Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: A nonreligious anti-murder stance
Message-ID: <1079@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 11:45:59 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.1079
Posted: Thu Jan  9 11:45:59 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jan-86 01:14:08 EST
References: <863@h-sc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 67
Summary: 

In article <863@h-sc1.UUCP> meyer_2@h-sc1.UUCP (peter meyer) writes:
> If murder were acceptable generally it would
> be very difficult to maintain a society as complex as the one
> we live in.  (In fact, I think it would be impossible.)

You have already assumed that it is desirable to maintain a
society as complex as the one we live in.  I'm sure you have
many reasons why you personally find that desirable, but other
people think that a return to a simpler society would be a
good idea.  So why should we assume that "a society as complex
as the one we live in" should be considered desirable for all?

(NB: For those who love to misinterpret articles, I didn't say
that those who advocate a simpler society also advocate murder;
I am only challenging the assumption that our current, complex
society is inherently desirable.)

> If the
> leaders of any political faction could simply be killed by their
> opponents it would be awfully difficult to make intelligent 
> decisions.

On the other hand, it would certainly provide an incentive to
think a lot before making decisions.  It gives new meaning to
the concept of holding one's leaders accountable, does it not?

> Such a society would be easily outcompeted by one
> in which human life (post-birth) were given more respect.

What does the above claim mean?  That a society with little
respect for human life would be easily replaced by one with
one with much respect? It seems to me that there are several
societies extant today where human life per se is given little
or no respect, yet they seem to be holding their own.

And if high respect for post-birth human life yields a society
which "competes better," why wouldn't respect for all human life
yield a society which competes even better?

> So to maintain the complicated civilization we have now, from 
> which we derive great benefits...

Which "we" are you talking about?  What about those who don't
feel they derive great benefits from the complicated civilization
we have now?  What about those who feel that they would (or do)
derive great benefit from being absolute rulers over others?
Why should your concept of benefit be considered inherently
superior to these others?

> we have to make person-to-person
> murder basically illegal (with minor exceptions for self-defense,
> perhaps suicide, etc).

Suicide?  What possible reason could you have for wanting to make
suicide illegal?

>Society could exist whether or not abortion is allowed.
>It is somewhat easier to keep society at top efficiency if we
>allow abortion, however.

Fascinating.  Pray tell, what does it mean "to keep society at
top efficiency"?  How does one measure the ease of doing that
with a society?  How many societies have been measured, and what
other variables (besides the legality of abortion) affect this
quantity?

Gary Samuelson