Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cisden.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!hplabs!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!john
From: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion
Message-ID: <365@cisden.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 10:40:27 EST
Article-I.D.: cisden.365
Posted: Mon Jan  6 10:40:27 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jan-86 18:45:17 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley)
Distribution: na
Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver
Lines: 47

In article <1100@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes:
>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." 

This is an interesting challenge, and likely to be fun to talk about, but
I think it may be a little beside the point, and I'll try to say why.  We
(that is, most pro-Life people) think abortion is a type of murder, and
because all murder is wrong, then abortion in particular is wrong.  Now
you've asked us to come to the same conclusion without the premise that
murder is wrong.  Fair question.

Well, you could make lots of arguments one way and another about the
morality of murder, some based on religious principles and some not.  But
the ultimate point is this -- can you make a convincing case against
murder in general "WITHOUT any religious premises, in terms acceptable to
an atheist moral philosopher?"  (I don't think it can be done -- I'm not
sure.)  And yet you are (presumably) opposed to murder.  So whatever line
of reasoning you've used to get to your anti-murder position, the same
line of reasoning leads to an equally strong anti-abortion position. 
Whatever answers to your challenge we come up with, the case for permitting
abortion is no weaker and no stronger than the case permitting the killing
of any other innocent person.

But I'm willing to give it a try.  Perhaps your side could do the same.
Do you believe murder is immoral?  (If not, I'm not sure we can even
discuss questions like this with any remote prospect of success.)  And
if so, what logic did you use to get to the conclusion, since (according
to your rules) you mustn't take as given that "Killing people is wrong"?  

This might be a very fruitful line of discussion.

But a word of caution -- please, everybody, let's try to be mroe careful
than we've been in the past to answer what the opponents really say, and
not to make silly things up and attribute them to our opponents.  It's
much more satisfying, and infinitely more illuminating, to joust with 
real enemies than with ridiculous straw men.

-- 
				Peace and Good!,
				      Fr. John Woolley
"The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal