From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes -- once again there are exceptions which suggest that laws, which can't
be created in such a way as to take into account all exceptions, can in
enough circumstances cause sufficient suffering to lead to the conclusion
that it would be best to eliminate the law in question rather than rewrite
it.
Or, better still, not make the law in the first place.
That's what judges used to be for, until the feds started making them toe
some sort of line.
I like to think the world is moving away from situations that allow
this kind of child abuse to occur. I'm probably wrong.
It's being forced under wraps, I think. That makes it *more* dangerous and
*more* toxic.
I think it used to be much further under wraps in midcentury than it is now.
Today's willingness to speak up about such things has helped enormously.
The consideration of this subject causes some internal turmoil for
me. On one hand I feel that kids like those I knew should never have
been born. On the other, I feel some guilt because I am condoning the
killing of innocents. And guilt again because I feel that those kids
were something less than human in ways that I recognise in every other
person I have known.
This reminds me of something written at then end of an essay back in the
1930s - Dion Fortune was trying to understand why she was suddenly seeing
young people who fit that description among her social circles. Her
tentative verdict on the kids - that they were not fully human, but rather
some sort of elemental. She added "for what it's worth ... of the ones [I
forget how many she said] whose circumstances of conception I know, their
mothers were drunk at the time."
Aha! Run the ago of the kids against the start of Prohibition and the light
dawns. Fetal alcohol syndrome. I wonder if that was going on here, as well?
And it is these very thorny issues that I simply cannot accept are
reconcilable with something so facile as judicial fiat. A simple definition
of "human" does not exist, "human rights" are extremely plastic terms of
convenience -- nothing more -- and one man's murder is another man's
abortion of a child of incest.
Man's?!?!?!?!
There is no way that any kind of law can ever be written to deal with these
kinds of issues.
There is, but it can't deal in absolutes and excluded middles.
Just my $0.02
Pat
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
