On April 30 2010, David Boonin and Peter Kreeft met at the University of Minnesota to debate the ethics of abortion and answer the question of whether abortion is ever morally justified. Boonin is a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado and the author of a well known book defending abortions. Kreeft is a philosophy professor at Boston College and the author of several anti-abortion books. Kreeft began the debate by encouraging the audience to focus on discovering the truth for themselves, rather than choosing a winner. Peter Kreeft presented his pro-life argument with three key points. He began by stating that all humans have a right to life. His second point claimed that an unborn human is still a human being. Kreeft’s third point expresses his belief that the law should protect the right to life for all human beings. He concluded that from these points, one can see that the killing of unborn humans should be prohibited. Even if one is not completely convinced, or unsure of his second point, Kreeft encourages his listeners to oppose abortion for the greater good of humanity.…show more content… He backed up his claim by using a hypothetical kidnapping scenario where someone is taken unwillingly for a nine month blood transfusion. If the person disconnects from the machine, the person needing the transfusion will die. Boonin deduced that most people believed disconnecting from the sick person was morally justifiable. He continued by comparing this scenario to rape victims. He concluded his point by stating, “The right to life is not the same as the right to be kept alive by another person”. Therefore, the separation of an unborn human, is morally
