Firstly I must apologies for the length of this initial OP, but to make it any shorter would only cause confusion as to the points raised. A common argument presented by pro-lifers is that abortion violates the unalienable right to life of the zef, this I believe is a myth. Pro-lifers proclaim that there are unalienable rights for all people, yet by definition there are NO unalienable rights. The definition of unalienable is "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor", therefore if the right to life is unalienable it is "not subject to being taken away from" the possessor, and yet it is obvious that this is not the case. Courts regularly take away the unalienable right to life when ever they issue a death sentence. Governments take away the unalienable right to life each time they go to war When a person uses deadly force in self defence they take away the unalienable right of the other person. So in reality there is no unalienable right to life, it is just a legal right. Unalienable can also be called natural rights and It is clear that Jefferson along with the other Founding Fathers believed that – in addition to all man-made rights – there is a body of rights which were not the progeny of civilisation and which have always existed and will always exist. These are the Natural Rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…” Thomas Jefferson, US Declaration of Independence, 1776 There is, of course, another view: that there is nothing ‘natural’ about Natural Rights. Supporters of this stance include Bentham, Burke, Mill, Nietzsche, and (sometimes) Rousseau. Bentham is the most passionate of these opponents of Natural Rights, expressing a view that is as unequivocal as it is absolute: Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptable rights, rhetorical nonsense – nonsense upon stilts. Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies Before one can support either of these diametrically antagonistic views or, indeed, propose a synthetic position, one must understand the essence of rights. Rights are founded on ethical value judgements, which may be empirical or rational. A right is that which confers legitimacy upon an action or a belief. For example, if one has a right to free speech, the act of speaking freely is given legitimacy. This legitimacy derives from whichever authority conferred the right in question. A right is different from a law of nature because a right is a protected option not a diktat. A right to life does not mean that one will live, it means that one’s life is protected. However, a law of nature is only a law of nature because it is a diktat and is always true. Hence, E cannot have a right to equal mc2 since it always does. Furthermore, since rights are based on moral value-judgements they cannot be the same as factual scientific laws. Molecules have no morality. From these basic foundations, one can derive three main principles that govern a system of rights. Firstly, a later right cannot contradict an earlier one (assuming both are granted by the same authority) unless that earlier right has been explicitly repudiated. For example, if a state confers upon its citizens a right to freedom from torture, then it cannot confer a right to torture upon its Secret Service – the earlier right stops the later one having legitimacy. Secondly, a right can only be conferred on a body by another body of greater authority or by that body itself. For example, a Supreme Being can confer rights on mankind but mankind can also confer rights upon itself. A lower authority cannot confer a right which contradicts a right conferred by a higher authority. For example, a trade union cannot confer a right to strike on its members if the government has conferred a right to freedom from strikes on its citizens. Whilst, as mentioned earlier, rights can be conferred by a body on itself, they cannot be conferred by one body on another of equal authority. For example, Malaysia can confer a right to life on its own citizens but it cannot confer one on those of Myanmar since both Malaysia and Myanmar are nation-states and hence equal in authority. Furthermore, Malaysia and the Philippines cannot together confer rights on Myanmar because, although one group contains two nation-states and the other only one, nevertheless both groups remain equal in authority – having no more or less authority than that possessed by nation-states. A collection of hundreds of bodies can be overruled by one body with greater authority. For example, a Supreme Being could overrule the whole human population, even though He is one and they are billions. Thirdly, authority can be ceded. For example, the governments of all members of the European Union have ceded their ultimate authority over all social legislation that affects their citizens. Hence, through the Social Chapter, rights may now be legitimately conferred on their citizens by the European Union since, in the area of social legislation, it is now a higher authority than the national governments. These three principles are fine in theory, but in practice they throw up a multitude of problems. Whilst it is difficult to dispute that a higher authority can confer rights on a lower authority, it is quite easy to dispute that the European Union is a higher authority than the nation-states of which it is comprised. Furthermore, it is debatable whether the ceding of authority in some cases is permanent – does Britain have the right to withdraw from the European Union as some arch Euro-sceptics wish or has the British Parliament lost some of its sovereignty forever? If so, did it have the right to cede that authority without direct consultation of citizens in a referendum? More fundamentally, is it correct to take such an anthropocentric views of rights? Do animals, plants, or the earth itself have rights? Do these rights have to be conferred by human authorities? If not, what other authorities could confer them? All these practical questions and problems severely hamper a system of rights, but perhaps if one could demonstrate that there were certain seminal ‘Natural Rights’, then some structure or hierarchy of rights could be built around them. Jefferson mentions one possible group of Natural Rights when he says that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights”. As mentioned earlier, rights can be conferred by a higher authority on a lower one and so it follows that a Supreme Being may confer rights on humanity or indeed the world and these will be Natural Rights. Consequently, one must attempt to prove the existence of a Supreme Being because unless He exists or at least has existed, then there is not the slightest possibility of His conferring rights. In the history of philosophy, there have been numerous attempts to prove His existence, usually based on one of three arguments. The first is the argument from design which was stated, and then comprehensively rebutted by Hume in his Dialogues on Natural Religion. The second is the cosmological or causal argument propounded by Aristotle, Maimonides, and Aquinas in Summa Theologica, which asserts the idea of God as the First Cause. Strong criticisms of this argument were levelled by Hume in the Dialogues on Natural Religion and Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. The third famous argument was the ontological argument offered by Anselm, by Spinoza in Ethics, and by Descartes in Meditations with refutation coming from Gaunilo, Kant, and, ironically, Aquinas. To examine the individual merits of these arguments is beyond the scope of this essay. However, the fact remains that very strong, and many would say conclusive, rebuttals have been made of these arguments. Perhaps this is because a Supreme Being does not exist or perhaps it is because comprehension of His nature is beyond the capabilities of human minds. Either way, it seems likely that one cannot prove the existence of a Supreme Being and hence one cannot prove the foundation of divinely ordained Natural Rights. There are further objections why one cannot accept that Natural Rights have been conferred by a Supreme Being. The most important is the fact that, even supposing one can know for certain of the existence of a Supreme Being, that does not imply that He will have instituted a system of rights. It is the Judaeo-Christian tradition that asserts that God has set down irrefutable commandments and conferred irrefutable rights. The essence, however, of Judaism and Christianity is that one is given free will so that one can choose to obey or disobey God’s laws, based on the strength of one’s faith. If God conclusively revealed his existence, then everyone would obey His laws because they knew God existed rather than believed He did. Hence, it is likely that if a Supreme Being exists approximating to the Judaeo-Christian model, then he will have ensured that His existence cannot be proven by rational arguments so as to preserve the necessity of people making leaps of faith. Therefore, one reaches the conclusion that the Supreme Being conventionally associated with conferring Natural Rights – that is, the Judaeo-Christian ‘God’ – is, if He exists, likely to have arranged it so that one can never be sure He, his authority, or His Natural Rights actually exist. None of this categorically disproves the existence of a Supreme Being but it makes it unlikely that one can prove the existence of Natural Rights from a theological perspective. It remains very difficult to prove a Supreme Being exists and it remains even more difficult to prove He endowed the universe with Natural Rights. Other than from a Supreme Being, Natural Rights can only be conferred by two other sources. The first is another higher authority and the second is humanity itself. Whilst it can be disputed whether man is higher than the animals or merely equal with them, it cannot be disputed that the whole natural world is superior to humanity, which is only one part of it. Hence, Natural Rights may be conferred by ‘Nature’ herself – an idea implied by the term ‘Natural Rights’. Before proceeding, it is important to understand exactly what is meant by ‘Nature’. It is simply the whole universe, excluding any Supreme Beings that might exist. Nature is this self-perpetuating construct that can never be destroyed, except by a supra- Natural Supreme Being. Hence, in order to discover whether Natural Rights have been conferred by Nature, one must ask if there is anything that can be deduced from the workings of Nature that indicates a morality? Aristotle argues in Book 1 of