Quote:
|
Quote by: mr.perfecto Typical leftist double-speak.
murder: n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Now, the question is, which law? Considering the totaliarian states which craft the laws so that any number of immoral acts are legal, moral law must supercede any other law. Murder has a legal definition, but that is only one component of what it is.
The arguement that abortion is murder is not an attempt to change the definition of murder because murder is morally wrong whether the state recognizes it as such or not. Whether abortion is legal or not, the definition of murder does not change. The legal and the moral opinions of abortion are not in accordance with each other. Morality not being subject to a majority vote, it should be obvious which should be changed. |
Odd...
You refer to it as "typical leftist double-speak" but the definition you use refers to "unlawful," then you attempt to double -speak your way out of it. Perhaps we just have a disagreement about the nature of the country we live in and how important it is to disregard what is legal vs what we believe is moral or immoral. Yes, at times one must consider one's morals before law, or lack of law in this case. But I don't believe any time our morals conflict with the law that we should ignore law and act on our morals. It's a matter of degree. For instance, let's say I'm about to get stopped by the cops and the very act of stopping me, an ordinary citizen on my way to the Mall, outrages me. So, reacting on my own odd sense of morals, I refuse to stop. They chase me during which people get hurt or even killed. This scenario could be replayed and altered to where the cop is shot because I felt he was abusing his power over me. Does such an absolute right to what I might believe to be "moral law" supercede obeying the law as it exists? No, I don't think so.
BTW, to me "moral law" is your accepted construct, not mine. "Moral law" as legally defined by whom? Your church? Your own sense of right or wrong? Some laws are more moral than others, but that is a seperate, more personal issue. There comes a time when we must stand on our morals rather than what is or is not legal. But that does not turn what is or is not legal into "moral law," unless you're suggesting we should live in a theocracy. I don't agree. but it seems many people are of that opinion.
Murder has a legal definition, but that is only one component of what it is.
And your point being... Hmm, pick anything and say, for example, "The orange is orange in color," and I would say, "Yes, that is only one component of what it is." I would say, for the purposes of the discussion that it is going on legality is the most important component. My last comments will bounce back to this part of the discussion.
The arguement that abortion is murder is not an attempt to change the definition of murder because murder is morally wrong whether the state recognizes it as such or not
First of all, if you had actually offered and argument about abortion being murder it would be phrased, "I believe it is murder (or "should be murder") because..." That's an argument. You simply stated that it IS murder. Perhaps you skipped over that. Then you were assuming others would make the connection? ...not the best way to communicate but perhaps I'm "nit-picking." Secondly, the reasoning here, if I am wrong about what I just typed, is convoluted at best. The only thing I can assume, if that is the case, is that any citizen can declare anything they wish to be murder despite legal considerations. If such a "murder" is in progress then a citizen should defend the victim. I think the human race would go extinct rather fast under that kind of "rule of law," or "morals over law," however you wish to phrase it.
The legal and the moral opinions of abortion are not in accordance with each other. Morality not being subject to a majority vote, it should be obvious which should be changed.
If I am reading this right, your opinion is that if a small, maybe even crazed minority, believes something should be considered immoral and should be illegal; their sense of "moral law" should be replace what the majority of a society has decided? That's fine. as long as it's your opinion. I'll bet you'd fight like hell if it wasn't. Now, of course, such minorities have, to a certain extent, a right to petition in various ways for their point of view. If the wish to revolt, that is a tradition that of course has consequences but sometimes should be followed. But otherwise, IMO, you have made my case for me. Any society set up to make whatever individuals decide is "moral law" more important than legality would be so unstable total anarchy would be the first result. Neither would I wish to live in a society where such things were decided by churches or synagogues, priest, minister or rabbi.
Bad idea.
P.S.- During the 60's I remember Conservatives like myself (
Yes, I
was.) arguing the same points I am making about the hippies and more violent protests that involved pouring blood over records, breaking into offices... even robbing banks, killing cops... I was, and still am, just as disgusted by their sense of what you call "moral law." Odd how sides shift but the arguments remain the same. Life is such a paradoxical pendulum.