Prenatal Rights

The issue of prenatal rights is one of the most divisive issues in the American political culture today. On one side are the doctor-killing antifeminist Christian fascists, and on the other are the radical baby-killing satanists.

Personally, I am an atheist. So many of you will be disappointed by the fact that you can't use that ad hominem to discredit me. I am also a liberal (a communist, in fact, but we'll get to that later), so don't go sayingi don't care for people after birth. Yes, I am a male. But I seriously doubt that you believe me to be so important as to make or break the abortion debate with my gender. It would be absurd to state that human embryos and fetuses are not deserving of rights simply because some random person on the Internet has a penis.

And that is the core issue: are the thousands of creatures being killed daily by abortion organisms that other human beings have an obligation to not harm.

"Wait!", you may say. "You said 'other human beings', already assuming that there is a human being killed in an abortion. But before birth, there is no human being, merely an embryo or fetus. Your argument is circular and, thus, fallacious." I would posit you with this question:

Exactly what kind of fetus is it?

It can safely be assumed that we are discussing *human* fetuses in this debate. Thus, the fetus is indeed a human being, a living member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

I can already see you typing your responses. You're going to say that the fetus is "human", but not *a* human. We speak of a human embryo/fetus just as we speak of a human hair or a human sperm.

The problem here is confusing parts with wholes. While a gamete or somatic cell is merely part of a larger organism. The "masturbation is genocide" argument fails for this reason, so it is surprising how popular it is (but, hey, you can't expect everyone on the Internet to have a high school education!).

I have *actually* had people insist that the fetus is literally "part" of the mother. These exact same people will often call the fetus a parasite, which is interesting because the term is defined as follows:

par⋅a⋅site   [par-uh-sahyt]
–noun
1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Clearly, the embryo or fetus does not fit the definition. But calling the human prenate ("prenate" being the term I will henceforth use to refer to any member of a viviparous species prior to birth) a parasite concedes that the he or she is a separate organism.

Many people are simply confused. They are, in the most literal definition of the word, ignorant. This is not an insult; what exactly constitutes an organism is not common knowledge. Many people believe that it has something to do with physical separation and/or biological independence. If examined further, both these criteria fall apart. The example of simbiotic relationships shines a light on why. In addition, ALL organisms require external sources of energy; to do otherwise would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In reality, an organism is any self-integrating living system. The prenate is clearly alive, as he or she is composed of living cells that metabolize, divide, and react to stimuli. The prenate's genetic code directs his or her development, so the prenate is self-integrating. I have had people contradict this, saying that a zygote left on a table will die. But notice I said self-directed and not self-sustained (which would be impossible, as I explained above).

So, the prenate is an organism. So, what kind?

Produced from human parents and possessing a human genome, the human prenate can be nothing but a living member of the species Homo s. sapiens.

Sigh. If you already knew this, I apologize. I do not mean to sound condescending, but some people need a quick primer on Biology 101, a reminder of high or possibly middle school science.

One last thing. Homicide is defined as follows:

hom⋅i⋅cide   [hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh-]
–noun
1.the killing of one human being by another.
2.a person who kills another; murderer.

Abortion of a human prenate is clearly homicide, as I have yet to hear of human prenates being aborted by lizards or cows or oak trees.

For the importance of species, clicky.

Notice that this was merely intended to demonstrate that the rules of morality can be validly applied to human prenates. As opposed to my opponents, my argument was founded upon the biological origins of morality and not based on arbitrary psychological distinctions or subjective æsthetic properties. The human prenate has the same rights as a human being at any other age.

Some will argue that abortion is justified even if the rules of morality can be validly applied to human prenates.

I will address you elsewhere.
But if you sincerely think that, you should not object to the personhood movement, as it wouldn't change anything. :P

My Morality

The biological origin of ethics is generally agreed-upon by the scientific community. Ethics are clearly not a human invention, as pretty much any species has a code of conduct that acts as a biological leash upon intraspecies conduct. The reason is clear: species that coöperate and refrain from senseless violence survive better than those that don't. Thus, morality came about through evolution. Young children and even nonhuman organisms have an innate sense of fairness. This is why our responses are different in a visceral level when a man is killed by a bear or an earthquake than if he's killed by a man or a woman.

So, morality prevents aggression (defined as the initiation of force or fraud). These are called "negative rights" or rights of non-interference. Humans also tend to organize into societies for the purpose of the protection. This is where "positive rights", or rights of obligation come from. Societies or governments are instituted to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Basically, organisms have an obligation to refrain from intraspecies aggression, and tend to form societies to both protect against aggression and ensure the well-being of the individual, the society, and the species. How and on which level this takes place is largely irrelevant as long as at least the basic needs of the population are met and negative rights are sufficiently protected.

Positive rights belong to members of a society. If you don't want these obligation, you are free to leave society. But seeing as negative rights are useless if not enforced, most people prefer to live in a society where members protect each other.

Let me now put my system of ethics in summary.

(1) Organisms have a moral obligation to refrain from intraspecies aggression.
(2a) Societies have an obligation to enforce point (1).
(2b) Societies have an obligation to promote the general well-being of the population.

Atheist Challenge

1. Clicky. ☺

2. Evolution is a fact and has been directly observed. The scientific theory of evolution refers to evolution by means of natural selection and descent with modification.

3. Of my life? Arguing with strangers on the Internet.

4. I don't keep a mental catalog of that sort of thing.

5. No, and why exactly would I be in such a situation?

6. Because I have yet to be presented sufficient reason to be a theist.

7. I wouldn't need to say anything, since any god worth his salt can read minds.

8. Today, Islam. In the past, Christianity. In the further past, whatever the Aztecs believed.

9. Well, 3 peaceful religions are Buddhism, Jainism, and the third one escapes me. I still have issues with them, though.

10. Empirical, objective, repeatable evidence.

11. That's hard to answer. What would the rest of that world be like?

12. What kind of vague question is this? I think it should stay separate from religion, I guess. I think it should protect the citizens. My political views are I'm a communist.

13. Why exactly would I need to do that? You aren't inherently evil; I could just set them on a different path. Though I'd need to be sure that wouldn't fsck up the timestream and make things worse.

14. Because it could save and improve lives. But I think killing embryos to save older people sorta defeats the purpose.

15. Evil? Bit of a strong word, but I would have to say yes. We should give all human beings legal rights of personhood, as well as make society and education such that abortion is arcane and unthinkable.

16. None. Even if you can look past the gross human rights violation and lowering of ourselves to the level of our enemies, torture doesn't even get accurate information.

17. Sure, why not?

18. No. Ignoring the moral issue, it makes no sense. An eye for an eye makes everyone blind. The moral issue is addressed elsewhere; I'm lazy so clicky.

19. No supernatural forces, though aliens are not any more supernatural than we are; to them, we're the aliens. I'm pretty agnostic and apathetic towards the existence extraterrestrial life, though the statistics seem to be probabilitistically in their favor.

20. I wouldn't sacrifice myself for a loved one anyway because I'm a selfish sonofabi-

21. What do I look like, some sort of deathologist?

22. What kind of stupid question is that? I'm typing this, aren't I? We can't yet bring people back from the dead, and you can't be dead if you were never alive.

Okay, those were some rambling questions.

YouTube

"The belief that pregnancy following rape will emotionally and psychologically devastate the victim reflects the common misconception that women are helpless creatures who must be protected from the harsh realities of the world. [This study illustrates] that pregnancy need not impede the victim's resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, non judgmental attitudes, and emphatic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden of pregnancy." (Cited in T. Hilgers,etal, New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Pub., 1981, p.194)