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