an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[Winston Hughes]

At any rate, it's no more possible to "prove" your claim that natural rights can be a useful fiction

The evidence of how and why human rights are important is everywhere. I see it every single day in my job, when we're reminded about the rights of disabled children to receive a decent education, to be treated with dignity, to have their own feelings and desires properly represented when decisions are made which affect them.

You talk about the revolution which is supposedly just around the corner, as it has been for a century and a half now. But, in the meantime, there has been a real revolution taking place in the standards of treatment and protection that people expect to receive, and at the very core of this has been the notion that all humans have rights which should be respected. This has affected a range of issues so broad and diverse to defy easy accounting, but which includes such staples of political discourse as ethnicity, sexuality and gender (including, of course, matters of reproductive ethics, where the notion that women have a right to bodily autonomy is fundamental to the Pro-Choice case).

In each case, the essential argument, the one which has driven change most effectively and reliably, has been founded in a language of rights. To this day, when you hear voices raised in protest at the crimes committed by this state or that corporation, the claim for rights to be respected is shown time and again as one to which heed is paid, around which support can coalesce, and through which democratic force can be exercised in pursuit of change. And, what's more, it's an argument which can be turned into actual practice in a quite straightforward (which is not to say effortless) manner, through the establishment of legal rights backed up by the force of the state.

Against all this, we have an argument founded entirely on your faith that, this time, the millennium really has arrived...

 

[bernie14]

Do you actually know what the term "ad hominem" means? (You certainly can't spell it.)

it's what you just did with your post there....

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

it's what you just did with your post there....

No love for Ziggy?

Accusing Ziggy of calling people hypocrites and using ad hominems (which by the way, what you quoted wasn't one either) and then not having the decency to address Ziggy's rebuttal to that accusation.

That makes me a sad Ziggy

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

You post good, real good.

But third person usage bad

 

[Traitorfish]

The evidence of how and why human rights are important is everywhere. I see it every single day in my job, when we're reminded about the rights of disabled children to receive a decent education, to be treated with dignity, to have their own feelings and desires properly represented when decisions are made which affect them.

You talk about the revolution which is supposedly just around the corner, as it has been for a century and a half now. But, in the meantime, there has been a real revolution taking place in the standards of treatment and protection that people expect to receive, and at the very core of this has been the notion that all humans have rights which should be respected. This has affected a range of issues so broad and diverse to defy easy accounting, but which includes such staples of political discourse as ethnicity, sexuality and gender (including, of course, matters of reproductive ethics, where the notion that women have a right to bodily autonomy is fundamental to the Pro-Choice case).

In each case, the essential argument, the one which has driven change most effectively and reliably, has been founded in a language of rights. To this day, when you hear voices raised in protest at the crimes committed by this state or that corporation, the claim for rights to be respected is shown time and again as one to which heed is paid, around which support can coalesce, and through which democratic force can be exercised in pursuit of change. And, what's more, it's an argument which can be turned into actual practice in a quite straightforward (which is not to say effortless) manner, through the establishment of legal rights backed up by the force of the state.

Against all this, we have an argument founded entirely on your faith that, this time, the millennium really has arrived...

I don't really know how I'm supposed to respond to this. I said that I don't think that rights exist, and you don't seem particularly inclined to make any argument for them beyond "wouldn't it be nice if we could just pretend". I gave a rough outline of my views on ethical make-believe, not to make any argument one way or the other but simply to explain why I personally am not very enthusiastic about putting on your fairy-wings. (A gesture of good will, or at least so I meant it- an attempt to show a willingness to engage with the concept of "natural rights" beyond just sticking intransigently to an empiricist demand for evidence. It seems unfair to repay the gesture with snide accusations of millenarianism.) You respond by reiterating your praise for their silken sheen and glamorous sparkle. What do you expect me to do, I wonder, but to agree that, yes, they are indeed very lovely, but that they are not for me?


(Edit: What is it about this place that any ethical-political commentary that does not immediately suggest itself as public policy is greeted with incomprehension, if not outright hostility? It's really not a very good atmosphere to encourage open debate.)

 

[Akka]

If you have had a revelation I would suspect its truth is limited to the fact that most people really don't know the distinction between the two, thus use the word "murder" when they mean "homicide."

