Replies

"The right of all humans, born and unborn, to life comes from God, not from our founders. They acknowledged and expounded our preexisting rights given to us by our Creator."

What of the belief that rights come from Nature (and only thereby indirectly from God, should God exist)?

Such a system would arguably be much to the credit of a proposed creator, as it would provide beings within the created system a common and readily accessible reference for determining the truth of a claim of rights.

Further, I think nature is the standard we actually use when addressing rights issues in contexts other than the prenatal.

First let me put forward the observation that people determine which classes of beings have which rights primarily on the basis of what goes on inside those beings, or on the basis of what typically goes on inside members of that class of being (the latter helps prevent slippery slopes). So, for example, a blade of grass does not have a right to life of strength justifying the protection of the state because it does not have any mental activity whatsoever. A typical 8-year-old human being does have a great depth of mental activity, and accordingly an 8-year-old human being has a right to life enforced by the state.

Similarly, taking into account social connections and slippery slopes, it is often legal, and arguably ethical, to remove a clearly flat-line comatose person from life support. Such a decision is based largely on internal state. (Terry Schindler, recall, was *not* flat line (and at any rate did have family willing to care for her) and this was a large part of the reason her death by dehydration was utterly horrific.)

Main point: when dealing with non-human entities and even when dealing with born humans, the standard we use is we can explain in naturalistic terms - internal state, systems that avoid slippery slopes, etc.

So if we assume nature is the standard, what, exactly, grants, say, a three day old embryo full human rights, despite the fact that it does not (so far as I know) have mental activity at all, or, for that matter, even a brain?

I am familiar with the following arguments:

Early embryo has human rights because ...

(1) If left to the default-biologically-natural course of events, it will develop into a full-fledged human being.

Same could be said a sperm cell and an egg cell in two red-blooded 15-year-olds. That does not mean actions taken to prevent the default biologically natural course of events (parent-imposed curfews, say) and thereby prevent the existence of a potential human being are tantamount to murder.

(2) It has the potential to be a human being, so it should have human rights.

I may well have the potential to be a brain surgeon, aeronautical engineer, or concert violinist. However, it would certainly be inappropriate -- and in fact, it would in the former two cases be downright unethical -- to permit me certain of the rights and privileges of such folks in my current state. It would be at the point that I actually become a brain surgeon (etc.) that I should get the associated rights.

(3) It has human DNA and is alive.

As might be a sample of human skin cells in a laboratory.

(4) Prevention of slippery slopes.

This I think extremely important. However, if this is the only reason, it supports creating policy that guards against a slippery slope by creating a clear, firm boundary at some point significantly before the fetus/infant develops any awareness. This could quite possibly be done at the two week or one month point in the pregnancy, or perhaps even later. (I'm not an expert on CNS development.) At any rate, the line need not necessarily be drawn at conception, if this be the reason for it.

(5) Needed for deterrent effect on behavior harmful to social stability.

Essentially, the idea that without risk of pregnancy, women will be likely to be come sluts en masse (seen a state university lately?), destroying the relationship between the sexes that is necessary for creating a next generation in replacement numbers, and causing those who are born into the next generation to be raised largely in broken, sickly, homes.... largely resulting in the future generation consisting of broken, sick human beings, and thus a dying civilization.

Seems to make some sense, but at any rate, it affords some exceptions (exceptions for rape, for example), and it might not actually work quite as intended.

(6) Better to err on the side of caution.

What about if you are so far onto the side of caution (as many would consider regarding the 3 day old embryo) that the risk of evil to a sentient being is minuscule to non-existent (as the chance that the embryo is sentient at that point is miniscule to non-existent), and the biological and life costs to a sentient being (the pregnant woman) arguably great?

(7) Inherent value

If not for any of the above 6 reasons, on what grounds does the 3 day old embryo have inherent value? If my guess is correct and at this point in pregnancy the embryo has no awareness, then do you propose that it receives a soul before it grows a brain, the organ of consciousness? If souls are of such a nature, how on earth can you determine that a blade of grass does not similarly have a soul of such a type that it demands full legal protections of its that blade's right to life? With this system we should be prevented from moving or eating, that we ensure we harm no disembodied or plant-embodied souls which might exist.

I'm not trying to be nasty or snarky with any of this; I am afraid my frustration may come off as such. I just honestly do not get the extreme anti-abortion position, for the above reasons. I personally have no direct investment one way or the other in the abortion argument - I've never had an abortion, and I intend to never have one. I'm also not particularly emotionally attached to week old embryos or to any churches which proclaim that such embryos have full human rights.

I believe strongly in right and wrong, but I expect it to make sense.