[Peace-discuss] Theological?

[Carl Estabrook]

There does seem to be general agreement, Bob -- except for absolute
pacifists -- that "killing in self-defense is acceptable even though not
always the right decision."  Of course such circumstances are for most of
us thankfully rare -- I would be justified in killing someone "to protect
my health" only in the most extreme circumstances, a life or death matter.

The argument is about whether, or when, the ethical rule you describe
applies to a fetus.  I've suggested in an earlier post why I think that
Paul's attempt to describe some characteristics, the presence of some of
which mean the rule applies, doesn't quite work.  Don Marquis' attempt to
describe what makes killing anyone wrong leads him to conclude, I think
rightly, that that reason unavoidably applies to a fetus.

Marquis (and I) would therefore reject the notion that the argument is
about "whether the fetus is a person or a potential person."  Paul
considers the first, and you (I think appropriately) reject the latter
with a reductio ad absurdum.  But Marquis argues that killing an adult or
child is wrong because it denies an organism of a future like ours, and
that surely applies to a fetus.

And BTW at the risk of mentioning theology, I might say that souls, even
if they exist as some philosophers suggest, have no bearing on the
argument.  (Even for Christians, the central doctrine is the resurrection
of the body, not the immortality of the soul; the latter is at best a
secondary matter, not even mentioned in the Christian creeds.)

Regards, Carl


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Bob Illyes wrote:

> I'm really enjoying reading the comments on abortion, and don't agree
> with Al that the subject is inherently theological.
>
> We all agree, I suspect, that killing in self-defense is acceptable even
> though not always the right decision. So the decision to allow abortion
> to protect the health of the mother needs to be an option, even if the
> fetus is in fact considered a person.
>
> Otherwise, the argument about abortion seems to be about whether a fetus
> is a person or a potential person. It is not clear that a person can be
> said to exist if there are not brain structures to support human
> consciousness, as Paul argues effectively. It follows that until late in
> pregnancy, abortion would terminate a life but not an actual person.
>
> If we are to argue that preventing a potential human life is murder,
> then it would seem that both contraception and sexual abstinence are
> forms of murder. No one seems to argue the later, though it seems
> logically necessary once one starts protecting potential humans as well
> as actual.
>
> Is it possible to justify prohibiting early abortion without also
> demanding that everyone have children who can? I don't think so. We can
> of course go "theological" and start talking about immortal souls. But
> these cannot, by definition, be killed by abortion or by any other
> action.
>
> Bob
>
> _______________________________________________