Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt From: arndt@lymph.DEC Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: If the hat fits . . . Message-ID: <3555@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Aug-85 00:56:47 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3555 Posted: Sat Aug 10 00:56:47 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 22:08:39 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 66 Mr. Matt Rosenblatt, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, look . . ., would it set the cause back if I called someone from the Blisstic Missle Lab "Stupie"??? I know the law says abortion is not 'murder'. I also know the law says that I can have one leg in one state where I can drink and the other leg in another state where I can't drink. See, the 'law' as you define, or should I say confine, it is merely geographical. I'll bet that even that guy (Hi guy) from that techie palace down the road from here knew I was using the term murder to mean a 'higher law'. Did you think I thought abortion was against the law or that murder had been approved by the law? I know the current law does not consider abortion murder. WHEN I SAY 'ABORTION IS MURDER' I AM APPEALING TO THAT MORAL CONSENSUS WHICH ALL MEN POINT TO FOR THE BASIS OF 'LAWS' GEOGRAPHICAL AND SEEKING TO SHOW THAT IT FITS THERE IN THAT MORAL CONSENSUS BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. The 'laws' go back and forth with location and over time. Now you can, now you can't. But there are a few based upon the 'higher moral consensus' that don't change - stealing for selfish gain, murder (with malace etc.) - you know, the Golden Rule and it's working out into the daily decisions of how to treat people. One should look on abortion as killing for gain. That's murder for gain, see. Now some do it without believing that's really what they ARE doing. Ergo, my arguments to them. They are no more or less guilty of murder than those convinced the Jews, etc they were shooting were subhuman creatures. They OUGHT to have known better - and perhaps they did, for when one reads about the killing squads one finds they didn't sleep well and even Himmler had the moral sense to throw up when he witnessed a live execution. But not so some of the morally dead on this net, eh? I once sat in the audience of a TV show about fetal development and a doctor who spoke about experiments with an aborted fetus kept saying "It's LEGAL". At what point does one start to ask the question, "Yes, but is it MORAL?" OUGHT it to be against the law, IS IT AGAINST THE LAW, whether or not this particular governmental body of law says it's not? Wern't the Jim Crow laws just this kind? One person says saying 'abortion is murder' is name calling. To agree, as I posted in reply, is to give up the REASON to be against abortion! You say to say 'abortion is murder' is to make a false statement because it is NOT murder as the 'law' defines it. But to agree murder is only what a particular law in a particular time and place allows is to give up any concept of law above the lawmakers! Remember, our country's laws are founded upon the concept Lex Rex (the law is king) not Rex Lex. Right and wrong become a Garden Teaparty if the King is above the law. (You do see that if any man or body of men are above the law then he/they can make the law anything they can make stick? I know one can be cynical and say, "but that's the way it IS now, but that's not what I'm talking about - I mean what it ought to be!) So when a 'law' is passed which is againt the law I am obligated not to obey it. Like turning in blacks or Jews, etc. Remember the '60s? Wasn't a lot of the protest against 'laws'?? Aren't you glad I've cleared this up for you? Er, . . . do you still like my style? Keep chargin' Ken Arndt PS Did I really call that guy from MIT "stupid"? How many years do you think I set us back? I should have said "flatulent ass". They like longer words at MIT!