Abortion and Innocent Life

A frequent justification I see for the assignment of special rights to "pre-born" life (zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses) is that these entities have the status of "innocent life." "Innocent life" should never be killed, is the justification given for the desire to use the force of law to prevent women from obtaining abortions.

My problem with this reasoning is that it presupposes a religious basis for morality, for which there is not consensus in a pluralistic society such as ours.

My basis for morality, in a nutshell, is the Golden Rule, which I understand predates Christianity.

When one declares a fetus, et al, to be "innocent," the implication is that the rest of the population is not innocent, or blameworthy, as some would say. Basically my understanding of this concept is that all born humans have guilt, but that fetuses have a special moral status because they have not yet have had opportunity to sin against God. Such concepts are of no use to nonbelievers such as myself.

(For background, I was raised Roman Catholic, but have been atheist for over 25 years. My recollection of Catholic and Christian doctrine is fuzzy, so I apologize in advance if my summations of such are inaccurate.)

Thus I would not confer a moral superiority to a fetus over a woman, or vice-versa.

As to why I believe women should have the right to "kill pre-born life" through abortion, in my view the right to human bodily autonomy prevails when the rights of the fetus and the woman are in conflict. No one is forcibly required to donate organs, or even to give blood, in order to save the life of another person. To give fetuses the right to inhabit a woman for gestation would remove this right of bodily autonomy from women.

For a relevant thought experiment, I submit the case of the Famous Violinist.