Is Abortion Murder?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The concept of natural rights doesn't require a god

But natural rights aren't being invoked here.
The reasons given are things like "life is sacred".

, however it is true that gods are often used to justify it. Check the concept of human rights.

No, the universal human rights declaration is an entirely secular document.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The only time religion is mentioned, is to note that this document applies (or should apply at least), no matter religion.

And it doesn't give human rights to 3-week old blobs of cells, btw

 

[Koldo]

But natural rights aren't being invoked here.
The reasons given are things like "life is sacred".

But what is that supposed to mean ?
It means people have a right to life that can't be freely taken away.

No, the universal human rights declaration is an entirely secular document.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The only time religion is mentioned, is to note that this document applies (or should apply at least), no matter religion.

And it doesn't give human rights to 3-week old blobs of cells, btw

It is a secular document inspired by the concept of natural rights. Read the preamble: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But what is that supposed to mean ?

It's an appeal to their religious perceived authority. Aka God.

It means people have a right to life that can't be freely taken away.

It also means that it gets asserted through religious dogma.

It is a secular document inspired by the concept of natural rights

What "natural rights"?

To my knowledge, it's a document that was inspired by the horrors that people had to witness at the hands of fascists and racists during the second world war. They said "never again" and came together to compile a document that sets out rules to prevent such horrors to every happen again.

Read the preamble: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

Yes.
So?

 

[Koldo]

It's an appeal to their religious perceived authority. Aka God.



It also means that it gets asserted through religious dogma.



What "natural rights"?

To my knowledge, it's a document that was inspired by the horrors that people had to witness at the hands of fascists and racists during the second world war. They said "never again" and came together to compile a document that sets out rules to prevent such horrors to every happen again.




Yes.
So?

Read this part on the Declaration of Independence (1776): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now read this part on Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789): "The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights comes from the same vein by clamining that humans have inherent dignity and inalienable rights.
These documents don't merely talk about creating rights, they talk about recognizing that humans have them by the nature of being human. This is know as jusnaturalism. And although God is the most traditional justification for jusnaturalism, it is unnecessary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Read this part on the Declaration of Independence (1776)

The declaration of independence has nothing to do with the declaration of human rights.

: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now read this part on Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789): "The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights comes from the same vein by clamining that humans have inherent dignity and inalienable rights.
These documents don't merely talk about creating rights, they talk about recognizing that humans have them by the nature of being human. This is know as jusnaturalism. And although God is the most traditional justification for jusnaturalism, it is unnecessary.

Cool.

None of this actually counters the point that dogmatic opposition and argumentation against abortion is practically exclusively religious.

Note again how none of these documents you are refering to are talking about the unborn.

 

[Koldo]

The declaration of independence has nothing to do with the declaration of human rights.

How can they be unrelated ?
They all drink from the same fountain.

Cool.

None of this actually counters the point that dogmatic opposition and argumentation against abortion is practically exclusively religious.

Note again how none of these documents you are refering to are talking about the unborn.

This has no bearing on what I have said long ago: "Don't most arguments revolve around the right to life ? That doesn't require a religious component."
I have already agreed that religion is often used in the debate. My point is that it is unnecessary. Referring to natural rights is enough.
Also, please do not mistake the Declaration of Human Rights for the natural rights in themselves. I have merely stated that the Declaration acknowledges natural rights.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can they be unrelated ?

One is a draft marking the beginning of the United States as we know it today.

The other is an international effort from the UN in response to 5 years of war against fascism and oppression.

This has no bearing on what I have said long ago: "Don't most arguments revolve around the right to life ? That doesn't require a religious component."

And yet, every single "secular" thing you are pointing to, doesn't apply to the unborn.
You realise this thread is about the unborn, right?

I have already agreed that religion is often used in the debate. My point is that it is unnecessary. Referring to natural rights is enough.

Clearly, it isn't, as these secular documents you are referring to don't talk about the unborn at all.
You should also perhaps explain what you mean by "natural rights" exactly.... because it sounds as if you think this is some kind of unquestionable objective thing. It really isn't. It's as subjective as can be and those that are agreed upon, are only that: agreed upon. These rights aren't discovered under a rock you know....

So, any time you wish to finally invoke these "natural rights" and how they can be used in a secular argument against abortion....... Because as it stands, everything you pointed to was talking about actually born citizens of nations. I have yet to hear a non-religious argument against the abortion of a 3-week old blob of cells.

Also, please do not mistake the Declaration of Human Rights for the natural rights in themselves. I have merely stated that the Declaration acknowledges natural rights.

I disagree.
But perhaps you can clarify by answer my question above: explain what you mean by "natural rights" and where they come from.

 

[ecco]

Read this part on the Declaration of Independence (1776): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now read this part on Declaration of the Rights of Man

Notice that the Declaration of the Rights of Man uses the term "Man" which is all gender encompassing.

Notice the Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "all men". That specifically omits women. In addition to being misogynistic, they were also being deceitful because they did not give equal rights to men of color.

I doubt they were giving much thought to fetuses.

 

[Koldo]

Notice that the Declaration of the Rights of Man uses the term "Man" which is all gender encompassing.

Notice the Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "all men". That specifically omits women. In addition to being misogynistic, they were also being deceitful because they did not give equal rights to men of color.

I doubt they were giving much thought to fetuses.

My point was not about whether those documents support fetus' rights though.

 

[Koldo]

One is a draft marking the beginning of the United States as we know it today.

The other is an international effort from the UN in response to 5 years of war against fascism and oppression.

Which does not entail they are unrelated.

And yet, every single "secular" thing you are pointing to, doesn't apply to the unborn.
You realise this thread is about the unborn, right?

Clearly, it isn't, as these secular documents you are referring to don't talk about the unborn at all.
You should also perhaps explain what you mean by "natural rights" exactly.... because it sounds as if you think this is some kind of unquestionable objective thing. It really isn't. It's as subjective as can be and those that are agreed upon, are only that: agreed upon. These rights aren't discovered under a rock you know....

So, any time you wish to finally invoke these "natural rights" and how they can be used in a secular argument against abortion....... Because as it stands, everything you pointed to was talking about actually born citizens of nations. I have yet to hear a non-religious argument against the abortion of a 3-week old blob of cells.

I am talking about jusnaturalism.
You really need to read this link before we continue:
Natural law - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which does not entail they are unrelated.



I am talking about jusnaturalism.
You really need to read this link before we continue:
Natural law - Wikipedia

Just answer my question please.

What do YOU mean exactly, when you invoke "natural rights"?
As said, it sounds as if you consider them to be some kind of objective thing that is independent of human thought.
As if we can find / discover them under a rock (figure of speech).

The link you gave seems to rather agree with me that that is not the case at all, and that instead they are rather subjective things that are merely agreed upon by "thinkers" - and not even universally by consensus at that, as there clearly are differing opinions (as noted by your link also).

 

[Koldo]

Just answer my question please.

What do YOU mean exactly, when you invoke "natural rights"?
As said, it sounds as if you consider them to be some kind of objective thing that is independent of human thought.
As if we can find / discover them under a rock (figure of speech).

The link you gave seems to rather agree with me that that is not the case at all, and that instead they are rather subjective things that are merely agreed upon by "thinkers" - and not even universally by consensus at that, as there clearly are differing opinions (as noted by your link also).

Natural rights are rights inherent to human beings by the nature of being human. They were not created by a human legislator. They are objective in the sense of them existing regardless of our opinion about them.

Now, I am not saying that jusnaturalism is true. What I am saying is that jusnaturalism doesn't require God and that therefore it is possible to use it in an argument against abortion.

Now I have a question for you: If jusnaturalism is false, on what grounds can you claim that a law against abortion is unjust ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Natural rights are rights inherent to human beings by the nature of being human. They were not created by a human legislator. They are objective in the sense of them existing regardless of our opinion about them.

Sounds like a claim.

So how does one go about finding out what these rights are? How do you "discover" them? And when you "discovered" them, how do you go about sharing those while supporting the idea of them being objective and not just your opinion?

Now, I am not saying that jusnaturalism is true. What I am saying is that jusnaturalism doesn't require God and that therefore it is possible to use it in an argument against abortion.

"Possible", perhaps.
But it seems to me that the vast majority isn't doing that at all.
And I say "the vast majority" out of some kind of intellectual honesty, because I'm not actually aware of any "anti-abortion militant/lobbyist" who uses such argumentation.

Now I have a question for you: If jusnaturalism is false, on what grounds can you claim that a law against abortion is unjust ?

Still not entirely sure what you mean exactly with "jusnaturalism" though.

But in any case, I indeed think such laws are unjust. And my reasoning for that comes from multiple angles.

The primary one being pretty much very similar to my reasoning that it's not okay to make a law that someone can be forced to give up a kidney to save someone else. It's not okay to "use" someone else's body against that person's will to keep someone else alive.

And that is "grounded" in pretty much the same way as my entire ethical framework. It's a combination of experience, learning from history, humanistic values (like human rights, equality, ...), knowledge about the world around us, etc...

And no, I do not agree that any of these things are "objective" in nature. Quite simply because "objective" literally means "independent of human thought", while things like ethical frameworks literally only exist within human thought. Such frameworks and models, literally develop over time. Our motals and ethical standards of today are not the same as 2000 years ago. They aren't the same as 500 years ago. Heck, they aren't even the same as only 10 years ago.

They constantly evolve and develop, as we gain more experience (like being on the receiving end of evil things instead of being the causal factor ourselves) and learn more things about the world (which helps us better understand the consequences of our actions).

You could ask the question "so what is the end goal then", because logically, if ethical models changes as we learn new things, then there should be some kind of standard in place against which things are evaluated.

A lot of theists will say that this standard is "God". And that's the angle the argue from and the baseline they will always circle back to during discussions concerning morality or moral values or moral evaluation (like abortion debates). Eventually, you'll always hit that wall of dogmatism where the "why" question is answered with "cause God decreed it so".

For me, the standard, the starting point, is the hypothetical utopian society in which I would want to live while not knowing in advance who I will be (in terms of ethnicity, religious/cultural background, sexual orientation, etc).

So my moral evaluation reasoning centers around "does this take us closer or further away from that utopian society?", and I do my best to really explore that. So in other words, it is NOT based on certain "decrees" that MUST be upheld at all times. It's not a black and white world that you can fit into one line rules like "MURDER IS WRONG MMKAY". No, there's always context and implications.


This is why it's so hard for me to discuss abortion with theists. That dogmatic wall that can't be torn down.

That's the thing... if you go about trying to build an argument against abortion without such dogmatic black and white "decrees" (and thus where the logic in an argument must be universally applicable - otherwise it's special pleading), you end up in a hypothetical world where it's okay to knock someone out in the streets to take his kidney to save the life of another person.



EDIT: well, this turned out quite longer then I expected. I went on a roll there a bit, sorry. I hope I made some sense to you.

 

[Koldo]

Sounds like a claim.

So how does one go about finding out what these rights are? How do you "discover" them? And when you "discovered" them, how do you go about sharing those while supporting the idea of them being objective and not just your opinion?

That's up for each person proposing the argument to explain.

"Possible", perhaps.
But it seems to me that the vast majority isn't doing that at all.
And I say "the vast majority" out of some kind of intellectual honesty, because I'm not actually aware of any "anti-abortion militant/lobbyist" who uses such argumentation.

It is always present in some form or shape when people argue that people have rights regardless of whether the government grants them.

Still not entirely sure what you mean exactly with "jusnaturalism" though.

But in any case, I indeed think such laws are unjust. And my reasoning for that comes from multiple angles.

The primary one being pretty much very similar to my reasoning that it's not okay to make a law that someone can be forced to give up a kidney to save someone else. It's not okay to "use" someone else's body against that person's will to keep someone else alive.

And that is "grounded" in pretty much the same way as my entire ethical framework. It's a combination of experience, learning from history, humanistic values (like human rights, equality, ...), knowledge about the world around us, etc...

And no, I do not agree that any of these things are "objective" in nature. Quite simply because "objective" literally means "independent of human thought", while things like ethical frameworks literally only exist within human thought. Such frameworks and models, literally develop over time. Our motals and ethical standards of today are not the same as 2000 years ago. They aren't the same as 500 years ago. Heck, they aren't even the same as only 10 years ago.

They constantly evolve and develop, as we gain more experience (like being on the receiving end of evil things instead of being the causal factor ourselves) and learn more things about the world (which helps us better understand the consequences of our actions).

You could ask the question "so what is the end goal then", because logically, if ethical models changes as we learn new things, then there should be some kind of standard in place against which things are evaluated.

A lot of theists will say that this standard is "God". And that's the angle the argue from and the baseline they will always circle back to during discussions concerning morality or moral values or moral evaluation (like abortion debates). Eventually, you'll always hit that wall of dogmatism where the "why" question is answered with "cause God decreed it so".

For me, the standard, the starting point, is the hypothetical utopian society in which I would want to live while not knowing in advance who I will be (in terms of ethnicity, religious/cultural background, sexual orientation, etc).

So my moral evaluation reasoning centers around "does this take us closer or further away from that utopian society?", and I do my best to really explore that. So in other words, it is NOT based on certain "decrees" that MUST be upheld at all times. It's not a black and white world that you can fit into one line rules like "MURDER IS WRONG MMKAY". No, there's always context and implications.


This is why it's so hard for me to discuss abortion with theists. That dogmatic wall that can't be torn down.

That's the thing... if you go about trying to build an argument against abortion without such dogmatic black and white "decrees" (and thus where the logic in an argument must be universally applicable - otherwise it's special pleading), you end up in a hypothetical world where it's okay to knock someone out in the streets to take his kidney to save the life of another person.



EDIT: well, this turned out quite longer then I expected. I went on a roll there a bit, sorry. I hope I made some sense to you.

In other words what matters is your opinion on how the world should be. Does it come to you as any surprise if someone else comes along and tells you they don't give much importance it ?

Also, it doesn't follow that by prohibiting abortion it would entail being alright with stealing someone's kidney.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words what matters is your opinion on how the world should be.

No.
What matters is what can be agreed upon and which is underpinned by rational reasoning.

Does it come to you as any surprise if someone else comes along and tells you they don't give much importance it ?

No. Hence discussions such as this.
It's part of moral development to debate about it.

Also, it doesn't follow that by prohibiting abortion it would entail being alright with stealing someone's kidney.

Only because there's no law against using special pleading.
The radical "pro life" reasoning that underpins their argumentation, imo works just as well to defend the practice of taking someone's kidney to save the life of another.

 

[Koldo]

No.
What matters is what can be agreed upon and which is underpinned by rational reasoning.

I am afraid you have not shown how rational reasoning leads to your conclusions.

Only because there's no law against using special pleading.
The radical "pro life" reasoning that underpins their argumentation, imo works just as well to defend the practice of taking someone's kidney to save the life of another.

Perhaps I should remind you that for something to be a special pleading it must not only involve an exception but also a lack of proper justification for the exception being made.

First of all, you don't get to lose your uterus for good if you get pregnant unlike your kidney example so the comparison already fails right there.

But let's consider a scenario where you don't get to lose an organ for good such as a liver transplant. Have you ever heard about treating people in the measure of their inequality ? I don't know how it is where you live, but in here we grant privileges to people on the basis of their particular conditions. Just to cite a few examples: elders and pregnant women have access to preferential lines in many places ( by law ), affirmative action to help people that are black and poor go to the universities, disabled people get to have help while doing many exams ( such as someone reading the questions for them if they are blind ), people are forced to pay child support ( they go to jail if they don't )...

Let's go with the last example I provided. Certainly you don't have to feed all children in your country, right ? And yet, you are forced by law to feed your own children.

In essence, much like children the fetus are not just the regular people you meet on the streets, rather they are under a very peculiar condition and therefore it is only natural that they would be entitled to certain privileges too. Which means you might have to do something for them that you wouldn't have to do for others.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am afraid you have not shown how rational reasoning leads to your conclusions.

What I have shown is that the "pro lifers" aren't underpinning their arguments with rational reasoning, because they are premised by dogmatic "decrees" by a perceived authority which they believe religiously.

Perhaps I should remind you that for something to be a special pleading it must not only involve an exception but also a lack of proper justification for the exception being made.

Yes.
And religious decrees aren't "proper justifications".

First of all, you don't get to lose your uterus for good if you get pregnant unlike your kidney example so the comparison already fails right there.

The analogy is not about losing body parts.
It is by using another person's body against their will.

And I'll note that being pregnant can and does take a serious toll on a woman's body.

For crying out loud, it's not even allowed to draw blood for a blood bank against someone's will...

But let's consider a scenario where you don't get to lose an organ for good such as a liver transplant. Have you ever heard about treating people in the measure of their inequality ? I don't know how it is where you live, but in here we grant privileges to people on the basis of their particular conditions. Just to cite a few examples: elders and pregnant women have access to preferential lines in many places ( by law ), affirmative action to help people that are black and poor go to the universities, disabled people get to have help while doing many exams ( such as someone reading the questions for them if they are blind ), people are forced to pay child support ( they go to jail if they don't )...

I don't see what any of this has got to do with being the boss of your own body.

Let's go with the last example I provided. Certainly you don't have to feed all children in your country, right ? And yet, you are forced by law to feed your own children.

My born children, yes.

You know what I'ld NEVER be forced to do?
Give up a kidney, or even just blood for a transfusion, when it would save my kids if I did.

I would do that off course. But because I'ld want to, not because I'ld be forced to - because I wouldn't be forced to.

In essence, much like children the fetus are not just the regular people you meet on the streets, rather they are under a very peculiar condition and therefore it is only natural that they would be entitled to certain privileges too. Which means you might have to do something for them that you wouldn't have to do for others.

A fetus isn't a human being with rights, citizenship and personhood.
No matter how many times you assert that.


ps: good luck investigating every single miscarriage as a potential murder case. I can see the headlines now "Woman eats undercooked clam - sentenced for involuntary manslaughter"

 

[Koldo]

What I have shown is that the "pro lifers" aren't underpinning their arguments with rational reasoning, because they are premised by dogmatic "decrees" by a perceived authority which they believe religiously.

It bears repeating since you haven't addressed this part: I am afraid you have not shown how rational reasoning leads to your conclusions.

The analogy is not about losing body parts.
It is by using another person's body against their will.

If that was your intention then why not use ( a part of ) the liver in your analogy ?

And I'll note that being pregnant can and does take a serious toll on a woman's body.

For crying out loud, it's not even allowed to draw blood for a blood bank against someone's will...

I don't see what any of this has got to do with being the boss of your own body.

It means people, depending on their circumstances, are entitled to distinct privileges.

My born children, yes.

You know what I'ld NEVER be forced to do?
Give up a kidney, or even just blood for a transfusion, when it would save my kids if I did.

I would do that off course. But because I'ld want to, not because I'ld be forced to - because I wouldn't be forced to.

Is it special pleading to argue that you should pay child support even though you don't have to pay child support for any other child ?
If it is not, then the rationale is also applicable to the fetus and the uterus.

A fetus isn't a human being with rights, citizenship and personhood.
No matter how many times you assert that.

That's a legal matter.
I don't see the point of going down that road, no matter the laws of your country.

ps: good luck investigating every single miscarriage as a potential murder case. I can see the headlines now "Woman eats undercooked clam - sentenced for involuntary manslaughter"

What does that have to do with anything ?
Why would every single miscarriage have to be investigated as a potential murder case ?

 

[Prestor John]

If it is murder, we have an obligation to stop it. (It's against the law)

If it's not then we have an obligation to affirm it. (It's a constitutional right)

So, I will ask again, is it murder? And why or why not?

This does not make sense to me.

Even if it were somehow proven that abortion was not murder, how would that make abortion a constitutional right?

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about abortion.

 

[Scarecrow613]

The problem is that "murder" is itself a legal definition. It is a fact that it is possible to kill another human being and not commit murder, and courts and juries decide that based on nothing but legal definitions.

Law in the United States, and in most of the civilized world, says that abortion is not murder, and therefore, it is not. Change the laws, and it might well become murder, and then you might find immense public pressure to change the law again. After all, it's in that context (public pressure through demonstrations and so forth, along with many, many legal proceedings) that eventually culminated in Roe v. Wade.

Yes, this could change again. That's the nature of human institutions. What I am trying to say is "abortion is murder" only if we humans say it is, and it isn't, only if we humans say it isn't. God is silent on the issue.

Chapter and verse please, plus the Bible version you're using.

.

.

The holocaust and l,lynching were legal. So they were not murder? What were they then?