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!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!oddjob!apak
From: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: a task for those opposed to abortion
Message-ID: <1100@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Jan-86 01:52:30 EST
Article-I.D.: oddjob.1100
Posted: Thu Jan  2 01:52:30 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Jan-86 22:22:20 EST
Reply-To: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent)
Followup-To: net.abortion
Distribution: na
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 16


     I've followed the recent discussions in this group with interest. But I 
think it's in danger of degenerating into a head-on clash of world-views.
Probably that's eventually inevitable, but maybe we can get further first.
I'm interested in whether the "pro-life" people out there can make a case
against abortion WITHOUT any religious premises. So your task is to produce an
argument framed in terms acceptable to an aetheist moral philosopher.           Scriptural quotations are out, references to God are out, arguments starting
with (say) the Ten Commandments as axiomatic are out. For example, it's 
fine for you to say that human beings come into existence at the moment of
conception. It's no good to proceed by saying "Killing human beings is wrong.
Therefore abortion is wrong. QED." 
     Of course, you may regard this as a hopeless task; in other words you may
believe that there's no reason why someone without a religious point of view
should oppose abortion. That at least ought to explain why we've reached        an impasse.
                     regards,
                              ak