"Murder, He Wrote"
March 31, 2016
G.D.O'Bradovich III
Selbstmord strafet Gott an dir!
The Magic Flute
The Magic Flute
introduction
Murder is the killing of a human being. Because the flesh is weak, most societies condemn murder, although historically all nations have allowed state sanctioned murder for certain activities, such as treason and waging war. Therefore, all murder is equally wrong, but in specific circumstances, killing is acceptable, if not approved; as the well being of the city is more important than the life an individual or the persistence of a problematic minority of subjects.
Murder is against the laws of God and the laws of men. Interestingly, the revelations from God and the consensus of the best minds of civilized states agree that murder is heinous and is declared to be a crime. However, these divine revelations and man made laws are in conflict with Natural Law, as Natural Law allows agreements and contracts and, if individuals agree to engage in murder, then this is allowable operation of Natural Law. We have discovered a potential problem, since Natural Law allows conspirators to murder, but we are uncertain if Natural Law allows an individual to commit murder. Since murder can be committed by an individual, we suggest that Natural Law does allow murder.
However, we question if Cain's murder of Abel was reasonable or unreasonable. Unlike the reader of Genesis who does know what murder is and that is is unlawful, if not immoral, Cain may have been ignorant that humans can be derived of life, although Cain knew that God's creatures can be killed. We suggest that the reason Cain's sacrifice was not approved by God is that Cain's actions killed members of God's creation; but Abel's sacrifice was approved by God, as Able offered the plants that the earth, not God, generated in the creation account. While we have no desire to confuse our inquiry, we offer the suggestion that Cain's intention was not to kill Able, but to injure him, that is, the murder may be understood as unintentional homicide or manslaughter. We conclude that Cain's behavior is a result of God not accepting Cain's sacrifice. The Gentle Reader must determine if Cain's anger or his confusion regarding his unacceptable offering is reasonable behavior. The more cynical reader may conclude that a religious action [the sacrifice] results in irrational behavior [murder of Abel].
After the Flood, the eating of animal flesh is expressly allowed, the Lord approves of the burnt offerings [Genesis, chapter 8] and murder is expressly condemned [Genesis, chapter 9]. Since the text does not indicate why the sacrifice of Cain was not acceptable or why a similar sacrifice by Noah was acceptable, we cannot know and any speculation would be misguided, at best, and potentially impious, at worst.
For the purposes of this essay, we will define killing as referring to taking the lives of any living creatures and murder will be confined to taking the lives of human beings. Manslaughter and self defense are legal constructs, that is, these concepts are unnatural and will not be considered. The Magic Flute expressly states that the Gods will punish suicide, since the crime of suicide is beyond either the temporal power of the initiates or the powerful magic of the seven fold solar orb. It is a quirk of man made laws that suicide is illegal, yet there is no penalty. Are these laws legal? Yes, as we cannot imagine an illegal law. Are they rational? Perhaps. Are they enforceable? Ultimately, No. We conclude that written laws are legal by fiat, no legal mumbo jumbo justification is required, although Natural Law will always be superior, since it applicable to all men, regardless of the time or location of a society in which individuals may find themselves.
Murder is against the laws of God and the laws of men. Interestingly, the revelations from God and the consensus of the best minds of civilized states agree that murder is heinous and is declared to be a crime. However, these divine revelations and man made laws are in conflict with Natural Law, as Natural Law allows agreements and contracts and, if individuals agree to engage in murder, then this is allowable operation of Natural Law. We have discovered a potential problem, since Natural Law allows conspirators to murder, but we are uncertain if Natural Law allows an individual to commit murder. Since murder can be committed by an individual, we suggest that Natural Law does allow murder.
However, we question if Cain's murder of Abel was reasonable or unreasonable. Unlike the reader of Genesis who does know what murder is and that is is unlawful, if not immoral, Cain may have been ignorant that humans can be derived of life, although Cain knew that God's creatures can be killed. We suggest that the reason Cain's sacrifice was not approved by God is that Cain's actions killed members of God's creation; but Abel's sacrifice was approved by God, as Able offered the plants that the earth, not God, generated in the creation account. While we have no desire to confuse our inquiry, we offer the suggestion that Cain's intention was not to kill Able, but to injure him, that is, the murder may be understood as unintentional homicide or manslaughter. We conclude that Cain's behavior is a result of God not accepting Cain's sacrifice. The Gentle Reader must determine if Cain's anger or his confusion regarding his unacceptable offering is reasonable behavior. The more cynical reader may conclude that a religious action [the sacrifice] results in irrational behavior [murder of Abel].
After the Flood, the eating of animal flesh is expressly allowed, the Lord approves of the burnt offerings [Genesis, chapter 8] and murder is expressly condemned [Genesis, chapter 9]. Since the text does not indicate why the sacrifice of Cain was not acceptable or why a similar sacrifice by Noah was acceptable, we cannot know and any speculation would be misguided, at best, and potentially impious, at worst.
For the purposes of this essay, we will define killing as referring to taking the lives of any living creatures and murder will be confined to taking the lives of human beings. Manslaughter and self defense are legal constructs, that is, these concepts are unnatural and will not be considered. The Magic Flute expressly states that the Gods will punish suicide, since the crime of suicide is beyond either the temporal power of the initiates or the powerful magic of the seven fold solar orb. It is a quirk of man made laws that suicide is illegal, yet there is no penalty. Are these laws legal? Yes, as we cannot imagine an illegal law. Are they rational? Perhaps. Are they enforceable? Ultimately, No. We conclude that written laws are legal by fiat, no legal mumbo jumbo justification is required, although Natural Law will always be superior, since it applicable to all men, regardless of the time or location of a society in which individuals may find themselves.
summation of the preceding
Natural Law allows conspiratorial murder, it may allow an individual to murder an individual and it may allow suicide. Whether any of these actions are moral or rational is beyond the scope of our inquiry and the answer is left to the Gentle Reader. Additionally, any legal considerations are also beyond our extent of our research, as these are artificial constructs, regardless of moral considerations, reasonableness or rationality.
By the necessity of fully exploring the subject of murder, we must inquire if induced abortions are murders, killings, or something else. First, we must understand in what manner spontaneous abortions are described. A spontaneous abortion or miscarriage “is the natural death of an embryo or fetus before it is able to survive independently”. The miscarriage rate for all pregnancies is from five to eighty percent, depending on the source; this range is so large that it is no value. “Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus.” The phrasings referring to surviving independently outside of the uterus are, no doubt, the result of Modern influences. We prefer Webster's definition: “a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus”, as there is no ambiguous terminology- an abortion can be performed at almost any stage of pregnancy. Although we are unsure if the word “death” should be applied to a fetus, since we have not determined if a fetus is, in fact, alive.
“Alive” means “having life : living : not dead” and “Living” means “not dead : having life”. Unfortunately, Webster's definitions cannot be used to determine if a fetus can or should be described as alive or dead. The definition for “Life”: “the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.” As human beings, we have the ability to determine if a person has life [“vital and functional”, although we find “vital” to be redundant] or does not have life [“dead body”], yet it seems as though these terms cannot be applied to a fetus, an incompletely developed human being. “Dead” means “no longer alive” and we cannot state that the fetus is dead, as this statement would mean that at one point in the past the fetus was living, not now alive; yet may be alive in the future. Without a demarcation between life and death, we cannot state with certainty if the fetus is alive at any point in time, dead, or something else. We suggest that this deficiency to quickly and adequately define or determine the status of a fetus, in contrast to a human being, is due entirely to the nature of the English language, and not the fault of our earnest inquiry.
Functional is generally defined as: “designed to have a practical use” and in medical terminology, it means “working properly”. Once again this definition is not helpful as non functioning fetuses result in spontaneous abortions. Therefore, only functioning fetuses can be subjected to induced abortions.
At this point in our inquiry, we cannot confidently state that a fetus is a human being; we can only state that the possibility exists that the fetus can become a human being, barring a spontaneous or an induced abortion. The potential is not identical to eventuality.
For our efforts, we are reduced to stating the obvious: induced abortions remove the possibility that fetuses can develop into human beings.
If our inquiry seems to suggest that fetuses are not human beings, then induced abortions cannot be considered murder. If we offer the opinion that induced abortions are murder, then we are forced to conclude that in cases of spontaneous abortions, the mother must be held accountable for murder- for every crime there must be a perpetrator. If we do not hold the mother responsible, then we must concede that murder takes two forms: those that are liable to punishment and those that are not liable to punishment. If our conclusion to hold the mother accountable for spontaneous abortion seems contrary to reason, yet we have stated that all abortions are murder, then we must ask who is to be held responsible for the crimes of spontaneous abortions? If certain readers suggest that spontaneous abortions are acts of God, like inclement weather, then they are attributing murder to God and we cannot reasonably condone impiety towards God.
