carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/20/84)
[] Brian Peterson's recent poll purports to deal with the "basic assumptions" of the abortion debate. Yet I find that the most basic assumption of all was not included in the questions. As far as I know, everyone in the pro-life camp is opposed to abortion on the grounds that it is murder, i.e., that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. Clearly the pro-life position rests on belief in a moral principle: that it is morally wrong to take an innocent human life. Let's assume for this discussion that a fetus is a human life. My question to pro-lifers is this: Why is it morally wrong to kill an innocent human being? That is, why should I agree with you? If I publicly proclaimed, e.g., that it is morally wrong to kill animals, or that it is morally wrong to enslave a human being, I would want to be able to defend this belief by reasoned arguments. Please do the same for your belief. An adequate answer would include an explanation of why this moral principle contains the terms "innocent" and "human". That is, what do innocence and being human have to do with it? Possibly I have misstated the underlying moral principle, and what you really believe is that it is wrong to take *any* human life, without qualification. Or perhaps some of you believe that it is wrong to take the life of any living creature whatsoever. If so let us know. Finally, for extra credit, please explain what you mean by the terms "innocent" and "kill". For example, is an enemy soldier fighting in good faith innocent? Is a temporarily deranged person who is trying to kill you innocent? Is a fetus that is the product of a rape innocent? Does killing include refusing to risk your life to save a drowning person, or refusing to give further medical treatment that would prolong the life of a terminally ill patient? My intent, of course, is not to start debates about each of these particular situations but to examine the moral principle(s) underlying the pro-life position. Please post your responses to the net. Thanks, Richard Carnes