Fetal Position
by Jon on Oct.29, 2007, under Babble, General Philosophy, Politics, TV & Movies
So having had a few more than a few too many at last night’s bash for Brittney, I’m waaaay too hungover to be much good with all the logic needed to write code. So instead I’ll talk about abortion. You know, seeing as abortion discussions are generally devoid of anything approaching logic or reason.
Nah, I won’t really get into it. But I will mention that I went to see Lake of Fire Friday night (in my twisted mind it was a great opening act for Rocky Horror). It was definitely a balanced film — which basically means that ranting psycho jeebus-cult prohibitionists were given equal time against the intelligent and thoughtful commentary of people like Noam Chomsky. So it was balanced, but the fight was hardly fair :)
The film gave me my first introduction to Peter Singer, who was probably the sanest voice on the subject. From what I’ve gleaned so far we seem to share strikingly similar views on rights theory & ethics — on the surface. We definitely seem to reach similar conclusions, having some of the same notions regarding who has rights, variations in extent, “equal consideration”, the question of speciesism, etc. However it sounds like we might have some disagreement over the fundamental paths that we take to get there. From the wiki: “Singer rejects rights as a moral ideal independent from his utilitarianism based on interests” — whereas I hold rights primary and consider utilitarianism to be nothing more than what it is: utilitarian, meaning that although we may ultimately have to make utilitarian choices that conflict with rights, I see no reason to bestow moral “rightness” on those choices, nor do I believe utilitarianism can ever satisfy the is-ought dichotomy. But I digress significantly. Anyway I will definitely have to put some of Singer’s work on my reading list.
Oh what the hell, we’ve come this far already, might as well lay out my position in brief:
- All entities have equal natural rights. But those rights only matter if the entity in question wants the rights respected. Ergo the natural (negative) right-to-life requires sapience — self-awareness.
- We can as a society create and grant artificial (positive) rights over and above natural rights if we collectively so agree, provided said positive rights do not unreasonably conflict with the natural rights of another.
- We don’t know when sapience begins. But direct observation suggests that it probably isn’t until long after birth.
- Therefore, while a person’s natural right to life likely begins sometime after birth, we are justified in granting a positive right to life to a developing baby; but not prior to birth, which would make potential slaves of half the human race.
Fair warning: comments are welcome, but jeebus-loves-fetuses- and -you’re-a-murderer style ranting will most likely be edited to make it funnier.
October 29th, 2007 on 4:23 pm
Well said.
October 29th, 2007 on 5:06 pm
[...] Jonathan Wright explains how granting the human fetus the right to life would lead us all into slavery. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
October 29th, 2007 on 7:21 pm
while a person’s natural right to life likely begins sometime after birth, we are justified in granting a positive right to life to a developing baby;
The phrase “sometime after birth” concerns me. So you are saying that not only does an unborn child not have a right to life, but since a newborn isn’t self-aware, they don’t have a natural right to life, either?
I am pro-choice, but damn…that’s a really scary statement to me.
October 29th, 2007 on 9:02 pm
Singer’s big into beastiality and zoophilia. You’ll fit right in with his “moral independence”. Though you may be forced to notify all the ducks in Centennial Park if you move into their neighborhood.
October 29th, 2007 on 9:05 pm
Ginger — Well I’m just saying there are different types of rights that exist for different reasons by different means. It’s impossible to feel deprived of something if you never knew or cared that you had it; *we* are the ones who feel horrified by the idea of killing a newborn, not the newborn himself, which is why we have to extend the positive right.
October 29th, 2007 on 9:09 pm
Brian — having only read the brief wiki mention on the subject I can’t comment with authority on it. But from that mention I’d say it sounds like he’s correct. Disgusting, but correct.
October 30th, 2007 on 8:32 am
I’ve never understood why abortion debates have to get so philosophically complicated. How can something be considered a separate entity when it is inside another person’s body? It’s not even IN the world yet. I find it interesting to imagine what the abortion issue would be like if men were the ones who carried the babies.
October 30th, 2007 on 8:39 am
That’s very true, and you’re right the debate would definitely be different if the roles were reversed. I loved this line from the “Lake of Fire” review:
October 30th, 2007 on 1:49 pm
Dang, I wanted to go see that. I need to check Belcourt’s site to see if it’s still there.