text: Thanks for the response. I was taught in seminary classes (1964-65) that double effect was a valid principle. The example then given was a drug store clerk selling contraceptives and the conclusion was she was moral in performing her job duties, despite strictures against contraception. (I long since have rejected the notion of contraception as immoral, as have most Christians of all denominations). I do think that principle applies in the Kansas hospital case, where the aborting of the fetus was simply a necessary step in saving a life rather than killing two lives by inaction. So I do not accept that moral acts have an "intrinsic" status. We always have excepted massive killing in war, even if it involves "collateral" unintended damage.