Legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion, please help refute

[tonyrey]

If they tortured you you might do so!

When do you choose how to respond to people?

The point is, as I’m sure you are well aware, something doesn’t have to be a choice to be rational, nor is it necessarily irrational if it’s not a choice.

If you’re rarely or never aware that your choice is rational you’re hardly a rational being! Many choices are implicitly rational because they stem your previous experiences, decisions and conclusions.

Incidentally is this getting us any closer to a justification for humans and other species having an inalienable right to life? That’s what I’m looking for on this thread really. All this talk about rationality is fine but it doesn’t seem relevant.

It is relevant because it is irrational not to value life if you value rationality - as you obviously do. Otherwise you wouldn’t be indulging in reasoning!

Because reasons become habits!

? So you think men start off having to reason themselves out of abusing their children but later it just becomes a habit?

What leads you to that conclusion?

It’s not a question of extent but intent! Either your intentions always have physical causes or they don’t…

As I said, I’m not wanting to go off down a free will rabbit hole here. If you have an justification for an inalienable right to life which is dependent on free will then please present it. If not, then this is off topic.

It is relevant because it is irrational not to value life if you value rationality. Rationality presupposes free will because if you cannot choose what to think you are irrational.

Not if you accept the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils.

So what does having an inalienable right to life mean to you then?

That no one is justified in killing unless it is to prevent killing or unnecessary suffering or death.

No. Plant life shouldn’t be destroyed wantonly.

Ok, but in your opinion does plant life have an inalienable right to life? Or just animals? Also does this extend down to microbial life as well?

It extends to all life but not all life is equally valuable.

On a health preference. It is the lesser of two evils.

So in your view it’s a lesser evil to kill a creature with an inalienable right to life than to suffer some minor health concerns or find an alternate healthy diet.

Since not all life is equally valuable we are justified in killing if we believe it is essential.

Again I have to ask what an inalienable right to life means to you? It doesn’t sound like it means much since it clearly doesn’t prohibit you killing for even quite minor issues or preferences.

Health is not a minor issue.

The view that its legitimacy is based on necessity is accepted by most people because it is reasonable. All morality has a rational basis.

Same with burning “witches” then, that was accepted by most people as necessary and reasonable at the time too.

People are not infallible but there are objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified.

Nope, as I said I use reason because it’s a useful and effective tool. I find no obligations to do so.

You recognise the obligation implicitly by using reason because you know it is essential for success and efficiency.

So from your previous statement, everything must be valuable. But so what? Is this part of your justification of why humans have an inalienable right to life?

Yes.

That doesn’t detract from its intrinsic value.

And it STILL doesn’t mean it’s obligatory.

Nothing is obligatory for those who choose to be unreasonable.

If reason is not obligatory there is no reason for you to be reasonable! So why are you attempting to be so?!

I already explained this. I use reason because I find it to be a useful and reliable tool. That obviously doesn’t make it obligatory.

To which I have replied that you recognise the obligation implicitly.

Do you accept them? If so you must believe they have a rational basis - unless you are choosing to be unreasonable!

This seems to be irrelevant. You proposed that the golden rule and the principle of equality justify an inalienable right to life. I’m asking how you think these two provide such a justification. If you provide this then we can talk about whether the arguments you have made hold together.

1. By being reasonable you imply you are valuable.
2. It is unreasonable to believe you are the only one who is valuable.
3. By reasoning with others you imply they are valuable.
4. It is unreasonable to kill yourself or them because you and they are valuable.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If you’re rarely or never aware that your choice is rational you’re hardly a rational being! Many choices are implicitly rational because they stem your previous experiences, decisions and conclusions.

Previous experiences possibly leave both emotional traces and and information that can be learned from the experience. That a behaviour (or choices/decisions if you like) stems from previous experience may not be sufficient for calling it rational. I prefer to use the word behaviour here because it cover’s more scenarios. For example, we could talk about the salivating behaviour of Pavlov’s dog that was influenced by previous experience, but to talk about the dog’s salivating “choices” or salivating “decisions.” If a person has a behaviour that can be explained through Pavlov’s response applied to previous experiences is it still implicitly rational? It’s possible to condition people to perform more complex behaviours than salivating. While a person could still be said to have a “choice” in the matter if the person “chooses” to continue with the behaviour that has been conditioned and not override it I personally would leave the words “rational” and “irrational” out of any description of the behaviour.

It’s convenient to be able to describe thoughts or motivations as rational or irrational, but there’s usually aspects of both involved in mental processes, even when polarizing labels are applied. Hyper-rationalization is a rare thing when thinking is applied to the real world. There’s a book that among other things talks about cases where people were only capable of non-emotional thought because of damage to their brain’s emotional center. It is titled “Descarte’s Error” (It’s only 10 USD on Amazon.com). Here is a seriously abridged description of the book from Amazon.com:
Amazon.com:

…Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa…challenges this premise in a fascinating and well-reasoned argument on the central role that emotion and feelings play in human rationality…Damasio demonstrates how patients (his own as well as the 19th-century railroad worker Nicholas Gage) with prefrontal cortical damage can no longer generate the emotions necessary for effective decision-making…

To give credit where it is due: I got the book after hearing it mentioned by a psychologist name Valerie Tarico.

 

[Candide_West]

When do you choose how to respond to people?*

Assuming you mean “respond” as in actions, then almost always, obviously. The physical actions I take are virtually always choices (clearly some are not, like reflexes). However, emotions like love are not choices, neither are beliefs.*

TS has provided a quite interesting post on the topic above if you’re looking to discuss the nature of choice in more detail. I strongly suspect he knows much more about the topic than I.

*If you’re rarely or never aware that your choice is rational you’re hardly a rational being! …

Yes, my choices are mostly rational. Again this seems so obvious to be barely worth stating. However, As I said,*something doesn’t have to be a choice to be rational, nor is it necessarily irrational if it’s not a choice.

*It is relevant because it is irrational not to value life if you value rationality - as you obviously do.

Ok, you seem to have somehow leapt to the assumption I don’t value life. No idea how you got to that one. But let’s dispel that at this point. I do indeed value life.

*What leads you to that conclusion?

Sigh, much as I dislike doing multiple quotes to explain to my interlocutor**what they said, I will on this occasion. So, I asked…

“Most men don’t sexually assault their children, why? Is it because they have weighed the moral justifications and have decided against it? Or because they have no desire to do so? Perhaps indeed that the very idea is repulsive? I think the latter”

And you replied with*

“because reasons become habits”

Which I can only assume was your answer to the question “Most men don’t sexually assault their children, why?” since otherwise it makes no sense.

Given that answer to that question the response…*

So you think men start off having to reason themselves out of abusing their children but later it just becomes a habit?

…Was intended to paraphrase what you had said to find out if you really meant what you’d written because I strongly suspect you don’t.

Clear now?

It is relevant because it is irrational not to value life if you value rationality. Rationality presupposes free will because if you cannot choose what to think you are irrational.

Very well, for the purpose of this conversation let’s assume people have free will.*

*That no one is justified in killing unless it is to prevent killing or unnecessary suffering or death.

Ok, so presumably you don’t use an inalienable right to life as an argument against abortion then? It would clearly be entirely inadequate in your view since a dietary discomfort is sufficient “unnecessary suffering” to justify killing something with an inalienable right to life. Therefore obviously the vastly more serious health effects of pregnancy would in themselves qualify, even more so if the pregnancy was more dangerous than usual. Correct?

*It extends to all life but not all life is equally valuable.

Surprising, is this a official catholic view or your personal belief? It seems to make an inalienable right to life more or less worthless. After all, I’m sure you’ve disinfected the toilet at some point, which means you’ve killed millions or billions of creatures with an inalienable right to life on the basis of “it’s a bit smelly”. So I can only conclude that an inalienable right to life must be pretty much irrelevant to you.

*Since not all life is equally valuable we are justified in killing if we believe it is essential.

Ok, so you are saying that this “inalienable right” is lost if someone believes it essential. So it’s not very inalienable really.

*Health is not a minor issue.

Depends, terminal illness is not minor, catching a cold is.

*People are not infallible but there are objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified.

Oooh, this sounds really interesting, by all means, please state them and your source.

*You recognise the obligation implicitly by using reason because you know it is essential for success and efficiency.

No. Finding something useful is not the same as it being obligatory. Perhaps an example will help.

I use my car because it is a useful tool for transporting myself around. I could choose to sell it tomorrow and never buy another. I am not obligated to use my car, I continue to do so because it is useful.*

Iuse reason because it is a useful tool for making decisions. I could choose to cease tomorrow and never use it again. I am not obligated to use reason, I continue to do so because it is useful.

Now do you understand? Or are you going to say that I’m obliged to use my car? In which case you make the word obligation more or less meaningless.

*Yes.

Ok great, I shall look forwards to hearing this justification. I hate to hurry you, but I’d be really interested to hear it.

*Nothing is obligatory for those who choose to be unreasonable.

Ok, does anyone choose that? Seems silly.

*To which I have replied that you recognise the obligation implicitly.

And you are obviously wrong about that. Unless you mean I’m obliged to use my car, my phone, my oven… Etc “implicitly” as well.

*1. By being reasonable you imply you are valuable.
…

Point 4 seems to be quite a jump with no support. However, I’m not going to critique this in detail because I’m hoping to get back to the question at hand. Again, is an inalienable right to life justified, if so how?

Thanks.

 

[tonyrey]

When do you choose how to respond to people?

So love for you is involuntary?

Yes, my choices are mostly rational. Again this seems so obvious to be barely worth stating. However, As I said,*something doesn’t have to be a choice to be rational, nor is it necessarily irrational if it’s not a choice.

How can rationality be derived from that which cannot choose?

It is relevant because it is irrational not to value life if you value rationality - as you obviously do.

Ok, you seem to have somehow leapt to the assumption I don’t value life. No idea how you got to that one. But let’s dispel that at this point. I do indeed value life.

By choice?

So you think men start off having to reason themselves out of abusing their children but later it just becomes a habit?
…Was intended to paraphrase what you had said to find out if you really meant what you’d written because I strongly suspect you don’t.

1. Most people have been brought up to believe it is wrong to commit crimes - and given reasons why.
   Ok, but that is generally not the reason that we don’t commit crimes.
2. “Because reasons become habits” doesn’t imply that reasons are the sole reason why people refrain from committing crimes!

It is relevant because it is irrational not to value life if you value rationality. Rationality presupposes free will because if you cannot choose what to think you are irrational.

Very well, for the purpose of this conversation let’s assume people have free will.

Good.

That no one is justified in killing unless it is to prevent killing or unnecessary suffering or death.

Ok, so presumably you don’t use an inalienable right to life as an argument against abortion then? It would clearly be entirely inadequate in your view since a dietary discomfort is sufficient “unnecessary suffering” to justify killing something with an inalienable right to life. Therefore obviously the vastly more serious health effects of pregnancy would in themselves qualify, even more so if the pregnancy was more dangerous than usual. Correct?

The principle of the lesser evil applies but opinions vary as to which is the lesser evil. No one is morally infallible.

It extends to all life but not all life is equally valuable.

Surprising, is this a official catholic view or your personal belief?

Does it matter?

It seems to make an inalienable right to life more or less worthless. After all, I’m sure you’ve disinfected the toilet at some point, which means you’ve killed millions or billions of creatures with an inalienable right to life on the basis of “it’s a bit smelly”. So I can only conclude that an inalienable right to life must be pretty much irrelevant to you.

Once again the principle of the lesser evil applies.

QUOTE]Since not all life is equally valuable we are justified in killing if we believe it is essential

.
Ok, so you are saying that this “inalienable right” is lost if someone believes it essential. So it’s not very inalienable really.
It is not lost at all. “wrong” is not synonymous with “evil”.

Health is not a minor issue.

Depends, terminal illness is not minor, catching a cold is.

The relative value of lives has to be taken into account.

People are not infallible but there are objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified.

Oooh, this sounds really interesting, by all means, please state them and your source.

The preservation of life.

You recognise the obligation implicitly by using reason because you know it is essential for success and efficiency.

No. Finding something useful is not the same as it being obligatory. Perhaps an example will help.
I use my car because it is a useful tool for transporting myself around. I could choose to sell it tomorrow and never buy another. I am not obligated to use my car, I continue to do so because it is useful.

I use reason because it is a useful tool for making decisions. I could choose to cease tomorrow and never use it again. I am not obligated to use reason, I continue to do so because it is useful.

Now do you understand? Or are you going to say that I’m obliged to use my car? In which case you make the word obligation more or less meaningless.

If you rarely use your power of reason obligation is meaningless! We are concerned with **moral **obligation which hardly applies to using a car - unless it affects a living being adversely. The topic is contraception and abortion…

Nothing is obligatory for those who choose to be unreasonable.

Ok, does anyone choose that? Seems silly.

Precisely! That is the very point I’m making.

To which I have replied that you recognise the obligation implicitly.

And you are obviously wrong about that. Unless you mean I’m obliged to use my car, my phone, my oven… Etc “implicitly” as well.

Amoral activities - unless they affect a living being adversely.

Again, is an inalienable right to life justified, if so how?

By the immense value of life - which is a source of opportunities for development, exploration, adventure, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfilment.

 

[jochoa]

Seems very unlikely, but if you can see a way then by all means, explain.

How about if God’s Existence could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[Candide_West]

How about if God’s Existence could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

It’s possible I guess, although I can’t see a justification myself. Please go ahead if you can see one.

 

[tonyrey]

There is what we call “unalienable human rights”, which the argument overlooks, which refers to rights that are fundamental to human existence. They are not earned because of intelligence, stature or perceived maturity, but by the simple virtue of the fact that the living organism is human. Every human has the right to life.

Why single out our own species?

 

[GEddie]

Why single out our own species?

Because the line needs to be drawn somewhere, as life cannot be maintained without the ending of other life. We’d all starve to death if we couldn’t consume other life. Even without the (name removed by moderator)ut of our mind, the immune cells in our bodies contnuously destroy microbes that get through our skin.

Given that a line has to be drawn, the species is the least arbitrary limit. We are human. Nuff said.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

Because the line needs to be drawn somewhere, as life cannot be maintained without the ending of other life. We’d all starve to death if we couldn’t consume other life. Even without the (name removed by moderator)ut of our mind, the immune cells in our bodies contnuously destroy microbes that get through our skin.

Given that a line has to be drawn, the species is the least arbitrary limit. We are human. Nuff said.

ICXC NIKA

It doesn’t follow that we are the** sole** creatures with the right to life.

 

[GEddie]

It doesn’t follow that we are the** sole** creatures with the right to life.

Hmm… What are you driving at, TR?

Only human beings claim or make use of rights. In the absence of a claim or use of “rights” by other species, it’s somewhat fatuous to ascribe them to other species.

A right by one party implies an obligation by someone else. If we have obligations to other species, who is going to uphold them? If the answer is “other humans,” then it is a matter of societal convention, not right on the part of an animal.

Are you a vegan? Even if you are, you have to destroy other life to maintain
your soma. Fruit by itself will not sustain human
life.

So “right to life” cannot be upheld for ALL life. And if the human species is not the dividing line, then we have to draw one arbitrarily. Where to do that?

ICXC NIKA

 

[ivebeenshown]

Hmm… What are you driving at, TR?

Only human beings claim or make use of rights. In the absence of a claim or use of “rights” by other species, it’s somewhat fatuous to ascribe them to other species.

A right by one party implies an obligation by someone else. If we have obligations to other species, who is going to uphold them? If the answer is “other humans,” then it is a matter of societal convention, not right on the part of an animal.

Are you a vegan? Even if you are, you have to destroy other life to maintain
your soma. Fruit by itself will not sustain human
life.

So “right to life” cannot be upheld for ALL life. And if the human species is not the dividing line, then we have to draw one arbitrarily. Where to do that?

ICXC NIKA

He was posing the question to an atheist, if that gives you any insight into the purpose of his post.

 

[GEddie]

He was quoting me, though, so I thought it necessary to respond to the post.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

Hmm… What are you driving at, TR?

Only human beings claim or make use of rights. In the absence of a claim or use of “rights” by other species, it’s somewhat fatuous to ascribe them to other species.

A right by one party implies an obligation by someone else. If we have obligations to other species, who is going to uphold them? If the answer is “other humans,” then it is a matter of societal convention, not right on the part of an animal.

Are you a vegan? Even if you are, you have to destroy other life to maintain
your soma. Fruit by itself will not sustain human
life.

So “right to life” cannot be upheld for ALL life. And if the human species is not the dividing line, then we have to draw one arbitrarily. Where to do that?

ICXC NIKA

Would you kill any living being unnecessarily or just for the fun of it?

 

[Candide_West]

So love for you is involuntary?

Yep, so is fear, hope, happiness, disgust. if you want to test this then try it for yourself, attempt to “choose” to love your pen, or “choose” to stop loving your children (if you have children, or other family otherwise). Or “choose” to be terrified of the light switch… Let me know how that works out for you.

How can rationality be derived from that which cannot choose?

No idea, are you actually reading the things you are replying to? If so how does this question relate to what you were replying to? If you read back you will note that I did not say “something doesn’t have to be able to make a choice to be rational” but rather “something doesn’t have to be a choice to be rational”. Clear now?

By choice?

Nope.

1. Most people have been brought up to believe it is wrong to commit crimes - and given reasons why.
   Ok, but that is generally not the reason that we don’t commit crimes.
2. “Because reasons become habits” doesn’t imply that reasons are the sole reason why people refrain from committing crimes!

Good, so i take it that you are retracting your comment then. I’m relieved.

The principle of the lesser evil applies but opinions vary as to which is the lesser evil. No one is morally infallible.

Ok, but given the very low value of an “inalienable right to life” for you, then you personally do not use that as an argument against abortion correct?

Does it matter?

It’s interesting to me.

Once again the principle of the lesser evil applies.

But as I said an “inalienable right to life” must be more or less worthless to you. As clearly its a “lesser evil” to kill millions of creatures with an inalienable right to life than to endure a little bit of smell.

It is not lost at all.

So you’re saying that even when you’ve killed a creature it still has an inalienable right to life? If it is not lost in the killing process then could you explain how a dead creature retains its “inalienable” right to life please?

The preservation of life.

Ok, obviously that’s nothing to do with the question, so could you please present these “objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified”? And if you have one, a source would be great too.

If you rarely use your power of reason obligation is meaningless!

Er, yes I guess that would be true IF I rarely used my reason, but as I have repeatedly and explicitly stated, I do use reason as best I can, so your statement above seems pointlessly irrelevant.

We are concerned with **moral **obligation which hardly applies to using a car - unless it affects a living being adversely. The topic is contraception and abortion…

Right, and reason, just like science, a hammer, maths, a car, art, a computer… is an amoral tool. So there is no moral obligation to use reason any more than there is a moral obligation to use science, or a car or a hammer, or maths. With any of these things you can use them for things which we consider to be moral, or you can use them for things that we consider to be immoral. In both cases the tool itself is amoral.

Precisely! That is the very point I’m making.

That is a very weird point you are making. Both you and I make use of the tool of reason, and are doing so in this very conversation, and you are trying to make a point that people don’t choose to not use reason? Why?

Amoral activities - unless they affect a living being adversely.

Yep, all amoral tools. Just like reason.

By the immense value of life - which is a source of opportunities for development, exploration, adventure, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfilment.

Ok, that is obviously not a justification. It goes under the class of “humans have opposable thumbs” style statement as per my discussion with Jochoa. So, once again - Is an inalienable right to life justified, if so how?

Incidentally, “I don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer to this question. Or, “I don’t have a justification, I just believe it based on faith” or “I believe God said X and I interpret that to mean that humans have an inalienable right to life”. Obviously I won’t be able to share in that judgement, but it’s fine if that is the justification that lead you to this conclusion. Don’t feel that you are under an obligation to provide a reasoned justification.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

So, once again - Is an inalienable right to life justified, if so how?

What do you mean by this question? Are you asking for one of these statements to be justified:

Yes, a group of beings who view life as an inalienable right will do better as a society than folks/animals who view life as a right that both the government and the fellow folks can justifiably take from you without your consent.

Or

Yes, it is true that a right to life exists and it is an inalienable one.

 

[Candide_West]

What do you mean by this question? Are you asking for one of these statements to be justified:

Yes, a group of beings who view life as an inalienable right will do better as a society than folks/animals who view life as a right that both the government and the fellow folks can justifiably take from you without your consent.

