Secular ethics and abortion

[MindOverMatter2]

You make the assumption

If the state perceives my life as having intrinsic value (which is presupposed by the notion of moral human rights),

Unless you have been living in a cave you would know this to be a fact; not an assumption. I then go on to explain what people must do and think if they are to remain consistent with the first premise, which is the concept of **human rights **(a principle embraced by both sides of the debate).

This assumption obviously is not true in investing (since macroeconomic and firm-specific events can alter the value of the discounted cash flows such as an increase or decrease in interest rates, or the proliferation of its competitors.)

Of course if you perceive a human life as having a value that is only relevant and proportional to economic values, you will be inclined to make such a disgusting nihilistic example or assumption. But if you read the first premise of my argument, that is not what the moral entitlement of human rights is based upon.

 

[Black_Rose]

Flop (2C 5S 2H)

After the flop, my hand significantly increased in value, yielding me a three-of-a-kind. I still could have an inferior hand though because my opponent may have a “2S” in their hand along with a card higher than “7”. Also my opponent could have pocket 5s. I would still beat an opponent with two pair on the flop (let’s say they have KS KC along with the pair of twos on the flop). Such an opponent could reasonably expect that they have the highest hand, and that the turn and river could further improve their hand to a full house if an ace or 2 were revealed later, four of a kind if the turn and river reveal a pair of aces or twos, or a backdoor flush if two spades or clubs showed later.

Actually, a backdoor flush would simply be impossible in this situation with KS and KC.

If the state perceives my life as having intrinsic value (which is presupposed by the notion of moral human rights),

Unless you have been living in a cave you would know this to be a fact; not an assumption. I then go on to explain what people must do and think if they are to remain consistent with the first premise, which is the concept of human rights (a principle embraced by both sides of the debate).

I do not think that most people who believe in “human rights” believe it should be applied to fetus. It applies to those who are already born.

 

[davidv]

Actually, a backdoor flush would simply be impossible in this situation with KS and KC.

I do not think that most people who believe in “human rights” believe it should be applied to fetus. It applies to those who are already born.

And this distinction is irrational. The pre-born are just as human as the born.

 

[Betterave]

My view isn’t that conservatives believe that state protection of the weak is an anathema; just that liberty is a higher value than protection of the weak. Conservatives are unlikely to admit this candidly, but in practice conservatives favor liberty over state intervention that protects the weak.

No, they don’t, not in the case of murder. (It seems that you didn’t read what I wrote very carefully.) Please understand: there is a rather clear distinction which you’re missing between ‘protecting the weak (from violence)’ and ‘redistributing wealth.’

But if conservatives really care about protecting the weak, why don’t they advocate for more government assistance for the homeless (since they are a weak economic group)? The justification is that the citizen’s right to enjoy their income and property (without it being redistributed to support economically disadvantage groups) trumps the welfare of the homeless people. (Again, this is not stated explicitly by conservatives, but one can infer this message through political rhetoric and the policies enacted.) Supporting the homeless through charities is consistent with liberty and probably an expression of personal virtue, but it is an ineffective approach.

Conservatives tend to be conservative, I should think. Do you know what that means? It is very different from *radically anarchic *and it has nothing to do with thinking that the weak need no special protection. Your comments about the homeless seem very tendentious (there is a lot more to be said about the difficult problem of homelessness and what is or is not effective in dealing with it), but they are in any case irrelevant.

One could then retort that the mature and mentally competent woman’s right to bodily sovereignty trumps the fetus’ life if a pregnant women chooses to have an abortion.

A conservative could then retort that you have radically misconstrued what conservatism is about.

 

[BillP]

So temperory brain inactivity is the determinant of the right to life?

There is no such thing medically as temporary brain inactivity. Once the brain ceases function it doesn’t come back.

The seat of our being is in our brain, when that ceases to function we are dead, all other biological indicators notwithstanding.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Black Rose, you seem to be saying that classy sophisticates such as Singer can disagree, therefore the pro-choice side wins. There seems to be a logical fallacy in there somewhere but I am not sure what it is.

The arguments that the Church offers are sufficient and there is no reason to search for arguments that work in a secular society.

1. we have human rights because we are human beings
2. a fetus is a human being
3. a fetus has human rights. the most important among those the right to life.

 

[Black_Rose]

No, they don’t, not in the case of murder. (It seems that you didn’t read what I wrote very carefully.) Please understand: there is a rather clear distinction which you’re missing between ‘protecting the weak (from violence)’ and ‘redistributing wealth.’

Why should protecting the homeless from the physical harm and discomfort of poverty not count towards protecting the weak? In this case, “redistributing wealth” is not an end, but a means to ensure protection of the economically vulnerable from physical harm and privation. Why should it only be from “violence” (only one form of physical harm) and not other forms which can be ameliorated with human effort? Why the arbitrary distinction to accommodate only one form of physical harm?

The arguments that the Church offers are sufficient and there is no reason to search for arguments that work in a secular society.

1. we have human rights because we are human beings
2. a fetus is a human being
3. a fetus has human rights. the most important among those the right to life.

The utilitarian Peter Singer denies the first part that humans inherently have human rights by virtue of being human. But a being does merit ethical consideration from their characteristics or traits, such as the ability to suffer.

 

[Moonstruck888]

A secular society still needs laws. The real question is, should zygotes and fetuses, which are human beings, be given the same rights in society as the rest of us? The arguement, then, is whether or not this should be. Right now the laws say that they are humans but that they are somehow “disposable” humans. I say that logically if we protect those weaker than us in society, and we claim to, then the society must be anti-abortion.

It always fascinates me that so many people who have an outraged coniption fit about the rights of a blastocyst have a directly proportionate gleefulness when it comes to foreign wars against people without state of the art weaponary.

George Bush, for example…

The fact is that there are no answers to this question on the morality of abortion, only choices…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Black Rose, you seem to be saying that classy sophisticates such as Singer can disagree, therefore the pro-choice side wins. There seems to be a logical fallacy in there somewhere but I am not sure what it is.

The arguments that the Church offers are sufficient and there is no reason to search for arguments that work in a secular society.

1. we have human rights because we are human beings
2. a fetus is a human being
3. a fetus has human rights. the most important among those the right to life.

Most of us have very limited rights as human beings and what rights we have are proportional to our income. The reality of being human is power, and the only way to obtain it is to take it from someone else or some other group of people.

A fetus has little or no power and absolutely no voice, ergo it has little or no rights. Even if draconian laws were brought in to stop people having abortions legally, it would not stop abortions occurring and as long as the moral majority want abortion on the table, it could make the Government who brought in the laws unelectable.

That’s the stark reality now, it was the stark reality when Roe vs Wade happened, and it will always be the stark reality. Even before we had the technology to perform abortions, people who didn’t have the wherewithall to look after babies practiced infanticide instead.

What would you pro-choice absolutists prefer, terminated blastocysts or new born babies having their skulls dashed in?

 

[Betterave]

Why should protecting the homeless from the physical harm and discomfort of poverty not count towards protecting the weak? In this case, “redistributing wealth” is not an end, but a means to ensure protection of the economically vulnerable from physical harm and privation. Why should it only be from “violence” (only one form of physical harm) and not other forms which can be ameliorated with human effort? Why the arbitrary distinction to accommodate only one form of physical harm?

What is the “physical harm” of poverty, exactly? Do you think that St. Francis of Assisi (I assume you’ve heard of him?) and his followers were physically harming themselves?

What is arbitrary about the distinction between forbidding violent attacks and requiring redistribution of wealth?!!?

The utilitarian Peter Singer denies the first part that humans inherently have human rights by virtue of being human. But a being does merit ethical consideration from their characteristics or traits, such as the ability to suffer.

…so Singer says this; but what is your point?

 

[Betterave]

It always fascinates me that so many people who have an outraged coniption fit about the rights of a blastocyst have a directly proportionate gleefulness when it comes to foreign wars against people without state of the art weaponary.

George Bush, for example…

It fascinates me when people paint such crudely self-righteous caricatures others… What is the point of doing this?

The fact is that there are no answers to this question on the morality of abortion, only choices…

Is that your answer to the question? (or should I say ‘non-answer’?)

 

[Betterave]

Most of us have very limited rights as human beings and what rights we have are proportional to our income. The reality of being human is power, and the only way to obtain it is to take it from someone else or some other group of people.

sad, but fortunately not true - that’s like saying the only way to get more food is to steal it - er, no!

I’ll just edit this next section:
"A fetus has little or no power and absolutely no voice, ergo it has little or no -]rights/-] power of its own and therefore obviously depends on the voices of others to defend its rights. -]Even /-]if draconian laws were brought in to stop people having abortions legally, it would -]not/-] obviously stop **most **abortions from occurring - -]and/-] but as long as the (im)moral majority want abortions on the table, it could make the Government who brought in the laws unelectable.

“-]That’s the stark reality now, it was the stark reality when Roe vs Wade happened, and it will always be the stark reality. Even before we had the technology to perform abortions, people who didn’t have the wherewithall to look after babies practiced infanticide instead./-] (that was all just false)”

What would you pro-choice absolutists prefer, terminated -]blastocysts/-] fetuses or new born babies having their skulls dashed in?

Neither (obviously!)

p.s. If you don’t understand the rationale for any of my corrections, please ask and I’ll explain.

 

[Black_Rose]

…so Singer says this; but what is your point?

The syllogism would be invalid if we do not accept that human beings, regardless of their characteristics, have inherent human rights.

 

[Betterave]

The syllogism would be invalid if we do not accept that human beings, regardless of their characteristics, have inherent human rights.

Oh, I see. But what “we” accept is not and should not be determined by what Peter Singer thinks - right? And technically the syllogism would only be invalid if the premise in question were false, and “our” not accepting it would not make it false.

 

[Black_Rose]

Oh, I see. But what “we” accept is not and should not be determined by what Peter Singer thinks - right? And technically the syllogism would only be invalid if the premise in question were false, and “our” not accepting it would not make it false.

Here was the original syllogism:

1. we have human rights because we are human beings
2. a fetus is a human being
3. a fetus has human rights. the most important among those the right to life.

Premise one is explicitly assailed by utilitarian ethics. If the first premise is invalid, then conclusion would be necessarily follow.

What is the “physical harm” of poverty, exactly? Do you think that St. Francis of Assisi (I assume you’ve heard of him?) and his followers were physically harming themselves?

If it wasn’t so harmful, why don’t most people prefer a life of poverty instead of a middle class living?

 

[Black_Rose]

Here was the original syllogism:

Premise one is explicitly assailed by utilitarian ethics. If the first premise is invalid, then conclusion would be necessarily follow.

If it wasn’t so harmful, why don’t most people prefer a life of poverty instead of a middle class living?

I meant to say:

Premise one is explicitly assailed by utilitarian ethics. If the first premise is invalid, then conclusion would not necessarily follow.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I share the OP’s admiration for Singer’s arguments, although not perhaps for Singer himself. Singer is a stunt-man and a charlatan, but he accomplishes these ends by following logic, for the most part – not by, a la Dawkins, making assertion after assertion.

Here is the key thing to understand:

1. Any consistent and plausible argument for the permissibility of abortion will resemble Peter Singer’s argument.
2. Peter Singer’s argument permits infanticide.
3. Any consistent and plausible argument for the permissibility of abortion will permit infanticide.

Most people, last time I checked, are against infanticide. Thus, if we could get them to encounter the logic of their position, most people should be against abortion. And you cannot get out by saying that abortion helps women in some way, because this would be true of infanticide too.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I meant to say:

Premise one is explicitly assailed by utilitarian ethics. If the first premise is invalid, then conclusion would not necessarily follow.

The first premise is defensible though. Why should we just take our ball and go home simply because utilitarian ethicists disagree that human beings have inherent rights because of what they are not what they do?

Besides, how do we go from people disagree to we ought to listen to them? As utilitarians often point out you can’t derive an ought from an is.

 

[Betterave]

Here was the original syllogism:

Premise one is explicitly assailed by utilitarian ethics. If the first premise is invalid, then conclusion would be necessarily follow.

Others have dealt with your point here quite nicely (thanks others), so let me just point out that *arguments *(not premises) are valid or invalid. *Premises *are true or false.

If it wasn’t so harmful, why don’t most people prefer a life of poverty instead of a middle class living?

There are many reasons, but what you are suggesting doesn’t make sense. By analogy: If many people prefer to smoke, would you say that smoking is not harmful? If many people prefer not to be vegetarians, would you say that vegetarianism must be harmful?

 

[Black_Rose]

Others have dealt with your point here quite nicely (thanks others), so let me just point out that *arguments *(not premises) are valid or invalid. *Premises *are true or false.

There are many reasons, but what you are suggesting doesn’t make sense. By analogy: If many people prefer to smoke, would you say that smoking is not harmful? If many people prefer not to be vegetarians, would you say that vegetarianism must be harmful?

So most people choose poverty? That doesn’t seem consistent at all with reality.

I share the OP’s admiration for Singer’s arguments, although not perhaps for Singer himself. Singer is a stunt-man and a charlatan, but he accomplishes these ends by following logic, for the most part – not by, a la Dawkins, making assertion after assertion.

Here is the key thing to understand:

1. Any consistent and plausible argument for the permissibility of abortion will resemble Peter Singer’s argument.
2. Peter Singer’s argument permits infanticide.
3. Any consistent and plausible argument for the permissibility of abortion will permit infanticide.

Most people, last time I checked, are against infanticide. Thus, if we could get them to encounter the logic of their position, most people should be against abortion. And you cannot get out by saying that abortion helps women in some way, because this would be true of infanticide too.

A fetus has little or no power and absolutely no voice, ergo it has little or no rights. Even if draconian laws were brought in to stop people having abortions legally, it would not stop abortions occurring and as long as the moral majority want abortion on the table, it could make the Government who brought in the laws unelectable.

That’s the stark reality now, it was the stark reality when Roe vs Wade happened, and it will always be the stark reality. Even before we had the technology to perform abortions, people who didn’t have the wherewithall to look after babies practiced infanticide instead.

What would you pro-choice absolutists prefer, terminated blastocysts or new born babies having their skulls dashed in?

Regarding infanticide and abortion, a major reason why these “immoral” acts are being committed is simply due to the finitude of resources on Earth because the decision to undergo infanticide/abortion is undoubtedly influenced by the inability to provide resources for the baby/fetus’ development in the future. In these cases, if there is any moral culpability in committing abortion/infanticide, it would be mitigated since the person choosing the act has little control over their environment, and, in most cases, cannot reverse a situation of their scarcity of resources through an act of their volition. In other words, the act of abortion/infanticide is not committed “freely” but merely a decision made under the duress of suboptimal circumstances. It is indeed meaningless to condemn abortion/infanticide while simultaneously ignoring one its major causes: the scarcity of resources that results in an inability to raise a potential child. Perhaps one can be against abortion/infanticide when these issues are presented in a vacuum, but the stark reality of an environment of scarcity would make the issue undesirably challenging. While abortion/infanticide can be considered abhorrent, the scarcity that encourages abortion/infanticide should be considered abhorrent too, since even if one escapes an abortion/infanticide , one would still be brought up an environment with these undesirable conditions.