Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: why is it?
Message-ID: <451@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 17:34:11 EST
Article-I.D.: cylixd.451
Posted: Wed Nov  6 17:34:11 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 15:18:19 EST
References: <957@gitpyr.UUCP> <966@gitpyr.UUCP> <1236@mhuxt.UUCP>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 21

>> >Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of
>> >cells as being of some moral consequence? [Myke]
>I have yet to see a non-religiously-based reason *why* a foetus at this
>stage of development deserves protection under the law.
>interested in hearing *why* various pro-lifers do) [Jeff Sontag]

I have yet to see a sound, non-religiously-based reason why *your* life
deserves protection under the law.  I certainly could not provide one.
If I were to explain why your death, or mine, would be of "some moral
consequence," the explanation would have a religious base.  If I were
to explain why torture is wrong, or theft, or slander, or any other
moral outrage, I would provide an explanation that was, at its core,
religious.  I know that a religious explanation is not satisfactory to
someone who is not religious, but I do not know how to defend a moral
position apart from religion.

I suppose we could discuss the metaphysical bases of morality at great
length, and I would be willing to do so, but *that* discussion belongs
in net.philosophy, not net.abortion.

		charli