Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[Cephus]

Then if the woman's rights are subjective, the subjective rights of the unborn child are equally valid. It doesn't matter that "society" has given rights to a women and not to foetuses as the right of society to do so is also entirely subjective.

You're missing the point. A woman has been granted rights by society. What is subjective about those rights is the fact that they can be taken away, should society decide to do so. A fetus has never been granted rights by society. It may, at some point, be granted rights, but it does not now have them. Therefore, arguing about a fetus' rights is like arguing about a square circle. No such thing.

A woman having an abortion is using her subjective "right to abort" to deny the foetuses subjective "right to live". To ban abortion is to use the subjective "right to restrict" to deny the subjective right of the woman to abort.

A fetus has no "right to live". It hasn't been granted by society.

Obviously it would be unworkable to grant every subjective right which is why a consensus is made and laws are passed (and frequently ammended as opinion changes). As a "rule"(but not always), laws allow rights so long as they do not restrict or deny the rights of others. Mainly, it is the rights of humans who are considered above the rights of other animals. If a foetus is human then the same consideration should be given it than to any other human. I don't mean here the right to vote, drive a car or drink alcohol as these are age dependent for very good reason. There is no good reason that I can think of for limiting the right to life to those of a particular age.

You're really missing the boat as to what a subjective right is. It's something that exists solely because society says it does, as opposed to an objective right that exists regardless of what society says.

Take slavery, for example. Society said that slavery was fine at one point in time. For all intents and purposes, talking about a slave's "right to be free" was ludicrous, they didn't have that right, they were slaves. At some point in time, society changed it's mind and decided to free the slaves. At that point, a slave earned the "right to be free", but not prior to that decision.

A fetus will gain the "right to life", when, and only when society determines that it should have it.

[Curious]

You're missing the point. A woman has been granted rights by society. What is subjective about those rights is the fact that they can be taken away, should society decide to do so. A fetus has never been granted rights by society. It may, at some point, be granted rights, but it does not now have them. Therefore, arguing about a fetus' rights is like arguing about a square circle. No such thing.
----------
A fetus has no "right to live". It hasn't been granted by society.
----------
You're really missing the boat as to what a subjective right is. It's something that exists solely because society says it does, as opposed to an objective right that exists regardless of what society says.

Take slavery, for example. Society said that slavery was fine at one point in time. For all intents and purposes, talking about a slave's "right to be free" was ludicrous, they didn't have that right, they were slaves. At some point in time, society changed it's mind and decided to free the slaves. At that point, a slave earned the "right to be free", but not prior to that decision.

A fetus will gain the "right to life", when, and only when society determines that it should have it.

I think it is you who need to understand the difference between an objective and a subjective right. An objective right exists independently of the perception of it. A subjective right is a right that is purely conceptual or imagined.
Now if all rights are subjective, then one imagined right is no more real than any other. It makes no difference whether one person has the opinion or one billion. The number of believers in a non existent entity makes no difference to it's actual existence otherwise if 51% of people believed in God, then you would be forced to concede that God does in fact exist. So a conceptual right held by one is just as valid as one held by many.
Again, if all rights are subjective, the right to grant rights is also subjective and has no greater validity than any other subjective right. It does not matter whether a right is granted democratically, as the right to impose majority rule is also purely subjective.
Remember, it was you who initially brought up the issue of subjectivity yet you insist on sticking to the subjective idea that rights exist if granted by consensus. They don't. The rights of the woman (or man) are no more real than the rights of the foetus. The granting of rights to a woman does not make the woman's rights any more real than the ungranted rights of the foetus.
So, for the sake of society, it comes down to who should be granted rights( if any are to be granted at all). Should we grant rights and protection to just men, just women, whites only, blacks only? I personally believe if we are to grant rights at all, in the interest of fairness and consistency, we should grant the same basic protections to all human beings. Now if you believe this is unreasonable please explain why it is unreasonable. If you agree, then the only way to remain consistent in your support of abortion is to show that the foetus is not a human being.

[Cephus]

I think it is you who need to understand the difference between an objective and a subjective right. An objective right exists independently of the perception of it. A subjective right is a right that is purely conceptual or imagined.

There is no such thing as an objective right. How many times do I have to keep saying that?

Now if all rights are subjective, then one imagined right is no more real than any other. It makes no difference whether one person has the opinion or one billion. The number of believers in a non existent entity makes no difference to it's actual existence otherwise if 51% of people believed in God, then you would be forced to concede that God does in fact exist. So a conceptual right held by one is just as valid as one held by many.

Rights are determined by society as a whole. Rights are solely opinions, unlike claiming the actual existence of a deity.

Again, if all rights are subjective, the right to grant rights is also subjective and has no greater validity than any other subjective right. It does not matter whether a right is granted democratically, as the right to impose majority rule is also purely subjective.

There is no "right" to grant rights, rights are simply a subjective standard that society explicitly or implicitly agrees to and enforces.

Remember, it was you who initially brought up the issue of subjectivity yet you insist on sticking to the subjective idea that rights exist if granted by consensus. They don't. The rights of the woman (or man) are no more real than the rights of the foetus. The granting of rights to a woman does not make the woman's rights any more real than the ungranted rights of the foetus.

Says who? You keep making this statement but aren't backing it up. There *ARE NO RIGHTS FOR A FETUS IF THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY SOCIETY*! There's no such thing as an ungranted right any more than there's such a thing as an unbuilt car. The right, or the car, doesn't exist until it's granted or built.

So, for the sake of society, it comes down to who should be granted rights( if any are to be granted at all). Should we grant rights and protection to just men, just women, whites only, blacks only? I personally believe if we are to grant rights at all, in the interest of fairness and consistency, we should grant the same basic protections to all human beings. Now if you believe this is unreasonable please explain why it is unreasonable. If you agree, then the only way to remain consistent in your support of abortion is to show that the foetus is not a human being.

There was a time when voting rights were only granted to white, land-owning males. It isn't a matter of 'should', it's a matter of reality. It has nothing to do with fairness, it has nothing to do with what you wish was true, it only has to do with what is actually true. You might wish things were different, you're certainly welcome to try to convince people to adopt your worldview, but until society, as a whole, actually MAKES that change, the rights remain the same.

[Curious]

There is no such thing as an objective right. How many times do I have to keep saying that?

It rather depends on how long it takes you to grasp the implications.

Rights are determined by society as a whole. Rights are solely opinions, unlike claiming the actual existence of a deity.

I agree that rights are solely opinions. They are not real things. So what makes one opinion more valid than another?

There is no "right" to grant rights, rights are simply a subjective standard that society explicitly or implicitly agrees to and enforces.

Of course there is. The enforcers of the law enforce such laws because the believe the lawmakers have the right to make such laws. They also enforce the law because they have been granted the right to uphold the law.

Says who? You keep making this statement but aren't backing it up. There *ARE NO RIGHTS FOR A FETUS IF THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY SOCIETY*! There's no such thing as an ungranted right any more than there's such a thing as an unbuilt car. The right, or the car, doesn't exist until it's granted or built.

Once a car is built it becomes an actual entity. When a right is granted it remains an idea, it just becomes an enforceable idea. The right exists only in the minds of those who think it.
Please read the following carefully so that you understand what I am saying.

You agree that all rights are subjective.
You agree that all rights are nothing more than opinion.
All perceived rights are nothing more than opinion.
Therefore the perceived rights of society are nothing more than opinion.
Therefore the right to abortion is purely opinion.
And the right of the foetus to life is purely opinion.
And the right to enforce opinion is purely opinion.
An opinion is an opinion regardless of whether there is consensus.


Now you seem to be sticking to the line that abortion should be allowed because the foetus has no rights but an abortion is not allowed at 29 weeks or 35 weeks or 39 weeks so this makes no sense. A 29 week old foetus is not granted rights but abortion is still illegal ( barring very good grounds) at that gestation. So why exactly do some foetuses have protection and others not? It is obviously not simply a matter of post-natal rights versus pre-natal rights as you have stated. The line you have given of only being granted rights at birth is clearly not the reason why abortion is legal.
There is obviously something more than the possession of certain rights when legislation concerning abortion is passed.
What reason is there to grant protection to the post-natal infant and to certain pre-natal foetuses and not to others. It really isn't a valid argument to say they just do, or that is what society has decided to do.
Please give reasons why every foetus should not be granted protection under the law as the point you frequently make concerning the lack of pre-natal rights being the reason is obviously wrong.

[Cephus]

I agree that rights are solely opinions. They are not real things. So what makes one opinion more valid than another?

Depends on what you mean by "valid". If you're looking for something to be better than another, you're out of luck. The only thing that makes a right exist is that society, as a whole, says it does. That's it. I think you're expecting too much.

Of course there is. The enforcers of the law enforce such laws because the believe the lawmakers have the right to make such laws. They also enforce the law because they have been granted the right to uphold the law.

That's certainly different than claiming that people have explicit rights to grant rights. You don't have the Rights Council sitting around on Thursdays debating what rights it should give people today. Rights are societal constructs, individuals or groups don't have any ability to grant or take them away.

Once a car is built it becomes an actual entity. When a right is granted it remains an idea, it just becomes an enforceable idea. The right exists only in the minds of those who think it.

But you're still arguing an oxymoron. An idea is not a right. Until a right is granted by society, it is not a right, hence arguing about "ungranted rights" makes no sense.

You agree that all rights are subjective.

Yup.

You agree that all rights are nothing more than opinion.

Opinion of a society or culture, yes.

All perceived rights are nothing more than opinion.

No such thing as a perceived right. It's either a right or it's not.

Therefore the perceived rights of society are nothing more than opinion.

Remove the word 'perceived' and you'd be right.

Therefore the right to abortion is purely opinion.

Yup.

And the right of the foetus to life is purely opinion.

There is no right of the fetus to life. You might have the opinion that the fetus should have that right, but society has not granted it. In YOUR opinion, a fetus should have the right to life, nothing more.

And the right to enforce opinion is purely opinion.

Pretty much, welcome to reality.

An opinion is an opinion regardless of whether there is consensus.

Yup. I don't see how any of this changes anything. What you're basically saying is that your opinion is no better or worse than anyone else's so the rights you want to exist, should exist. Sorry, but the whole point of rights *IS* the consensus. It's purely majority rule, like it or not.

Now you seem to be sticking to the line that abortion should be allowed because the foetus has no rights but an abortion is not allowed at 29 weeks or 35 weeks or 39 weeks so this makes no sense. A 29 week old foetus is not granted rights but abortion is still illegal ( barring very good grounds) at that gestation. So why exactly do some foetuses have protection and others not? It is obviously not simply a matter of post-natal rights versus pre-natal rights as you have stated. The line you have given of only being granted rights at birth is clearly not the reason why abortion is legal.

Because society has decided it is not allowed at 29 weeks or whatever. You're looking for logic where none is likely to exist. Society isn't perfect, it isn't even rational sometimes, but it is society and it does grant rights.

[Curious]

Depends on what you mean by "valid". If you're looking for something to be better than another, you're out of luck. The only thing that makes a right exist is that society, as a whole, says it does. That's it. I think you're expecting too much.

I disagree with this point. I will explain why later in this post to avoid repetition.

That's certainly different than claiming that people have explicit rights to grant rights. You don't have the Rights Council sitting around on Thursdays debating what rights it should give people today. Rights are societal constructs, individuals or groups don't have any ability to grant or take them away.

The right to own property and the right to vote are just two examples of rights that have been granted by society. The right of the man to have sex with a non-consenting spouse is an example of a right that has been taken away.
I grant my children the right to raid my fridge and pantry. I also grant my spouse the right to question how I spend my money. Society has no say in this. These are rights that I grant because I am in a position to do so. If I rescind these rights then these rights no longer exist. My family accept my judgement in such matters because they believe I am the authority. Whether or not they are correct is neither here nor there.

But you're still arguing an oxymoron. An idea is not a right. Until a right is granted by society, it is not a right, hence arguing about "ungranted rights" makes no sense.

You stated earlier that a right is purely an opinion. An opinion is an idea. Whether or not it is a societally enforcable idea or not, it still remains an idea. Now I have shown that a right can be given without the express permission of society as a whole. In fact, all rights that are taken for granted need not necessarily have been legislated for. You have the right to pick your nose, not because this has been legislated for, but because it has not been legislated against. In the same way, drivers of cars used to have the right to travel without a seatbelt but this was legislated against by a law which stated that a seatbelt MUST be worn. So you see, rights do not need granting specifically. There are many rights that have not been granted but are assumed because they are not legislated against.

All perceived rights are nothing more than opinion.

No such thing as a perceived right. It's either a right or it's not.

If all rights are subjective then they are absolutely perceived.

There is no right of the fetus to life. You might have the opinion that the fetus should have that right, but society has not granted it. In YOUR opinion, a fetus should have the right to life, nothing more.

My spouse became pregnant unexpectedly( sex does what!!!). We granted this right. She is, and always has been, a joy. Of course it was only my opinion that she had such a right but she had it nevertheless.

An opinion is an opinion regardless of whether there is consensus.

Yup. I don't see how any of this changes anything. What you're basically saying is that your opinion is no better or worse than anyone else's so the rights you want to exist, should exist. Sorry, but the whole point of rights *IS* the consensus. It's purely majority rule, like it or not.
-----------------------
Because society has decided it is not allowed at 29 weeks or whatever. You're looking for logic where none is likely to exist. Society isn't perfect, it isn't even rational sometimes, but it is society and it does grant rights.

That's why debate is good because it can alter the opinion of society. Alter opinion enough and the rights will follow. If you believe a position is strong enough to withstand scrutiny then debate away. It's far more productive than fire-bombing clinics ( in my humble opinion ).

[Cephus]

The right to own property and the right to vote are just two examples of rights that have been granted by society. The right of the man to have sex with a non-consenting spouse is an example of a right that has been taken away.

And these granted rights change over time. What society grants at one time, it may not grant at another.

I grant my children the right to raid my fridge and pantry. I also grant my spouse the right to question how I spend my money. Society has no say in this. These are rights that I grant because I am in a position to do so. If I rescind these rights then these rights no longer exist. My family accept my judgement in such matters because they believe I am the authority. Whether or not they are correct is neither here nor there.

In some ways, you can operate as a miniature society, such as the above. Likewise, communities, cities, states, etc. can operate as societies in their own right and grant rights.

One thing you cannot do, however, is take away the rights given by society as a whole, or grant contradictory rights. So, in fact, you couldn't grant your wife the right to run around in public nude, no matter how strongly you think she might deserve it.

You stated earlier that a right is purely an opinion. An opinion is an idea. Whether or not it is a societally enforcable idea or not, it still remains an idea. Now I have shown that a right can be given without the express permission of society as a whole. In fact, all rights that are taken for granted need not necessarily have been legislated for. You have the right to pick your nose, not because this has been legislated for, but because it has not been legislated against. In the same way, drivers of cars used to have the right to travel without a seatbelt but this was legislated against by a law which stated that a seatbelt MUST be worn. So you see, rights do not need granting specifically. There are many rights that have not been granted but are assumed because they are not legislated against.

You're not distinguishing between a right and a law. They are two different things. Laws, in some ways at least, exist to enforce rights. No one has to specifically legislate the existence of rights, they are just understood to exist. Most laws simply proscribe penalties and punishments for violating rights and lesser dictates of society.

No one had the right to travel without a seatbelt, that's a pretty silly example. No one has a right to travel with a seatbelt either. I don't know of anyone who would hold up seatbelt laws as a great example of an inalienable right, do you?

My spouse became pregnant unexpectedly( sex does what!!!). We granted this right. She is, and always has been, a joy. Of course it was only my opinion that she had such a right but she had it nevertheless.

You didn't grant that right, it happened without your consent and knowledge. You decided not to terminate the pregnancy.

That's why debate is good because it can alter the opinion of society. Alter opinion enough and the rights will follow. If you believe a position is strong enough to withstand scrutiny then debate away. It's far more productive than fire-bombing clinics ( in my humble opinion ).

And that's fine, debate is a healthy activity, but until you do manage to convince society as a whole that their views are wrong and that they should adopt other views, those rights will continue to exist.

And yes, firebombing clinics and shooting doctors is certainly unproductive, but those things are usually done by Christians who want to impose their views on a society that wants no part of them. That's not debate, that's terrorism.

[Curious]

The right to own property and the right to vote are just two examples of rights that have been granted by society. The right of the man to have sex with a non-consenting spouse is an example of a right that has been taken away.

And these granted rights change over time. What society grants at one time, it may not grant at another.

In some ways, you can operate as a miniature society, such as the above. Likewise, communities, cities, states, etc. can operate as societies in their own right and grant rights.

You're not distinguishing between a right and a law. They are two different things. Laws, in some ways at least, exist to enforce rights. No one has to specifically legislate the existence of rights, they are just understood to exist. Most laws simply proscribe penalties and punishments for violating rights and lesser dictates of society.

No one had the right to travel without a seatbelt, that's a pretty silly example. No one has a right to travel with a seatbelt either. I don't know of anyone who would hold up seatbelt laws as a great example of an inalienable right, do you?

You also stated previously:

...That's certainly different than claiming that people have explicit rights to grant rights. You don't have the Rights Council sitting around on Thursdays debating what rights it should give people today. Rights are societal constructs, individuals or groups don't have any ability to grant or take them away.

...But you're still arguing an oxymoron. An idea is not a right. Until a right is granted by society, it is not a right, hence arguing about "ungranted rights" makes no sense.

So either a right requires granting explicitly or it does not, you state both.
Either people have the ability to grant rights or they do not, again you state both.
Either you can have assumed rights or you cannot, you cannot have it both ways.
It becomes difficult to argue a point if you constantly alter your position.

[Cephus]

So either a right requires granting explicitly or it does not, you state both.
Either people have the ability to grant rights or they do not, again you state both.
Either you can have assumed rights or you cannot, you cannot have it both ways.
It becomes difficult to argue a point if you constantly alter your position.

I don't alter my position, you just keep changing your questions. If you want to stay on the topic of rights at a societal level, fine. Stop bringing up things you do in your home. Stop using laws and rights interchangably. It's very difficult to debate when you're all over the map.

[Curious]

So either a right requires granting explicitly or it does not, you state both.
Either people have the ability to grant rights or they do not, again you state both.
Either you can have assumed rights or you cannot, you cannot have it both ways.
It becomes difficult to argue a point if you constantly alter your position.

I don't alter my position, you just keep changing your questions. If you want to stay on the topic of rights at a societal level, fine. Stop bringing up things you do in your home. Stop using laws and rights interchangably. It's very difficult to debate when you're all over the map.

The questions were all concerning rights. Your answers contradict each other. Your answers speak for themselves. There is nothing wrong with asking a question in a different way, the intention was to gauge the strength or weakness of your position. My questioning cannot be held responsible for the inconsistency of your answers, only for demonstrating it.