Philosophy
Our Basic Philisophical Position
Our position aligns with the philosophical argument often referred to as the SLED (Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency) argument in the context of the abortion debate. Here's a breakdown of how you can articulate this argument:
Size: The size of an individual, whether large or small, does not determine their moral worth. A person's physical stature does not diminish their intrinsic value as a human being. From the moment of conception, when an individual is no larger than a single cell, they possess the same inherent dignity and rights as they do in adulthood. The moral worth of a human being is not contingent upon their physical size.
Level of Development: The stage of development of an individual, whether in the embryonic, fetal, infant, or adult stage, does not diminish their moral status. Development is a continuous process that begins at conception and extends throughout the lifespan. While the capacities and abilities of individuals may vary at different stages of development, their fundamental worth as human beings remains constant. An embryo or fetus may not have reached the level of cognitive development as an adult, but this does not negate their right to life or their inherent dignity.
Environment: Where an individual is located, whether inside the womb or outside, does not alter their moral status. The location of an individual does not determine their value as a human being. Whether inside the womb or outside, every human being deserves equal protection and respect. The womb provides a unique environment for the development of the unborn, but this does not diminish their personhood or moral worth. The rights of individuals do not depend on their physical location.
Degree of Dependency: The degree to which an individual is dependent on external support for survival does not diminish their moral worth. Dependency is a natural aspect of human existence, beginning with infancy and continuing throughout life. Individuals may rely on various forms of support, such as medical care, food, shelter, and assistance from others, but this does not diminish their intrinsic value or rights. The fact that an unborn child is dependent on the mother for sustenance and protection does not justify denying them the right to life.
In summary, the SLED argument contends that differences in Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency do not justify denying the fundamental rights and moral worth of human beings, including the unborn. Every individual, regardless of these factors, possesses inherent dignity and deserves equal protection under the law. Therefore, abortion, which involves the deliberate ending of a human life at any stage of development, cannot be morally justified based on these differences.
On Human Rights
Our argument can also be framed within the context of human rights and the principle of equality. Here's how you can articulate this position:
Right to Life Free from Violence: All human beings, regardless of their stage of development, deserve a life free from violence and harm. This fundamental right to life is enshrined in various legal and ethical frameworks and is based on the inherent dignity and worth of every human being. Denying this right to any individual, including the unborn, constitutes a violation of their basic human rights.
Biological Humanity and Equality: The unborn are biologically human from the moment of conception, possessing a complete and distinct genetic makeup that identifies them as members of the human species. As such, they should not be excluded from the principles of equality and justice that apply to all human beings. Denying equal rights and protections to the unborn based on their developmental stage is discriminatory and undermines the foundation of human rights.
Inherent Dignity and Worth: Every human being, regardless of their age, size, level of development, or dependency, possesses inherent dignity and worth. This dignity is not contingent upon external factors but is an inherent characteristic of human existence. Recognizing and respecting the inherent dignity of the unborn requires affording them the same rights and protections as individuals who have already been born.
Consistency in Human Rights: Upholding the principle of equality requires consistency in the application of human rights across all stages of life. Excluding the unborn from the protection of fundamental rights sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the universality of human rights. If human rights are contingent upon arbitrary factors such as location or level of development, they lose their moral force and become subject to arbitrary manipulation.
Societal Responsibility: As members of society, we have a collective responsibility to protect the rights and well-being of all individuals, including the most vulnerable among us. This includes ensuring that the rights of the unborn are upheld and respected. Fostering a culture of equality and respect for human rights requires extending these principles to every member of the human family, regardless of their stage of development.
In summary, the argument emphasizes that all human beings, including the unborn, deserve equal rights and protections based on their inherent dignity and biological humanity. Denying these rights to the unborn undermines the principles of equality and justice and constitutes a violation of their fundamental human rights. Therefore, society has a moral obligation to protect the rights of the unborn and ensure that they are afforded the same respect and dignity as every other member of the human family.
Last updated