If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for his rights?

Thus reads a new meme that is both pro-abortion and usually leftist in its origin and presuppositions. It can be seen on T-shirts, Facebook statuses, tweets, and signs held up at anti-Personhood rallies.

Note, by the way, that I have made the title of this post read "his rights" rather than "its rights" (or "it's rights", as in the below sign). Preborn children have definitive gender from very early on in their development and should not be referred to in the neuter, as if they were nothing more than a table, a weed, or a clump of cells.

The short answer to this question is:

Yes, we will still fight for the equal protection of the human rights of a human being at whatever stage of his/her life and development, no matter the opposition to the respecting of those human rights, no matter the behavior and preferences of that person or the behavior and preferences we believe we foresee.

Now for the more extended analysis of the question and explanation of our answer.

We have discussed the issue of human rights at length here already, and so I must insist that anyone looking for detailed explanation first read through what has been said before.

With that as a foundation, let us ask: To what rights are these questions referring?

The challenger is trying to impale the abolitionist on the horns of a dilemma, since the abolitionist also has a commitment to the ethics of Jesus Christ. In fact, Jesus' ethics are the very foundation and reason for which we do what we do in standing up for the right of the preborn child not to be murdered in his mother's womb.

Yet those very same ethics clearly mandate the moral reprehensibility of homosexual behavior and the moral uprightness of monogamous, committed heterosexual marriage. So if one is to be consistently Jesus-centric in one's ethics, one has to affirm both the preborn child's right not to be murdered in the womb and Jesus' definition of marriage.


The dilemma comes to light when:

1. the interlocutor suggests that the preborn child is born with an innate homosexual orientation, much like one is born with a certain ethnicity, hair color, and gender. 
2. the interlocutor imports into the conversation the idea that marriage is a right, and as such should be extended to any two persons, regardless of gender.

So, in response to #1:

1. There is no scientific consensus over whether a "gay gene" exists that controls one's sexual orientation, despite many homosexual activists' claims that such does exist.
   
2. Even if a "gay gene" does exist, this makes absolutely no difference to the moral justifiability of actually engaging in homosexual behavior. We are all born into sin and some temptations seem more attractive to us than others.
   If I have a hot temper and someone makes me really angry, does that justify my violating someone else's rights in murdering them?
   If I have a predilection toward alcoholism such that I am much more easily addicted than someone else, am I not guilty if I indeed become an alcoholic?
   If I have an innate lust for power and for sex, am I justified in raping a woman?
   
   The answer is, of course, no. The answer is: Let us repent of our sin, all our sin, and ask Jesus to transform us.
   Yes, it is unpleasant, especially when the sin is so closely cherished, but we have to realise that sin is an enemy and wants to destroy us, and we are slaves to it unless freed by Jesus.
   
   Romans 6:16-19:
   Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in   righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
   
   In other words, just because you think you were born that way, or even just because you were born that way, has nothing to do with the justifiability of your actions. That is a separate question.
   
   
3. Consider carefully whether this parallel is a good idea to make. Human history is full of large-scale atrocities and tensions between people based on their ethnic differences. These persecutions were between people groups based on violent intolerance of their ontology, their essence.
   Homosexuality is characterised by behavior.
   So let's bring this back to the dilemma. One can be "oriented" toward a certain action, but does that automatically give someone the right to carry out that action?
   No, it does not.
   
   
4. About behavior - we believe that since all humans are made in the image of God they have the ability to choose in a given situation whether they will engage in a certain behavior. Thus, a person undergoing a temptation to perform a homosexual act is not an automaton, a robot that is controlled by his desires. Just because one desires to do something, that does not mean s/he has no choice in the matter. To deny this leads to all sorts of absurdities. The entire field of psychology and criminal justice would be completely divested of any meaning, for it would negate all notions of responsibility and ability to change.
   Thus we abolitionists hold homosexuals in higher regard than those who would implicitly deny that they have the ability not to robotically do whatever their glands tell them to. 

Oh, yes

When I imagine that the red-haired girl is ERV, it makes a lot more sense to me, as well.

(HT: Vox Day)

More on human rights

I'm sick today and so don't have the energy to get deep into the issue of abortion. Some other things have come up, so I may have to leave that issue where it stands. I'm happy to leave it where it is anyway, given Jason Streitfeld's response on the topic. I don't think he has exhibited a particularly strong understanding of my rebuttals anyway.

Today I'd like to delve further into this issue of human rights, if atheism is true. Hopefully my explanation will help Jason understand my position a little better. In his response to my last post, he consistently confused internal and external critiques, so hopefully he'll be more careful about that in the future.

He begins by complaining that I have misunderstood atheism's stance on these issues. In this he makes a surprisingly common error, along the lines of "are you saying that atheists have no morality?" No, of course not. Atheists, or most atheists anyway, hold to some system of morality, and usually it conforms in general to the Judeo-Christian framework, which serves to illustrate their suppressed knowledge and latent hatred of God. But in my last post I wasn't arguing that he explicitly believes what I was saying. Rather, I am arguing that atheism leads logically to conclusions that are different than what he explicitly holds. There is no reason beyond wholly arbitrary, human-based reasons to hold to ANY morality, really. But, by contrast, he DOES hold to a system of morality that looks suspiciously like a Judeo-Christian one. Why?
It's b/c he is made in the image of God. He doesn't have a good reason to hold to the morality he does, and that could be said about ANY morality he might choose to follow. Since nothing is ultimately good nor bad on atheism, the most rational answer to any moral claim is: So what?

I will guess what he will say, given what he implies in his post (and I invite him to correct me): This morality is that which is generally good for society and civilisation. This is fraught with problems, however, which I'll draw out more later. But for now, let's consider that there is a big IF involved here. **IF** your goal is the "advancement" and "well-being" of society, then this morality is the way to get there. However,
1) there are plenty of people that don't want that. What makes their opinion invalid?
2) just who defines what advancement and well-being are? Let me guess - Jason and his fellow apparatchik do. Might makes right, apparently.
3) this changes all the time, depending on the society and the surrounding circumstances.


It doesn't matter whether Jason agrees or not. He needs to tell us WHY this claim is wrong. Let's see what he offers in this post.

Justice, beauty, truth, rights . . . these are human values. We all have them because we have working human brains and because we are actively involved in the world around us.

Which does not respond at all to my argument in the first post.


You don't need Christianity to appreciate beauty, truth, justice, or nobility. You don't need to be Christian to have honor.

Which is, of course, not my argument. Rather, you need Christianity to ACCOUNT FOR, to EXPLAIN the existence of truth, beauty, justice, and honor. What reason would we have to think or judge those things on atheism? Don't just make naked assertions, like he's doing: "But *I* recognise them!!" And I'm happy for you. But I'm asking you to show me how those things would reasonably exist in an atheistic universe.


I will explain what an objective moral authority is.

OK, I'm ready.


The term “objective” refers to that which can be observed and measured by anybody (in theory, of course), and not what is only available for a single person...
An objective moral authority is one that provides authoritative answers to moral questions in a way that can be observed and measured by any properly situated person.


I find these statements very strange for two reasons:
1) Where, then, is it, that it can be observed and measured? What does it mean to "measure" a morality? Its length? Its mass? The number of neurons in which places in which brains it might provoke to fire? The amount, frequency, amplitude, and kind of energy waves it emits? The elements of which it is composed - perhaps barium, lead, mercury, calcium, carbon, silicon?
2) The Bible seems to fulfill this quite well - it CAN be measured and observed by anyone. Indeed, it has been. It's the most popular book in history. But of course Jason doesn't accept this answer. That's why the statements are a little weird.


people react differently to objective events

Uh oh - that's trouble for him. Hopefully he won't mind if I quote him later...


Authority is granted by convention, of course.

1) Now, let's not forget that he just told us that people react differently to objective events. He seems not to realise that this has serious problematic implications for this statement.
2) Notice that he's committing the same old error - confusing IS and OUGHT.
Let's just grant that this is indeed the way it goes. A person or a group of people get together and imbue authority to shape morality to another person or group of people. The question is not whether this is how it usually goes in the world, however. The question is - is this right?
3) As I've observed numerous times before, this is a statement pulled out of the air. 2 questions:
a. How does Jason know that authority ought to be granted by convention?
b. How does Jason know when authority has been granted? He goes on to say:
a moral authority is a person or body of persons whose decisions on moral questions are respected within a community.

I'd like to ask Jason to identify the community in which he lives. How that authority is granted. When it was granted. Where. By whom. Surely not by every single person living in the community, right? Who is excluded? On what basis? Who was out of town when the vote was taken? Why didn't I ever get a ballot? Did they survey all the criminals too? Either way, what % of the votes was necessary to grant that authority? Such questions must be known before we can accept Jason's standard.

Another question on IS/OUGHT, for Jason's edification - how does one go about proving a moral question right or wrong? What experiment(s) must be run? The decision - since it is material, what does it look like? Where does it grow? Of what elements is it composed?

All that to say, no, given the numerous and elementary problems with Jason's statement of morality, it is not to be taken seriously. Thus, Jason may not like the alternative of following the morality of TGOTB, but we do know that what he has presented here is no alternative at all.



If you want objective moral authority, it has to be at least theoretically available to everyone in the community.

1) I'd love to see you answer this for your own worldview.
2) There is no argument made for this assertion; I assume Jason won't mind if I deny the assertion just as gratuitously as he made his own.
3) On Christianity, the Bible is indeed available to everyone in the community. It can be read silently and also read aloud in the case of the very young, the blind, the illiterate, etc.
4) As far as being defined "out of comprehension", maybe Jason has only visited liberal or Emergent churches or known liberals and Emergents, but there are an awful lot of Christians that DO know the morality of the Bible, and know it well. So one can only guess what Jason means.

My position is based on the needs of civilization and the demands of reason.

1) Once again, we are not informed how Jason knows what the "needs of civilisation" are. Or what they are. Or what % of people = "civilisation". Or what studies he can cite to back all this up.
2) He denies it's arbitrary, but how can it be anything but? There is no overriding authority for him - God doesn't exist, remember? There is nothing to tell him what is good and what is bad. Millions of people, billions even, have differing conceptions of what good and bad are, what needs are necessary and what needs are peripheral, and to what extent those needs extend to affect Jason's own circle, so he can't just claim that it's all based on one's own limited circle/community. The global village is indeed a global village. This argument might've worked better back in the Dark Ages. How about that - an atheist caught in the Dark Ages!


I do not postulate any secret knowledge, any wholly subjective information, or any other-worldly, ultimately unknowable realm,

On Christianity, the knowledge is not secret, but available to everyone and anyone; it is not subjective since it is based on an objective text that does not change, from God, Who can communicate to people just fine; it is not ultimately unknowable at all, since God has made these things known to humanity. So maybe there's hope for him - all this rejection is based on a total misconception of the Christian position.


You claim to have a moral authority when you clearly do not.

This is an external critique. Jason believes that God does not exist, so given that, it would be true that I don't have a moral authority, since the God to Whom I appeal does not exist. But as we've seen, NOBODY has a moral authority at all.
On Christianity, as an internal critique, of course I do have a moral authority. I invite Jason to explain, using biblical exegesis, how it would be that I don't have a moral authority.


If you want to use quotes from the Bible, fine. But the Bible itself is not an argument. It's just a collection of really old stories.

Again the external critique. On atheism, yes, he's right, but he doesn't tell the whole story, b/c there is no objective moral basis at all on atheism.
On Christianity, the Bible is God's very revelation to humankind. God has the right to command His creation to do whatever He wishes, and so what the Bible says is indeed an argument.


Now you want to avoid the issue of rights by talking instead about God's commandments.

I feared this might happen when I modified the thrust of my argument. I admit that it is a bit of a shift, but to my advantage and in my defense, I shifted to a more biblical position.
So, to review, on atheism there are no rights at all. On Christianity, there are no rights per se but rather a set of commandments on how people are commanded to treat each other given a set of circumstances. And "human rights" are generally shorthand for "how humans are supposed to treat each other" - God's commandments function just fine for that purpose.


Who decides what is a capital crime?

On atheism, people do. And that can change any time, and there is no rational reason either way.
On Christianity, God does.



Jason now moves on to specific questions about abortion. I'll deal with that which is really illustrative of the points here.

why give some rights to humans, but not to chimps?

On atheism, as we've seen and as Jason has not rebutted, there is no reason to grant rights to either.
On Christianity, it's b/c humans are made in the image of God. Chimps are not. God has commanded us to treat animals with reasonable kindness, but there are limits and their mandated treatment is not comparable to humans. It is licit to trap and kill monkeys when they are a pest and threat to farmland, etc, but illicit murder to kill young babies when they are an inconvenience to their parents.


By your account, the Nazis had a rational standard of human ability. Their attitude towards the Jews was thus based on a rational standard. Are you taking that comment back now, or what?

Jason misunderstands. My point has been that:
1) the Nazis had made an unreasonable, arbitrary distinction of human/not-human - that which is Jewish is not human.
2) similar to Jason's position on abortion, it is arbitrary - that which is below a certain age (whatever Jason thinks) and in a certain location (in the womb) is not-human
3) given that distinction (though it is irrational), the Nazis acted consistently with their irrational distinction. More consistently than most atheists (though the Nazis were pagans, not atheists).
Hopefully that helps Jason understand.



I don't think you could find one atheist who would tell you that you've accurately represented their views here.

I agree - I haven't met too many atheists who think very freely at all, who embrace their atheism to any real and extended sense. The closest to doing so that I've ever met is the Jolly Nihilist.


Please produce a coherent argument for your infallible moral authority

As I mentioned, Jason confuses internal and external critiques.
*If Christianity is true*, here it is. If it is not, then there is, as we've seen, no objective authority, no morality beyond "I like it/I don't like it", let alone any infallible one.
And again, if Jason is inclined to disagree, I invite his exegesis of the relevant biblical passages.

Just what are rights?

Jason asks:

On what basis do you justify ascribing any rights to anyone at all?

Note that I anticipate an answer which points to religious beliefs and texts. And remember that I find it impossible to take such beliefs seriously.

From my view, we have two choices here: one, approach the issue of rights pragmatically; two, approach them dogmatically. The former is rational, the latter is not. I support the rational approach. What about you?

That's a fine question, and it leads me actually to sthg I've been thinking about with the help of a friend with respect to this question.
As a disciple of the biblical faith, I started wondering just what biblical justification there is for this idea of "human rights", right before my friend emailed me to express just that concern for the way I've been arguing about baby murder recently around here.
It occurs to me that "rights" never occurs in the Bible, and neither does the idea of some intrinsic rights for humans. Rather, the ruling paradigm and therefore the question to be asked and answered on this issue is: In what way does God command us to treat other humans?
For example, God commands that we not murder other humans. He commands that we not steal, or commit adultery. He commands that we love our neighbor as ourself. Etc.

Why shall we follow His commands? There are many reasons, of course. Here are a few:

-So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time. (Deut 4:40)

-Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:12)

-For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. (1 Peter 2:15)

-And (Jesus) said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment." (Matt 22:37-38)

-Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Rom 6:16-18)

There are all sorts of reasons why not to sin, either against God or against another human. These are commands, strictly speaking, not 'human rights'.

I was sort of operating under the thinking that that which God commands I not to do to another (such as murder) can be loosely seen as a right. No one is supposed to murder anyone else. Thus, everyone has a right not to be murdered. Yet more loosely stated, everyone has a right to life, but one would want to be careful about that statement, for a couple of reasons:
1) Not everyone has a right to life. Those who have committed a capital crime should, most of the time, only live long enough for a fair trial and then be executed by the state, which has authority to do so. There are conceivable cases when mercy is called for, but not most of the time.
2) No one has a right that is higher than God's authority, but if we start talking too loosely about "human rights", then we could easily fall into that trap. I see it all the time in the media - this or that commentator or this or that man on the street complaining about "I can't believe God would allow this!" Believe it - He did.
Or, "I can't believe in a God that would allow this." At which point they run afoul of putting God in the dock, and there are all sorts of reasons why this sort of statement, while one can certainly have sympathy for the pain and grief out of which that comment might have emerged, is wrongheaded and rebellious. And of course, many times that person is not undergoing pain or grief at all; then it's just rebellion against God.
I've written recently on this very topic, and come to a conclusion that is probably hard for some to swallow. I'm not 100% sure of it, but I haven't seen a refutation yet.

Now, Jason says he will find this impossible take seriously. He admits his bias up front, which is more than can be said for many people, but it is still bias and therefore unworthy of much respect.
To further draw this out, we simply ask the atheist to provide a basis for human rights on his worldview.
On his worldview, everything is a product of chance and material and energetic interactions. There is no nobility, no beauty, no value, certainly no moral value. Evolution will continue and everything dies. Murder is simply making a weaker organism die a little before something else will have snuffed out its pointless existence, but both the interval and the life itself are infinitesimally small blips on the geological scale of time and size, to say nothing of the cosmic scale.

Since there is no value, it makes no difference whether I cuddle a baby gently and feed her, or whether I plunge her into boiling water for dinner. Neither is good, neither is bad.
It makes no difference whether I am an atheist or a Phred Felps gay-basher. Neither is good, neither is bad. If I deceive myself about the truth and become a Christian, it makes no difference.

Given that it makes zero difference how I treat others, whence do I think human rights might come? Besides, do paramecia have rights? Broccoli? What makes me better or morally preferable to those types of organism?

Since atheism is at its most consistent when it espouses materialism, one wonders of what human rights are composed. Of what elements? Do they grow somewhere? What is their natural environment? If they are simply products of human neural synapses firing, I suppose human rights are totally different depending on the human? So, Hitler and Pol Pot were just acting in accord with a totally valid expression of human rights, since they acted on their synapses firing just like everyone else, right? And those who think that there are no human rights are also expressing that which their own synapses are firing, so they are somehow correct as well, I suppose.

Summary - Jason's own worldview can't support human rights at all. So, it's vaguely amusing to hear him challenge Christianity to produce an account of them that he'll accept.
And he hates TGOTB, so he'll just reject anything that TGOTB might say in favor of something else. It doesn't matter what, just SOMETHING.