Politics that “Nature does nothing in vain” and few would doubt that there is order in Nature. This does not, however, imply that there is a morality or ethical structure within the natural world. Nature certainly works in accordance with the laws of natural science but, as was demonstrated earlier, scientific laws cannot be equated with rights. Nature must have morality to be able to confer rights. Darwin in The Descent of Man and On the Origin of Species proposes and produces empirical evidence to support the claim that the natural world is based on survival of the fittest through Natural Selection. This suggests that the natural world is entirely amoral and that the only inherent and fundamental – that is, Natural – principle is that of survival. Obviously, Darwin’s work is only theory based on fact and not fact itself. This implies that, just as with a Supreme Being, it is exceedingly difficult to prove that Nature is essentially amoral. However, if one accepts what is currently the most likely explanation of the facts, then it implies that the natural world cannot have conferred any Natural Rights except, arguably, a right to survive. This is arguable because whilst it is true that the natural world enshrines the desire to survive in its structure, it is difficult to claim that the natural world did so based on a moral or ethical valuejudgement. Nature is a only quasiliving organism which, although containing sentient life within it, is not truly sentient itself. The third authority that could confer Natural Rights is humanity itself. However, if these are to be ‘Natural’ Rights, then they must be directly derived from some quality of mankind – “appertain to man in right of his Existence” – rather than derive from conscious and consensual discussion. Consequently, one must determine whether there is any quality inherent in humanity that can be a foundation for a Natural Right. It can be argued that all people share a common humanity and, if this premise were accepted, one could claim that, therefore, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, even equality of income are Natural Rights. This, however, proves problematic because the premise is highly dubious. What is this ‘common humanity’? Man shares some common characteristics with plants, but more with animals, more still with humans, yet more with his race, and yet more still with his family. Why, therefore, should Natural Rights be based upon similarities between men? Why should they not be based upon the similarities between all living organisms, or between all members of a family? The great problem is who decides where to draw the line. If man draws the line, then the rights are no longer Natural as they are not based on inherent qualities of mankind, rather on a conscious decision of mankind. This provides strong support for the position that there is no reason why mankind should be afforded a special system of rights based on common humanity. A strong refutation to this position exists: rights, as mentioned earlier, are based on moral judgements and only humans have the sentience to make moral judgements. But this rebuttal could itself be criticised: some scientists claim that creatures such as apes and dolphins are possessed of enough sentience to make simple moral judgements. (Indeed, a rather unconventional group of scientists does actually call for the UN Universal Declaration to be extended to apes, chimpanzees, and orangutans.) Furthermore, what of children or the mentally deficient who are not able to make moral judgements? By this rationale, they are excluded from the sphere of Natural Rights. Whilst it could be argued that children should be included because they will develop morality, the mentally deficient must remain outside. This position could easily lead to the extermination of the mentally disabled as happened in Nazi Germany or the forced sterilisation and eugenics programmes practised in post-war Sweden. Moreover, if one is arguing that man can have Natural Rights because of his sentience, then one can question whether only those of sufficient intelligence and education to reason thoroughly fall within the sphere of Natural Rights. As with common characteristics, so with sentience – it is very difficult to know where to draw the line, and if man has actively to decide, then the rights cannot be Natural. Hence, there are major problems with a system of Natural Rights conferred by humanity upon itself because one cannot define the boundaries of sentient and moral humanity and, if it requires well-developed cognitive faculties, then major chunks of what is conventionally considered ‘humanity’ would be excluded. Moreover, the natural world is a superior authority to humanity, which is only part of the natural world, and one could therefore argue that the amoral constitution of Nature precludes any Natural Rights – other than those that could be conferred by the Supreme Being. Hence, one must conclude that there is no proof that there is anything ‘natural’ – that is, immutable, fundamental or innate – about ‘Natural Rights’. It is plausible that there is a system of Natural Rights instituted by a Supreme Being but it is much less plausible that man could ever discover them through rational reasoning. It is likely, although not certain, that no Natural Rights other than perhaps the right to survive can be derived from Nature. It is plausible, although not likely, that rights to equality can be derived from a common humanity but their purvey would certainly exclude much of conventional humanity. Hence, the large majority of the evidence suggests that there is nothing ‘natural’ about ‘Natural Rights’ but does not prove it. This conclusion may, ironically, lead to several Natural Rights. Bertrand Russell, in The Problems of Philosophy, says “… it must be admitted that we can never prove the existence of things other than ourselves and our experiences. No logical absurdity results from the hypothesis that the world consists of myself and my thoughts and feelings and sensations, and that everything else is mere fancy.” If one cannot either prove or disprove the existence of Natural Rights, a conclusion both Russell and this essay reach, then arguably one must respect someone’s opinion even if one thinks it is profoundly wrong. This would make the right to free speech, the right to free thought, and the right to have one’s opinions respected into Natural Rights. However, certain opinions are more likely to be true than others. One cannot know whether the sun will rise tomorrow but the opinion that it will is more likely to be true than the opinion that it will not. Consequently, it is unreasonable to claim that there is a Natural Right to have opinions respected. After all, madness could be claimed simply to be a minority opinion – and few would suggest the rantings of madmen should become respected beliefs. The Natural Rights to free speech and free thought are more difficult to refute. However, some opinions are more likely to be true than others and an opinion is often considered very dangerous if one looks at it from the perspective of another opinion which one has accepted as fact. For example, the opinion that private profit is good is seen as very dangerous if one believes in communism. Hence, from a communist standpoint, having a Natural Right to free speech and thought is dangerous to the whole system. A Natural Right to free speech or thought cannot exist because some thoughts preclude the legitimacy of other thoughts. It would be impossibly circular to have a Natural Right of free thought, which allowed for totalitarian thoughts, which did not allow for free thoughts. Hence, one must conclude that it is likely there is nothing ‘natural’ about ‘Natural Rights’ but there may be, and if there are any Natural Rights then the most natural of these is the right to survive. Right… is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters. Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies So this "right to life" argument that pro-lifers use in my opinion is nothing more than a projection of their own beliefs and there is no unalienable right to life.
I don't know how to respond to your arguments. I totally disagree with your beliefs, but it's honestly very hard for me to put my opinions into words.
It might be the case that so-called "inalieable rights" may be taken away by due process. But due process is only afforded to human beings. A foetus is not a human being so it can't claim due process. Now watch some lawmaker give it a try. I always loved Bentham's "nonsense on stilts" dismissal. The essence of the concept of human rights is based - obviously - in the nature of humanity itself. Humans have long believed that there are other agencies other than humans concerned with their lives. The concept of a god or gods is ancient. It was a neat trick for kings and priests to give themselves god agency. It was also quite clever of the Founding Fathers to appeal to God as the granter of rights. You want to take away rights without due process, well you'd better take that up with God mister! And that goes for anyone who would be King! Smart. In a God-fearing nation such as the Founding Fathers knew, that was pretty strong stuff. But - as you have pointed out - we can't prove that God exists so the appeal fails. We know the EU exists, we know Malaysia and the Philippines exist, but the evidence on God is pretty shaky. So we have to remove God from the equation. And just on that the natural rights argument fails completely. Spencer, I think, made the claims about survival. But I think also that Darwin and Spencer were probably referring to adaptability of organisms, a "fit" for continued existence, rather than the survival of the strongest or most savage in nature which is, as Tennyson put it, "red in tooth and claw". Dinosaurs died out, even the most terrible ones, while the scurrying little mammals adapted and developed, not that I'm suggesting that mammals will have as long an existence as the dinosaurs. I like the reference to Russell. I'm put in mind of a scene from a British television series where the protagonist, a female police psychologist, is apparently in some sort of coma-like mental state after being shot by a crook and she is inhabiting a world of her mental creation. She comes into the office and addresses her companions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p9U8WejQ8c&list=PLLiCza5FlAV17IUvY_z_WgF8202QaNXC3&index=13 - as "imaginary constructs". Anyway I'm in furious agreement with you, as the saying goes.
They're not beliefs - they are warranted claims and we have been shown how a carefully constructed argument looks. Bit more here - http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/comm401/lectures/warrant.html
If it wasn't born yet then it doesn't have a life to take away. Particularly in the 24 week period where most voluntary abortions happen. Fetuses at this age do not have the brain capacity to feel pain, emotions, fear or suffering in anyway. You're telling me that something that has never existed in any cognitive state has more importance than a living and breathing woman? A pregnancy to a woman could end her career. It could force her to keep the wrong man in her life. It could force her to live with a living memory of her rapist. It could cause severe health trauma and financial difficulties. All those are very serious things to think about for a woman. What problems does a 24 week old fetus have to think about? Nothing because it has no brain that is capable of thought. There is no way you could convince me that a living breathing woman should have very big and important choices taken away from her for a fetus that doesn't even have a brain capable of any level of thought. To me an abortion is no more immoral than throwing away a used tampon. The same amount of human life exists on both. I don't think we can possibly consider something to be legally a person with legal rights when they don't even have a brain capable of holding their personality.
and this is totally irrelevant to the OP, which is the pro-life insistence that we all (including the unborn) have a "right to life", which as shown is a wrong assumption based on why and how "rights" are given. In essence NO person born or unborn has an unalienable "right to life", that "right" is based upon justification made by people who in fact give that right only to those who meet their preconceived ideals.
I really can't conceive of a reason why something that doesn't have a mind should have rights of any kind. It is the mind that makes one a being.
Correct! And one does not have a mind (brain) until the fetuse reaches a specific stage in its development and then becomes a baby. A fetuse only has the Potential of becoming a person and until it does it has No right to life.
While I agree with you the OP actually means that no one born or not has an unalienable "right to life"
Not at all. If a born person had the level of brain activity a 24 week old fetus has we'd pull the plug on them. That's not life. That's not something that cares if it lives or dies. It's just a sack of tissues. It's only life if we decide to allow it to become life. And if you don't want a baby there is no reason you should be forced to have one. If you think a fetus with no brain is going to care you're wrong.
Can you make posts that actually contribute something? I have no idea what you're trying to say. Apparently you really don't like tampons.
The fact of the matter is that biologically human life begins during the process of conception. No religion, no theology, no philosophy. 1/2 of the DNA of the male donor, and 1/2 of the DNA of the female host...combine to create a new life which begins during the conception process. FACT. Many human beings decided to give the value of this new life with some arbitrary definition. When there is a brain activity. When there is pain. When there is viability outside the womb. Until that time the developing human reaches these arbitrary standards, it's fair game to be terminated. Killed. Many human beings enjoy sexual intercourse but they don't want the consequences often associated with it, chiefly pregnancy. They don't want to be saddled with the responsibilities., so they defend these arbitrary valuation of human life to keep the abortion option both legal and available. Human life begins during the process of conception, it's a not a "moment," it's a process. Abortion is rationalized to excuse killing the fetus, to alleviate any remorse, guilt or shame. Go ahead, enjoy your sexual intercourse and abortions... ego-centric little ants scurrying around like your life actually means something. Heck a cockroach has more redeeming qualities, at least the female doesn't kill her own offspring. Do you see this ladies? hmmm She is a better mother than you will ever be...ever... murdering your own offspring. Yes have at it...enjoy your consequence free sexual intercourse.
No NEW life begins during conception. Both eggs and sperm are alive and human before conception. The life is changed during conception, yes, but it is not converted from non-life to life. Declaring that life to be a "new life" is just as arbitrary as any other essential point in fertilization and gestation.
I disagree. Potential human life exists at that point. But does a zygote have thoughts? Fears? Pain sensory? Suffering capabilities? Anything that would make getting rid of it immoral? I love babies. I hope to be a father some day. But I see nothing wrong with choosing to delay having a child until you are ready. A fetus without a mind is not going to mind. And in the end it's better for the parents and better for any children they do wind up having if they wait until they've accomplished getting their foot into their career before having a child. Going into parenthood without a stable career and without proper support or even worth without the desire to have children is a huge mistake to make. And for what? A fetus without a mind? That's not a good reason. Killing a living baby to escape these problems? Absolutely messed up and evil. Killing a fetus without a brain capable of thought, pain or emotions? Who exactly is being hurt by that operation?
