Simple secular case against abortion

In a recent article by Jonah Goldberg, I read how one can't lump all the social issues together. Some people are pro-choice, yet pro-same-sex marriage and some are pro-life and against same-sex marriage, etc. He then went on to write about how he has become more pro-life and why.

Excerpt:

As for abortion, my migration has less to do with religious arguments and more to do with my growing distrust of the government. Who is and who isn't a human being with unalienable rights is just about the biggest question there is. And just because the answer is usually obvious -- that guy, not that fly -- only makes it more important.

The government has an obligation to protect the life and liberty of the subset of human beings we call "Americans." If you commit a crime that obligation changes, of course, since the government also has an obligation to protect the rest of us from those who would do us harm.

Well, I consider a fetus a human being. It has done no harm, nor has it committed a crime punishable by death. More important, I don't like it when governments start getting clever about who counts as full human beings and who doesn't (See: Slavery, U.S., or Holocaust, Nazi).

This is a simple case against abortion, but just because it's simple doesn't mean it's not effective or that it doesn't cause one to think about abortion harder. Usually secular cases against abortion deal a lot with scientific studies, arguments and philosophy. Not this one. Although, after thinking about it some more this simple argument does assume from the beginning that the fetus is a human being. If that is proven then the rest follows.

My case is simple too I think and favors Goldberg's.

If the fetus is a human being then the fetus has natural rights of life, liberty, and property that are to be respected by fellow human beings due to natural law. If the fetus is an American then those rights are protected by the government. Abortion violates the natural right of life of the human being who is in the womb of his mother. Therefore, abortion is wrong according to natural law and illegal according to civic law.

The question: is the fetus a human being?

Recommended reading
Is the unborn less than human?
A secular case against legalized abortion 

10 arguments in favor of pro-choice policy

Quote of the Week - John Locke on Freedom of Men

"Freedom of Men under Government is, to have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; a Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man: as Freedom of Nature is, to be under no other restraint but the Law of Nature." 

- John Locke,  Second Treatise of Civil Government, Ch. IV, sec. 22

Locke Was Right

"...Locke was simply right in one decisive aspect. Everybody, not just the rich, gets richer in a system of liberal economy. Gross inequalities of wealth persist or are encouraged by it, but the absolute material well-being of each is greatly enhanced. Rousseau, followed by Marx, taught that the inner logic of acquisition would concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, completely dispossessing the poor and alienating them from the means of becoming prosperous. Locke's great selling point has proved to be true. Joining civil society for the sake of protection and comfort is a good investment.
...

One may continue to believe, as somber critics will do, that the way of life of such a society is repulsive and the motives for association are inadequate and corrupt. But that is not quite the same as the progressive impoverishment and enslavement of mankind at large. Most of all, the poor, the many, the masses - however they are now qualified - become supporters of "the system," out of crass self-interest, and that destroys the revolutionary movements. The humanness of life may be lessened, but that is not accompanied by starvation."

- Allan Bloom, Giants and Dwarfs (1990), pg. 221

Quote of the Week - John Locke on Tyranny

"Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”

- John Locke, The Works of John Locke, pg. 214

Quote of the week - Locke on natural law

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Ch. 2, sec. 6

The Anchor of our Freedom

Classical liberalism is the view that individuals are prior to the State. On this view, individuals have three natural rights which are: life, liberty, and estate. The individual has a natural right to live once he begins to live; he has a right to do anything he wants as long as he doesn't violate the first right; and he has a right to to own all he creates or gains through gift or trade as long as these things don't conflict with the first two rights. The State is instituted to make laws protecting the individual's three natural rights. So, first we have the individual, then the State. The State (or government) is formed by the individuals to protect the natural rights of the individuals. This view was formulated by a 17th century political philosopher known as John Locke.

There are critics of natural rights. One such critic, J. Bentham, writes in his book Anarchical Fallacies that natural right theory “is from beginning to end so much flat assertion: it lays down as a fundamental and inviolable principle whatever is in dispute.” 1 Marx criticized natural rights for its focus on the individual instead of the community or "collective." He loathed the idea of man being isolated from others, pursuing self-interest rather than the interest of the whole. Marx thought of the individual as an, “isolated monad… withdrawn behind his private interests and whims and separated from the community.” (Marx 1844, 146) 2 Marx was not fond of natural rights or individualism. He thought natural rights philosophy made man selfish, that it divides people (the differences in talent will emerge - showing we aren't equal in talent), and that it engineers a capitalist machine. Many others deride the natural rights theory for not having a proper anchor and then go on to say that we should throw away this idea that man is an individual with inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and estate; opting instead for a society or state based political philosophy that places the individual after the State and makes him sacrifice his private interests for the public good. The latter levels everything causing people to be "equal," i.e. making everyone equal on the lowest common denominator (I'm not going to dive very deep into this position in this post - I'll wait until another post), which isn't equality at all.

So, how are natural rights anchored? Natural rights are anchored in natural law, so natural law is over natural rights. This is a big deal here. Some argue for natural rights, but not natural law (Hobbes) while others argue for both working together (Locke). The difference between Hobbes and Locke is that Hobbes argued for the freedom of the individual to do as he wishes without limitation, whereas Locke argued for the freedom of the individual to do as he wishes within the bounds of the law of nature. Hobbes's position that man is free to do as he wishes without restraint left man with no duty to respect the rights of others, which leads to a state of war. Who or what stops Hobbes's state of war? The Leviathan or as we know it today Big Government. On Locke's view there is a natural law that is binding on man to respect the natural rights of other men.Locke traces this duty to natural law.3

Locke speaks of this law of nature that is binding on us, but where is it? How do we know it? I don't see it anywhere. It's not hanging on the back of car bumper. I don't see it getting on the bus at the bus stop or eating in a restaurant somewhere. How can I access this natural law? With reason. We are born, those of us who aren't seriously mentally handicapped, with rational faculties enabling us to "access" natural law. Two things to remember about this view: The precepts of the natural law are binding by nature and the precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature or reason. We know the truths of life, liberty, and estate innately; these truths are stamped on our minds and we know these things are ours by natural right. So natural rights are anchored in man's nature. We know these things naturally. We don't learn of natural rights through sense experience, we know of our natural rights before experience.  This gets into rationalism and foundationalism, e.g. we know some truths prior to experience like there is a past and that there are foundational principles to knowledge (law of non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc.) which we use to know more truths. 4

Life, liberty, and estate are natural rights of man. "We know these truths to be self-evident..." Freedom rests on these natural rights. They are ours. We are born with these rights, but they can be given away or taken away. Locke believed that if these rights are no longer protected by the government, the very government the people created to protect their rights, then the people have the natural right to revolution against the government. He wrote, "Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society." 5

There is much more I could write about in this post like those who hate the natural freedom of man; that man must, by force of the State, eradicate his selfish interests for the common good of others, i.e. the State. I think it's for those reasons previously mentioned that some people don't think natural rights are actually anchored in anything at all and instead we are just selfish brutes who don't want to help anybody except ourselves (totally untrue). Natural rights and law are properly anchored in nature. If one is theist, one could even go one more step and reason that God has made us in His image; He is a free being; therefore we are naturally free. Even if you're not a theist, natural right and law are properly anchored in nature and it's a self-evident truth.

Check out my overview of collectivist philosophy here.

Sources

1. Bentham, J., 1796, Anarchical Fallacies, in Waldron 1987a, pg. 66

2. Marx, K., 1844, “On the Jewish Question”; reprint in Waldron 1987a, pg. 146 

3. These arguments are found in paragraphs 6 and 7, Chapter Two of the Second Treatise of Government, and Chapter 5.
4. While I understand foundationalism and rationalism, I think if I attempted a detailed explanation I would butcher both. For foundationalism click here and for rationalism click here.
5. John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Ch. 19, pg. 222