Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!meyer_2
From: meyer_2@h-sc1.UUCP (peter meyer)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: A nonreligious anti-murder stance
Message-ID: <863@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Jan-86 15:06:20 EST
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.863
Posted: Sun Jan  5 15:06:20 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jan-86 06:34:33 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 23

It doesn't seem to me that an anti-murder stance which avoids
religious references needs to be so tentative as Adrian Kent's,
which I just received.  If murder were acceptable generally it would
be very difficult to maintain a society as complex as the one
we live in.  (In fact, I think it would be impossible.)  If the
leaders of any political faction could simply be killed by their
opponents it would be awfully difficult to make intelligent 
decisions.  Such a society would be easily outcompeted by one
in which human life (post-birth) were given more respect.
So to maintain the complicated civilization we have now, from 
which we derive great benefits, we have to make person-to-person
murder basically illegal (with minor exceptions for self-defense,
perhaps suicide, etc).

Society could exist whether or not abortion is allowed.
It is somewhat easier to keep society at top efficiency if we
allow abortion, however.  For this reason (and others) I think
it makes sense to make murder illegal but abortion legal.

Peter Meyer

Disclaimer:  Any resemblance between the opinions expressed above and
those of any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.