I'm pro-life...but that's my choice

[rom422]

You ask me to defend a position I don’t actually hold, so it is quite uncomfortable, but here it goes: One could say that a person is a human being that has become separate from his mother. It is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but there are many distinctions in science that are somewhat arbitrary. So it is coherent and well-defined. Words can be defined any way we want as long as we agree on the definitions. It is what we say about those words after they are defined that really counts.

Since you do not hold this position, I take it that we are just talking about this academically, and that is fine. But just so that we don’t get hung up on semantics, let me clarify one point.

There are two kinds of definitions: a nominal definition and a real definition. A nominal definition defines a word; it states what the word means. A real definition defines a thing; it states what the nature of the thing is.

It is true that nominal definitions are arbitrary. You can make words mean whatever you want them to mean. For example, if by the word “heaven” I mean hell, and by the word “hell” I mean heaven, then I can most definitely say that all devils are in heaven and all saints are in hell - and I am quite consistent. (Of course, you should never use words with unconventional meaning like that without telling your listeners first; otherwise, they will be shocked.)

However, real definitions are never arbitrary. When we are asked to judge what that zygote is that is in the womb of a female human being, we are being asked to state what is the nature of that thing. And we answer that it is a human being and that it has a right to life.

Now, usually the word “person” is used to designate a human being that is the subject of rights. (Lawyers sometimes use the word “person” also to designate any entity - an individual man or a corporation - that is the subject of legal rights, but this is not the meaning I have here.) In that sense, even the zygote is a person because it is the subject of human rights.

However, if you now arbitrarily define the word “person” differently, and say that the word “person” designates a human being that has become separate from its mother, then of course the zygote is not a “person” (because it is not yet separate from its mother). But, to be perfectly consistent we will deny the proposition that the zygote has no rights just because it is not a “person.” For you can arbitrarily change the meaning of words, but you cannot arbitrarily change the nature of things. If the zygote by nature has a right to life, then it has a right to life regardless whether you nominally define it a “person” or not.

 

[preferanonymous]

You ask me to defend a position I don’t actually hold, so it is quite uncomfortable, but here it goes: One could say that a person is a human being that has become separate from his mother. It is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but there are many distinctions in science that are somewhat arbitrary. So it is coherent and well-defined. Words can be defined any way we want as long as we agree on the definitions. It is what we say about those words after they are defined that really counts.

I don’t like having to abandon the traditional use of the word “gay” just because it has become a synonym for homosexual. Words should mean what we want them to mean. Similarly I don’t want to abandon the use of the word “fetus” just because a few people attach a non-human connotation to it.

To the first paragraph: I think you do at least hold such a standard is coherent, in so far as you ask people why the unborn child, although it is a being with a natural inherent rational capacity, is not a person. This is what I want to challenge. Even if I granted you that your standard was not arbitrarily scientifically, your standard is arbitrarily morally (even Singer grants this) and because the personhood question is a moral one (not scientific as I think you might be implying) it is not rationally acceptable. Furthermore, the definition excludes the possibility of adult rational non-humans as person. Thus, it is runs into the issue of being speciesist and this counts against it being coherent. It is thus not, at least as how I might use the terms, well-defined or coherent. If this hits the mark, you need to present another standard, one might argue, if you want to ask meaningfully the question whether or not the unborn child is a person.

To talk about the second paragraph: If you (and I mean you) mean by fetus a person perhaps that is fine, though the use of the word that way is not going to do you well in communicating with others on this issue. That might be an objection to you if you considered the meaning of the words to be equal to their use. If you, on the other hand, are talking about a more precise meaning or essence of the word ‘fetus’, I do not see how specifying anything as an ‘adult’ or a ‘fetus’ tells us about personhood at all- consider the fetal chicken. In this register then, I do not see why you would use the term that way. Nonetheless, even if you do use it that way, that is beside the point in that I do not think that would be sufficient to establish a coherent notion of personhood by which the unborn child could not be considered a person. Perhaps we might focus on this point.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, we do have common ground on our belief in human rights, including the rights of the unborn. The only discussion is what the basis of that belief could be. I say it is my faith. Without referring to God I cannot defend that position. Because I don’t think there is a tenable non-religious foundation for it.

The ethical philosophers of the Enlightenment, who are essentially responsible for our modern western notions of human rights, largely did not believe in any established religion.

I think you’re more consistent than I was giving you credit for earlier, LeafByNiggle. You actually admitted that you honestly think one needs some kind of religion in order to answer Nazism sufficiently.

But you have to understand, the vast majority of people disagree.

And concerning abortion, we don’t need to justify human rights, because most people - whether religious or not - already believe in it. The basic argument for the pro-life cause is quite simple and secular:

(1) Killing another human being ought to be illegal (this could easily be denied, but the vast majority of people, religious or not, support it)
(2) An unborn/preborn human being (zygote, embryo, or fetus) is human (this cannot be credibly denied)
(3) Therefore, killing an unborn human being ought to be illegal

There are plenty of complicating factors that make this issue more complex than that, but religion is not a necessary ingredient of the pro-life position.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are two kinds of definitions: a nominal definition and a real definition. A nominal definition defines a word; it states what the word means. A real definition defines a thing; it states what the nature of the thing is.

Well, I learned something new! But it seems to me that even if you want to give a real definition (or define the “real essence” as Aristotle put it) you must first have a nominal definition. Using the example from the Wikipedia article on this, the word “hobbit” cannot have a real definition, but the word “man” can because it refers real things (men) that have a certain essence. So a real definition of “man” (or “human” as in our discussion) is founded on a pre-existing understanding of what is included in the set of all humans. Then the real definition can go on from there to describe the characteristics of a human. However, absent that pre-existing agreement on the nominal definition, one cannot even begin to discuss a real definition. And that’s exactly the situation with regard to people who disagree that an embryo is a human being. If you begin your argument by saying that the word “human” must include embryos for such and such a reason, then you are referring to the nominal definition. Then if you go on to say that the essence of all humans is to be free to live, then you are referring to the real definition. While it difficult to argue against a nominal definition (after all, words mean whatever we want them to mean) is it not as difficult to argue against a real definition. A real definition is more like what I would call a statement. It contains assertions that can be either true or false. So the standard of acceptance of a real definition is higher than the standard of acceptance of a nominal definition. I think that when people try to defend the inclusive definition of human they actually revert to defending it on nominal grounds (“what else could the word mean?”) rather than on real grounds. So while the distinction between different kinds of definitions is interesting, I wonder if it really helps in supporting the question at hand.

(Of course, you should never use words with unconventional meaning like that without telling your listeners first; otherwise, they will be shocked.)

Yes, and if the word “fetus” ever does reach the point that considering it to be human is unconventional, then I will stop using that word.

However, if you now arbitrarily define the word “person” differently, and say that the word “person” designates a human being that has become separate from its mother, then of course the zygote is not a “person” (because it is not yet separate from its mother). But, to be perfectly consistent we will deny the proposition that the zygote has no rights just because it is not a “person.” For you can arbitrarily change the meaning of words, but you cannot arbitrarily change the nature of things.

That is true. But saying what is or is not included in the set of all “persons” is a nominal definition, not a real one. As such, it can be arbitrary. Saying what rights a “person” has, on the other hand, is a real definition and, as you say, cannot be arbitrary because it describes a true essence. So it is possible to arbitrarily define (nominally) a person and then, after it has been defined nominally, give a real definition that describes the essence of the things included in that set. Of course the real definition will be affected by the choices made in the nominal one. When describing the essence of things you must first know what things you are trying to describe. You can’t do that backwards and first describe the essence of a thing and then give a nominal definition of the word that names those things.

 

[Nate13]

If your going to require us to provide reasoning for why a fetus deserves human rights, I will ask that you first defend why you deserve them.

All we have established right now is that human beings deserve human rights. But every time we try to show that a fetus is a human being you skip around with the definition of human being and say its arbitrary. Lets start with defining why a human being (you in particular) deserves human rights and then work from there to include mentally handicap people, people in a coma, new born babies, and finally a baby at the initial point of life. At that point we will have our definition of a human being as it pertains to who is deserving of human rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And concerning abortion, we don’t need to justify human rights, because most people - whether religious or not - already believe in it. The basic argument for the pro-life cause is quite simple and secular:

(1) Killing another human being ought to be illegal (this could easily be denied, but the vast majority of people, religious or not, support it)

They do not support it unconditionally. People already recognize exceptions in the case of self defense or capital punishment. Of course those particular exceptions do not apply in the case of abortion, but it is enough to show that the principle does not have universal applicability, and a more qualified argument needs to be made.

