4 ms·

If you want to terminate on demand anywhere in Jesusland, you need to genetically engineer your babies to not have souls. One might argue that this has already

If you want to terminate on demand anywhere in Jesusland, you need to genetically engineer your babies to not have souls. One might argue that this has already been done, and the results are now running the legislature.

ars 7y ago
There are plenty of atheists who are opposed to abortion. Atheists do not believe adults have souls either, but are opposed to killing them. All you have to do is consider the unborn child alive to be opposed to killing it, it's not necessarily a religious argument.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Some atheists are opposed to killing adults. There exists at least one that believes one's right to life is not an absolute moral principle, but predicated upon a reciprocal respect for the rights of others. Thus, it is morally acceptable to kill an adult that violates the moral compact for human rights, or threatens its continued existence. Without a religious mandate, there is no guarantee that any single atheist would share any specific belief with another atheist, other than the one that defines them as a class--that either supernatural entities do not exist, or they exist but also lack the authority to be considered gods rather than ordinary persons, morally equal to all other persons. As a fetus does not yet possess a capacity for moral reasoning, and a pregnant mother likely does, I find that fetuses do not qualify as people, and have no inherent rights, possessing only those derived from their relationship with their mother, and from any other persons who may have a contractual relationship with her. So in a contest of rights between a fetus and its mother, I believe the latter has exclusive and uncontested right to do anything she likes to the former, to include destroying it or editing its DNA, and no state has any interest whatsoever in interfering. A uterus is the exclusive property of the woman; the fetus is incompetent to lease, and has no squatter's rights. The only other persons who might even have standing would be the biological father of the fetus and any persons in an implicit or explicit reproductive contract with the mother, such as a marriage or surrogacy agreement, made prior to pregnancy. And none of those could restrain the actions of the mother; they could only sue in civil court for remedy following a breach. As secular moralities go, I'd expect vegans to oppose abortion and gene-editing, and libertarians to oppose any form of state control over those. No others come to mind that have principles coherent across the entire class with respect to unborn fetuses.
  - ars 7y ago
    Your argument also allows mothers to kill their children up till around 3 years old. And if you reply that someone else can care for the child, your argument also allows for killing mentally disabled children and adults. Giving humans value only because they are useful is abhorrent to me, I find that humans have inherent value.
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      Those people all have guardians, whether assigned by default by virtue of family relationships, or assigned one by a court. Their rights are defended by their guardians. An abusive guardian can deprive their wards of rights if they so choose, and this is why we have procedures established and criminal codes specific to faithless guardians--child abuse, elder abuse, even cruelty to animals. The ward can't be expected to prevail over their own guardian, so other people with moral agency have to be prepared to remove and replace a bad guardian. Without guardianship and advocacy by others, those people could be abused at will. A bad guardian could prevent abuse from everyone except themselves, assuming a monopoly over the abuse of their wards. But you can't exactly replace a mother in the middle of a pregnancy, can you? Certainly not without doing harm to her. Thus, I am unwilling to advocate for a fetus to the detriment of its mother. It's pointless. You can't help that fetus until after it's a baby, and it won't ever become a baby if that's not something the mother is willing to do. When the state forces a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term by prohibitions and threats of force, that is itself an abusive relationship with a large imbalance in power. A fetus has no inherent value. It is worth what its mother says it is worth, anywhere from zero to one whole person. That's why a battery that causes a miscarriage can be considered a murder, but an abortion is not. Once that baby is born, it will likely be considered a whole person from then onward, because there's probably always going to be a potential guardian around that's willing to bid that high. But when you find a class of person like homeless folk unable to manage their own affairs due to mental illness, that's when you see that they have fewer rights in fact, because there's a dearth of people willing to act as their guardians. They have no inherent value, and no value borrowed from others, so predators can beat them up and steal their stuff, and nothing happens to fix it. Giving value to those who have no inherent value--so they may live in our society as equals before the law--is virtuous, but in order for that to happen, someone with inherent value has to lend some of theirs. Not everyone is willing to give themselves for the sake of someone who will likely never be able to return that favor. Some people don't have enough excess to spare anything. Some people always need to turn a profit. If you oppose abortion, and don't already have some adopted children or an unrelated adult dependent, you might just be fooling yourself about how virtuous you really are. When you bid someone else's value up to a whole person, you must be prepared to pay that bid if you win, by becoming their guardian and defending them against anyone who would treat them as less than a whole person.

