JLNobody wrote:Joe, good point, but it isn't as if abortion and murder have been validly equated, and that's the point. I'm against killing people in war (at least most wars, like the Iraqui war and where I consider doing so murder); it is therefore my moral responsiblity to myself to avoid being put in a situation where I must kill an iraqui to save myself. And I know that most Americans would insist that I be jailed for that belief/action. Similarly, an anti-abortionist may argue that I be jailed (or killed) for carrying out an abortion. The problem is not whether or not it is reaonable to oppose abortion because it seen as murder; the problem is whether or not one has the right to define reality for others. Does a person have the nonproblematical right to put me in jail for conscientious objection simply because THEY define pacificism as wrong?
Yes, in the event that your pacifism oversteps the boundaries of the law, of course they do. It's not that "they" (presumably, the government) are impermissibly defining your reality; rather, they're merely enacting laws that regulate behavior. The same thing that would make aborting a fetus illegal is what makes a left turn from the right lane illegal: the rule-making authority of the government. You may, of course, disagree with those rules, but if you disagree with them based upon the argument that the government has no right to "define reality" for you, then you must also disagree with the laws that you favor, since all laws, in that sense, "define reality."
