Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: If the hat fits . . .
Message-ID: <628@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 10:42:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.628
Posted: Mon Aug 12 10:42:33 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:31:44 EDT
References: <3555@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 67

Mr. Arndt,

Surely you don't think that I was saying or implying that just because
something is legal, it's right.  If that were the case, I would not be
arguing against abortion on demand -- after all, THAT'S legal now.

> 		  Did you think I thought . . .
>    that murder had been approved by the law?

Well, yes, I thought you were saying that a form of murder, namely
abortion, had been approved by the law.

> 		  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.

And I'm very glad you're doing so!  Although people have a variety of
moral codes they live by, and although I would not want all of my morals
imposed on the next guy (and certainly not all of his imposed on me!),
there is such a moral consensus here in America, sort of an intersection,
a bare minimum of things considered right or wrong.  And killing for
selfish gain is one of the things considered wrong.  

>       One should look on abortion as killing for gain.  That's murder
> for gain, see.

I see you're saying it OUGHT to be murder for gain, and I don't oppose you.

>      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 were guilty of murder (a legal term) because we judged them according
to our laws based on our moral code, under which the people they killed were
human.  And I have no problem with saying that one moral code can be
"better" than another, as the Western code is better than the code of the
ancient Spartans, or the modern Communist Chinese, or the Nazis.  I am not
a believer in moral relativism.

> 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!

The law can be "wrong" (i.e., conflict with the universal moral consensus
you mentioned earlier).  The law is NOT the true embodiment of everything
that's excellent. The Nazis made legal what before Hitler was considereed
"murder" by Weimar law.  The Supreme Court made legal what before was
illegal but not considered "murder" by American State law.  In both cases,
they went against the "higher law" -- if you agree that the higher law
considers abortion on demand "murder."  The problem I have with the word
"murder" applied to abortion is that the "higher law" in that respect has
NEVER been in effect in Anglo-American jurisprudence.  That makes it hard
for me to use the word, because my background is in Anglo-American
jurisprudence.

Actually, you can fit your definition of murder together with the common
law definition by making one change:  Murder is the killing of a human 
being with malice aforethought and without justification or excuse,
according to the common law.  If the law were to recognize the fetus as
a human being, as you and I do, then MOST abortions would be murders.

Yes, you've made clear the basis for your use of the word "murder."
And yes, I still like your style.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt