A Purely Secular, Constitutional Argument Against Abortion

FreeRepublic ^ | November 18, 2008 | MeanWestTexan

[MeanWestTexan]

It how to frame an issue on 15 second spot on TV, not physics.

[Jibaholic]

Until somebody can ‘prove’ to me a fetus has the exact same rights as a full human being (most will agree rights of a fully conscious human being come first in any hypothetical situation), I will remain Pro-Choice.

I'll raise you one. Why don't you prove to me that black people have a right to life using a purely secular argument. I will allow science and logic, but no appeal to religion.

Here's a hint: you can't do it. Go read up on David Hume's Is-Ought problem and the naturalistic fallacy.

[Jibaholic]

I checked out the website. It is fairly slim. You may be interested in checking out Libertarians for Life, but even they can't grapple with how arbitrary, nihilistic, and essentially made-up morality is from a secular perspective.

The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole.

There is a huge logical gap in that argument. Consider an attempt to create a formal logical argument

1. A fetus is not self-aware
2. Therefore a fetus does not have a right to life

Needless to say, it is not a valid logical argument. You are missing the premise that 'all self-aware beings have a right to life.' Where is the proof for that missing premise? There is no. No scientific experiment has ever found a right to life in the CAT scan of a self-aware being.

However, let's suppose that your argument is both valid. It still isn't sound because we can derive absurd consequences from the assertion that only self-aware beings have a right to life. Babies are not self-aware until about a year old. A sociopath could kill babies and only be guilty of destruction of property. Furthermore, it also logically follows that mothers should be able to sell their babies to serial killers who then torture them to death - and it would all be legal and moral.

P.S. I'll probably be perma-banned shortly, so I won't be able to respond to your rebuttals!

[I_like_good_things_too]

I never thought of it as something more complex than is a fetus a live human, if so, don’t kill him/ her. The self-aware argument is something I’d never even consider, because there are many (adult) people I know who seem to not be self-aware, it doesn’t mean it’s okay to off them!

[ElectricStrawberry]

So which is it?

A “frame for a debate” or a “commercial for the ignorant masses?”

Debates have rules, which you clearly violate with your false premise.

...commercials for the ignorants...you can claim anything...so why bother framing it as a debate? Say anything...

[MeanWestTexan]

Wow, bitter much?

Go home, mama is calling.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Only liberals ascribe emotions to everything they see.

So, why bother with debating/arguing ANYTHING? Why bother even attempting to make a proper argument?

Just put out your ad saying whatever you want and be done with it.

...and my “mama” died 5 years ago...nice touch.

[dbz77]

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

[MeanWestTexan]

Thanks.

While not Godless myself, I think this is the approach to take right now.

[dbz77]

Good. I would point out that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly guarantees the right to life of every person.

However, it only protects people from state action, not private action. Only state penal codes protect people from private action.

[dbz77]

A summary of the pro-life thesis (copy and paste as much as you like):

The pro-life thesis is that the same ethical principles apply to
killing of unborn as they apply to killing of born people. The ethical
principles applying to the killing of born people can be classified
into duties to refrain from actions that wrongfully kill a person
(negative duties) and duties to take action to preserve or prolong the
life of a person (positive duties).

The negative duties are general, with certain specified exceptions.
While there is debate on what these exceptions are, two generally
accepted exceptions are killing those who are an unjust threat to
innocent life, or those participating in a foreign invasion.

The positive duties are more specific. And importantly for this
discussion, the positive duties only exist if one is aware that they
have a duty to take action to prolong someone’s life. Certainly,people
do not have a duty to perform CPR on a person they do not know even
exists.

So according to the pro-life thesis, it is unethical to cut up an
unborn in the womb unless it falls under the specific exceptions to
the general duty not to actively kill people. But how would this apply
to an induced labor abortion, where the baby is delivered intact
prematurely.

Some would argue that the mother’s duty to provide for her
offspring begins at pregnancy. Therefore, an induced labor abortion
constitutes a refusal to provide nourishment for the offspring and
would be unethical.

[west texas refugee]

I believe another person has no right whatsoever to dictate my family choices or rule over my womb.
I think if our government has the right to make my reproductive choices for me, then they should be able to pass laws that any man who commits adultery, fathers children out of wedlock, rapes, or owes more than $10,000 in back child support should be castrated.

[MeanWestTexan]

“I believe another person has no right whatsoever to dictate my family choices or rule over my womb.”

Great. Now, what about the child in the womb? Do you have a right to murder him or her?

“I think if our government has the right to make my reproductive choices for me”

Actually, by consenting to sex (assuming consensual sex), you make your own reproductive choices. This is especially true in this modern day of birth control, which seldom fails.

“then they should be able to pass laws that any man who commits adultery, fathers children out of wedlock, rapes, or owes more than $10,000 in back child support should be castrated.”

Sure, as long as the women who do the same are also sterilized, as it takes two to tango.

[Hoodat]

I think if our government has the right to make my reproductive choices for me

Assuming that you are a woman, the government was not the one making the choice to allow a man to ejaculate inside of you. If this is the age of women's empowerment, then shouldn't women accept the responsibility of those empowered actions? As a man, I am legally obligated to financially support any child that I father.

. . . they should be able to pass laws that any man who commits adultery, fathers children out of wedlock, rapes, or owes more than $10,000 in back child support should be castrated.

Should they also pass a law granting men abortion rights? And should women committing adultery, women mothering children out of wedlock, and women who owe more than $10,000 in back child support be castrated as well? Or is this simply about your own personal bitterness?

I believe another person has no right whatsoever to dictate my family choices or rule over my womb.

It was your choice - no one elses - that allowed a separate and unique life to be created. And you have no right to kill the life of another, regardless of where it dwells.

Take responsibility for your own actions. You are not a victim here. You choose to engage in an activity that you know beforehand can result in pregnancy. And the epitome of selfishness is that you would kill that living human being in order to evade the responsibility of your choice. Think about it.