A popular stereotype is that only "religious fanatics" want to ban abortion. Hitchens (may he rest in peace) is an interesting case because he was a prominent atheist, but pro-life.



IIRC, he once made an argument that atheists actually have more of a reason to oppose abortion than theists. Because if you believe in an afterlife, then getting killed in the womb really isn't so bad. But if this world is all that there is, then abortion deprives a child of all opportunities it will ever have. Unfortunately, I can't find that video at the moment.

No thanks. I'm here.

As with anything, there are degrees.

What I have yet to see or hear is what Hitchens would be willing to do about abortion.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the prolife side is the characterization of prochoice as a group that doesn't think abortions should be rare. While you can find fringe on every issue, the vast majority of prochoice would fall into that category that supports the old adage that abortions should be 'legal, safe & rare'.

So it would seem to me that he could very easily fall into that range of being 'prolife' and not be in favor of this extreme movement on the right currently. In fact, polling data shows that, with some variation, most Americans, regardless of whether they characterize themselves prochoice or prolife, generally support a 'legal, safe & rare' position.

How can you make abortion rare by subsidizing it?

Quote:

---

One of the biggest weaknesses of the prolife side is the characterization of prochoice as a group that doesn't think abortions should be rare. While you can find fringe on every issue, the vast majority of prochoice would fall into that category that supports the old adage that abortions should be 'legal, safe & rare'.

---

I think this is a weakness that both sides share. "Don't tell me what to do with my body" doesn't carry a rarity component to it.

To get back to the original topic, I always found it strange that the abortion issue breaks down among such strict religious lines. There are some religious people that are pro choice, some very publicly. However, agnostic and atheist pro-life advocates are exceedingly rare. To me, I would think of it as a fairly logical position for any humanist aside from the religious aspects. The idea that humans should have inherent rights prior to birth doesn't seem like a super radical religious-only position to me, but it certainly seems that way based on representation. Hitchens was a notable exception, and really the only one I can think of

It is odd. Some of it is group-affiliation. Some are pro-life/pro-choice because those they identify with are.

You're probably right. I just find it a bit amusing when there is more variety of opinion among the "unthinking religious sheep" than there is among the "enlightened free thinkers"

94chem said:

---

Quote:

---

One of the biggest weaknesses of the prolife side is the characterization of prochoice as a group that doesn't think abortions should be rare. While you can find fringe on every issue, the vast majority of prochoice would fall into that category that supports the old adage that abortions should be 'legal, safe & rare'.

---

...and the largest provider makes all its money from providing them, so that seems like an impasse.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

You're probably right. I just find it a bit amusing when there is more variety of opinion among the "unthinking religious sheep" than there is among the "enlightened free thinkers"

---

Maybe this is K2's point (because I read his several times and didn't get it), but I think it's a very human thing to deny someone else their humanity. If we can deny someone their humanity based on skin color or birthplace, then how much easier it to do so when it's still in development. It's easy, then, to listen to these ideas that abortion lowers crime rates and whatnot and think it's a good thing.

Quote:

---

Curiously, the same foundation exists under socialism - everything about man and earthly happiness.

---

How many political theories commonly used purport to have a different foundation other than human well being, rather than religious observance and a focus on the afterlife?

I support capitalism because it does wonders for human well being. And I'm not sure what you are talking about with "shared" human rights. This country was founded on the protection of individual rights.

Quote:

---

Unshackled humanism and anthropocentrism produces endless selfishness. Whether this expresses itself as socialism leading to communism or materialism is really just two branches of the same empty philosophy.

---

I don't disagree, but I think you're missing a step. All the old Greek schools put personal happiness as the ultimate good, but few of them ended up with base materialism as a result

Two concepts with the same word. Eudaimonia bears almost no relationship to the modern concept of happiness.

Fair point. IIRC, the Greeks considered lack of suffering as equal to happiness, not necessarily a constant flow of positive feelings

Aggrad08 said:

---

Quote:

---

Curiously, the same foundation exists under socialism - everything about man and earthly happiness.

---

How many political theories commonly used purport to have a different foundation other than human well being, rather than religious observance and a focus on the afterlife?

I support capitalism because it does wonders for human well being. And I'm not sure what you are talking about with "shared" human rights. This country was founded on the protection of individual rights.

---

My point is that socialism and abortion are both products of a humanism decoupled from any sense of Supreme Being or moral framework larger than humans.

If you look at the sort of philosophical underpinnings of the US, our inalienable rights are not based in an anthropocentric self-derived humanist model, but in that we have Creator.

When you strip it all down and make it solely about humans, you get bad outcomes. Different outcomes, but rooted in the same idea.

When I say "shared" human rights, it is that very clearly human rights are not derived on an individual basis but on the basis of humanity. The self-evident truths quoted in the Declaration of Independence is from a commonality of humanity - the equality not of individuals in their persons but in their shared human nature. Individual humans are not equal in any sense of the word. Humans are completely equal in their common nature.

Abortionists deny the common rights due to mankind that each human has merely by existing and being human. They pit this against other things they call rights - autonomy, pursuit of happiness, etc - and so it is evaluated on a framework that is implicitly utilitarian. But a human's right to life is not utilitarian, because utility is something that comes from the individual, and the right to life comes from the common nature of humanity.

Again, this is exactly the framework that socialism uses to do very nearly the same thing, but the other way 'round. We'll restrict individual liberty for supposed greater utility (i.e., more overall happiness or good). But again, utility is based in individual perception, and it can never be bought with a currency based in what belongs to all men in common.

Some defined it that way but not all. Aristotle says the happy life is each person actualizing their intended purpose (their ergon) by acquisition and use of the virtues (aretes). For him, this is the concept of doing and living well, and living well is defined by right reason or right thought (orthos logos). Perhaps you could say, doing the right thing, for the right reason, and having the ability to express the correct syllogism or rationale in support of your actions.

You can keep Aristotle, patron saint of textbooks all to your self. All the rest are actually entertaining to study

Ok. Plato's definition wasn't significantly different than Aristotle, and said that eudaimonia is still obtained by way of the virtues (arete). In the Republic, via Socrates, Plato deals quite a bit with happiness in a way that is very much not related to the absence of suffering, but more that true happiness is in philosophical pleasures.

Epicurus is probably what you're thinking of, that happiness can be split two ways: positive and negative pleasure. Positive pleasure is the removal of a pain or the fulfillment of desire, while negative pleasure is the lack of an unfulfilled desire. Since you can always have more positive pleasure relative to itself (i.e., I get more pleasure from baseball than eating applesauce) there's always a kind of frustration to want more positive pleasure. You can't be more or less negatively pleasured... its sort of nonsensical to think in terms of "how much does your back not hurt right now"? So negative pleasure is what we should strive for. This isn't the absence of pain as such, but the active pursuit of not having any of your desires unfulfilled.

Neither of which are even remotely similar to what a modern American thinks of as being happy. Anyway. Off topic.

Yeah, the Epicureans, Stoics, Skeptics, and Cynics were all working off the same rough definition. But yes, the abundance, materialism and carnal hedonism that exemplify American happiness were pretty much rejected even by everyone back to ancient Greece as uncivilized and barbaric

To get almost back on topic, to me the difference isn't so much selfishness but that we are spoiled. Our nation has the emotional maturity of a 3 year old. We don't have any concept of delayed gratification, sacrifice for the common good, stoic endurance of suffering and misfortune, or any patience for someone else telling us what we can and cannot do. One step further, we can't stand anyone telling us what we should and should not do.

I think selfishness is nearly universal, especially among nations and large groups of people

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

To get almost back on topic, to me the difference isn't so much selfishness but that we are spoiled. Our nation has the emotional maturity of a 3 year old. We don't have any concept of delayed gratification, sacrifice for the common good, stoic endurance of suffering and misfortune, or any patience for someone else telling us what we can and cannot do. One step further, we can't stand anyone telling us what we should and should not do.

I think selfishness is nearly universal, especially among nations and large groups of people

---

This is a good summary of the situation.

Quote:

---

My point is that socialism and abortion are both products of a humanism decoupled from any sense of Supreme Being or moral framework larger than humans.

---

Abortion is far older than humanism and has various levels of support within religions and theistic societies. similarly, it's no issue whatsoever to formulate an anti-abortion position from an atheistic view.

Quote:

---

If you look at the sort of philosophical underpinnings of the US, our inalienable rights are not based in an anthropocentric self-derived humanist model, but in that we have Creator.

---

It hardly matters as such support for individual rights could be arrived at either way. And the deist god of Jefferson is of little difference on these lines. Thomas Paine wasn't against our independence or individual freedoms.

Quote:

---

When you strip it all down and make it solely about humans, you get bad outcomes. Different outcomes, but rooted in the same idea.

---

I could say the same when you make it all about supposed knowledge of the afterlife.

Quote:

---

When I say "shared" human rights, it is that very clearly human rights are not derived on an individual basis but on the basis of humanity. The self-evident truths quoted in the Declaration of Independence is from a commonality of humanity - the equality not of individuals in their persons but in their shared human nature. Individual humans are not equal in any sense of the word. Humans are completely equal in their common nature.

---

No appeal to religion is required here. And this view could be (and has been) dismissed from a religious point of view. Human rights exist only in so far as we set out to grant them. If one thing is certain, no god has ever provided man with a single right we hold dear.

Quote:

---

Abortionists deny the common rights due to mankind that each human has merely by existing and being human. They pit this against other things they call rights - autonomy, pursuit of happiness, etc - and so it is evaluated on a framework that is implicitly utilitarian. But a human's right to life is not utilitarian, because utility is something that comes from the individual, and the right to life comes from the common nature of humanity.

---

This is just a different starting point of personhood. That one extends broad protections to all persons based on that shared trait and another to all humans based on that shared trait. I see little difference here. And every right in the constitution is weighed against other interests and rights.

Quote:

---

Again, this is exactly the framework that socialism uses to do very nearly the same thing, but the other way 'round. We'll restrict individual liberty for supposed greater utility (i.e., more overall happiness or good). But again, utility is based in individual perception, and it can never be bought with a currency based in what belongs to all men in common.

---

You have some non-descript definition of socialism working that seems so broad I'm not sure what nation isn't socialist. Usually, I see socialism described as worker owned means of production or of large social safety nets found in european democracy. To expand it to the idea of restricting individual liberty for greater utility is to encompass the very notion of government itself.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was speaking of the logic of abortion or the rise of abortion to be thought of as right within the context of western civilization and democracy. The novel position, the new position, whatever you want to call it. The sentence should have said the XXth century phenomenons of socialism and abortion are both.. etc.

///

It's fine to say that support "could be" arrived at either way. They point is they weren't. Jefferson was hardly the father of the concept of natural right. The very idea of a natural law is incompatible with atheism. Thomas Paine's entire system of moral obligation was based in the manifestation of God through Natural law. You can't have any of that without some kind of thing that exists higher in moral authority than humans. Even if that's "reason" you're still appealing to some kind of self-evident or self-existing metaphysical construct.

///

As I mentioned, I was looking particularly at the cultural milieu we find ourselves in. All of the excesses and really terrible things that we see in the modern era are rooted, I believe, in this kind of decrepit humanism - on the West, materialism; in the East, the aftermath of godless communism, and all the chaos the struggle between the two entailed.

///

I don't agree that the idea of natural law, personhood and human nature are all the same thing. Actually, I disagree strongly that personhood and human nature are the same thing. While personhood is unique and therefore linked to a unique human being, I am not sure that we should ascribe any natural rights to persons as such. They come to persons not directly, but through the human nature. This is the source of natural rights - being human, not being both a human and a person, or only a person. Besides, legal personhood has a dubious record in the world. Better off being more cautious and broad with "who is a human" don't you think?

You are not correct that every right in the constitution is weighed against other rights. That is absolutely categorically false. The constitution begins with the premise that some rights are inalienable and are not given by the government and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government as such. You can only say truthfully they're weighed against other interests if we simultaneously acknowledge a definitive hierarchy of rights, with life at the top.

///

Should have been clearer on the working definition of socialism - not restrict individual liberty but individual inalienable rights. That's the link. In other words, you can't kill half the population for the greater good, even if utilitarianism justifies it.

Quote:

---

You can't have any of that without some kind of thing that exists higher in moral authority than humans.

---

Yea I really don't see that this is the case in any practical sense at all.

Quote:

---

As I mentioned, I was looking particularly at the cultural milieu we find ourselves in. All of the excesses and really terrible things that we see in the modern era are rooted, I believe, in this kind of decrepit humanism - on the West, materialism; in the East, the aftermath of godless communism, and all the chaos the struggle between the two entailed.

---

These things have certainly had their effects, but I don't take a doom and gloom view. The world is actually quite a bit better than it has been in the past for the typical person. And I see quite a few excesses and terrible things rooted in religion.

Quote:

---

I don't agree that the idea of natural law, personhood and human nature are all the same thing. Actually, I disagree strongly that personhood and human nature are the same thing. While personhood is unique and therefore linked to a unique human being, I am not sure that we should ascribe any natural rights to persons as such.

---

I see no distinct advantage of arguing for personhood or human nature in most instances. And where those diverge personhood seems more appropriate.

Quote:

---

They come to persons not directly, but through the human nature. This is the source of natural rights - being human, not being both a human and a person, or only a person. Besides, legal personhood has a dubious record in the world. Better off being more cautious and broad with "who is a human" don't you think?

---

I don't think personhood is logically restricted to humanity I think it's a broader and more powerful concept. I think Neanderthals were probably people and if alive today would need rights extended to them even though they aren't human beings. And if we follow our evolution back I think trying to discern differences in our DNA or ability to procreate with our ancestor is not as meaningful an indicator as the traits we view as personhood. And I do think we should be broad, which is why I err pretty early on abortion, but I don't extend it past the limits of reason as I see them, which is to say a few cells.

Quote:

---

You are not correct that every right in the constitution is weighed against other rights. That is absolutely categorically false. The constitution begins with the premise that some rights are inalienable and are not given by the government and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government as such. You can only say truthfully they're weighed against other interests if we simultaneously acknowledge a definitive hierarchy of rights, with life at the top.

---

Let's look at the reality of how these rights are manifest. You have a right to free speech, it's among the most beloved and valued (high on a hierarchy if you were to provide one). But you can't lie under oath, you can't divulge classified information, you can't cause a panic, you can't bribe a judge, jury or cop, you can't slander or libel, you can't hire a hitman ect. This inalienable right is in fact limited in many instances where it was weighed and found wanting.

Quote:

---

Should have been clearer on the working definition of socialism - not restrict individual liberty but individual inalienable rights. That's the link. In other words, you can't kill half the population for the greater good, even if utilitarianism justifies i

---

This is addressed in the previous paragraph. They aren't this extreme, but limitations are the norm.

Quote:

---

Yea I really don't see that this is the case in any practical sense at all.

---

The only way I've ever seen people argue for natural rights without an external moral arbiter is to more or less co-opt the concept of natural rights by affirming them while denying the premise. But to say that natural rights are good, and natural, and are inviolable begs the question "why?". And even an appeal to reason is metaphysical. At some point it has to be an external standard, or it fails to be immutable, and therefore it is an inherently different concept of rights altogether.

Quote:

---

These things have certainly had their effects, but I don't take a doom and gloom view. The world is actually quite a bit better than it has been in the past for the typical person. And I see quite a few excesses and terrible things rooted in religion.

---

Who said doom and gloom? I said this is where the bad comes from. It is also where some of the good comes from. We don't have to reject the good things of America to point out the bad. And arguing that "yeah religion has problems, too" is sort of ancillary to the topic at hand. People doing bad things for bad reasons in one sphere isn't really challenged by people doing bad things for bad reasons in another.

Quote:

---

I don't think personhood is logically restricted to humanity I think it's a broader and more powerful concept. I think Neanderthals were probably people and if alive today would need rights extended to them even though they aren't human beings. And if we follow our evolution back I think trying to discern differences in our DNA or ability to procreate with our ancestor is not as meaningful an indicator as the traits we view as personhood. And I do think we should be broad, which is why I err pretty early on abortion, but I don't extend it past the limits of reason as I see them, which is to say a few cells.

---

I wasn't arguing striclty for human nature as solely identified with DNA. Philosophically the Greeks said men were "logos" while animals were "alogos". By this definition a Neanderthal may well have been a Man, even if it wasn't a homo sapien, if that follows? Regardless, there is a categorical error to assign a property of the universal into the realm of the particular. We don't say that a goldfish is a fish and therefore each goldfish has gills. We say that all fish have gills, and goldfish are fish, and therefore has gills (clunky, but maybe illustrates the correct motion from broad to specific). Steve doesn't have the right to life because he is Steve. Even before he was Steve he had it. He has it because Steve is a human being. It's not a personal thing, its a categorical thing.

Quote:

---

Let's look at the reality of how these rights are manifest. You have a right to free speech, it's among the most beloved and valued (high on a hierarchy if you were to provide one). But you can't lie under oath, you can't divulge classified information, you can't cause a panic, you can't bribe a judge, jury or cop, you can't slander or libel, you can't hire a hitman ect. This inalienable right is in fact limited in many instances where it was weighed and found wanting.

---

Meh, social contract theory is all based on voluntary cession of rights and is based on a reciprocal obligation, and that obligation is justified in and through the concept of natural law. If you're going to struggle all the way up to what is moral, just, and good in how humans deal with each other in the context of rights, you can't begin by denying the source of those rights. No God, no natural law. No natural law, no natural rights. No natural rights, no social contract. You can replace God with "reason" if you like, but it is still an external criterion to appeal to.

Quote:

---

But to say that natural rights are good, and natural, and are inviolable begs the question "why?". And even an appeal to reason is metaphysical. At some point it has to be an external standard, or it fails to be immutable, and therefore it is an inherently different concept of rights altogether.

---

Because they lead to outcomes the further human well being. The same why could be posed in ascertaining which rights are indeed "natural" and which are not. You are still developing a standard and appealing to human reason and consequences. And god is not an external standard, there is no such standard, the only standard we can apply within those confines is our personal opinions as to what god's standards actually are. You didn't buy yourself anything here.

Quote:

---

Who said doom and gloom? I said this is where the bad comes from.

---

This is where some of it comes from is my point, you seemed to be speaking much more broadly.

Quote:

---

I wasn't arguing striclty for human nature as solely identified with DNA. Philosophically the Greeks said men were "logos" while animals were "alogos". By this definition a Neanderthal may well have been a Man, even if it wasn't a homo sapien, if that follows?

---

This seems to be arguing for personhood using different words for person. You just swapped person for logos. Call it an alien if you like, the point is it's these characteristics we define as greater not anything genetic. And if it's the characteristics that we are concerned with the argument that a blastocyst has human DNA is of much less importance.

Quote:

---

Regardless, there is a categorical error to assign a property of the universal into the realm of the particular. We don't say that a goldfish is a fish and therefore each goldfish has gills. We say that all fish have gills, and goldfish are fish, and therefore has gills (clunky, but maybe illustrates the correct motion from broad to specific). Steve doesn't have the right to life because he is Steve. Even before he was Steve he had it. He has it because Steve is a human being. It's not a personal thing, its a categorical thing.

---

Swap out human being for person. Person is the category. Just like the category of fish, person is defined by certain characteristics.

Quote:

---

Meh, social contract theory is all based on voluntary cession of rights and is based on a reciprocal obligation, and that obligation is justified in and through the concept of natural law.

---

Well you are abandoning the inalienable argument here. That one doesn't hold. The concept of natural law isn't required so long as you have a concept of rights that sit high atop a hierarchy. And the natural law argument is in fact much less nimble to suffice in limiting these rights the way we do.

Quote:

---

If you're going to struggle all the way up to what is moral, just, and good in how humans deal with each other in the context of rights, you can't begin by denying the source of those rights.

---

I agree, but men are the source of those rights, not god. Again, no god has ever botheredd to defend a right.

Quote:

---

No God, no natural law. No natural law, no natural rights. No natural rights, no social contract. You can replace God with "reason" if you like, but it is still an external criterion to appeal to.

---

You can easily have a social contract without natural rights, without god, without natural law. Again, there is no external criteria, god doesn't judge the law or declare rights. These are the same criteria only people pretend to speak for god.