Date: Sun, 1 Jun 97 5:47:12 EDT
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-FEM: (fwd)Abortion - whose rights?/05-28-97






		To whom...,



	"redflag" makes a very valid point.  I do a very poor job of
distinghuishing among moral, legal, and ethical choices.  First, I have
never understood the difference between "moral" and "ethical".  Second, I
really don't think that the distinctions are altogether important, in this
case at least. In my view, the legal and moral standards are incredibly
close because the social implications of those standards is what we are
talking about here. Furthermore, because we are talking about a question
of rights, the distinction between moral and legal (or maybe I mean
ethical and legal)  principles is very small.  Third, I would hope that
the legality would reflect much of the moral reasoning that most people go
through to decide these matters, and if it doesn't, it should.  Fourth,
what the hell do I care what people think?  I care what they do, and leave
their consciences up to them.  



	Morality is social, and legality is just social morality with some
practial refereeing thrown in.  I don't know what the hell ethics are, and
I don't care.  





	peace

		boddhisatva




p.s. - I didn't contradict myself, I simply presented the uncertain
reality of the question.  


p.p.s. - The thing you read five or six times means this:  If one has not
dealt with the questions I brought up, one has not made a moral argument
about this issue.  If one has made a decision about the issue absent a
moral argument, one has still made a moral choice.  In  other words, the
"medical" dodge doesn't work.