From: blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe)
Subject: Re: "Moral" issues (was Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:39:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.162330.18457@cco.caltech.edu>, thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Thomas Kiefer) writes:
|> I don't want to get into any abortion good/evil/right/wrong/etc arguments
|> here, but I have a question...
|> 
|> In article <cmhaar-300892092809@mac2867.chem.nwu.edu> cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chris Haar) writes:
|> >     In any case, you do bring up a good point: Because abortion is a MORAL
|> >issue, i.e. it is an issue which concerns an individual's personally held
|> >beliefs, it doesn't make sense to legislate against it.  Ethics can be
|> >legislated, NOT morality.
|> 
|> I.e., it doesn't make sense to legislate again an individual's personally
|> held beliefs about abortion, which some consider to be murder, others
|> consider simply a part of personal bodily control.  Okay.
|> 
|> But aren't murder (ignoring abortion for a moment), theft, etc., also moral
|> issues?  E.g., it is generally agreed that it is immoral to murder someone
|> else, so it is legislated as illegal, and to hell with those who believe that
|> there is nothing immoral about murdering someone else?  (:^)

Murder, theft etc. are *not* moral issues. A murder  is somewhat indisciminant,
and as such it cannot be predidcted who will be the next victim. Morever, if we
allow murder it is possible (although a little unlikely) that one murderer could
kill off the entire population, leaving just themself. Granted, this is a little
far fetched, but it demonstrates the idea that punishable crimes effect the
general population (we wouldn't just outlaw crimes against the rich or an ethnic
group). Abortion does not effect the general population; in fact it is planned
and performed by a particular cross section of the population (unlike the
invasion of a body by an unwanted "fetus" - a little strange idea that makes
sense if the fetus is a "sentient" being) - namely pregnant women. This is to say
that abortion is performed in specific, predictable cases; theft, murder, arson,
etc... are not. It is this arbitrary threat that laws seek to remove.

|> 
|> Most crimes are moral issues.  (This is illegal because it would be immoral
|> to do that to someone else...)  They can usually be legislated against
|> because committing them would infringe upon the Consitutional rights of
|> another citizen of the United States.  This brings up part of the problem (?)
|> with the abortion debate: is a fetus entitled to such protection, regardless
|> of its status of a life or as part of the mother's body, since it is NOT (yet)
|> a citizen of the United States?

As I pointed out above: If a fetus is entitled to the rights of a US citizen,
then it is also subject to the laws of a US citizen. Unwarranted use of private
property is punishable by eviction ....

|> 
|> Or, a related, if stupid-sounding question: is the legislation against murder
|> simply/easily enforceable in this country if the victim is NOT a U.S. citizen?
|> (I actually don't know, so please don't flame this.)

actually, it is enforceable, but often other governments' embassies step in to
protect them (the US does the same for its citizens abroad). Most of the time,
prosecution has the same success rates, mostly because serious crimes are a
"unversal" idea, while misdemeanors mean little anway.

|> 
|> (I'm not arguing, just asking questions.)
|> 
|> 

  ==================================================================
  Stephen A. Blythe                |    RPI
  Dept. of Computer Science        |  "where Hell has finally
  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |      thawed out ..."
  blythes@sirius.cs.rpi.edu        |
  ==================================================================

 My views do not necessarily reflect those of the bozos surrounding me.

				"NO MORE
			       BU__ SH__"

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh