Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!rutgers!caip!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!mberkley
From: mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Best for Others?
Message-ID: <2625@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 09:01:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2625
Posted: Thu Oct  9 09:01:55 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 05:21:07 EDT
References: <2710@burdvax.UUCP> <5833@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: mberkley@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 26
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:486 talk.abortion:123

In article (Alan M. Steinberg) writes:
>In article (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes:
>>Maybe this is true in a legal sense, but not morally.  I'm
>                                              ^^^^^^^
>>talking about morality in society, not legality.  Morally, you
>                                                   ^^^^^^^
>>can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."
>
>What is moral is what a person or group accepts as being moral.
>If it is the custom of a society to eat their first-born (to use
>an extreme case), then this is morally okay to them, and we cannot
>say they are wrong.  We abhor the practice, and to everyone in our
>society (I hope), it is morally wrong.  But if we were
>in their society, we would be morally violating the custom if we did not do the
>same.

I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the
sake of convenience.  Sure there are/were societies where babies
were murdered for religious ceremonies or entire villages were
slaughtered for reasons of war but I do not know of any society
where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of
convenience.

That's what abortion is.  A matter of convenience.

Mike