ars 7y ago

There are plenty of atheists who are opposed to abortion. Atheists do not believe adults have souls either, but are opposed to killing them. All you have to do is consider the unborn child alive to be opposed to killing it, it's not necessarily a religious argument.

logfromblammo 7y ago
Some atheists are opposed to killing adults. There exists at least one that believes one's right to life is not an absolute moral principle, but predicated upon a reciprocal respect for the rights of others. Thus, it is morally acceptable to kill an adult that violates the moral compact for human rights, or threatens its continued existence. Without a religious mandate, there is no guarantee that any single atheist would share any specific belief with another atheist, other than the one that defines them as a class--that either supernatural entities do not exist, or they exist but also lack the authority to be considered gods rather than ordinary persons, morally equal to all other persons. As a fetus does not yet possess a capacity for moral reasoning, and a pregnant mother likely does, I find that fetuses do not qualify as people, and have no inherent rights, possessing only those derived from their relationship with their mother, and from any other persons who may have a contractual relationship with her. So in a contest of rights between a fetus and its mother, I believe the latter has exclusive and uncontested right to do anything she likes to the former, to include destroying it or editing its DNA, and no state has any interest whatsoever in interfering. A uterus is the exclusive property of the woman; the fetus is incompetent to lease, and has no squatter's rights. The only other persons who might even have standing would be the biological father of the fetus and any persons in an implicit or explicit reproductive contract with the mother, such as a marriage or surrogacy agreement, made prior to pregnancy. And none of those could restrain the actions of the mother; they could only sue in civil court for remedy following a breach. As secular moralities go, I'd expect vegans to oppose abortion and gene-editing, and libertarians to oppose any form of state control over those. No others come to mind that have principles coherent across the entire class with respect to unborn fetuses.
- ars 7y ago
  Your argument also allows mothers to kill their children up till around 3 years old. And if you reply that someone else can care for the child, your argument also allows for killing mentally disabled children and adults. Giving humans value only because they are useful is abhorrent to me, I find that humans have inherent value.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Those people all have guardians, whether assigned by default by virtue of family relationships, or assigned one by a court. Their rights are defended by their guardians. An abusive guardian can deprive their wards of rights if they so choose, and this is why we have procedures established and criminal codes specific to faithless guardians--child abuse, elder abuse, even cruelty to animals. The ward can't be expected to prevail over their own guardian, so other people with moral agency have to be prepared to remove and replace a bad guardian. Without guardianship and advocacy by others, those people could be abused at will. A bad guardian could prevent abuse from everyone except themselves, assuming a monopoly over the abuse of their wards. But you can't exactly replace a mother in the middle of a pregnancy, can you? Certainly not without doing harm to her. Thus, I am unwilling to advocate for a fetus to the detriment of its mother. It's pointless. You can't help that fetus until after it's a baby, and it won't ever become a baby if that's not something the mother is willing to do. When the state forces a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term by prohibitions and threats of force, that is itself an abusive relationship with a large imbalance in power. A fetus has no inherent value. It is worth what its mother says it is worth, anywhere from zero to one whole person. That's why a battery that causes a miscarriage can be considered a murder, but an abortion is not. Once that baby is born, it will likely be considered a whole person from then onward, because there's probably always going to be a potential guardian around that's willing to bid that high. But when you find a class of person like homeless folk unable to manage their own affairs due to mental illness, that's when you see that they have fewer rights in fact, because there's a dearth of people willing to act as their guardians. They have no inherent value, and no value borrowed from others, so predators can beat them up and steal their stuff, and nothing happens to fix it. Giving value to those who have no inherent value--so they may live in our society as equals before the law--is virtuous, but in order for that to happen, someone with inherent value has to lend some of theirs. Not everyone is willing to give themselves for the sake of someone who will likely never be able to return that favor. Some people don't have enough excess to spare anything. Some people always need to turn a profit. If you oppose abortion, and don't already have some adopted children or an unrelated adult dependent, you might just be fooling yourself about how virtuous you really are. When you bid someone else's value up to a whole person, you must be prepared to pay that bid if you win, by becoming their guardian and defending them against anyone who would treat them as less than a whole person.