Or

Yes, it is true that a right to life exists and it is an inalienable one.

Hey Jeremiah, welcome to CAF.

My question is pretty much the latter to be honest. I’ve often heard people say that humans have an inalienable right to life and I’m just curious to understand if there is a justification behind the statement. As I said, this could be as simple as “I believe God said X, which I interpret to mean humans have an inalienable right to life”.

Obviously, I wouldn’t be able to share a in such a justification. But it would make things more comprehensible when people make the statement that this right exists. It’d be even better (from my point of view) if the justification was reasoned out logically, perhaps I would even share the belief if I found the logic to be valid.

To date though I’ve not encountered any justification, faith or reason based. Any thoughts on this one?

 

[GEddie]

Would you kill any living being unnecessarily or just for the fun of it?

Fun? No; unnecessarily? That can vary. If I see creepy crawleys having more than six limbs, they are getting squashed, becuase my instincts kick in, but that might fall into unnecessary for you. YMMV.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Jeremiah1278]

Hey Jeremiah, welcome to CAF.

My question is pretty much the latter to be honest. I’ve often heard people say that humans have an inalienable right to life and I’m just curious to understand if there is a justification behind the statement. As I said, this could be as simple as “I believe God said X, which I interpret to mean humans have an inalienable right to life”.

Obviously, I wouldn’t be able to share a in such a justification. But it would make things more comprehensible when people make the statement that this right exists. It’d be even better (from my point of view) if the justification was reasoned out logically, perhaps I would even share the belief if I found the logic to be valid.

To date though I’ve not encountered any justification, faith or reason based. Any thoughts on this one?

Thanks for the welcome! I’ve found the discussions here to be fantastic so I had to make it official with an account

It’s not something I’ve put a lot of thought into outside the context of the U.S. Constitution. But we normally talk about “fundamental” rights. But anyway, in that context it makes sense to me that all citizens have an inalienable right to life and liberty (which may just be a redundant, logical extension of the right to “life” as I don’t understand the inalienable right to life without the inalienable right to do with it what you want). By inalienable, I mean a right that you are born with as a human being that cannot be taken from you without your consent. I know it can’t be taken from you because the only way to prevent you from exercising this right is to make it such that you do not exist anymore. By right I mean something along the lines of “you are justified in pursuing and should not be prevented from doing.” By life, I simply mean living (existing).

So as a living being you should be filled with the sense that you have a drive inside you to obtain food, breathe air, visit pretty things, avoid death by defending yourself against injury, etc. It should be self-evident to you that you exist and that you are justified in pursuing and should not be prevented from existing. You are probably programmed physically and mentally to do so. And your right to pursue those things should be self-evident to you. It is to me. And we know we have other rights. Some are given to us through the government. None of these other rights are worth anything if I have no right to my existence.

I recognize that I am no different from other humans and that you are all also born with the same drive to exist that I have. It’s only fair that I should respect your drive to exist, because I know how strong and real that drive is.

I guess I’m saying it’s self-evident that if anyone has a right to my life, it’s me. And it’s obviously inalienable because nobody could possibly take this right from me without my consent. Even the moment when someone pulls the trigger, he can’t take the right to my life from me. He can only destroy my physical existence such that I could no longer exercise that right. Throughout my entire existence, I alone held the right to my life.

[Ignoring all theological/religious perspectives on whether or not my life is mine or God’s, etc.!]

 

[GEddie]

Fun? No; unnecessarily? That can vary. If I see creepy crawleys having more than six limbs, they are getting squashed, becuase my instincts kick in, but that might fall into unnecessary for you. YMMV.

ICXC NIKA

I should also point out, that while I do not kill for “fun”, that is because I consider life to be a resource that should not be squandered, as we will be judged by God on our use of it; not because I recognize other species as having “rights,” since I do not.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[tonyrey]

I should also point out, that while I do not kill for “fun”, that is because I consider life to be a resource that should not be squandered, as we will be judged by God on our use of it; not because I recognize other species as having “rights,” since I do not.

ICXC NIKA.

CCC 2318 “In [God’s] hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind” (*Job *12:10).