(2) An unborn/preborn human being (zygote, embryo, or fetus) is human (this cannot be credibly denied)

Is this said as a nominal definition or a real definition? (Thanks to rom422 for the insight into this distinction.) If it is a nominal definition, then one could claim that (1) does not describe the essence of what these terms name. If it is a real definition, then one could credibly deny (2).

(3) Therefore, killing an unborn human being ought to be illegal

See comments on (1) and (2) above.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If your going to require us to provide reasoning for why a fetus deserves human rights, I will ask that you first defend why you deserve them.

All we have established right now is that human beings deserve human rights. But every time we try to show that a fetus is a human being you skip around with the definition of human being and say its arbitrary. Lets start with defining why a human being (you in particular) deserves human rights and then work from there to include mentally handicap people, people in a coma, new born babies, and finally a baby at the initial point of life.

Maybe you missed it, but I do agree that a fetus deserves human rights. But my belief is based on my religion. The discussion is whether or not there is a non-religious totally secular argument for human rights for a fetus.

 

[Nate13]

Maybe you missed it, but I do agree that a fetus deserves human rights. But my belief is based on my religion. The discussion is whether or not there is a non-religious totally secular argument for human rights for a fetus.

Exactly and I’m asking why I should provide that if we have yet to establish the secular argument for why you deserve human rights? We have no established secular definition of human being as is pertains to who deserves human rights, thus it is impossible currently for me to show how a fetus is a human being.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Exactly and I’m asking why I should provide that if we have yet to establish the secular argument for why you deserve human rights? We have no established secular definition of human being as is pertains to who deserves human rights, thus it is impossible currently for me to show how a fetus is a human being.

Well, let’s see. How would I argue on secular grounds that most people should have human rights? I guess I would say that without some guarantee of human rights, people in society will feel less secure and less willing to throw in their lot with the rest of society. Without a good sense of morale, people will not see their own self-interests as having anything in common with the interests of their neighbors. They culture will degenerate, and cease to prosper. Since everyone accepts as axiomatic that it is good for a society to prosper, it should be accepted that having human rights (for most people) is a good thing for society to guarantee.

 

[Nate13]

Well, let’s see. How would I argue on secular grounds that most people should have human rights? I guess I would say that without some guarantee of human rights, people in society will feel less secure and less willing to throw in their lot with the rest of society. Without a good sense of morale, people will not see their own self-interests as having anything in common with the interests of their neighbors. They culture will degenerate, and cease to prosper. Since everyone accepts as axiomatic that it is good for a society to prosper, it should be accepted that having human rights (for most people) is a good thing for society to guarantee.

Why should human rights be extended to the mentally handicap, people who are insane, those in a coma, and new born babies all of whom are a burden on society? I’d also add that your argument describes why human rights are something nice to have, but not why they are inalienable. What is it about humans that innately makes us deserving of human rights?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why should human rights be extended to the mentally handicap, people who are insane, those in a coma, and new born babies all of whom are a burden on society? I’d also add that your argument describes why human rights are something nice to have, but not why they are inalienable. What is it about humans that innately makes us deserving of human rights?

That argument I can’t make without recourse to my faith, and some trust that the person I am trying to convince also shares a faith that is somewhat like mine.

 

[Nate13]

That argument I can’t make without recourse to my faith, and some trust that the person I am trying to convince also shares a faith that is somewhat like mine.

Our constitution and the United Nations stand on the principle that there are human rights that are unalienable. There must be some secular line of reasoning as to why humans have inalienable rights also called natural rights.

On the other hand it might be stupid to try, considering our own Constitution explains it by simply saying “all men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Thus I can only conclude that at least in the United States is perfectly viable for me to defend the unalienable rights of an unborn child by appealing to God, since my own rights come from there. What good are unalienable rights if they don’t protect you for the first 9 months of life?

 

[rom422]

Using the example from the Wikipedia article on this, the word “hobbit” cannot have a real definition, but the word “man” can because it refers real things (men) that have a certain essence.

The word “man” cannot have a real definition; but the things or people designated by the word “man” can have a real definition. Only things can have a real definition. The real definition will describe the nature of those things designated by the word.

From now on I will enclose a word in quotation marks if I want to refer to it only as a word. For example, “man” (as a word) can have an arbitrary nominal definition; but man (as a real being in the world) can be given a non-arbitrary real definition.

So a real definition of “man” (or “human” as in our discussion) is founded on a pre-existing understanding of what is included in the set of all humans. Then the real definition can go on from there to describe the characteristics of a human. However, absent that pre-existing agreement on the nominal definition, one cannot even begin to discuss a real definition.

I think that what you mean here is that a real definition of man presupposes a pre-existing understanding of what beings are denoted by the word “man,” and short of knowing what the word “man” designates, then you cannot begin to investigate the real definition or nature of those beings that we call “men.” If that is what you mean, then I agree.

I have one note to make, though. Unlike mathematical entities, whose essences and real definitions are clear to our minds, material beings have essences or natures that are often hidden from us. If we want to find the real definition of a horse, for example, we would be satisfied to describe it in terms of its distinctive properties, instead of giving it an essential definition in terms of genus and differentia. And this is what scientists and taxonomists also do. But this does not mean that we need to inspect every single horse, for example, to find out what its distinctive properties are. That is not how we human beings learn the natures of things. We are not computers that will analytically find the properties that serve as the common denominator in the set of all beings that we call “horse.” God gave us a mind that has the power of abstraction, so that we really don’t need to inspect every single horse to have a basic understanding of what its nature is. Even a child knows what a horse is, although he or she had seen only a few horses. And the child’s understanding, and the common man’s understanding, are for practical purposes good enough.

What am I getting at in saying all this? In any discussion about what the nature of a thing is, I think it is important not to lose our common sense. We know what a human being is, even if we have not seen all the various forms a human being can take, and even if we cannot verbalize our knowledge of human nature in terms of clear concepts. This might be the first time a child sees a person without a leg, but he or she still knows that it is a human being. This might be the first time you see a 27 year old woman that is only 18 inches tall, and you don’t doubt that she is human. But when it comes to the zygote that is the offspring of human parents, and which we know will not develop into anything else but a human being, we entertain so much doubt and skepticism, and we ask for philosophic and scientific proofs of its being human. Couldn’t we just accept it as a given, that the zygote that results from the fusion of a human sperm and a human egg, is human? Do we have to dissect it down to its basic genetic content, to demonstrate the fact that it is human? The truth is, no matter what you do, the essence or nature of a thing is a reality that is non-sensible. The nature of a thing is grasped by the understanding, not so much by the senses.

And that’s exactly the situation with regard to people who disagree that an embryo is a human being. If you begin your argument by saying that the word “human” must include embryos for such and such a reason, then you are referring to the nominal definition.

But that is not how we determine that the embryo is human. We do not start by arbitrarily including the embryo under the nominal definition of the word “human.” Rather, we consider the embryo as a thing, and then ask, What sort of being is it? Then we judge that it is a new human being, and this is a real definition. Here we are being guided by that important faculty that we call common sense. For we are not idiots. We know not to call everything that grows inside a human body as an individual person or human being. The organs of a child are also growing inside its body, but we don’t regard them as human beings distinct from the child. There are also moles and tumors that grow in the human body, but we do not defend their right to life. In all these cases, it is common sense, our common understanding of what a human being is, that is guiding our judgment. So likewise, when we judge that the zygote, or the embryo, or the fetus is human, it is because we understand by our mind that it is the growing offspring of human parents, and therefore must be a human being.

Have a great 2012 everyone!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

They do not support it unconditionally. People already recognize exceptions in the case of self defense or capital punishment. Of course those particular exceptions do not apply in the case of abortion, but it is enough to show that the principle does not have universal applicability, and a more qualified argument needs to be made.

As you said, those particular exceptions do not apply to abortion: a human embryo/fetus is not attacking anyone and has not committed any crimes. Nor are they combatants in warfare (another possible exception).

None of the exceptions customarily made apply to them. The first premise needs nothing more than an implicit - or, if you really wish, explicit - clause, “…excepting the cases of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.” Until that list contains something that applies to the unborn, the premise stands.

(By the way, I personally oppose capital punishment and, except in extreme circumstances, war as well.)

Is this said as a nominal definition or a real definition? (Thanks to rom422 for the insight into this distinction.) If it is a nominal definition, then one could claim that (1) does not describe the essence of what these terms name. If it is a real definition, then one could credibly deny (2).

It’s classification, not definition, so that distinction is irrelevant. Taxonomically, biologically, materially, verifiably, an unborn human zygote/embryo/fetus is human. Nothing more needs to be said; anything else is sophistry.

Maybe you missed it, but I do agree that a fetus deserves human rights. But my belief is based on my religion. The discussion is whether or not there is a non-religious totally secular argument for human rights for a fetus.

(1) If there is no non-religious basis for human rights for a human embryo/fetus, then there is no non-religious basis for human rights for any human.

(2) There is a non-religious basis for human rights for some humans.

(3) Therefore, there is a non-religious basis for human rights for human embryos/fetuses.

The basis is the same for both.

That argument I can’t make without recourse to my faith, and some trust that the person I am trying to convince also shares a faith that is somewhat like mine.

Correct.

But the faith we trust you share with them is not a religious faith. It is a secular, philosophical, ethical faith in unalienable human rights.

Most people in our society have that faith, so they cannot reasonably oppose the pro-life position.

Those that don’t have that faith, I don’t know how to argue with at all, but they are in the minority, so I really don’t care.

 

[Nate13]

But the faith we trust you share with them is not a religious faith. It is a secular, philosophical, ethical faith in unalienable human rights.

Most people in our society have that faith, so they cannot reasonably oppose the pro-life position.

Those that don’t have that faith, I don’t know how to argue with at all, but they are in the minority, so I really don’t care.

No, it allows them to avoid the question of admitting a baby in the womb has unalienable rights because they couldn’t explain to you why they have them without mentioning God. They can’t mention God or they are supposedly mixing Church and State. However our own Constitution is allowed to get away with it.

 

[sw85]

The problem is that the Catholic conception of rights IS totally secular: it makes no reference to the divine but simply to human nature.

People who claim otherwise are either ignorant or saying Catholic principles should be disregarded simply for being Catholic. Either way, to hell with the degenerate bigot morons and their infanticidal fetishism.

 

[Nate13]

The problem is that the Catholic conception of rights IS totally secular: it makes no reference to the divine but simply to human nature.

People who claim otherwise are either ignorant or saying Catholic principles should be disregarded simply for being Catholic. Either way, to hell with the degenerate bigot morons and their infanticidal fetishism.

Is human nature of significance though if it is just the product of random chaos? Natural law seems to lose significance if it is not the product of intelligent design of some sort.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The first premise needs nothing more than an implicit - or, if you really wish, explicit - clause, “…excepting the cases of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.” Until that list contains something that applies to the unborn, the premise stands.

According to this article in lifenews, 49% of Americans support the right to abortion. That 49% obviously does not accept your premise, even with the exceptions you mentioned.

(1) If there is no non-religious basis for human rights for a human embryo/fetus, then there is no non-religious basis for human rights for any human.

Not necessarily. As I pointed out in post #130 a very pragmatic case for at least some people having human rights can be made without having it apply to everyone.

(2) There is a non-religious basis for human rights for some humans.

Doesn’t matter unless you can establish (1) above.

But the faith we trust you share with them is not a religious faith. It is a secular, philosophical, ethical faith in unalienable human rights.

It may be true that many people with no religion have such a faith, but many do not. Those that do are already convinced. Those that do not may not be convinced.

Most people in our society have that faith, so they cannot reasonably oppose the pro-life position.

Well, at least 49% of our society do not have that faith, according to the lifenews link above.

 

[Nate13]

But the faith we trust you share with them is not a religious faith. It is a secular, philosophical, ethical faith in unalienable human rights.

It may be true that many people with no religion have such a faith, but many do not. Those that do are already convinced. Those that do not may not be convinced.

Most people in our society have that faith, so they cannot reasonably oppose the pro-life position.

Well, at least 49% of our society do not have that faith, according to the lifenews link above.

I would draw the opposite conclusion: 49% of our society is unreasonable. How many of that 49% could explain why they believe with secular arguments that they have the unalienable right to life? If they don’t know why they should have them, how can their opinion on whether an unborn child should have them be reasonable?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I would draw the opposite conclusion: 49% of our society is unreasonable. How many of that 49% could explain why they believe with secular arguments that they have the unalienable right to life? If they don’t know why they should have them, how can their opinion on whether an unborn child should have them be reasonable?

Probably a good many of them do not believe they have unalienable rights (in the sense of rights granted by a higher power than the current civil government). But they still feel confident that they and everyone they care about will receive those rights for the pragmatic reasons I cited in post #130. In other words their feeling of security rests not in God but in their belief that their government would not possibly do something so stupid as to deny them (good productive citizens and taxpayers) the human rights they desire.