ONLY BEINGS WITH INTERESTS MAY REQUIRE AND DESERVE PROTECTION FOR THEIR OWN SAKE

Kevin Dingli, a lawyer by profession, writing in The Times of February 1, says that his argument against abortion “is not a religious one, but one which centres around scientific truth and the resulting value which one gives to the wonderful mystery of life, in all its manifestations”. Leaving aside for a moment that science does not deal with values, his arguments (or blanket assertions) cannot be described in any other way than religious (in a general sense), and his terminology and line of reasoning are enough evidence for this.

For instance, Dingli says that “human life, at all stages of its natural development, is sacred”. He follows this by saying that “the right to life is, in fact, the most fundamental of all human rights”. However, given that he rests his “right to life” claim on the so-called “sanctity of life” at all stages of its development, his “argument” is nothing but a religious belief. It is a generally accepted claim that humans have a right to life from birth until death, and while I need not go into the merits of this claim, nor into its exceptions (some of which Dingli himself mentions), the supposed right to life of embryos and foetuses, in any abortion debate, would be the specific claim that is being contested. Dingli should know that in philosophical debate, one may not rationally include a premise that is the argument’s same conclusion, or more to the point, that is the premise that is itself being contested. Dingli’s premise that all human life at whatever stage is sacred, is just a religious claim that is strongly contested by the majority of people (globally, 3 in 5 citizens say abortion should be legal in all or most cases). Therefore, if Dingli wishes to make a case against abortion, he must provide a rational argument that does nor rest on a strongly contested premise, and moreover a premise that is identical to his conclusion. Moreover, the premise must not be faith-based (as the supposed “sanctity of life” is).

Dingli says that “since human life is scientifically acknowledged to commence at fertilization” (so far so good), “that sanctity and ensuing legal protection must originate as from that very unique moment in time”. Yet again, Dingli does not produce any rational argument on why this must be so and rests his unsupported claim on the religious belief in a “sanctity of life”.

Dingli then says that “the fundamental right to life finds its basis in natural law” (not to be confused with laws of nature such as the principle of causation) “and founded on absolute truth and unchanging moral laws applicable to the homo sapiens species…and as such, must apply from the very commencement of human life”. Yet again, Dingli relies on “natural law” as if nature is a conscious agent with intentionality that sets moral rules for people to follow. The concept of "natural law" is so vague, including theories ranging from theology to concepts such as the "social contract" (which applies only to sentient beings), that it is not at all helpful unless one specifies exactly what one means. And given Dingli's reliance on religious terminology, and his failure to argue for supposed rights of non-sentient beings, one would have to conclude that he means it as something imposed by a "higher power" (be it called "Nature" or "God"). Simply calling what you believe a "natural law" is not an argument. It's just an assertion. Dingli creates a false dichotomy when he says that "natural law" differs from the "laws of man". Unless Dingli believes "natural law" is dictated to us by a God (in which case, he would be required to provide evidence), who does he think decides what is or is not "natural law" if not "man"? Any claim to "natural rights", unless supported by arguments that Dingli fails to provide, is just a personal faith-reliant belief.

Dingli says that “some might argue that the fundamental right to life…may only be enjoyed by a person, and that a human zygote, embryo or foetus, not having yet been viably born, is not yet a person and therefore, denied the enjoyment of such right”. Dingli says that this is “not only a dangerous but a false argument, denounced by science”. Let’s disregard the absurdity of the assertion that science denies any philosophical claim (science deals with facts, not arguments). Dingli would be correct if that were the actual claim being made.  However, the correct claim would be that the fundamental right to life may only be enjoyed by a person, and that a human zygote, embryo or foetus, not yet having attained sentience and consciousness – and therefore personhood – does not have such a right.  And the claim that foetuses before at least 24 weeks gestation are not sentient and conscious and not even aware they exist at all, is what is actually supported by scientific evidence.

Dingli says that the argument is not of freedom of choice because “the exercise of one’s freedoms is always curtailed by the respect due to the rights of others; in this case the absolute right to life of the unborn child”.  However, yet again, Dingli rests his conclusion on an unsupported religious belief in an “absolute right to life” of the “unborn child” without even attempting to build an argument to show how a being that cannot have interests or preferences because it is not sentient, conscious, or even aware of its existence, can have any rights at all. Simply making claims to "natural rights" and "sanctity of life" will not do. He might as well have said it is what it is because I said so.

Essentially, Dingli’s claims may be summarized as follows:

1. Life is sacred – a religious claim that is not supported by any evidence.

2. Foetuses at any stage of development have a right to life – an unsupported claim that is essentially the claim being contested, and therefore cannot be used as a premise.

3. Natural Law dictates that a foetus has rights from conception – A Pantheistic belief that treats “Nature” as a conscious agent with intentionality or alternatively a distorted way of saying “God said so”.

All three claims are just religion-derived assertions lacking any evidence. In the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.

See also: THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE