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

[rom422]

It is unreasonable to ask that we prove everything that we accept as true. In fact, any kind of proof or demonstration ultimately depends on principles that are accepted as true without proof. These principles are called axioms.

I know of at least three kinds of axioms:

1. Self-evident principles - or propositions whose truth becomes evident as soon as the terms of the proposition are understood. Example: “In any finite collection the whole is larger than a part.” These kinds of principles are mostly found in mathematics and metaphysics (or first philosophy).
2. Physical principles or laws derived from direct observation or experience. Example: “Every body tends to keep its state of motion unless acted upon by some external force.” Newton did not need to prove this law of motion because it is evident from experience. This type of principles is mostly found in the experimental and empiriological sciences of nature (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
3. Moral principles or laws that proceed from our consciousness as human beings. Example: “Murder (or the killing of an innocent human being) is wrong.” This principle is universally accepted as true, not because it is found to be one of the 10 commandments, but because its denial goes against our conscience as human beings. Morally evident principles are the axioms found in moral philosophy (individual and social ethics).

There are, therefore, certain things that we don’t need to prove simply because they are already evident. They can neither be proved nor be disproved. They can be rejected, but they cannot be refuted. In fact, there are people who would deny axiomatic principles. For example, I’ve met someone who denied the fact that “nothing comes nothing.” I failed to convince him on anything. People like this cannot be convinced by any argument. Their problem is not logical; it is moral. They do not need convincing arguments; what they need is our prayer.

The United Nations as well as the constitution of many countries take it as an axiomatic principle that the right to life is an inalienable human right. It is in the constitution without proof because it is taken as axiomatic (or a morally evident principle). Therefore, Nate13 is quite correct in insisting that “If you can first give me a proof why you have an inalienable right to life, then I can show you why an unborn human being has an inalienable right to life.” He is right in refusing to prove what is already morally evident. It is simply not possible, and it is not needed.

Likewise, the fact that a zygote, an embryo or a fetus is human, is physically evident already to one who knows from experience that it is the natural offspring of two human parents. If you try to argue that a human embryo is human to one who rejects this axiomatic principle, then your opponent will win the day. You cannot prove anything to him who rejects the first principle on which your argument hangs. With him you can only make appeal to his common sense, and pray that he might open his mind and heart to grace.

Praised be our Lord!

 

[Nate13]

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.

If they are not unalienable then slavery would be around. There were good arguments as to why slavery was in societies best interests as a whole in a secular sense. The people against slavery and against treating African Americans as second class citizens weren’t doing so because it was in societies best secular interest. They were doing so because they realized all men deserved those inalienable rights. The same applies here. Allowing more lives into the World, possibly into homes that don’t want them may not be the best thing for society in a secular sense, but it is the right thing to do and many of us will go to the grave if necessary fighting for it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If they are not unalienable then slavery would be around. There were good arguments as to why slavery was in societies best interests as a whole in a secular sense. The people against slavery and against treating African Americans as second class citizens weren’t doing so because it was in societies best secular interest. They were doing so because they realized all men deserved those inalienable rights. The same applies here. Allowing more lives into the World, possibly into homes that don’t want them may not be the best thing for society in a secular sense, but it is the right thing to do and many of us will go to the grave if necessary fighting for it.

“I will write my law in their hearts” comes to mind. This happens to believers and non-believers as well, even if they don’t know it. So a secular consensus might develop that slavery is wrong. And when enough people feel that way, the society is changed. It is the result of people listening to God’s voice in their hearts. It is not the result of logic and axioms and definitions. It is not the result of argument. Sitting down and watching “Roots” or “The Help” will do more to change minds than all the formal logic you can construct. Similarly for abortion, pictures and stories of real people’s experiences is what awakens the sense of God’s law in our hearts. So if a secular awakening to the pro-life view happens, it will happen similarly to the abolition of slavery - not from formal logic, but from a change of heart.

Now people of faith have a head start in hearing God’s voice because they are already listening for it. For them a logical argument can work, because they will accept the axioms that many non-believers will not. You can’t prove axioms. You either accept them or you don’t.

 

[Nate13]

“I will write my law in their hearts” comes to mind. This happens to believers and non-believers as well, even if they don’t know it. So a secular consensus might develop that slavery is wrong. And when enough people feel that way, the society is changed. It is the result of people listening to God’s voice in their hearts. It is not the result of logic and axioms and definitions. It is not the result of argument. Sitting down and watching “Roots” or “The Help” will do more to change minds than all the formal logic you can construct. Similarly for abortion, pictures and stories of real people’s experiences is what awakens the sense of God’s law in our hearts. So if a secular awakening to the pro-life view happens, it will happen similarly to the abolition of slavery - not from formal logic, but from a change of heart.

Now people of faith have a head start in hearing God’s voice because they are already listening for it. For them a logical argument can work, because they will accept the axioms that many non-believers will not. You can’t prove axioms. You either accept them or you don’t.

I’ll let my signature answer this post. Your essentially saying that because we all have a conscience with God’s law written on our hearts we will eventually come to the Truth. I’m sorry but it requires more than this.

Quote from the Catechism:

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

And:

“We are all born with the power of speech, but we need grammar. Conscience, too, needs Revelation.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

And this:

In the nineteenth century, the movement to abolish slavery seized this passage as a statement of constitutional principle, although the U.S. constitution recognized and protected slavery. As a lawyer, future Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase argued before the Supreme Court in the case of John Van Zandt, who had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that:
“The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’ll let my signature answer this post. Your essentially saying that because we all have a conscience with God’s law written on our hearts we will eventually come to the Truth.

I said no such thing. I said that people** may** listen to God’s voice in their hearts. Then again they might not. They may glimpse some of the Truth this way. I certainly did not imply that all of the Truth is accessible this way.

And as for your Fulton Sheen quote:

“We are all born with the power of speech, but we need grammar. Conscience, too, needs Revelation.”

This supports my earlier point that a totally secular logical argument for the complete pro-life position cannot me made. It needs Revelation.

And as for this quote:

In the nineteenth century, the movement to abolish slavery seized this passage as a statement of constitutional principle, although the U.S. constitution recognized and protected slavery. As a lawyer, future Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase argued before the Supreme Court in the case of John Van Zandt, who had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that:
“The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property.”

I found this:

The case was decided by the United States Supreme Court against Van Zandt; it upheld the right of Congress and the obligation of the government to protect slavery, as it was established under the Constitution. Van Zandt was ruined financially by the decision and died later that year.

So I guess Chase’s argument was not good enough.

 

[sw85]

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.

I don’t think natural law needs to entertain any kind of reference to the divine. You need not believe in God to say “Goodness is existence in accordance with a thing’s mode of being; my mode of being includes a sexual faculty pointed toward the end of reproduction; therefore, sexual goodness (i.e., morality) consists in using my sexual faculty in a manner consistent with its end.”

A refusal to accept these principles can be based SOLELY on the refusal to accept reality as rationally ordered. And it is only in light of this will-to-disbelief that you can reject the conclusion of God to which everything (naturally) points.

 

[rom422]

This supports my earlier point that a totally secular logical argument for the complete pro-life position cannot me made. It needs Revelation.

A totally rational or philosophical argument for the pro-life position can be made, but it does not mean that it will be accepted by all. Because the argument will make use of physically and morally evident principles or axioms that some people will reject. Of course, when some people reject these axioms or principles, then they also will reject the argument, including the conclusion.

Revelation alone will not make these people accept them either. Because many people reject God’s revelations for selfish reasons. What is needed is our prayers, and the outpouring of Divine grace.

What this all means is that neither a purely philosophical nor a biblical proof could compel everybody to acknowledge the evil of abortion. Because we have the freedom to accept or not to accept principles that are already evident. The acceptance of moral conclusions does not depend solely on the cogency or strength of the arguments, but also on the uprightness of the human will.

It is easy to obtain consensus or agreement in the field of mathematics and the physical sciences, because mathematical and physical conclusions do not entail moral obligations. But total agreement in the field of morals and religion is very difficult to obtain because moral conclusions touch the realm of conscience, which often is distorted by sin. Philosophers and theologians have been arguing for ages about the end of human life, and the means toward the attainment of that end. Yet, there is no agreement among them. It is not because moral truth cannot be established with certainty. It is because truth can be rejected.

I.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A totally rational or philosophical argument for the pro-life position can be made, but it does not mean that it will be accepted by all. Because the argument will make use of physically and morally evident principles or axioms that some people will reject. Of course, when some people reject these axioms or principles, then they also will reject the argument, including the conclusion.

But the “axiom” that you expect any rational person to accept is not much different than the conclusion you are arguing for. In other words, your argument amounts to “Is so!”.

What you call “evident” is nothing less than the full pro-life position.

A century ago it was thought to be evident and axiomatic that the notion of “now”, as in this very instant, was a well-defined physical reality. Then Einstein showed us that it is not true. So people should be a bit reluctant to write things off as “evident” without searching diligently for some proof or justification.

Revelation alone will not make these people accept them either. Because many people reject God’s revelations for selfish reasons. What is needed is our prayers, and the outpouring of Divine grace.

Hear, hear!

What this all means is that neither a purely philosophical nor a biblical proof could compel everybody to acknowledge the evil of abortion. Because we have the freedom to accept or not to accept principles that are already evident.

I still dispute your use of “evident” in this context. There is an objective Truth, but that does not mean that Truth is evident.

The acceptance of moral conclusions does not depend solely on the cogency or strength of the arguments, but also on the uprightness of the human will.

Again, hear, hear!

 

[rom422]

But the “axiom” that you expect any rational person to accept is not much different than the conclusion you are arguing for. In other words, your argument amounts to “Is so!”.

What you call “evident” is nothing less than the full pro-life position.

Suppose I formulate the pro-life argument as follows:

If the zygote, embryo, or fetus is an innocent human being, then abortion (or the intentional killing of the zygote, embryo, or fetus) should be considered illegal.
The zygote, embryo, or fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion (or the intentional killing of the zygote, embryo, or fetus) should be considered illegal.

The first premise is morally evident; the second premise is physically/morally evident. (It is physically evident that the zygote, embryo or fetus, is the offspring of two human parents and, therefore, must be a human being. It is morally evident that it is innocent.)

The conclusion is a completely different statement from the premises, and it is not initially evident at all. However, it becomes evident in the light of the foregoing premises. So, it is not an “Is so”!

A century ago it was thought to be evident and axiomatic that the notion of “now”, as in this very instant, was a well-defined physical reality. Then Einstein showed us that it is not true. So people should be a bit reluctant to write things off as “evident” without searching diligently for some proof or justification.

The notion of “now” is no different now than before Einstein. Even the notion of “time” did not change. Real time is always absolute, and it neither flows quickly nor slowly. However, the measurement of time is relative, because it depends on the inertial reference and state of motion of the observer.

But let us not convert this discussion to a discussion on physics. I fully agree with you that science does refine our primordial conceptions and knowledge of reality. The common man sees water as water. The scientist knows that water is actually a compound of two other elements, Hydrogen and Oxygen. But that is a refinement, not a contradiction of what the common man knows. Likewise, common sense tells us that the zygote, being the offspring of two human parents, is a human being. Science does not contradict that. It merely refines our knowledge by saying that a zygote has the distinctive genetic material that is found in all humans, and therefore is also a human being.

That said, I also agree that science does correct conclusions that are based solely on appearances. For example, there was a time when people believed that the sun moved around the earth, or at least that is how it appeared to most people. Science corrects that by saying the earth is not stationary, and it moves around the sun. So, you are right. We must exercise caution in making inferences based only on appearance. However, our judgment regarding the humanity of the zygote is now no longer based merely on appearance. Science confirms that the zygote has the same distinctive genetic material as any other human being in the world.

I still dispute your use of “evident” in this context. There is an objective Truth, but that does not mean that Truth is evident.

Not all truth is evident. But some are.

LeafByNiggle, I know that you are personally not pro-abortion. I have been reading your post and following your thought. I know that you are only playing the role of a “devil’s advocate” in this thread, and I admire you for how well and how consistently you handled that role. I also want to thank you for playing that role, because it gave us a chance to bring out the issues more clearly. I, for example, am now fully aware that the issues are not very easy to settle. And I am convinced, much more than before, that I can help the unborn much more by my prayers than by my logic. That said, I THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

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

It’s really not true that “those that do are already convinced” - if they were consistent they would be, but they’re not always consistent. The majority of Americans do believe in unalienable rights.

I do believe that by showing the world the humanity of the unborn, we can make significant progress toward obtaining legal protection for them. The development of more advanced ultrasound technology and things like that already helps in that regard.

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.

I don’t think you give people enough credit. They’re not so foolhardy as to trust the government that much.

One needn’t believe in “a higher power” in order to believe consistently in innate rights; one could make a philosophical case for these rights’ being innate, as a part of our very nature. I believe that this is what most Americans believe, at least implicitly. Whether it was God or chance that gave us this nature is not relevant to the intellectual foundation of human rights.

It is the result of people listening to God’s voice in their hearts. It is not the result of logic and axioms and definitions. It is not the result of argument. Sitting down and watching “Roots” or “The Help” will do more to change minds than all the formal logic you can construct. Similarly for abortion, pictures and stories of real people’s experiences is what awakens the sense of God’s law in our hearts. So if a secular awakening to the pro-life view happens, it will happen similarly to the abolition of slavery - not from formal logic, but from a change of heart.

Oh, I agree. But reasoned argument is one tool that helps achieve this change of heart. But you’re right - it’s not all about logic. It’s about people - life, living, caring for each other, non-violence.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The notion of “now” is no different now than before Einstein. Even the notion of “time” did not change. Real time is always absolute, and it neither flows quickly nor slowly. However, the measurement of time is relative, because it depends on the inertial reference and state of motion of the observer.

I realize this is a side-track, but I really cannot let that pass. The notion of time was changed so fundamentally that it now understood that for two events, sufficiently far apart, their order in time (which came first) is also relative. That is not just a quirky measurement phenomenon. That is a fundamental objective reality that contradicts the previously-evident understanding of time. That fundamental Truth always was true, but it was not understood until recently. And it does illustrate that even somewhat “obvious” truths can be questioned and found to be false.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s really not true that “those that do are already convinced” - if they were consistent they would be, but they’re not always consistent. The majority of Americans do believe in unalienable rights.

Yes, and the majority of Americans also believe in God. I don’t think those two facts are unrelated.

One needn’t believe in “a higher power” in order to believe consistently in innate rights; one could make a philosophical case for these rights’ being innate, as a part of our very nature.

There are those who would hold quite consistently that the “very nature” of anything is only what you can directly observe and measure. Such a person would view unalienable rights as something to be something defined by statistics. You go around and survey the human population and find out how many of them are enjoying these rights. How would you tell these people that their idea of the “very nature” of man is wrong?

 

[karebear92]

Yes, and the majority of Americans also believe in God. I don’t think those two facts are unrelated.

There are those who would hold quite consistently that the “very nature” of anything is only what you can directly observe and measure. Such a person would view unalienable rights as something to be something defined by statistics. You go around and survey the human population and find out how many of them are enjoying these rights. How would you tell these people that their idea of the “very nature” of man is wrong?

I would ask them what function must be present in order for one to receive rights. Is it being able to supply its own blood with a heartbeat, provide its own air, supply its own nutrients, be equal in capacity of the average human being? Would someone unable to take the survey and therefore be represented in the statistics not enjoy the same rights as those with the mental capacity to take the survey?

I would go from there.

 

[rom422]

I do believe that by showing the world the humanity of the unborn, we can make significant progress toward obtaining legal protection for them. The development of more advanced ultrasound technology and things like that already helps in that regard.

Well put!

We must not give up the fight, and strive to make others see the truth. In this way we increase the chance of obtaining legal protection for the unborn. There is no guarantee that we will succeed, and the fight is not going to be easy, because there are many who would refuse to acknowledge the truth. Also, there are philosophers out there who would maintain the most ludicrous thesis just to derail your effort to save the unborn. As Jonathan Swift once said, “There is nothing so extravagant or irrational which some philosophers have not maintained for truth” (in Gullivers Travels, Part III, Ch. 6).

 

[Nate13]

I don’t think natural law needs to entertain any kind of reference to the divine. You need not believe in God to say “Goodness is existence in accordance with a thing’s mode of being; my mode of being includes a sexual faculty pointed toward the end of reproduction; therefore, sexual goodness (i.e., morality) consists in using my sexual faculty in a manner consistent with its end.”

