Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site noscvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!noscvax!powers From: powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Definitions of murder Message-ID: <1052@noscvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 10:37:22 EDT Article-I.D.: noscvax.1052 Posted: Tue Aug 6 10:37:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 23:31:21 EDT References: <3213@decwrl.UUCP> <1031@noscvax.UUCP> <485@h-sc1.UUCP> Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Lines: 61 > > > > There is no doubt that abortion is the killing of something, but that > > does not make it murder. Murder is a term which only has meaning in a > > given social-legal context. We kill cattle by the millions, soldiers > > and civilians during a war, theives, and other killers. > > This is very interesting. Why is it justifiable to kill soldiers and > civilians during a war? I would say to protect our (or someone's) way > of life, which *we* feel is "right" (note emphasis and quotes -- this > is a decision that "we" (whoever that may be -- nobody asks me these > things :-) ) made). Why would somebody destroy a fetus (note: I'm not > convinced that this is killing, but I'm addressing the quote above)? > I would say to protect their way of life. Why is an individual's way > of life any less important than a country's way of life (or culture)? > > marie desjardins park The point that I was trying to make in the first paragraph is that the whole idea of any act being justifiable is questionable. What is murderous and heinous changes with time and cultural setting. Most people (that definitely includes those on this net) seem to have a great deal of difficulty accepting this fact. The reason being that it throws into doubt their confidence in any belief. That, I believe, is the correct posture. I find it interesting that religious code as defined today would have the greatest difficulty with this proposition because it wants to believe in the immutable laws of God. I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of God. Belief in God and the religious spirit is universal (I will claim, though by present day standards I would be considered an agnostic). God is created out of fear, terrifying Fear and Awe. God and religion are intimately connected with Doubt. The problem with the establishment of religous organizations is that they are formulated on the basis of removal of doubt. (Note small d). In so doing, they, in my opinion, run from the God and life that they seek to celebrate. Life is Contradiction. (Please, bear with my triteness. There is a point here somewhere.) It is a tension between Faith and Doubt (and, if you like, Life and Death). We cannot act without some sort of faith. But to discount the essential role of doubt is egocentric. It results in the loss of Humility (a virtue heard little of these days). Quite simply, to lose Doubt is to lose the world. Faith alone creates a static universe, but a bloodless one. However, the tendency of human nature is to run from Doubt and Fear (i.e., God and Life) and to create the bloodless Universe, witness the establishment of totalitarian states, the heirarchy of control, the whole progress of mankind in the twentieth century, and the advent of science as god (a misunderstanding of science--Einstein had it right). To coin a familiar phrase, human nature abhors chaos. Chaos is the devil, is evil. Yet, without it, we are all dead. Modern Western religious thinking wants to divide the world into Good (God) and Evil (D-evil). They got it wrong, horribly wrong. The horrors that this attitude creates (intolerance, anti-democratic, etc.) are much too numerous to discuss here. My point, by now, should be clear. As with most of my previous comments, I am quite certain no one will take up the gauntlet. Nevertheless, let the joust begin. Bill Powers.