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