Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!john
From: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion
Message-ID: <452@cisden.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 18:55:15 EST
Article-I.D.: cisden.452
Posted: Wed Jan 22 18:55:15 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 11:14:20 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <1730@druxu.UUCP> <30@valid.UUCP> <412@cisden.UUCP> <892@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley)
Distribution: na
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver
Lines: 24

In article <892@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) quotes me:
>> And yet the murder would still be wrong.
>
>> It's not the possibility of punishment that makes an action wrong.
>
>Is this fallacy "suggestion by repeated affirmation" or "suggestion by use
>of a confident manner"?  I certainly see no other argument here.  

First, I didn't suggest anything -- I stated it.

Second, has anyone disputed the statement?  I said, essentially, "Murder is
wrong even if there's no chance you'll get caught."  If anyone wants to
dispute that, go ahead.  But nobody has, and it doesn't strike me as likely
that anyone will.  I regarded the statements as non-controversial, an
appeal to shared values to illustrate a point I was making.

We do share this value, don't we?  Or does anyone believe that murder is
morally okay as long as there's no way it can be punished?

You don't see another argument because I didn't think anyone disagreed.
-- 
				Peace and Good!,
				      Fr. John Woolley
"Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas