Anti-Abortion Thesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter JHutch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JHutch

Guest
Recently I heard an Interview where a man gave an arguement against abortion using the analogy of a hunter recklessly discharging a rifle. Does anyone know who the author of that arguyemt is and wher I can find the complete arguement?

It went something like this:

A hunter is in the woods and he sees a bush start to shake (as if game is hiding in it.)
  1. the hunter shoots at the bush with out verifying that game or a human is causing the shake
  • Hunter is negligent for shooting at an unknown target .
  1. shoots knowing it is a human in the bush -
  • if he kills the human he has committed murder, if he wounds it is attempted murder or at least assault with a deadly weapon and in anycase is criminally liable.
  1. hunter knows the is no human but is not sure what is shaking the bush so he shoots anyway…
  • again negligent for not verifying the source of the shake and recklessly shooting
I may not be remembering these three correctly and I think there are a total of five situations . All help would be appreciated!!!
 
I’ve head the argument. One should not shoot until one knows for certain whether or not the target is human.

But I’ve never liked the argument, because it assumes by analogy that there is some doubt about the humanity of the unborn child. We know the child is human, and we know biologically that a new human being begins at conception.
 
40.png
JimG:
I’ve head the argument. One should not shoot until one knows for certain whether or not the target is human.

But I’ve never liked the argument, because it assumes by analogy that there is some doubt about the humanity of the unborn child. We know the child is human, and we know biologically that a new human being begins at conception.
Click to expand...
exactly, the analogy is a classic case of, petitio principi
 
This is why I am looking for the complete arguement. I think the point that ulitmately is made is that if the hunter/doctor does not know with absolute certainty that he is shooting or removing a human life then he should not be shooting or operating.

If this is the case then it is not petito principi. The hunter and doctor would clearly be taking an unneccessary/illegal/immoral step which puts them in legal and moral jeopardy. I don’t think the arguement fails because for it to fail one would have to believe that it was morally “OK” to use deadly force without identifying the intended target.

I am Pro-Life and just wondering about the complete arguement.
 
I do not know all 5 variations but I like the argument and have used it before. We can use the analogy without conceding the fact that life begins at conception. If someone is still dull minded enough to argue that “we cannot prove life begins at conception” in the face of so much evidence, the analogy allows us to get beyond that issue; because their argument that “we cannot know for sure when human life begins” is easily refuted with the hunter in the woods analogy. The point being that if someone has even the slightest doubt about when life begins; they still cannot kill a human embryo on the basis that they “might” be killing a living human being. The argument leaves them with nowhere to run, they are shot down at every turn.

In my experience; it is a good place to start when I am talking to someone who claims that we dont know for “certain” when human life begins. Once I show them that it is immoral to kill human embryos with or without proof that life begins at conception, I then go on to prove that life begins at conception. 😃
 
It is articulated in Peter Kreeft’s The Unaborted Socrates.

I’m with Martino in that I only bring it up because the abortionist’s only escape hatch is to appeal to agnosticism, and this argument does a good job showing it doesn’t really fly.

Scott
 
Sadly, I have found through debates on the subject that people do not care if it is a human life at conception. I was recently in a debate with someone who was willing to accept that it was a human life at conception, but he argued that a woman had the right to abort it because it was using her body without her permission.

Its sad that they don’t care about whether it is a life.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Sadly, I have found through debates on the subject that people do not care if it is a human life at conception. I was recently in a debate with someone who was willing to accept that it was a human life at conception, but he argued that a woman had the right to abort it because it was using her body without her permission.

Its sad that they don’t care about whether it is a life.
Click to expand...
It is sad that some people feel that way but it is still important to get them to admit that it is a human life and that they just dont care. Our laws that currently allow for abortion and embryonic stem cell research are based on the idea that they are not human lives and if enough people are willing to agree that they are human lives it will be much easier to have the laws changed.
 
More than 30 years ago, I used the “Babies in the Box” argument – I never heard anyone else use it before then.

A man has a new rifle and takes it to a dump to shoot (a lot of people used to shoot at dumps). He sees a large box, shoots at it, then walks over to see how he did. As he approaches, he sees blood running from the box. Two children were playing inside.

It is not moral to shoot if you are not sure of your target. If you even suspect there might be a human being, then you are guilty of murder.

Nowadays, we have DNA to fall back on. There is no question that the unborn baby is a living human being.
  1. Is it living? If it were not, we would not be having this discussion!
  2. Is it human? Check the DNA. If you find mouse or lizard DNA it is not human. But if you find human DNA . . .
  3. Is it a “being?” Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA it is a part of her body (as many pro-abortionists claim.) But if it has its own DNA (as it does) then it is a being all by itself.
 
vern humphrey:
More than 30 years ago, I used the “Babies in the Box” argument – I never heard anyone else use it before then.

A man has a new rifle and takes it to a dump to shoot (a lot of people used to shoot at dumps). He sees a large box, shoots at it, then walks over to see how he did. As he approaches, he sees blood running from the box. Two children were playing inside.

It is not moral to shoot if you are not sure of your target. If you even suspect there might be a human being, then you are guilty of murder.
Click to expand...
That is something that actually happened, isn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top