A refusal to accept these principles can be based SOLELY on the refusal to accept reality as rationally ordered. And it is only in light of this will-to-disbelief that you can reject the conclusion of God to which everything (naturally) points.

Yes but if someone refuses to acknowledge that we were designed our apparent nature is just happen stance. Sure my sexual faculties point towards a reproductive end, but why is that important if it is just the result of chance? Not believing in an intelligent designer does not change the fact that everything has a nature to it, but it does have effect on whether that nature is important and should be upheld over another alternative.

It would be like if I had a bag of marbles and held the bag up and just let the marbles drop to the floor. The position they land is not remarkable in anyway except for the fact that it just happens to be where it landed. You could say it goes against the natural order of the Universe (which most atheists are willing to accept the Universe is ordered), but your still stuck with trying to describe why that is even important.

Is natural law the same as natural rights in that it is something that is just a self-evident Truth that people just have to come to accept if they will only look at it from a secular sense?

 

[rom422]

Is natural law the same as natural rights in that it is something that is just a self-evident Truth that people just have to come to accept if they will only look at it from a secular sense?

Scientists do not regard natural laws as conclusions, but as principles. To be precise, the laws of nature are regarded as axiomatic principles. They are regarded as granted, given, and presumed accepted by all, as result of direct measurement or observation. Therefore, they are simply accepted as true without proof. Newton’s laws of motion, for example, are the principles of his science of mechanics. From these laws he deduced the various equations of motion that help to describe and predict the behavior of bodies in motion.

I would say that the existence of natural rights in human beings is a moral law or principle similar to natural laws in the sense that it is accepted as given, or granted as true, without proof. Unlike natural laws, however, it is not derived from observation or statistical inference. Its basis is human conscience. It belongs to the realm of conscience or moral order, not the physical order. It would be classified as one of the axioms of ethics or moral philosophy.

Now, just as the scientist does not need to find a Lawgiver who is the Author of natural laws to construct his science of nature, so a moral philosopher (who does not want to borrow data from divine revelation) can simply take moral laws as axioms, and he could then construct a code of conduct or moral philosophy without reference to God. Obviously, a purely natural science of nature (which references nothing to God), will not be complete or will not be intellectually satisfactory in the sense that, to the extent that it falls short of the First Cause, then it falls short of explanatory power. Likewise, a purely natural ethics (which establish moral laws without God) will not be complete or thoroughly compelling because, short of Divine sanctions, those moral laws would be easier to reject or deny.

Still, this does not mean that a purely natural ethics is useless. Nor does this mean that what we call moral laws or principles are completely devoid of sanction. No, because it would be difficult for anyone to deny a valid moral principle without going against his conscience and without getting himself involved in insuperable difficulties. For example, he who denies that people have natural rights would have to accept that he himself has no natural rights. And if he modifies his principle and say that only some people have moral rights, then he would need to justify why he has rights and others don’t have them. So, you see, this is why a moral law or principle - such as “All human beings have a right to life” - can be accepted as true without proof, and serve as the basis of our legislations and moral reasoning.

 

[Nate13]

Scientists do not regard natural laws as conclusions, but as principles. To be precise, the laws of nature are regarded as axiomatic principles. They are regarded as granted, given, and presumed accepted by all, as result of direct measurement or observation. Therefore, they are simply accepted as true without proof. Newton’s laws of motion, for example, are the principles of his science of mechanics. From these laws he deduced the various equations of motion that help to describe and predict the behavior of bodies in motion.

I would say that the existence of natural rights in human beings is a moral law or principle similar to natural laws in the sense that it is accepted as given, or granted as true, without proof. Unlike natural laws, however, it is not derived from observation or statistical inference. Its basis is human conscience. It belongs to the realm of conscience or moral order, not the physical order. It would be classified as one of the axioms of ethics or moral philosophy.

Now, just as the scientist does not need to find a Lawgiver who is the Author of natural laws to construct his science of nature, so a moral philosopher (who does not want to borrow data from divine revelation) can simply take moral laws as axioms, and he could then construct a code of conduct or moral philosophy without reference to God. Obviously, a purely natural science of nature (which references nothing to God), will not be complete or will not be intellectually satisfactory in the sense that, to the extent that it falls short of the First Cause, then it falls short of explanatory power. Likewise, a purely natural ethics (which establish moral laws without God) will not be complete or thoroughly compelling because, short of Divine sanctions, those moral laws would be easier to reject or deny.

Still, this does not mean that a purely natural ethics is useless. Nor does this mean that what we call moral laws or principles are completely devoid of sanction. No, because it would be difficult for anyone to deny a valid moral principle without going against his conscience and without getting himself involved in insuperable difficulties. For example, he who denies that people have natural rights would have to accept that he himself has no natural rights. And if he modifies his principle and say that only some people have moral rights, then he would need to justify why he has rights and others don’t have them. So, you see, this is why a moral law or principle - such as “All human beings have a right to life” - can be accepted as true without proof, and serve as the basis of our legislations and moral reasoning.

Exactly. You end up with this set of laws, with no idea if there is any intent or purpose behind them. However, as you said they are still compelling to some degree in that if you don’t know how something works or why it works the way it works you have to question whether you should mess with it. Whether or not there is an intelligence behind the inherent purpose that is apparent is negligible in this respect, however as we see today there are people that are willingly to dive in head first into things they don’t completely understand if no apparent hurdle jumps up to block them. Essentially people are willingly to deny the inherent and apparent reality that surrounds them and basically take the stance that reality is whatever they make it.

Anyways I think you have answered why natural rights and natural law can still be respected even when looked at from only a secular sense.

 

[emmaberry]

I once had a debate with a very liberal man from-you guessed it-California about abortion.

His stance was the same, that is, we cannot legislate our own morality. We can’t dictate other people’s choices just because that is what WE feel is right.

Yet we do this every single day! The government’s ONLY job is to legislate morality.

Examples:
You cannot murder because it is wrong.
You cannot steal ".
You cannot purposely injure someone ".

And the other posters are right as well, abortion is not wrong because catholics say it is, just as stealing is not wrong only because the Church says it is. It is a violation of a person’s right to life, and therefore it is wrong.

On a sidenote, anyone who says they are ‘Pro-life but that’s my choice:’ how does that save any babies? Hopefully you will never be in a situation where you would consider abortion, therefore, your personal/private Pro-lifeness does no good for any of the unborn who so desperately need people to speak up for them.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There are those who would hold quite consistently that the “very nature” of anything is only what you can directly observe and measure. Such a person would view unalienable rights as something to be something defined by statistics.

Again, none of that matters. I will ask such a person what their justification is for holding that it should be illegal for me to kill them.

No matter what it is, it will be one that applies to the unborn as well. That’s how I would proceed with the discussion.

If they attempt to claim that they don’t believe it should be illegal for me to kill them, I will be convinced they’re lying but will be unable to attempt to persuade them. In that case, I’d simply pray for a change of heart.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Again, none of that matters. I will ask such a person what their justification is for holding that it should be illegal for me to kill them.

No matter what it is, it will be one that applies to the unborn as well. That’s how I would proceed with the discussion.

If they attempt to claim that they don’t believe it should be illegal for me to kill them, I will be convinced they’re lying but will be unable to attempt to persuade them. In that case, I’d simply pray for a change of heart.

The reason given earlier (I don’t remember if it by you) for the unalienable right to life was that man’s very essence - his nature is to have the right to live. Someone even said that it was the essential definition of man. Man has the right to live by the very fact of being human and nothing else. If the reason really does stem from the simple fact of being a human, then what do we say about the legality of executing criminals? Is it possible for a man to change this very essence so much by committing a crime that he is no longer considered a human? Is that how we allow this exception? By saying that the criminal is not a human being? I don’t think so. What we do say is that this man is still human, but he is a very bad human. And for a well-ordered society it is necessary, sometimes, to execute such a human.

So maybe the argument needs to be modified. Perhaps only reasonably good human beings are, by definition, possessing the inherent right to life. A human who is bad enough does not have this right by his very nature. Right? If that is the case, then I don’t understand what is meant by “essential nature”. Apparently “essential nature” of a thing can be changed. So it is not really all that “essential”.

As for your argument with this hypothetical adversary who does not hold any religious or spiritual view, I think that adversary might not accept your premise that any rule that protects him must also protect the unborn. Why should it? We already see that the rules that protect him do not protect certain criminals.