owens@gitpyr.UUCP (Gerald Owens) (09/28/84)
> Almost everyone (I think) is for laws that say > "don't do it because it harms someone". > There is a difference in those types of laws. > Here is a good test for what "should" be laws (my opinion - my opinion :-) > You can't consider it "wrong", > unless you wouldn't want someone to do it -->TO<-- you. > (i.e. unless it `harms someone') > > Instances (dealing with the concept "to someone"): > You cannot consider smoking marijuana/tofacco wrong, unless > someone does it "to" you (fumigating you). > > Likewise, aborting embryos would not be considered wrong, since > no one can abort you. (where abortion is defined as > the act of terminating a pregnancy) . . . . > > Since abortion does not hurt you, or yours, or society as a whole, > it is not wrong. (Though if someone else wants to abort your > embryo, that is wrong.) > > Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > ^ ^ The point about "proper" laws is well taken, but it is certainly selfish to consider a law to be "proper" only if it bans an action that MIGHT hurt JUST yourself or your own interests. "No man is an island. No man stands alone." Just because one does not have children and isn't physically a child does not mean that the child molestation laws are improper (since, by definition, you would not be a possible victim). In short, a law is not "proper" *just* because it forbids a crime that *YOU* could not, by definition, ever be a victim of. There are OTHER human beings in the society, who WOULD be victims, and so would be interested in such laws. I am not sure what is meant by "hurting the society as a whole", since a society is made up of individuals, and not *one* of them can BE the 'society'. I am suspicious of arguments based on the "public welfare", since one cannot objectively tell what is the "public welfare", point at it, or disprove arguments using it. I hold to the opinion that "an attack upon one is an attack upon all", and thus is the valid basis for forming a rational society. It is on this basis that I support the child molestation laws, even though I am not a child, nor have any children, and so could not technically be a "victim" of any crime that violated those laws. Of course, the whole argument Mr. Peterson is making rests upon the assumption that the fetus cannot be, by definition, a "victim" (even though it is being killed by methods which, if done to living animals, would invoke the wrath of the ASPCA, the Sierra Club, and a whole slew of other organisations, not to mention individuals). The argument of whether the fetus is a person/human/someone deserving of the "victim" apellation if harmed has been argued in other articles (often with more heat than light), so I will not pursue it in this article. I merely wished to point out the assumptions that the article was apparently making without stating them explicitly: 1) The fetus isn't human, and therefore cannot be a "victim" of any "proper" law. 2) A "proper" law is a law that prevents people from doing bad and harmful things either to the speaker or to those the speaker values, or to the society as a whole.. THEREFORE: since the speaker cannot be a fetus, it is not possible for the speaker to be a "victim" of abortion, so laws prohibiting abortion are "improper". And since the aborted fetus cannot possibly participate in the society, it cannot be decided WHAT the society lost by that fetus's nonexistence. (private note: There is a certain abortion procedure that has a slight possibilty of producing a live birth rather than a dead fetus. All of such live births are, to my knowledge, either left to die or forcibly made to depart this vale of tears. I cannot help wondering what football players, boxers, marathoners, or Olympic medalists our society is losing in such cases, since they obviously had to have an extraordinary constitution to survive the abortion itself.) Gerald Owens Owens@Gatech "Therefore, do not send to ask for whom the bell tolls It tolls for thee." John Donne