From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:25:21 GMT

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes ...
>|> >What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?
>|> 
>|> Self interest.  Laws against murder, theft, etc., exist because
>|> without them each of us would run a greater risk of being the victim 
>|> of such crimes, and society as a whole probably would not work very
>|> well.  Thus, it is in my interest and in society's interest to
>|> prohibit those things which harm me and society.
>|> 
>|> Now then, how does this principle apply to abortion?  Clearly
>|> self-interest is not an issue, since neither you nor I will be harmed
>|> by an abortion.  And the case of society being harmed by the
>|> availability of abortion is also doubtful.  Quite the contrary, a
>|> decent case can be made for available abortions being of benefit to
>|> society.
>
>Why are there hate crime laws?  I am not a homosexual, so why should I
>support a law that protects homosexuals.  I am not a Jew, so why should
>I support a law that protects Jews?  I am not a fetus, so why should
>I support a law that protects fetuses? (feti?)  Is this something like
>what you are saying?

And you're not a Bald Eagle, so why should you support a law that
protects Bald Eagles.  In fact, since I am not Michael P Noonan, why
should I support a law that protects Michael P Noonan?

The answer to all of the above is self-interest.  I'm interested in
protecting homosexuals, Jews, and you because that which arbitrarily
harms people may someday harm me.  A law which harms women may also
someday harm me (especially if it comes to harm loved ones).  Granted,
the fetus tends to lose out, but as yet I haven't heard anyone
come up with a proposal that doesn't harm someone to some degree.
Since that situation is often the case, the thing to do is limit that 
which does the greater harm.

>|> Why should _any_ government have jurisdiction here?  It is a
>|> fundamental principle of law that a person's property may not be taken
>|> or used without either that person's consent or due process of law.
>
>I think that this is a state issue too.  The states all have laws
>regarding property possession.  Would you argue that these laws are
>not appropriate, or that the states should not have jurisdiction
>concerning, say, auto-theft?  If abortion really is a property issue,
>then it would seem to me that it is an issue tailor made for the states.

The US constitution, a federal document, states that no person may be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.

>When you say "fundamental principle of law," do you mean a "fundamental
>belief of society"?  I was not aware that there are any fundamental laws
>that all societies have.  Indeed, I could probably name a society in
>which personal property was of little importance.  Perhaps a socialistic
>society?

I rather doubt you could find any society in which personal property
was of little importance.  Regardless, it is certainly a fundamental
principle of western law, and any exceptions are going to be very
rare.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche