Just In
for Of Abortion and Assassination

10/22/2006 c2 15No Trust
Kelpylion - The 'reviews to which I referred' were reviews to this very essay. I added that to the summary when I posted chapter 2, which is a response to reviews. Chapter 1 was written spontaneously.
10/22/2006 c1 210Kelpylion
The exacting logical procession of this article is refreshing, but is there anyone in the world who would *disagree* with your conclusion, even absent such proof? In general, it is not those pro-lifers who are also anti- death penalty who promote abortion clinic violence; Both legal and extralegal 'executions' generally proceed from a firm belief in the power of wrath and retribution to achieve justice and cut off the flow of wrongdoing. While there might be many who oppose both abortion and clinic bombings while supporting the death penalty, they are usually not committing hypocrisy:

1. They (whether conscious of it or not) do not believe that abortion is murder; they believe that it is wrong on some other grounds.

2. (And this is probably more common) They recognise that clinic violence is contrary to the rule of law, will injure innocent bystanders, and will turn public opinion against pro-life viewpoints

And now I must find the reviews to which you referred, to discover what argument influenced you to write this.
6/29/2006 c1 8Atlas Bergeron
This is only to Ch 1

"The assumption here is that the law, whether the result of legislative action or of judicial activism, can change whether a thing is moral (acceptable) or not. If the conservative accepts that “the law” can change the moral status of an action, then he must also accept that it renders abortion justifiable, and that it therefore cannot be considered murder. If violence is a justifiable reaction to murder, but not to abortion, then abortion is not murder."


"Most people would not say it is unjust for Joe Shmoe to have ten million dollars; if it is not unjust for Joe Shmoe to have ten million dollars then it is just."I believe I see your point, allow me to try and clarify. First of all, simply becuase most people say it is not unjust, does not make it unjust. Justice is not something which is changed by a majority decision; no matter how many Americans think so (hehe). It is something determined by reason and whether a specific action benifits life or not (I will refrain from going into further detail, read my other works if you wish to). Getting around that, Joe Shmoe can only possess his ten million (or any amount, great or small) if he did not do any of the latter listed unjust actions (theft), thus the ends (which may or may not be just) are only justfied by the means. Am I about right?

"but otherwise, violence against them is perfectly moral." Even if abortion were ethically wrong (which I believe it is); we do not live in nature, and we are not responding to our own self defence. We live in a society (however corrupted it may now be) that has a justice system which protects individual rights (however unfairly that may be).

"Such a one may still hold that it is unwise to do so, on consequentialist grounds, but cannot condemn such actions on moral grounds nor support the use of force to against those carrying out such actions."

I do, and it is not a contradiction. As I said, we do not live in a state of nature (see John Locke, state of nature is the state without government, i.e. Anarchy). By coexisting in society we have given the pursuit of justice to the government, so that people may be judged fairly. It may be immoral that the justice system is doing what it is doing (I believe you went against this in your first argument), but that does not place justice directly into your hands. If you wish to stop abortions (becuase you believe abortions are rationally immoral) you should attack the falty source of justice, not those who co-exist under it. Of course, since government will assumidly protect its citizens, if you go about this in as violent a manner as bombing a courthouse, there may be some very serious concequences. While the abortionists may be directly responsible for the murder; it is becuase of the false justice system that they are not punished, not because the use of force is not justified.

In other words, if you believe that abortion is wrong, it is only moral to attempt to change the justice system which allows it to go unhindered; for that is the system that you have given the duty to defend its citizens. You will not change anything by suicide bombing a few abortion clinics. This is the philosophy of terrorism; destroy the symbols or producers of what you believe as evil in order to attempt to destroy the base. It seldom works; and when it does, it almost always considered normally wrong (I cannot think of a case in which it was right, correct me if I am wrong)

Whether or not it is then just to destroy the government is then a completely differnt issue.
3/8/2006 c1 No Trust
Well this essay hasn't really addressed the morality of abortion per se, but I appreciate the compliment.

I object to abortion. The death penalty is a different issue; in principle I approve of killing murderers, even trespassers, thieves, rapists, and batterers; however I would only support State administration of the death penalty if those who charge or convict an innocent person of a capital offense are sentenced to death if the defendant is acquitted or, if convicted, later found to be innocent.

"If what you are saying is true, should the same principle apply that pro capital punishment people canot morally condemn lynches by people who know for a fact that an acquitted person is guilty?"

That depends. If the pro-capital punishment people in question also know that the acquitted person is guilty then no, I don't see how they could condemn the lynch mob. If they're not convinced of the lynchee's guilt then I'd expect them to object until so convinced. The difference is that abortion is currently legal, so people who offer their services to that end are usually known by everyone to do so. If someone killed someone he alleged to be an abortion-provider but was not known to be one, or a woman he alleged to have had an abortion but was not known to have had one, then an acceptance of the principle under discussion would not obligate third parties to assume he's speaking the truth.

"Also, would the same apply for people who are pro death penalty and anti-war (like Al Gore, and some Greens) not condemning the killing of Iraq veterans by American citizens?"

That's a bit of a different question. First, does Al Gore, and do the Greens, object to war because they're opposed to killing Iraqi veterans, or do they oppose it for other reasons? And, what exactly have Iraqi veterans done to earn the death penalty? Maybe the case could be made that those that participated in the invasion of Kuwait qualify, but except from perhaps an anarchist point of view, Saddam Hussein's regime hadn't done anything criminal since that invasion, and did nothing criminal before it. The people killed by his regime have otherwise been Islamist revolutionaries or Kurdish secessionists, or Iranians, or other threats to his rule.

Now, as for the legitimacy of taking the law into your own hands, that's adding an extra principle to the discussion; it raises many questions that can be more or less summed up in one: if disobeying the law of a constitutional republic is always morally wrong, does that not mean that the law of a constitutional republic can never be morally wrong? If so does it not remove the possibility of abortion's immorality from the discussion?
3/7/2006 c1 3Biocube
Finally something original on the question of morality of abortion that I have not heard a thousand times on message boards and in college newspaper editorials. I really appreciate this essay.

Myself, I lean more to the right-to-life side than probably 95% of the population, and I am also anti-death penalty (because people can be falsely convicted, it's an easy way out, and it's actually more expensive than life imprisonment once the judges fees are paid.) but I see one problem with your reasoning. One can believe it wrong in a constitutional republic to take the law into his own hands. If what you are saying is true, should the same principle apply that pro-capital punishment people canot morally condemn lynches by people who know for a fact that an acquitted person is guilty? Also, would the same apply for people who are pro death penalty and anti-war (like Al Gore, and some Greens) not condemning the killing of Iraq veterans by American citizens? As I consider taking the law into my own hands also to be immoral, I cannot be the one to deliver punishment for any sort of crime.
2/16/2006 c1 1another random guy
gd essay, but it's a little confusing. However, you make several interesting points.

and that guy austin obviously has no idea what he's talking about. here's a little tip austie, go dictionary.com and you'll see that "liberal" and "communist" can be said to be antonyms.
9/9/2005 c1 20circumspice
Um. You make an interesting point, I suppose, but I don't really think you can use mathematical logic to argue moral points...*shrugs* To someone who believes that abortion is NOT murder, your entire arguement is irrelevant anyway.
2/15/2005 c1 No Trust

You are perhaps the lamest troll I have ever seen. I mean, Jesus, can’t you at least be clever? And relevant to what you’re flaming?
2/15/2005 c1 Giygas666
What a pathetic unsound piece of lard this Apollyion fuck bucket is. He/She/It calls that a review, George Dubya could've done a better job-and we all know what a dumbshit Dubya is. Sounds like Apollyion has some mental problems that require immediate attention. Also how pathetic can you get when he/she/it lambastes a writer for using his own fucking review board to respond to people's reviews of his work? LMFAO. My advice to this 11 year old pimply faced sack of turds (aka Apollyion) would be to crawl back into whatever diseased cunt you popped out of, you little prick.

And I do mean LITTLE.
2/15/2005 c1 12Apollyion
What a pathetic unsound piece of shit this fucker is. You call that an essay, Dr. Suess could've done a better job. Sound like you have some sexual problems to include masturbation in the summary. Also how pathetic can you get when you have to include your own review on a piece of your own writing- hahahahaha. My advice to you would be to crawl back into the garbage you came out, bitch.
2/13/2005 c1 15No Trust
I've been told I have that effect on women.
11/9/2004 c1 57tofujunky
I saw, I concurred, I came.
10/21/2004 c1 1Voronwe
In response to your review...
You are a terrible writer. Seriously, you suck. Hard. Go outside and kill yourself.
Warm regards,
9/16/2004 c1 No Trust
U r such a tard.
9/16/2004 c1 austin316
Right wing commie? I was under the impression that the communists were overly leftist. You know, forcing everyone to be, or at least say they're equal in everything, getting rid of religion. You cant be a "right wing" commie.
27 Page 1 2 Next »

Twitter . Help . Sign Up . Cookies . Privacy . Terms of Service