[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Ken Carman 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.

It is a well know fact that legal definitions don't have to be based on the shared meaning of a word. Even going beyond that, changing the word used to describe something does not change the thing itself. Congress can pass a law stating that the color orange shall now be known as "Blended Red Pigmentation # 3" if it wants to. But if it does, the description of an orange also changes. You can not call two instances of the exact same thing by different names.

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.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. When have I suggested that anyone do anything illegal? If you really believe the law was immoral then you have a right to use non-violent means to convince people to change the law. If you did shoot the officer or cause a number of people to be killed, you would wrong. It is exactly such occurences that the law is intended to suppress. "I want, I want, I want" is not a moral arguement, its a little child pouting. You can not start a moral arguement by disreguarding the rights of other people.

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.

Well, moral law as legally defined by God.

I think there is some confusion between us concerning the word "law." We I use the term moral law, I'm not using it in the same sense I would if I were talking about "tax law" or "criminal law," but to describe a universal truth that a man might understand, but did not create. Sort of like "the Laws of Physics."

And, just to clear up something, there is a difference between what will get you sent to hell and what will just make your neighbors mad at you. I have never suggested that the two are the same or that if I dislike your actions you are hellbound. As for what moral law is, just the basic stuff every religion has to teach:
'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' etc.

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.

Legality is the least important part of the discussion. If it were, what would we be discussing? You would say "It's legal, get over it," and I would say, "Your right. Let's drop it." We are discussing an issue of morality. Stalin legally murder millions of people, are saying that his actions are right or wrong? To make a statement that something is right or wrong is to make a moral judgement. Murder, as act defined by moral law is under the jurisdiction of the authority that instituted the law. Just as man can not change the laws of physics, he can change the moral law.

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.

Really, this shouldn't be necessary, but here goes. Every human being ever born went through the pretty much the same stages of life. What stage of life a person is at has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a human being or not. By any other logic we could call the forced killing of the elderly one thing, of the middle aged something else, teens another thing, etc.

Once you make the decision that the actions of the person in question are not what justifies killing them, but where they are at or what stage of life they are in, you, logically, arrive at the conclusion that any type of killing is permissable.

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.

Considering that a law outlawing abortion won't be passed until a decisive majority of Americans consider it immoral, your point about the crazed minority flew over my head.

When a nation's laws, the actions of its leaders, and the beliefs of its people are not in accordance with the moral law, it is on a very short road to devastation. A peaceful society is not possible without morality.

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.

How is it that you have come to group me with them? The odd thing is that I would place the types of people you describe in the "abortion is every woman's right" group.