Abortion-Killing: The Silent Genocide: 2 Billion Deaths Victims Worldwide.

[Angrboda]

Angrboda: just a quick word to you, if you deny all human beings have all human rights, you lose the basis for saying many things are wrong that we would both otherwise affirm. In fact, any sub-section of humanity could then be denied human rights, either the young, or the old, or children below say, 3 years, or the aged near death, or this or that gender, or race, etc. Because Rights are Natural, either all human beings have rights, or no human being has rights. Human Beings have Natural Human Rights, i.e. by Nature of being human. The moment you say all those who are human beings by nature need not have all the human rights that flow from that nature legally recognized in law, you open a Pandora's Box. Any and every form of discrimination or denial of human rights to a particular few arbitrarily deemed as "sub-human non persons" would be possible.

What are your thoughts on that paper I mentioned arguing for "Post Birth Abortion"?

I didn't read it. You seem to be something of a chicken little. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will happen, but I'm okay with the fact that it could happen. We have plenty of examples that rights are determined by men, not the least of which is the argument you just made to the effect that the majority (Christians, Hindus, and Muslims) determine that life for the unborn is a right. But rights are given and taken away all the time. A state may deprive a 20 year-old of the right to drink. They may pass a law then extending the right to those 18 and older. They may then a few years later reverse themselves, raising the drinking age to 21 and once again removing the right of 20-year-olds to drink. They could decided tomorrow that anyone over 50 has no right to life and kill me. It could happen. That it doesn't is not particularly mysterious and it comes down to common decency. You think that pro-choice people are on the wrong side of history. They think the same of you. Nothing is to be gained by simply asserting that pro-life people are right, but that is the only argument they and you tend to make.

Oh, and FWIW, if I deny your premise, I lose that basis for saying moral things; that isn't the only basis upon which those things can rest. If it is, we're fucked anyway.

Let me give you an analogy. Politically, in the U.S., at the behest of Donald Trump, democracy as we knew it was threatened. This occurred not so much because Trump broke rules or laws designed to prevent it, but because the unwritten norms which had been holding democracy together were suddenly being violated. This was a problem because there was no explicit mechanism for preventing this. The same could happen with morals. The only thing preventing it is the will of average people to do what is right.