else would own up to it.