Cockroaches are cannibalistic and will eat each other. I hardly think comparing a cockroach, something that eats others of its own kind, is a good comparison to women and girls of reproductive age. But nice to know that you seriously believe female cockroaches are better and more moral than the human women of the world who are, quite frankly, just trying to maintain the legal right to make medical decisions about their own autonomy.
and who disagrees with this? Sorry no NEW life is created it is a continuation of life, you cannot create something from nothing in the case of biology, both the sperm and ova are alive when the combine it is merely a continuation of a process. first part agreed, second part FICTION As do you, the real FACTS of the matter are that the actual fertilization takes place of a period of time, there is no wham, bam happening, so your point is no more arbitrary than any other, it just fits your opinion. Actually again you are wrong, no one I have seen disagrees that an embryo is human life, what you are pointing to here is when does that human life become a person. Though there is no actually scientific consensus that a blastocyst is a human life, until differentiation EVERY single one of the 200+ cells are capable of becoming a viable embryo. Again see above viability is the point where the fetus can sustain it's own existence (often with intense medical intervention) prior to that point it acts more in a parasitic-like manner. and as already stated these standards are no more arbitrary than the one you have decided upon. Yes, that is the unfortunate result of a woman maintaining control over her body. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, not even in legal terms .. sex merely creates a risk of pregnancy (15-20% for unprotected sexual intercourse) and no person is expected to suffer injury just for taking a risk, and pregnancy is an injury as already established in law in some cases. and this is relevant how exactly, we kill humans everyday that are still in the process .. or do you think that once born a human stops "growing" and developing? Typical pro-life emotional appeal .. please find the evidence to support that abortions are 'enjoyed', and it is highly amusing to have a pro-lifer call us ego-centric [sic] given that they are the ones wanting to impose their ideology onto all others without any regards to the feelings or desires of others. She does quite often by eating them, just as many other animals do .. are you suggesting that we should adopt that way as well? Pretty standard emotional response, can pro-lifers never debate the actual issue without resulting to hyperbole. BTW. You whole contribution to this thread is 100% off topic, now that you have fretted out your emotional side would you like to attempt to dispute the actual OP or are you content to continue to try and derail it from a subject you obviously have no valid response to.
Do newborns have minds, yes, or no? How is the mind of a newborn any different from the mind of a "subhuman" late term fetus?
People can be and are cannibalistic also... We also kill one another at alarming rates in both war and domestic situtations. As a species we're not all that superior in behavior in comparison to the common roach. What the female cockroach does not do, is eat or destroy her own eggs....certainly not on the level of the human species. Just the United States as an example... wherein 1 in 4 women, 28% to be precise, have had at least one abortion. in the course of their lifetime. You do not see this statistic in the cockroach species, wherein 1 in 4 females destroys her own eggs. Consider this also, once a roach mates, she is pregnant for life...for life. If anyone has a good reason to destroy her own eggs, it's the roach, but their instinct is to lay the eggs and make more roaches. If you're asking me to retract my comment comparing women to roaches... Think again. In terms of motherhood, they are < the cockroach. (less than) The common household pest, your basic roach...is a more respectful mother than a woman who aborts her own young, merely as a form of birth control and avoidance of responsibility. The common roach has more instinctual inclination towards motherhood than 1 in 4 American women. That is precisely what I'm saying... calling a spade a spade, to use a euphemism. >>>MOD EDIT>>>PA REMOVED
Hence the question mark .. it doesn't, no one has an unalienable right to life whether born or not. - - - Updated - - - If you actually read the responses you would see that the author of the comment is talking about a fetus PRIOR to 24 weeks, so your obsession with post 24 week abortions is pretty irrelevant.
Cockroaches cannot be compared to humans at all. They are too entirely different a species and they also do not live in a society, they do not need to hold down jobs, they do not need to raise children for 18+ years, they do not face anything that actual human beings face in the societies we live in. Your comparison is a very false, faulty and also disgusting comparison. I know it makes you feel good to say women and mothers are worse than cockroaches, but this lie needs to be pointed out for what it is. Personal insults are not necessary here, especially as I am not yet a mother nor have I had an abortion. So not only are you insulting me but you are blatantly lying about me.
