esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (12/08/84)
[] From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) > There are two issues here in the quoted articles (at least 2...): > What should laws be based on? > ... > Who should decide laws? I don't see the second issue as being contested between myself and Kin Wong. It would seem that proponents of constitutional democracy agree that the majority should decide laws (except constitutional law which may require more than a majority). > Driving on the same side as everyone else certainly helps > interpersonal relations, but is it morals? (Are all those British > types who drive on the other side of the road immoral?) Come on Peterson! The British *are* driving on the same side as everyone else in their country. And yes, driving on the same side or not is a moral decision -- if you drive on the other side you are liable to get somebody killed, which says something about your moral priorities, no? > People who talk about "imposing morality" often discuss victimless > crimes. Often. But the expression properly applies to victumful crimes too. > Morality is something other (or at least more than) interpersonal > relationships. I grant that (never denied it); my point is that it definitely *involves* interpersonal considerations. X the "pro-life" opinion is based on the kind of reason for advocating X laws that you [Kin Wong] agree is legitimate. > Pro-lifers don't want themselves to get run over? Or aborted, rather? > It is impossible, by definition. If you mean something else, try to > explain yourself. I mean that it is based on an attempt to protect (what are perceived as) others. I thought that that was obvious. X ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING: THE "IMPOSING X MORALITY" BOGEYMAN IS A BOGUS ARGUMENT. > Wrong. No, dead right ... > Imposing morality is forcing others to obey certain moral standards > either when they believe other morals [or would otherwise fail to act > on their own morals --pvt], or [...] Stop right there, you've got it exactly!! Thanks, Brian, for proving me right! All laws do this, so only an anarchist can consistently condemn the practice as a matter of general principle. Since (the vast majority of) pro-choicers are not anarchists, their use of the slogan about "imposing morality" (they might as well say, "Thou shalt not impose morality"! :-) ) is COMPLETELY BOGUS, not to mention hypocritical! > [... or] when morals are inapplicable. > Abortion does not involve interpersonal relationships. > (a fetus is not a person. It is a human being, which is different.) > So it does not involve morals, by your definition. Surely you realize that, without some further argument on your parenthetical point, you would be begging the question. On the other hand, if you can establish that point, you have refuted "pro-life" already, so any further argument (about "imposing morality") is superfluous! But in any case, this second half of your definition is incorrect. The first part (plus my bracketed insertion) is precisely correct. --the vindicated iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047