Actually, considering "murder" is "homicide with intent", I think that if someone consider an embryo (WTH with the constant drawing-back to "fetus" when most abortions are only about the embryo stage ?) to be a person, then yeah, "murder" is the adequate technical term.
(in fact, considering it requires a lot of planning, you could even go with "assassination", but then maybe even the pro-lifers may intuitively feels like their emotional blackmail is going too far)

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't really know how I'm supposed to respond to this. I said that I don't think that rights exist, and you don't seem particularly inclined to make any argument for them beyond "wouldn't it be nice if we could just pretend". I gave a rough outline of my views on ethical make-believe, not to make any argument one way or the other but simply to explain why I personally am not very enthusiastic about putting on your fairy-wings. (A gesture of good will, or at least so I meant it- an attempt to show a willingness to engage with the concept of "natural rights" beyond just sticking intransigently to an empiricist demand for evidence. It seems unfair to repay the gesture with snide accusations of millenarianism.) You respond by reiterating your praise for their silken sheen and glamorous sparkle. What do you expect me to do, I wonder, but to agree that, yes, they are indeed very lovely, but that they are not for me?


(Edit: What is it about this place that any ethical-political commentary that does not immediately suggest itself as public policy is greeted with incomprehension, if not outright hostility? It's really not a very good atmosphere to encourage open debate.)

When questioning the abstraction of human rights you are questioning something that is very much an article of faith. Human rights exist because we agree they exist - thus the same as all faiths the questioning of its validity undermines its basic premise and will be met with hostility. Call it secular theology or whatever. I am confused by what, if anything, you suggest fill the void. Absolute monarchy, naked force, the supremacy of the majority, pure utilitarianism, other?

Actually, considering "murder" is "homicide with intent", I think that if someone consider an embryo (WTH with the constant drawing-back to "fetus" when most abortions are only about the embryo stage ?) to be a person, then yeah, "murder" is the adequate technical term.
(in fact, considering it requires a lot of planning, you could even go with "assassination", but then maybe even the pro-lifers may intuitively feels like their emotional blackmail is going too far)

It has to be the intent of the actor. If the actor does not believe they are harming a human then things will be less straightforward. I think voluntary manslaughter would be a cleaner fit. That would probably rest on the assumption that the actor has a defect in their thinking that negates "malice." This all, of course, rests on the principle that the pro-life arguer stipulate to the honesty and good-faith belief of the pro-choice individual that an embryo isn't an entity with human value/protection.

 

[bernie14]

No love for Ziggy?

Accusing Ziggy of calling people hypocrites and using ad hominems (which by the way, what you quoted wasn't one either) and then not having the decency to address Ziggy's rebuttal to that accusation.

That makes me a sad Ziggy

i'm sorry, i had to re-read your post, seeing how badly i made you feel....

i think i get it now, you are accusing them of hypocrisy OR dishonesty, my mistake...

 

[Traitorfish]

When questioning the abstraction of human rights you are questioning something that is very much an article of faith. Human rights exist because we agree they exist - thus the same as all faiths the questioning of its validity undermines its basic premise and will be met with hostility. Call it secular theology or whatever. I am confused by what, if anything, you suggest fill the void. Absolute monarchy, naked force, the supremacy of the majority, pure utilitarianism, other?

To be honest, I'm pretty sceptical about the whole "morality" thing in general. The whole thing seems to hinge on the implicit presumption of a god that doesn't exist, on something external to history which can create and impose us moral obligations upon us. (Even a "pure utilitarianism" still seems to derive from an external compulsion, simply one which is articulated at the level of principle in very general terms.) Instead, I think we need to pursue an ethics that is actually about us, as embodied subjects, addressing a world which contains only the meaning that we create in it; about living well rather than living goodly, if that makes sense. I'm far very from sure what that actually entails, and at the risk of sounding mystical, I think that's something which has to be learned through practice, but in very general terms I'd describe it as something concerned not so much with how we should be, but with how we are, and how we can go about being as best we can.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

i think i get it now, you are accusing them of hypocrisy OR dishonesty

Go on. Take a guess.

 

[bernie14]

Go on. Take a guess.

dishonesty

 

[Farm Boy]

To be honest, I'm pretty sceptical about the whole "morality" thing in general. The whole thing seems to hinge on the implicit presumption of a god that doesn't exist, on something external to history which can create and impose us moral obligations upon us. (Even a "pure utilitarianism" still seems to derive from an external compulsion, simply one which is articulated at the level of principle in very general terms.) Instead, I think we need to pursue an ethics that is actually about us, as embodied subjects, addressing a world which contains only the meaning that we create in it; about living well rather than living goodly, if that makes sense. I'm far very from sure what that actually entails, and at the risk of sounding mystical, I think that's something which has to be learned through practice, but in very general terms I'd describe it as something concerned not so much with how we should be, but with how we are, and how we can go about being as best we can.

The silly thing here is the more you divorce personal action from religious compulsion(fear of God(s)), the more you embrace what I can only describe as "compassionate(empathic?) egoism," the more you will resemble the very religious people whom we describe as enlightened. I cannot fathom there being only one path to tread on that way.

 

[mangxema]

Back more to my area of interest though. Does anyone have any clever insight as to the coming interplay between the LGBT community and adoption/the abortion debate now that society is slowing swinging towards accepting their marriages and families? It would seem to me that at least male gay marriages and Christian pro-lifers share a common interest in promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion. ... Do you think they'll ever be pragmatic enough to co-operate for what they would deem the common good?

Pro-life folks, if they are being honest with themselves, ought to be all for it. They should be doing absolutely every conceivable thing that would lower abortion rates. However, a significant amount (most?) of them are too... biased against gay people to ever allow them to adopt, which says to me that they really aren't that concerned with saving lives at all.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I don't really know how I'm supposed to respond to this. I said that I don't think that rights exist, and you don't seem particularly inclined to make any argument for them beyond "wouldn't it be nice if we could just pretend".

I've set out quite clearly the case for rights, based on their efficacy as a mode of discourse (and, thereafter, as rallying cries) for positive change in human societies. I have explained exactly why their lack of a material existence is no impediment to their having utility, and have pointed out the existence of vast numbers of real world examples of that utility, giving one precise example from my own direct experience to illustrate the case.

Let me put it to you that the reason you don't know how to respond is that you have neither an alternative to offer, nor any real argument against the language of rights.

(Edit: What is it about this place that any ethical-political commentary that does not immediately suggest itself as public policy is greeted with incomprehension, if not outright hostility? It's really not a very good atmosphere to encourage open debate.)

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to have an open space for your own brand of scepticism, you must accept that others will bring their own into the debate as well.

I think we need to pursue an ethics that is actually about us, as embodied subjects, addressing a world which contains only the meaning that we create in it

This is precisely what a fiction like 'human rights' is about: it's not something we find in the world, it's the product of human creativity aimed at improving our lives and our societies. The thing is, though, these moral creations are like Tinkerbell: they only exist if we believe in them. Cease to believe in them, and we're left with nothing but might-makes-right.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

dishonesty

Well done. You're doing great.

Why did I call them dishonest?

 

[Arakhor]

The silly thing here is the more you divorce personal action from religious compulsion(fear of God(s)), the more you embrace what I can only describe as "compassionate(empathic?) egoism," the more you will resemble the very religious people whom we describe as enlightened. I cannot fathom there being only one path to tread on that way.

I don't undertake any action based on fear of God. I might moderate my actions based on whether they reflect God's divine love, but that's a very different thing altogether. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by compassionate egoism, but I donate to charities because it's the right thing to do with spare change, not because I think I will benefit from it or it will improve my existence in another life.

 

[bernie14]

Well done. You're doing great.

Why did I call them dishonest?

because you have no argument and thus attack a personal flaw? or perhaps you think they are being unknowingly dishonest?

EDIT: in either case, when did the statement "i have concluded that you are not being honest with yourself and/or others" become a valid argument?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

because you have no argument and thus attack a personal flaw? or perhaps you think they are being unknowingly dishonest?

Nice attempt to get me back to an ad hominem with the personal flaw thing. Not transparent at all

I did have an argument, since I posted it. And I used it to support a subjective point. Which I also have been clear on. Your problem at the moment you set of on the hypocrisy/ad hominem trail and now don't want to look premature in that conclusion, so whatever I say will not hit home. You will just go on and on and on. Fact of the matter is: you were wrong. Your statement was false. Erroneous. Bollocks. Sparked by a kneejerk feeling of indignation. Now realisation sets in: "Oh dear, I might have been a bit of a plonker". Which is fine by the way. Other reactions have made it clear my point was a little ambiguous. So accuse me of not wording my argument properly. Accuse me of being provocative to spark reactions. You'll get no objections from me. But cease this dead-end road you're on.

If using emotional terms to support an argument is a personal flaw, it's one we are all familiar with (calling people out on using ad hominems or accusing others of hypocrisy when that's no where near the case for instance)

EDIT: in either case, when did the statement "i have concluded that you are not being honest with yourself and/or others" become a valid argument?

For that you really need to reread my post. Or one of my many explanations.

Bottomline: if after this you are still of the opinion I am accusing people of hypocrisy and/or using ad hominems, nothing trivial like reality will change your mind.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've set out quite clearly the case for rights, based on their efficacy as a mode of discourse (and, thereafter, as rallying cries) for positive change in human societies. I have explained exactly why their lack of a material existence is no impediment to their having utility, and have pointed out the existence of vast numbers of real world examples of that utility, giving one precise example from my own direct experience to illustrate the case.

I got that, yes, and in each case I think that "rights" is increasing an insufficient articulation of the emancipatory impulse which the demand represents. That's a matter of interpretation, it's necessarily a matter of interpretation, and I do not share yours. I do not expect you to adopt mine, so why my refusal to adopt yours should be quite the source of indignation that it seems to be is beyond me.

Let me put it to you that the reason you don't know how to respond is that you have neither an alternative to offer...

I said as much, yes.

...nor any real argument against the language of rights.

My argument is "prove it". You aren't capable of proving it. It is, in fact, impossible to prove. It all we have is varying interpretations, and you cannot brow beat me into accepting yours just because you're super-convinced that it's the best.

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to have an open space for your own brand of scepticism, you must accept that others will bring their own into the debate as well.

If it was scepticism, I would be fine with it, but what I'm talking is precisely an anti-sceptical attitude. Claim non-commitment- not even active rejection!- to the various pillars of liberal philosophy such as the state, property, or natural rights theory, and you're very often met with offended incomprehension, if not outright hostility, as if these are self-evident truths that had to be specifically overturned before it becomes acceptable to deny them. Whether or not any given criticism is particularly strong, or whether any proposed alternative is particularly reasonable, we should at least be able to tolerate the initial fact of dissent. Failing to do so does absolutely nothing to encourage free debate or critical thought.

(edit: I should probably say, this isn't intended as a general accusation- plenty of posters are altogether more willing to engage me on this commie pish than I deserve. It's just a recurring tendency that I've noted on this board, and it gets a bit tiring.)

This is precisely what a fiction like 'human rights' is about: it's not something we find in the world, it's the product of human creativity aimed at improving our lives and our societies. The thing is, though, these moral creations are like Tinkerbell: they only exist if we believe in them. Cease to believe in them, and we're left with nothing but might-makes-right.

By acknowledging that natural rights are a fiction, you've already killed the fiction. The discourse of "human rights" isn't about creation, it's about discovery; when we demand "rights for X", we're not demanding their invention, we're demanding the legal recognition of rights that are assumed to precede that recognition. "All men are created equal, that they are endowed [...] with certain unalienable Rights". If it was a matter of creation, then we would not, fundamentally, be talking about "natural rights", we'd simply be offering a set of legal formalisations of consequences drawn from a fundamentally different ethical logic.

It's a bit of a "god is dead" situation, really. You're more or less openly admitting that the core of "natural rights" philosophy is false, but you don't have an alternative so you're just going to go about acting like it's true anyway. Perhaps you're right, perhaps this is the best we can, and it would certainly be the best we can do for now, but I think we should be at least willing to explore alternative ethics, and not just stay curled up around a principle that we admit doesn't really exist.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't undertake any action based on fear of God. I might moderate my actions based on whether they reflect God's divine love, but that's a very different thing altogether. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by compassionate egoism, but I donate to charities because it's the right thing to do with spare change, not because I think I will benefit from it or it will improve my existence in another life.

Well, I'm not entirely sure what I mean by compassionate egoism either. Perhaps its more where you give "love" not because you think you "should" or because you will be rewarded supernaturally it really becomes it's own reward. Caring improves your lot simply through the act of caring. Those who most resemble enlightenment, at least as far as I can tell, have come to peace with the reality that neither they nor their neighbors are now or ever will be perfect. They own their imperfections and deal with them rather than ignoring or attempting to stamp out human frailty.

It's a bit of a "god is dead" situation, really. You're more or less openly admitting that the core of "natural rights" philosophy is false, but you don't have an alternative so you're just going to go about acting like it's true anyway.

I think this might be where we are diverging. We are admitting that if the world turns away from them, then they don't exist. There is no external force to dictate them outside of ourselves. However, if we "act like they are true anyway" then they do exist, significantly and measurably.

Bear with the bad analogy please - It feels as if you are saying "Football has no rules, they don't exist."