By the necessity of fully exploring the subject of murder, we must inquire if induced abortions are murders, killings, or something else. First, we must understand in what manner spontaneous abortions are described. A spontaneous abortion or miscarriage “is the natural death of an embryo or fetus before it is able to survive independently”. The miscarriage rate for all pregnancies is from five to eighty percent, depending on the source; this range is so large that it is no value. “Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus.” The phrasings referring to surviving independently outside of the uterus are, no doubt, the result of Modern influences. We prefer Webster's definition: “a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus”, as there is no ambiguous terminology- an abortion can be performed at almost any stage of pregnancy. Although we are unsure if the word “death” should be applied to a fetus, since we have not determined if a fetus is, in fact, alive.
“Alive” means “having life : living : not dead” and “Living” means “not dead : having life”. Unfortunately, Webster's definitions cannot be used to determine if a fetus can or should be described as alive or dead. The definition for “Life”: “the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.” As human beings, we have the ability to determine if a person has life [“vital and functional”, although we find “vital” to be redundant] or does not have life [“dead body”], yet it seems as though these terms cannot be applied to a fetus, an incompletely developed human being. “Dead” means “no longer alive” and we cannot state that the fetus is dead, as this statement would mean that at one point in the past the fetus was living, not now alive; yet may be alive in the future. Without a demarcation between life and death, we cannot state with certainty if the fetus is alive at any point in time, dead, or something else. We suggest that this deficiency to quickly and adequately define or determine the status of a fetus, in contrast to a human being, is due entirely to the nature of the English language, and not the fault of our earnest inquiry.
Functional is generally defined as: “designed to have a practical use” and in medical terminology, it means “working properly”. Once again this definition is not helpful as non functioning fetuses result in spontaneous abortions. Therefore, only functioning fetuses can be subjected to induced abortions.
At this point in our inquiry, we cannot confidently state that a fetus is a human being; we can only state that the possibility exists that the fetus can become a human being, barring a spontaneous or an induced abortion. The potential is not identical to eventuality.
For our efforts, we are reduced to stating the obvious: induced abortions remove the possibility that fetuses can develop into human beings.
If our inquiry seems to suggest that fetuses are not human beings, then induced abortions cannot be considered murder. If we offer the opinion that induced abortions are murder, then we are forced to conclude that in cases of spontaneous abortions, the mother must be held accountable for murder- for every crime there must be a perpetrator. If we do not hold the mother responsible, then we must concede that murder takes two forms: those that are liable to punishment and those that are not liable to punishment. If our conclusion to hold the mother accountable for spontaneous abortion seems contrary to reason, yet we have stated that all abortions are murder, then we must ask who is to be held responsible for the crimes of spontaneous abortions? If certain readers suggest that spontaneous abortions are acts of God, like inclement weather, then they are attributing murder to God and we cannot reasonably condone impiety towards God.
conclusion
Unlike potential Apprentice Denver, who is certain of what murder is, we must declare our ignorance on the totality of this subject. Without appeals to authority, repeating opinions, and citing legal definitions, we can only be certain that murder is taking the lives of human beings, killing is taking the lives of animals, and induced abortions are the taking of potential lives from potential human beings.
Based on our knowledge of the preceding statements, we are tempted to declare that spontaneous abortions are the taking of potential life from potential human beings; although the culpability of spontaneous abortions has not been determined to our satisfaction. If our declaration regarding induced abortions seems uncertain and less than convincing, then we can offer no other explanation than the limitations of the English language are the primary reason for the hindrance to our research, as no other line of inquiry is available for our consideration.
Based on our knowledge of the preceding statements, we are tempted to declare that spontaneous abortions are the taking of potential life from potential human beings; although the culpability of spontaneous abortions has not been determined to our satisfaction. If our declaration regarding induced abortions seems uncertain and less than convincing, then we can offer no other explanation than the limitations of the English language are the primary reason for the hindrance to our research, as no other line of inquiry is available for our consideration.
Potential Apprentice Denver
For an analysis of the suitability of Cancer/Geminis in the Occult Arts and Sciences.
For an analysis of the suitability of Cancer/Geminis in the Occult Arts and Sciences.