Given the recent abortion report:
I said, "you are correct Alexis, our baby is alive".
Notwithstanding incredible circumstances (mother or child is about to die, pick one to live or both will die...for example), how is choosing to end the child's life moral? I get the evolutionary/atheist idea that morals can't be created ex nihilo from matter exploding causing billions of years of progressive chain reactions leading to human life. Is it an evolutionary argument that abortion is not immoral? What is the actual argument?
The 'theistic' (Christian) argument is fairly simple;
God created the universe.
God Loves people and places a high value on people.
God asks us not to murder (declare unwarranted judgment over another person and end their life)
Example of unwarranted judgment: ending the life of someone because they cheer for the Toronto Maple Leafs...murder.
Example of warranted judgment and therefore not murder: robber about to slash families throat, has knife out and is 4" from first victim and declares all in the house will die. Cops 10 minutes away. He placed himself in a position of being judged, therefore you stop him from killing your family. The degree required to stop his actions were the ending of his life. That is not murder according to God as he placed judgment on himself (Exodus 22:2-3).
Life begins at conception, therefore do not place unwarranted judgment to end the child's life.
What is the non-Christian perspective? Sincerely asking...
The actual argument for abortion is one of law, not ethics.
ReplyDeleteEssentially it is that all human beings have the right to determine the course of their own lives. In the case of rape-victim who becomes pregnant as a result of the rape, should she be compelled by the state to become a mother to a child she never consented to?
In this way, if rape is a crime, then abortion must be permitted for whatever reason because pregnancy can intrude upon the right of a person to choose.
However, in my view, that doesn't make abortion ethical; quite the contrary, it is in virtually all purely theraputic cases unethical, and arguments to assert that abortion is ethical behaviour in cases which do not represent a clear violation of the freedom to choose, dire medical necessity, or dire financial straits, are patently incompatible with any and all systems of ethical consideration. Abortion is virtually always an unethical act, though, there are a very few exceptions.
What this means is that abortion is lawful under our system of recognizing human rights. While law and morality often go hand in hand, in this case, they are clearly at odds. Ultimately the law has little choice but to give the benefit of the doubt to the entity who has been recognized as having human rights. Sadly, those rights trump those of the unborn. But, to do otherwise would undermine the constitutionally guarantee some of the rights that our system holds most dear, and would represent a gradual erosion of the rights of all. It's not ethical, it's lawful.
Aren't the purpose of the constitution and laws to uphold our ethics?
DeleteIt is a question of ethics, and the answer to questions of ethics should inform our laws.
Aren't the purpose of the constitution and laws to uphold our ethics?
DeleteNo.
The Constitution is essentially a contractual document which explicitly spells out the rights of citizens vis-a-vis the state, and details how the state will be organized, and possibly how it will be managed. It's the founding legal contract between citizen and state. As such, a constitution which explicitly specified shariah law as being the only system of laws within a country would clearly be in conflict with several ethical systems. In Chinese jurisprudence, collective rights are upheld over and above individual rights. And there are many more examples.
In other words, a constitution, and its body of laws are not ethical, they're purely "lawful."
And while ethics and laws are often conflated, and the realm of ethics is sometimes projected into law, they remain two entirely distinct spheres. Indeed, in Canada especially, we have an almost innumerable number of laws which have absolutely nothing to do with ethical considerations. Worse, they sometimes encourage both unlawful and unethical behavior by punishing the law-abiding. How can laws like that uphold ethics?
The constitution is based on the ethics of those who wrote it. If the authors had different ethics they would have written a different constitution.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe constitution is based on the ethics of those who wrote it. If the authors had different ethics they would have written a different constitution.
DeleteWhile that's true, that doesn't address your original point which was to suggest that the purpose of a constitution was to uphold certain ethical considerations. In the United States, the Constitution is sometimes referred to as a 'blueprint' for democracy, which is a fairly good description, though a bit simplistic.
Its clearly not a legal document.
Excuse me? It's not a legal document? I can't even begin to respond to such an absurdist proposition... Why are constitutional questions constantly referred to the judicial branch of government, if the Constitution isn't a legal document?
Anonymous, do you dispute that for a document to be a legal contract it has to be signed by all parties?
DeleteIts absurd to think that a document which has not been signed by someone can be enforced against them.
This is the opposite of law.
dispute that for a document to be a legal contract it has to be signed by all parties?
DeleteAre you not subject to the constitution, whether or not you agreed to the principles contained within? It is still contractual, sorry, it is. If the state violates one of your constitutional rights, you can seek recourse. In essence, the state has breached its social contract with you. Constitutions could also be considered an explicit codification of the social contract proposed by enlightment thinkers.
Its absurd to think that a document which has not been signed by someone can be enforced against them.
The state has several duties towards you under the constitution, and they are enforcable against the state. If the police search your home without a warrant and charge you with a crime as a result of that search, then that evidence is inadmissable in a court of law, because the state violated its agreement with you under the constitution. How is that ambiguous, or absurd?
Wherever do you get the idea that because you didn't necessarily agree that it doesn't apply? I don't agree with a number of laws in Canada, but I am no less subject to them.
Whether abortion is right or wrong is a question for ethics. Whether we need/want a law preventing abortion is a legal/government issue.
DeleteI think its obvious that the legal aspect of abortion should be informed (to some perhaps large degree) by the ethical question.
Of course many laws are not based in ethics, no disputing that.
"It is still contractual, sorry, it is."
DeleteThats not much of an argument.
My argument is simple. If you accept that for someone to be bound by a legal contract that they must sign it, then you cannot say that the constitution is a legal contract.
Certainly I don't dispute reality, if I break a law I'm going to be punished in some form.
Thats not what you said. You said it is a legal contract between people, implying between everyone in the country and the government. Clearly given that no one alive has signed it, it cannot be considered a legal contract.
Perhaps you have a different definition of a legal contract than most of the rest of the legal field?
I think its obvious that the legal aspect of abortion should be informed (to some perhaps large degree) by the ethical question.
DeleteIf that is desireable, one would have to ammend the constitution.
If you accept that for someone to be bound by a legal contract that they must sign it, then you cannot say that the constitution is a legal contract.
Wow. That's your argument? Seriously, that because you didn't agree to it, it's not a contract, even though it's treated pretty much just like a contract in every other respect? Even though the provisions in the constution are legally binding on the government, so much so that the legislative branch can be compelled by the judiciary to pay out millions of dollars in damages if there is a finding of fact that the state violated an individuals constitutional rights? Your argument is that it's not strictly speaking a contract, and you are entirely focused on the word contract, and the comparison is completely off base because there's no explicit consent, do I have that correct?
Fine. it's a constitution, and not strictly speaking a contract - even though it functions in much the same way. Happy?
"Wow. That's your argument? Seriously, that because you didn't agree to it, it's not a contract, even though it's treated pretty much just like a contract in every other respect?"
DeleteCould you elaborate? Are you saying that there is a way to make contracts and have them be enforcable against people without them signing them?
killing an unborn child is just plain evil. a people that are killing the next generation won't be around in the future. if they are going to kill baby girls just who do they think is going to bear the next generation.
Delete"Are you saying that there is a way to make contracts and have them be enforcable against people without them signing them?"
DeleteNot between citizens, no. I would say that is exactly what happens every time a new law is given royal assent - the contract is ammended, so to speak. The whole body of Canadian law can be understood as a contract, even though we didn't agree to it, and can't opt out. Laws are binding on us, and somewhat on the state, while rights are binding on the state. Strictly speaking it's not a contract, but it can be useful to think of it that way, it operates pretty much exactly the same way.
Clearly given that no one alive has signed it, it cannot be considered a legal contract.
DeleteThe argument that nobody signed it, and therefore it's not a legal contract got so a absurd for a moment I think I took leave of my senses. But when I regained them, I realized that this statement, that no one alive had signed it is actually wrong! Her Royal Majesty, the Queen of Canada signed it, and she is very much alive. And it is binding on Her honourable government. And even when she passes away, it will still be binding on Her government because it is not a personal contract, but a state contract. And as such, it is not the person who matters, it is the person exercising the powers of the office of the Crown. And while I'm not sure of the technical details, I think that the Prime Minister, that is the person exercising the powers of the Office of the Prime Minister, in this case the Right Honourable Pierre Elliot Trudeau signed it on behalf of the people of Canada.
So, actually, it was signed by two parties, and as such, it constitutes a legal agreement between them. In other words, a legally binding contract.
Are you saying that when two people sign a contract, one of them can sign it on behalf of other people and it be binding on them?
DeleteI've just signed a contract on your behalf by the way :)
You're not my legal representative, therefore it's void.
DeleteHowever, the Prime Minister IS your legal representative, and he absolutely can, and does sign contracts on your behalf. He also breaks them on your behalf.
You need to look more closely at what you're saying. What you're saying (or what I'm hearing) is:
Deletea) Legal documents can only bind the people who sign them
b) The constitution is a legal document that binds everyone
c) Not everyone signed the constitution
It doesn't make any sense.
Or, maybe you mean:
a) Legal documents can bind people who didn't sign them
b) Anyone can make a document and sign it and it binds anyone they choose.
Again, basic law. In order for someone to become a legal representative of someone else you have to sign a document (maybe power of attorney).
DeleteWhat world are you living in?
a) Legal documents can only bind the people who sign them
DeleteFalse. Did you sign onto the North American Free Trade Agreement? Did you sign onto the Kyoto Protocol? Did you personally agree to be a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
Are they binding on you? Well, except of course for Kyoto since Canada has abandoned it, but as a Canadian citizen, does Canada, your country have obligations under say, NATO, which you can be compelled to pay for NATO missions and training through taxation? I'm pretty sure that you didn't sign onto NATO, but you'd better damn well believe that the government is going to make you pay for it! So, NATO's constitution isn't a legal document? Try telling that to Anders Fogh Rasmussen. I dunno, seems kinda contractual to me.
NAFTA is an even better example. Are you bound by NAFTA? Yes! You are! NAFTA is imposing all sorts of things on you, you just don't encounter it very much, but it is binding on ALL Canadian and American citizens. And only two of them, one Canadian citizen, and one American citizen signed the document. Is NAFTA not a legal agreement now?
What world are you living in?
I don't know, one where people understand things like, legal agreements between parties.
So you're saying that legal documents can be binding on people without them signing them, because they can have other people legally represent them without them signing anything?
DeleteSo you're saying that legal documents can be binding on people without them signing them, because they can have other people legally represent them without them signing anything?
DeleteIn a manner of speaking. The People's elected representative has this power. That's why he or she is the People's elected representative - we lend our power to a citizen who can sign onto these things on our behalf. He or she is our legal representative, and they can sign things that bind the People to do things, or not do things. We elect a government who does many things on our behalf, and they do so, legally. And they sign legal documents, like treaties. What is a treaty but another name for a contract? A special kind of contract, yes. A contract between two countries, yes. Nevertheless, a contract. And it is binding on you, and that includes old contracts that nobody alive could possibly have signed. Granted, you're not going to be mentioned by name. Such contracts don't impose especial obligations on you that are not likewise imposed on me. Does that make them less of an agreement, a contract somehow?
Hi Anonymous, it sounds like what you're proposing is that there is an alternate method of binding people into contracts other than the traditional way of getting them to sign. Lets call it Method2 (you described it above).
DeleteAm I understanding correctly?
I'd be interested to find out if you'd be willing/able to put your theory to the test. Next time you're with a bunch of people, produce a contract, and attempt to bind them to it using Method2.
Let me know how it goes. I propose, find a pregnant woman, and attempt to bind her into an adoption agreement where she gives up her child to you.
Thank you for your comment. Interesting perspective.
ReplyDeleteI'm having trouble following your argument's logic:
ReplyDelete1. God created the universe.
2. God Loves people and places a high value on people.
How do you know #1 and #2 are true? To base an argument on such huge leaps of faith seems dangerous.
Anonymous: That's the best explanation, and the most rational, I've heard for the secular argument.
ReplyDeleteNoirs: It's not a leap of faith for many theists. For us, it's a fact of life which we base upon scripture. It's the foundation of our morality.
General Comment: I'm of the opinion that we live in a pluralistic society and that you cannot legislate morality. I have to make decisions that match my morality and beliefs, of which I base them on the Bible. Others base their decisions on other beliefs. I just have to have faith that God will judge each accordingly; that he will show great mercy to the victims; and that he will grant compassion to those that have to make a conflicting decision to live and sacrifice their unborn child, or to die taking with them that same child. I also have faith that Medical Science will be able to develop to a point where some of those decisions need not be made.
Hi Don,
Delete"It's not a leap of faith for many theists. For us, it's a fact of life which we base upon scripture. It's the foundation of our morality."
Doesn't add anything to the discussion. I said I think its a leap of faith, you said "no its not".
I understand its the foundation of your morality. Thats the problem.
What if I said the secular argument is:
1. There are morals
2. Morals say its wrong to kill children
Thats not an argument, it doesn't mean anything. Similarily, saying its wrong to kill children because a deity told you doesn't mean anything either. I can just say my deity said the opposite of your deity.
Noris, will do a entry on your comment! Good question.
ReplyDeleteI think it'd would be polite to respond here, you've outlined your argument, which has huge holes in it, and asked to here other arguments, it seems unreasonable for you to not elaborate.
DeleteThe thrust of the argument is not to prove God created the universe. I mention it as an assumption under a Christian worldview. The thrust of the argument is to explain how abortion fits into the Christian worldview.
DeleteI was looking to explain Christian worldview (not prove it) and ask how others see the world (got a great answer from the first comment).
Regardless, I will give a simple answer:
"God Created the world" is a 'basic belief'.
A basic belief is a belief that has no supporting evidence...kinda like, "prove to me matter existed for all time and is eternal". The evolutionist accepts by faith that matter is eternal. there is no 'proof'. the same 'illogical leap of faith' required for a theistic perspective exists for a non-theistic perspective.
It is not 'illogical' to think God created the world and loves us any more then it is illogical to think matter existed for all time.
An argument based on an assumption like that is not a useful/rational argument. I think based on this one can only conclude there is no rational argument against abortion in the Christian worldview.
DeleteIf your morality depends on assumptions about how the universe was created, I think you're on shaky ground. I certainly don't know how the universe was created.
Imagine if I presented a secular argument, that said:
Delete1. Assume XYZ
2. Because of XYZ, therefore abortion is wrong
The conclusion of any argument that involves assumptions is only true if the assumptions are also true.
If XYZ is false, then my argument above is false.
"It is not 'illogical' to think God created the world and loves us any more then it is illogical to think matter existed for all time."
DeleteThey are both just beliefs without evidence to support them. I make no claim that matter has existed for all time.
The example was used of a girl that is raped who did not want the child having the legal right to abort. From a non-Christian viewpoint, is the same 'legal right' extended to the (mostly immigrant according to CTV's reporting) parents who did not 'want' a girl? Again, just asking...
ReplyDeleteSo the Christian argument is:
Delete1. We believe (without evidence) that a being created us and designed a moral system, and communicated that system to us through a book.
2. The moral system communicated by this being says abortion is wrong.
From my perspective, the argument is:
1. If we want to live peacefully and maximize our freedoms, we should respect treat other people's bodies as their own property, and not damage that property.
2. A baby's body is its own property
3. We should not damage that property.
typo. I meant "we should treat other people's ..." instead of "we should respect treat other people's..."
DeleteLoads of evidence for belief in God Noris...not enough to supply a Descartes style 100% proof. If I said, "it's in the Bible that Jesus is Lord and created the world" to a man who Jesus just healed, that may be enough 'proof' for him. If I say it to you...it may lack 'proof'. There is evidence...the question is, is it enough and compelling enough. The reason I simplified my comments with 'basic belief' is to recognize that is not 100% obvious...therefore a basic belief is sufficient. I.E A 3 year old has a 'basic belief' that mommy loves her. She can't 'prove it'...but she has enough proof and knows. Basic beliefs can be just fine...
DeleteCan you give some examples of the evidence?
DeleteSomeone else writing something in a book is not evidence. E.g. if I told you I thought the moon was made of cheese, and I said this was true because I have a book which says that... not true.
E.g. Some evidence similar to what would be required to believe that the moon was made of cheese. (or not made).
There is evidence that a 3 year old's mom loves her. TONS. The mom cares for her, feeds her, spents huge amounts of time with her, doesn't harm her, buys her gifts, tells her she loves her, holds her.
DeleteThe example was used of a girl that is raped who did not want the child having the legal right to abort. From a non-Christian viewpoint, is the same 'legal right' extended to the (mostly immigrant according to CTV's reporting) parents who did not 'want' a girl? Again, just asking...
DeleteRyan I don't feel this is a reasonable comparison. A girl who is raped had no choice in the process that lead to her being pregnant. The parent's who do not "want" a girl still choose to have a child.
Jackie
Jackie,
DeleteI asked a question. A question is not a comparison.
I simply wanted to know, and I got, 'sadly yes' from a a 'non-Christian' perspective. I was greatful I asked b/c I learned another perspective.
From a non-Christian viewpoint, is the same 'legal right' extended to the (mostly immigrant according to CTV's reporting) parents who did not 'want' a girl?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid so. Under Canadian jurisprudence, abortion being prohibited by the state was deemed to be a violation of the right to privacy under the Charter. I'll try to expand a bit. From a purely ethical perspective, it is not ethical to compel a person to carry to term a child which is being forced upon them without their consent, IE: rape. Nor is it however strictly speaking ethical to abort the child even then, it is unethical to prohibit a person from making that decision because that becomes a second violation of that individuals right to self-determination. A law prohibiting abortion in any and all circumstances, including rape, in effect punishes the victim, blames the victim for being raped. That is of course, extremely inappropriate in our democratic society.
I believe that sex-selective abortions are doubly unethical, deeply hypocritical and fully merit our scorn and derision. I find it is the worst possible human behavior to create a life, wanting to enter into the instution of parenthood, knowing full well the possibility that there's an all things considered equal chance of creating a male or a female child, and then turning so violently against a female child.
In my opinion, any individual which engages in this behavior, while not strictly speaking criminal, could justifiably be treated as a first degree murderer by the public. No worse. A child-killer.
"prove to me" that another mind exists Noris. We ultimately 'assume it'. We hold as basic the following:
DeleteMy cognitive faculties work.
Other people's cognitive faculties work.
Any 'evidence' you may have to 'prove this' is based on either your cognitive faculties, or another person's cognitive faculties and are therefore circular...we finally throw our hands in the air and say, 'fine' I'll just assume your mind exists and therefore look at the data. We hold it as a basic belief...and are not 'lacking' intellectual merit for doing so, I would argue.
Do you not see any difference between a) a belief that other minds exist and b) that some being created us and design a moral system for us and listens to our prayers?
DeleteE.g. if I said:
Delete1. I assume that other minds exist
2. Other minds might have similar interests to me
3. I value freedom
4. Therefore other minds might value freedom
#1 is not a big leap. You and I appear to be communicating.
On the other hand, if I say
1. Assume there is a being up in the sky, that no one has ever seen, spoken to, cannot be measured, predicted, understood, observed in any way
2. ...
If you then make some conclusion about #1, you've just left the rational world.
Good comments, equally good answers,,,, hence my origional point about another blog entry. In the sense that both are basic beliefs, they are the same. the nature of the respective beliefs, agreed different. Once we look at the differet belief, God... I would argue no rational world was left. Again, i was not 'proving' the Christian religion...simply stating it exits (which it does...) and sharing what the bulk of em' think...which they do. Save the argument for proof on God for the thread that tries to do so, or is a critical point. Let's say you are right and God does not exist Noris, it is still true that: Christians think God exits and 2. Christians think abortion is not cool. Given that, i was explaining a position, not defending one. I trust you see the difference? forgive spelling, in rush... night, with fam...
DeleteI do see the difference. I just don't see the value in discussing an argument based on huge assumptions.
DeleteYou proposed to be presenting a logical argument.
What you instead described was that Christians think abortion is wrong because they claim to know that the universe was created by a being who communicated morals to them through a book.
It'd like me saying I think the moon is made of cheese, and because its made of cheese I think it probably has mice living on it, since mice like cheese.
You'd then say how do I know the moon is made of cheese, and I'd say its a basic belief, and that I wasn't looking to prove that the moon is made of cheese, I was just explaining my world view.
I just don't see the value in discussing an argument based on huge assumptions.
DeleteDoesn't specifying the Christian perspective at the outset of an argument frame and imply that the argument will be based on certain assumptions, most of which are fairly well known and well understood?
While it may well be appropriate to question those assumptions, or to broaden the scope of the argument by playing with those assumptions, doesn't it just bog things down to challenge assumptions which are being implicitly assumed?
To all of you I would ask; what determines morality? Or more specifically what factors inform morality? In a christian world view it is easiest to say that the bible informs morality, from the secular viewpoint it is less simple to explain. But simply by asking this question I believe one can determine that any argument that strives to answer a moral question will be based at the beginning on an assumption of one kind or another. For one who does not have scripture as a reference for moral laws, it is necessary to explain personal morality through personal beliefs. For example how can anyone rationally and absolutely prove that it is wrong to kill a person? Even in the christian explanation, there are exceptions to this law as mentioned in the original post. Building an argument to rationally prove morality is an extensive undertaking and I prefer to leave the work to the philosophers. At the base I'm simply saying that it adds nothing to the discussion to argue about basic beliefs or assumptions.
DeleteRyan wants to know what the evolutionist's beliefs are concerning abortion. I believe the first response was the closest by saying that there is no answer. The rights of the parent and the unborn child are conflicted.
My problem, what bothers me about this, is that discussions formed in this way always draw a line between creationists and atheists. If you say "I am a christian and believe x, non christians believe y; please explain." (phrasing it in the form of a question is no excuse) then you are (sub-conciously)making a statement about non-christians that is not necessarily true. You are completely excluding the section of society who may already agree, yet don't share ALL the same beliefs as you. Thus creating a vacuum into which the secular/christian hate will inevitably flow.
On the subject of abortion i believe in the right to choose. I have to believe that people will make the right decision if they are given the right. Otherwise we would be propagating the nanny-state scenario I know conservatives (And I) hate so much.
"Doesn't specifying the Christian perspective at the outset of an argument frame and imply that the argument will be based on certain assumptions, most of which are fairly well known and well understood?
DeleteWhile it may well be appropriate to question those assumptions, or to broaden the scope of the argument by playing with those assumptions, doesn't it just bog things down to challenge assumptions which are being implicitly assumed?"
Sure, I see what you mean. But think about this for a second.
We're discussing whether or not its right to let women to terminate a fetus inside them.
Ryan's argument, as to why its not, goes something like this:
1. I (Ryan) have figured out how the universe was created
2. It was created by a supernatural being
3. This supernatural being as communicated to me that he loves all life
4. I know these facts to be true with enough certainty that I am willing to base serious life or death decisions on them
Now imagine my response:
- woah, that sounds kinda insane
- oh, wait, you're a Christian, never mind, please continue!
This doesn't sound like a good idea to me. If someone in a conversation with me claims they know how the universe was created, and that they have communications (perhaps indirect) from the supernatural being that created the universe, I think its reasonable to say hold up a second.
If the person then claims to be a member of a group of others who share those views, that doesn't improve their position in from my point of view.