Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!oddjob!apak
From: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion
Message-ID: <1117@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jan-86 22:34:06 EST
Article-I.D.: oddjob.1117
Posted: Thu Jan 16 22:34:06 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Jan-86 03:11:25 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <1730@druxu.UUCP> <1101@oddjob.UUCP> <388@cisden.UUCP> <1114@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent)
Distribution: na
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 12
Keywords: The discussion about non-religious arguments for/against abortion and
Summary: 

killing in general is beginning to bifurcate. It started out as a *moral*
discussion pure and simple. But later postings have (for example) argued
that there should be a law against murder, on the grounds that society is
better off with such a law than without. I just want to point out that this
is an interesting and relevant but separate question. One can argue that there
should be a law against X without believing X to be wrong, and conversely.
(In particular, I think it's much harder to argue that killing is wrong than
to argue that it should be outlawed.)
                                      regards,
                                               ak

"Salome, dear, NOT in the fridge."