Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice6.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: answer to Ken Message-ID: <343@ccice6.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 17:43:05 EST Article-I.D.: ccice6.343 Posted: Thu Feb 7 17:43:05 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 05:24:21 EST References: <629@wucs.UUCP> <1282@ut-ngp.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: The Wall Of Fog Lines: 23 > >> Why is the distinction between doing harm and refusing aid > >> irrelevant? Why do you think the two are [morally -pvt] the same? > >Because the results are the same, and they're what count. > Are you saying that you believe that the ends justify the means? Ken, let me explain what Mr. Torek is saying. Assume the the existence of the following scenarios. A.) A car goes off the road and overturns in a stream. The water looks swift an dangerous so you do nothing and the persom in the car drowns. B.) You tie cement blocks to a persons feet and throw them off a dock. The person drowns. In either case they are dead. The law does not quibble over semantics. In either case you will be charged with murder. I acknowledge the fact that it would be first degee murder in one case and second degree murder in the other case, but that is not relevent to the point. The fact that the person is dead is all that matters, not how or why. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf