Lire et Repondre

A response to This which is itself a response to This but neither seem to bother referring to This:

The issue the folks over at Uncommon Descent fail to recognize, and a fact the folks over at Pharyngula have failed to bother mentioning, is that one's views on theology are irrelevant to this debate. Neither theism nor atheism nor anything in between have any impact on one's views regarding his or her own species. Indeed, some atheists are certainly more protective of their species than many religious people, just as some religious people can justify their value for progeny without any regard for their sacred texts. The issues are neither mutual nor exclusive.

What Might affect one's answers to the questions, however, are other, lighter -isms--I'll be focusing on humanism, anarchism, pragmatism, and capitalism, which I think are practiced by athe- and the-ists in roughly equal proportions. These -isms are a level closer to one's daily life than the great question of Where the Universe Came From. The moral codes upheld by each different group will provide clearly different answers to the questions. (For the sake of this discussion, the term Moral will be used in its purest form--adherence to the rules, bylaws, or expectations of a particular institution.)

Without further ado: the answers to the questions according to different philosophical sub-groupings, assuming the person answering is an atheist or religion-neutral. Answer set 1. Humanists.

(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Yes.

(b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? Yes.

(c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? Rights are codes of conduct established by human cultures to ensure that everyone has a fair shot at happiness, so if we affirm that the baby is human and we acknowledge our society's codes, the codes apply to it. Yes.

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? The survival of our species is our responsibility and no one else's. If we want our species to continue to exist, we must ensure the next generation is born and raised to fend for itself.

(e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Yes. Rightness and wrongness in terms of the species are absolute. We must responsibly maintain and promote the survival and happiness of everyone in our species who is beneficial to it.

Answer set 2: Anarchists.

(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Yes, but so's the Unabomber. The fact that they contain a full set of homo sapiens sapiens genes doesn't mean anything about them.

(b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? If they can't think for themselves, no. Person-hood is awareness.

(c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? No one has an inherent right to anything. It is of course arguable that since no-one has the right to live, no one has any more right than anyone else to live, but it doesn't mean the beginning of life is special or should be protected. If the baby's parents want to keep it alive, that's their concern.

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? Again, they have no more or less right to live than any other living thing. I don't have the right to kill it, but it doesn't have the right to be alive.

(e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Rightness and wrongess are social constructs intended for the training and control of children. Thinking individuals must determine what is best for themselves--no set of codes or absolutes should dissuade them. It is not up to me to decide how you live or think. If it is best in your situation to do away with an adult or a child, that is your concern. Only when the person in question is me or someone who I'd rather keep alive does it become my problem. The total human population size is thoroughly irrelevant.

Answer set 3: Pragmatists.

(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Yes, it has the same genetic sequence as adult humans.

(b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? A person is a thinking, productive member of society, so no.

(c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? Babies of course have potential value--as workers, thinkers, and functional members of society--but none of that is actualized. Until the child has begun to exhibit some cognitive and physical function with which it can provide for itself or others it actually has negative value. It occupies the attention and energy of others (its parents, teachers, babysitters, and the like), it consumes food and requires heating, space, and shelter, which require energy to produce, and yet it does not contribute to its society in return. We of course assume that at some point in its future that it will begin to make this contribution, but we have no guarantee that this will be so. As long as its value is not calculable, it is impossible to determine if the child has any.

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? It depends on the actual value of the baby in question. Since that cannot be determined, and because all newborns have equal potential to be useful or detrimental to society one cannot decide if their lives should be preserved in any absolute terms.

(e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Not as wrong as killing an adult whose usefulness or benefit to the species is greater than their consumption, but more wrong than killing an adult who causes damage to the species or consumes more than they produce. Either way, much more time and energy has gone into creating the adult than the infant, so it is less of a waste of time and work to lose an infant than a functioning, useful adult. Though after an adult has outlived his usefulness, he is functionally worth less than the infant, for his lifetime energy consumption exceeds his current productiveness, whereas the infant's energy consumption and output are both low.

Answer set 4: capitalists.

(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Irrelevant--people buy accessories for their cars and treats for their dogs. You do not need to be fully human to be a part of our economy. We have machines that budget for and buy accessories for other machines--in my view they are just as human as a homo sapiens who does the same task.

(b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? Person-hood is directly related to one's contribution to the economy, so as long as its needs contribute to the economy, yes. It may not be doing the purchasing, but money must be spent on its behalf, which means extra money must be earned by an adult or caretaker than the adult would need on his or her own. Even in utero the baby is a person, provided its pre-natal care is paid for with insurance or out of pocket.

(c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? Depends who's paying. If the parents' insurance premiums are paid up and the birth doesn't require extra money on the behalf of the state or the citizenry, the baby owes its life to its parents and it is their right to decide if it deserves it. If the parents depend on welfare or expect the hospital to eat the cost, the child owes its life to the generosity of its community and it should be their right to decide if it deserves it.

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? Again, it's a matter of cost/benefit ratio. These days keeping them alive requires more money than the alternative, but this was not always so, nor is it so in some cultures. If the child in question is considered a commodity, do you believe it will sell for more than the net cost of feeding and clothing it while in your possession? Or if you don't intend to sell it, what is the cost of educating it, contrasted with the purchasing power that education may lead to? If more money is likely to be spent on it than it will likely earn for itself or you, then no.

(e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? An adult who is current on his mortgage, working 40 hours a week at $20/hr or higher, paying off his student loans at at least 8.5% interest, has at least one car loan in good standing and has spent at least $15,000 cash for a wedding has far more value than a normal baby who has cost at most $15,000 in extra food for its mother, pre-natal care and delivery. If the child is unwell but the parents have cash in hand for just such an incident it may be worth the same as a starter home, which is good for the hospital, but still not the same value as a fully-functioning worker. Indeed, if the pregnancy has removed the child's mother from the workforce for any length of time then the child on whose behalf leave was taken has negative value to the mother's employer, particularly if she qualifies for paid maternity leave. After ten years of life a typical child generally has consumed revenue equal to the value of one pre-owned boat or the employment of 3 college graduates for two years. That said, if the child was produced using in-vitro fertilization or another atypical method then by the time of birth their net value may be equal to or higher than a ten year old, particularly if the parents required more than three cycles for it to take. Though then that does bring into question the value of the individual live birth against the pricey but ultimately non-viable embryos(...) no.

Answer set 5: Me.

PZ Myers never said anything about newborn babies' right to life. He just said they weren't people. They aren't--they're genetically human, but they don't think, evaluate, or even have personalities for quite some time after they're born. At three weeks of age a kitten has a more distinct personality than a three-month old human, but this does not mean that the kitten will ever become a person, or the baby will ever become a cat. As soon as the baby's comprehension extends beyond the flavour of its toes it will embark upon the long, difficult transition into person-hood (something I would argue doesn't really set in until around age 22).

Rights are in fact a social construct intended to ensure that laws are enforced equally across all sectors, though this rarely occurs. People's rights, adult and child, are infringed upon constantly. My right to pursue happiness as I see fit is often infringed upon by other people's pursuit of the same thing--and indeed, this is not only unavoidable, but necessary. Rights are an abstraction, and a fairly loose one at that. We may safely state that rights are endowed by the state and may be taken away at any time by the state because let's face it, the truth of 'rights' extends just as far as the truth of 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'--e.g. just as far as you can suspend your disbelief. (Riiiiight. No no, the people are in charge. And the ongoing war effort demanded, maintained, and prevented from ending by Haliburton? Fully backed by the people.)

Point is, one's relationship with religion does not directly impact his or her relationship with government, humanity, or even the planet. Jumping to the conclusion that all atheists think alike is the kind of simple-minded knee jerk reaction you'd expect out of a god-botherer.

(see what I did there? it's funny! Because I made myself look like a knee-j...oh, you got it. Sorry.)