One reason why "right to life" rhetoric, and some other common abortion arguments, are unhelpful from a theological perspective

[Amazing Rando]

Christian ethics ought not to be based on the rhetoric of purely human constructions, such as the Enlightenment notion of "rights." This apt passage from Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament describes some lines of thought commonly used in the abortion debate/stalemate that really have no place within theological Christian discourse:


... [C]ertain argumentative strategies cannot be accomodated within the symbolic world rendered by the New Testament, the world within which the believing community is taught to live and move. In the interest of concision, I shall briefly describe how the New Testament excludes six commonly heard lines of reasoning about abortion:


1. It is inappropriate to set up the issue as a conflict of "rights": the rights of the woman versus the rights of the unborn child. In Scripture, there is no "right to life." Life is a gift from God, a sign of grace. No one has a presumptive claim on it. Nor, on the other hand, do any of us- male or femaile- have a "right" to control our own bodies autonomously. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; thereforem glorify God in your body, (1 Cor 6:19-20). We are always accountable to God for our decisions and actions.

2. Still less is it appropriate to treat the issue as a matter of the "right to privacy," as in the Roe v. Wade decision, or exclusively as a matter of individual choice. (Remember I am speaking of decisions about abortion by Christians within the church.) All our actions occur within the community of faith and must be judged by the twin standards of whether they edify the community and whether they witness faithfully to God's will in the world. A New Testament ethics must seek first of all to know how the community's norms reflect the truth of its relation to God. Within the church, just as within Israel, to call for everyone to do what is right in his or her own eyes is a formula for moral chaos and disobedience to God (Deut 12:8; Judg. 17:6, 21:25).

3. The "sacredness of life" is a sacred cow that has no basis in the New Testament. This is a point made eloquently by Hauerwas:
"The Christian prohibition against taking life rests not on the assumption that human life has overriding value but on the conviction that it is not ours to take. The Christian prohibition of abortion derives not from any assumption of the inherent value of life, but rather on the understanding that as God's creatures we have no basis to claim sovereignty over life.... The Christian respect for life is first of all a statement not about life, but about God."

4. It is inappropriate to approach the issue of abortion by asking, "When does human life begin?" or "Is the fetus a person?" Such questions are unanswerable, both from a scientific point of view and from biblical evidence. There is no basis in Scripture for answering- or indeed even asking- such questions. They are also exceedingly dangerous questions if they seek to justify abortion by defining marginal cases out of the human race. This is, for obvious reasons, a bad precedent to set. Jesus' persistent strategy was, on the contrary, to define the marginal cases in.

5. Even worse is the "quality of life" argument that advocates abortion by declaring that "no unwanted child ought ever to be born." Unwanted by whom? The mother? The argument proves too much and readily slides into an argument for infanticide among the poor. The whole historic witness of Jesus and the community he founded has been to receive and love the unwanted, not to recommend that they be terminated, "put out of their misery" through death. The community of faith should commit itself to seeking "quality of life" for all who are born into the world, whether their parents "want" them or not.

6. The hypothetical consequentialist argument sometimes used against abortion is feeble: "What if Mary had decided to abort Jesus?" Counterquestion: "What if Hitler's mother had decided to abort him?" This juxtaposition of silly questions serves merely to show how strikingly indifferent is the New Testament- in contrast to much of the recent abortion debate- to consequentialist ethical reasoning. The New Testament teaches us to approach ethical issues not by asking "What will happen if I do x?" but rather by asking "What is the will of God?"


:tongue: I find that to be a pretty good succict challenge to much modern rhetoric of both sides of the abortion debate.

Particularly the "right to life" argument is suspect in my opinion because it relies solely on modernist categories of thought that have no basis in the biblical worldview. Rights are granted by humans, just as they were invented by humans, and humans can just as easily revoke them as grant them. Furthermore, rights can be renounced- as when a criminal suspect renounces his "right to an attorney," or his "right to remain silent." If life is nothing more than a human-granted "right," then it too can be renounced, lain down, or given up. If one were to renounce his or her "right to life" by killing oneself, he/she would be committing suicide, an act which the Christian tradition has historically rejected as in compatible with the gospel of life, and which Roman Catholic theology has long categorized as a mortal sin. Keep your theological ethics theological!

In short, remember to keep your advocacy for the unborn grounded where it belongs- in the revealed will of God, not in the realm of secular humanism.

[Smokering]

Well said. I don't tend to argue from rights myself, for that very reason. (Plus, it's fun and occasionally provoked interesting discussion, to say apropos of anything 'I don't believe in human rights'. People look at you like you're a three-headed psychopathic human monster until you ask them to justify the concept on anything other than legal grounds... then they usually say 'Oh' and get it).

[Darth Executor]

I don't believe in rights. I would've amend it, except for two things:
1. It plugs pacifism. :tongue:
2. It's incomplete. Some people (including Christians) do not acknowledge the fetus as a human being and thus the taking ot its life is notmurder. This needs to be fixed and quoting the will of God will not achieve that goal. It is also crucial in getting non-Christians so liberal (theologically) Christians can't so easily dismiss the position as one that belongs with "fundamentalists".

[Teallaura]

The first statement - that rights are not Biblical - is patently false. Did anybody around here ever read Leviticus? Proprietary and inheritance laws are clearly based in rights even if not discussed in those terms. Whether or not that should be the focus for Christians is a legitimate question - but saying rights are not Biblical is simply nonsense - the concept is demonstrable in both Testaments and indeed in many of the parables of Christ.

[Teallaura]

I don't believe in rights. I would've amend it, except for two things:
1. It plugs pacifism. :tongue:
2. It's incomplete. Some people (including Christians) do not acknowledge the fetus as a human being and thus the taking ot its life is notmurder. This needs to be fixed and quoting the will of God will not achieve that goal. It is also crucial in getting non-Christians so liberal (theologically) Christians can't so easily dismiss the position as one that belongs with "fundamentalists".

It would only be an applicable argument within Christianity - in the secular world it simply isn't workable as it relies on the authority of Scripture. Your second point is one of its major weaknesses - when did Jesus say stand back and do nothing while babies are slaughtered in a nation where you as a citizen have a duty to participate in public life (it's called 'voting') and also possess power to affect change (also called 'voting', along with a host of other legitimate advocacy outlets)? It would seem to me that 'render unto Caesar' has application here.

Where the concept that Jesus was apolitical comes from, I'll never know. He may never have held earthly office but He certainly understood - and used - political power.

[Amazing Rando]

The first statement - that rights are not Biblical - is patently false. Did anybody around here ever read Leviticus? Proprietary and inheritance laws are clearly based in rights even if not discussed in those terms. Whether or not that should be the focus for Christians is a legitimate question - but saying rights are not Biblical is simply nonsense - the concept is demonstrable in both Testaments and indeed in many of the parables of Christ.

If one wishes to anachronistically say that Leviticus clearly recognizes "property rights," and define them as such, then it must be acknowledged that these "rights" belong to God alone:

" 'The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants."

Some of the main points of the Jubilee laws were to ensure that the Israelites didn't get too attached to "their" land, and to draw them into an awareness that all they had, their land, their freedom, even their life itself, was due directly to the providence of YHWH. Any privileges they enjoyed, any property which they "owned," any children or descendants that they had, even the very breath that they drew, all of it came as the unmerited gift of a gracious and loving God. But unlike modern conceptions of "self-evident and inalienable rights" these blessings were conditional in that they could be revoked by the Giver, since they all rightly belonged to him alone. Indeed as their stories in Scripture show, they often were revoked- YHWH's bestowal of the gift of the monarchy and political independance, and his subsequent revokation of those gifts serve as the most radical example of this phenomenon in any Old Testament theology.

In the face of such a God, the only response faithful Hebrews could muster is akin to Job's: "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."

Rights rhetoric on the other hand is an Enlightenment invention that, when it was conceived, sought to ground property, privilege, freedom, etc. in the philosophical concept of the autonomous self. The individual was understood to simply posess these quasi-metaphysical privileges and benefits that no monarch could take away, either legitimately or illegitimately. Some of those Enlightenment philosophers who were Deists believed that the "watchmaker" god had instilled these "rights" into human beings (though primarily men- and specifically white men were in view at the time) when he wound up the world and walked away. Others, who had even less need of any god in their philosophical systems, simply viewed them as essential qualities inherent in the human condition. Both types however, viewed "rights" as intrinsic to humanity, as opposed to the Hebraic understanding that placed them within the context of the gracious and compassionate (though conditional!) gifts of YHWH.

Now we can (and often do) read the Scriptures through Enlightenment glasses and think we see these concepts of autonomous rights, but to the Hebrew people and their radically monotheistic worldview, such concepts would have been quite alien.

[Amazing Rando]

Well said. I don't tend to argue from rights myself, for that very reason. (Plus, it's fun and occasionally provoked interesting discussion, to say apropos of anything 'I don't believe in human rights'. People look at you like you're a three-headed psychopathic human monster until you ask them to justify the concept on anything other than legal grounds... then they usually say 'Oh' and get it).

:smile: You summed up my post better than I ever could. :highfive: I guess I'm just trying to offer a caution that those who hold to Christian convictions not get them confused with Enlightenment philosophical concepts. The two are radically different, and based on entirely different presuppositions. Hence in this case, the fetus does not posess an "inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness" in and of itself. Rather what it does posess is the gift of life, granted by the same God who raised Jesus from the dead, and only God posesses the "right" to revoke that gift- not the mother, not the father, not the doctor, nor anybody else.

[Sheepdog]

This is flawed because most people aren't very informed in enlightenment philosophy, so they aren't even aware of that back drop when they use the word "rights." i doubt they use it with the same connotations enlightenment thinkers would have. at any rate, this sounds much like a genetic fallacy, or at the very least guilt by association. social equality is a value that originated from the enlightenment. do you believe social equality is a bad thing?

the analogy of rights and Leviticus only proves the point. technically, in a state of emergency the President of the US can declare marshall law, revoking whatever rights he deems necessary to revoke. we speak of "inalienable" rights, but we have to remember that doesn't come from a document of law: the Declaration of Independence had more to do with rubbing the Brits' noses in their own crap than actually setting policy.

with this in mind, let's go back to the law. "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" imply that the owner has some sort of rights over the property in question. he certainly doesn't own his property in the same sense that God owns everything. but you can't steal from a man something that doesn't belong to him in any sense. and if you are stealing from God, why does the law require you to pay back the man five fold, rather than God? likewise, "thou shalt not murder" implies a right to life, at least before mankind. that God can and does override these rights doesn't mean they cease to exist.

and this should bring out a key point. when the religious right speaks of rights, all we are talking about is the obligation of society or anyone therein to not abuse or destroy individuals, unjustly or without permission. this is not new by any stretch of the imagination, and if you suggest that it is unbiblical, then i reserve the right to come into your home, take all your possessions, and sell you and your family into slavery.

[Teallaura]

If one wishes to anachronistically say that Leviticus clearly recognizes "property rights," and define them as such, then it must be acknowledged that these "rights" belong to God alone:

" 'The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants."So? Who said it didn't? I've made more than a few arguments based on th proprietary rights of God - that all rights trace from Him is self-evident. The fact remains that the main assertion of that point is patently false.


Some of the main points of the Jubilee laws were to ensure that the Israelites didn't get too attached to "their" land, and to draw them into an awareness that all they had, their land, their freedom, even their life itself, was due directly to the providence of YHWH. Any privileges they enjoyed, any property which they "owned," any children or descendants that they had, even the very breath that they drew, all of it came as the unmerited gift of a gracious and loving God. But unlike modern conceptions of "self-evident and inalienable rights" these blessings were conditional in that they could be revoked by the Giver, since they all rightly belonged to him alone. Indeed as their stories in Scripture show, they often were revoked- YHWH's bestowal of the gift of the monarchy and political independance, and his subsequent revokation of those gifts serve as the most radical example of this phenomenon in any Old Testament theology. That is just the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Dude, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are considered inalienable in the earthly sense but all are also conditional - that 'due process of law' thingie is kinda important.

It's actually the individualistic nature of Christianity that allows the development of the concept of inalienable rights - rights that, per the Declaration of Independence, are 'endowed by their Creator'. This argument is horse hockey - the development of the concept of rights as we understand them is rooted in the Bible.

Further, where do you come up with the idea that the Founding Fathers ever even considered that God could not - or had no right to - revoke the 'inalienable' rights? They're only inalienable because they come from God. You have the right to life because God gave you that life - right of agency more than ownership but close enough for our purposes - and you lose it only when He says so. You can forfeit it through your actions - perfectly Biblical there - but the right proper never transfers to anyone else. It's God's on loan to you. From the human perspective we call it ours but that changes nothing regarding actual ownership.

You can make a good case that we need to be ever mindful that our rights are only on loan and never truly ours because they truly belong to God - a case I'd very much agree with - but that's hardly a case for rights not being Biblical.


In the face of such a God, the only response faithful Hebrews could muster is akin to Job's: "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."

Rights rhetoric on the other hand is an Enlightenment invention that, when it was conceived, sought to ground property, privilege, freedom, etc. in the philosophical concept of the autonomous self. The individual was understood to simply posess these quasi-metaphysical privileges and benefits that no monarch could take away, either legitimately or illegitimately. Some of those Enlightenment philosophers who were Deists believed that the "watchmaker" god had instilled these "rights" into human beings (though primarily men- and specifically white men were in view at the time) when he wound up the world and walked away. Others, who had even less need of any god in their philosophical systems, simply viewed them as essential qualities inherent in the human condition. Both types however, viewed "rights" as intrinsic to humanity, as opposed to the Hebraic understanding that placed them within the context of the gracious and compassionate (though conditional!) gifts of YHWH. They viewed them intrinsic in that they are not revocable by earthly agency - but I've never even seen a hint that the Founding Father's questioned God's sovereignty in the matter (unless we count Paine's apostasy which came later). Most of the Founding Father's were orthodox Christians - this 'they were deists' thing has been played to death and simply isn't true. Some were, but the vast majority weren't. Just because they aren't as well remembered doesn't mean that the rest present at the Constitutional Convention didn't have a major impact on the Constitution's formation.

The Bible contains ample evidence that rights are not a modern construct even if I grant that the concept has changed (not as much as you seem to think but I'd grant some). It even contains some tantalizing evidence of early constitutional government - it's just plain old fashioned wrong to say that rights as a concept are not Biblical - which was the assertion I took issue with in your OP.


Now we can (and often do) read the Scriptures through Enlightenment glasses and think we see these concepts of autonomous rights, but to the Hebrew people and their radically monotheistic worldview, such concepts would have been quite alien.We also read Scripture through Hellenistic glasses - which tells us nothing about whether or not the concept existed - it did. You've already conceded as much. Hence while you can argue about how faithfully the concept has been transferred to the modern age (I think it more faithful than you, obviously) you cannot argue that the concept in and of itself is not Biblical.

And yes, I'm being literal about it - here it's completely appropriate to do so as the question I raised was to the truth or falseness of the claim that the concept is not Biblical. It is.

[Teallaura]

Note: I made a mistake and didn't realize it until much too late to edit. I'm going ahead and posting it now since it strengthens your argument. The Declaration doesn't use 'inalienable'; it uses 'unalienable'. The difference being that unalienable cannot be surrendered.

I don't honestly think it helps you much but I wanted to be fair. This site explains the distinction in case you need it: http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

[Darth Executor]

It would only be an applicable argument within Christianity - in the secular world it simply isn't workable as it relies on the authority of Scripture.

Read the thread title.


Your second point is one of its major weaknesses - when did Jesus say stand back and do nothing while babies are slaughtered in a nation where you as a citizen have a duty to participate in public life (it's called 'voting') and also possess power to affect change (also called 'voting', along with a host of other legitimate advocacy outlets)? It would seem to me that 'render unto Caesar' has application here.

Where does my point 2 say anything of the sort? I'm thinking you may be replying to the wrong post because this has nothing to do with what I said.

[Darth Executor]

I don't believe in rights. Neither does the bible. Just because God orders you to do something (like not stealing) does not mean there are rights in the bible. It means don't steal or God will arrange for the gratuitous kicking of your arse. I highly doubt "don't do this because someone's gonna crack your skull" is what people have in mind when they think of rights.

[xevolutionist]

The "sacredness of life" is a sacred cow that has no basis in the New Testament. This is a point made eloquently by Hauerwas:
"The Christian prohibition against taking life rests not on the assumption that human life has overriding value but on the conviction that it is not ours to take. The Christian prohibition of abortion derives not from any assumption of the inherent value of life, but rather on the understanding that as God's creatures we have no basis to claim sovereignty over life.... The Christian respect for life is first of all a statement not about life, but about God."

I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that life isn't sacred because humans think it's sacred, it's sacred because we're God's creation? The way I understand the word "sacred," for a Christian should only be related to God. Or am I just missing something?

[Smokering]

Teallaura, there's a difference between believing in the use and necessity of 'rights' as a legal concept--a legal fiction, really--and believing that humans have 'rights' in any other sense. The Levitical laws were necessary for the functioning of Israelite society: but I'm curious by what logical process you get from, say:


'When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up the edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and he sojourner' (Leviticus 19: 9, 10)
to 'The poor have the right to glean'. Why? Because the reason for the law is given in the very next words. And it's not 'Because the poor have a right to eat', or the more generic 'Humans have a right to food'; it's 'I am the LORD'. That's the reason. Be kind to the poor, because I said so. Rights aren't mentioned at all!

Even if you could prove that Leviticus discusses 'civil rights', which I agree is an anachronistic way of looking at it, you'd then have to prove that 'Leviticus instituted civil rights for Israel' equates to 'Humans have rights' in any other sense of 'rights'.

Frankly, I've never heard anyone explain non-civil rights in any satisfactory way! It's ridiculous to say 'I have the right to life' if God, cancer, the psycho next door or a failed brake could 'violate' that right in a flash. We can punish people who infringe on others' civil rights; but we can't punish God or cancer or a failed brake, because they have not 'infringed' on our rights; they've simply ignored them, for the very good reason that they don't exist.

[Sheepdog]

I don't believe in rights. Neither does the bible. Just because God orders you to do something (like not stealing) does not mean there are rights in the bible. It means don't steal or God will arrange for the gratuitous kicking of your arse. I highly doubt "don't do this because someone's gonna crack your skull" is what people have in mind when they think of rights.

Gratuitous? Are you sure you want to suggest that God is capricious in dispensing justice?

I'm sure you don't intend to be so self-referentially absurd.


to 'The poor have the right to glean'. Why? Because the reason for the law is given in the very next words. And it's not 'Because the poor have a right to eat', or the more generic 'Humans have a right to food'; it's 'I am the LORD'. That's the reason. Be kind to the poor, because I said so. Rights aren't mentioned at all!

It was a good idea for you to address Teal and not me with this. Or maybe not, she handles needles for a living. Anyways, I think you'd see where I would go with this.

There is no suggestion in the passage itself that "I am the LORD" is the "reason" for the command. God simply gives the command and then says "I am the LORD." This would serve more as a credential for the command, and if i dare be anachronistic, it was God's signature.

My question for Darth applies to you as well.

You already gave a general reason for the command (it was "necessary" for Israeli society). I would add that it would be evident to anyone who gave it a moment thought why he would give this command. Their is a good inherent to providing a basic social safety net for the poor. That is what the gleaning law provided for.

By giving the law, God is obliging the society of Israel to provide for the poor. From this I would say that in the generic sense of the word, the poor had a right, with respect to Isreal, to have wheat available to them to glean. There is nothing remarkable going on here, it is simply a matter of definition.


Even if you could prove that Leviticus discusses 'civil rights', which I agree is an anachronistic way of looking at it, you'd then have to prove that 'Leviticus instituted civil rights for Israel' equates to 'Humans have rights' in any other sense of 'rights'.

As I said earlier, it's not explicated, it's implied. The act of decreeing to two parties how they are to act towards each other leads to there being rights and responsibilities with respect to each other. Otherwise, there can be no such decree. It is actually difficult to explain, as this should be self evident.


Frankly, I've never heard anyone explain non-civil rights in any satisfactory way! It's ridiculous to say 'I have the right to life' if God, cancer, the psycho next door or a failed brake could 'violate' that right in a flash. We can punish people who infringe on others' civil rights; but we can't punish God or cancer or a failed brake, because they have not 'infringed' on our rights; they've simply ignored them, for the very good reason that they don't exist.

You need to go back, read more carefully, and think about what we are saying before making such silly arguments. Neither Teal nor myself are saying that we can lay claim to rights before God, or before inanimate objects. By all rights, God can do whatever He wants. Of course, we have expectations of how He will act towards us, but this is because of His goodness, not because of any obligation we want to claim on Him. Furthermore, by the very fact that you admit that the "psycho next door" would be punished for murder entails that with respect to him, you have a right to life. If you have no right to life that the psycho, or any other human, must honor, then there would be no obligation for society to punish such persons.

[Smokering]

Let me just start, Cinderbreath, by saying that I find your tone offensive. I am happy to engage in discussion, but not snideness. I replied to Teallaura simply because I read her post, not for any other reason you'd care to ascribe. I will not reply to jeering posts, simply because I'm pregnant and saving my mental energy for more important things.


There is no suggestion in the passage itself that "I am the LORD" is the "reason" for the command. God simply gives the command and then says "I am the LORD." This would serve more as a credential for the command, and if i dare be anachronistic, it was God's signature.
There is no suggestion in the passage itself that 'I am the LORD' is a credential or signature either. The phrase is repeated countless times in Leviticus, which leads me to suspect there's more to it than a mere 'signature'; if it was simply that, why would God bother inserting it so frequently? A credential makes more sense, but that's similar to a reason, is it not? It's still more or less 'Because I say so'. 'Put your hands in the air. I'm a police officer'. 'Leave gleanings for the poor. I am the LORD'. Same kind of meaning, I think. I'd say it implies both authority ('I can tell you to do it because I'm the LORD') and reason ('I'm the LORD, therefore you should do it'). They overlap.


My question for Darth applies to you as well.
Which question?


You already gave a general reason for the command (it was "necessary" for Israeli society). I would add that it would be evident to anyone who gave it a moment thought why he would give this command. Their is a good inherent to providing a basic social safety net for the poor. That is what the gleaning law provided for.
So, we're pretty much saying the same thing... no disagreement here.


By giving the law, God is obliging the society of Israel to provide for the poor. From this I would say that in the generic sense of the word, the poor had a right, with respect to Isreal, to have wheat available to them to glean. There is nothing remarkable going on here, it is simply a matter of definition.
The bolded part of your passage makes no sense, even in the sense of civil rights. What if the poor were living in an uninhabited section of Israel? Their 'right' becomes meaningless. What if it were a bad year and there was no wheat available? Their right again is meaningless, even in a civil sense. You could legitimately say, from the passage quoted, that 'the poor have a right to glean from a field after it's been picked'; if you insist on using the term 'rights', despite the fact that Leviticus does not. However, you cannot generalise it more than that; the passage does not allow you to.


You need to go back, read more carefully, and think about what we are saying before making such silly arguments. Neither Teal nor myself are saying that we can lay claim to rights before God, or before inanimate objects. By all rights, God can do whatever He wants. Of course, we have expectations of how He will act towards us, but this is because of His goodness, not because of any obligation we want to claim on Him. Furthermore, by the very fact that you admit that the "psycho next door" would be punished for murder entails that with respect to him, you have a right to life. If you have no right to life that the psycho, or any other human, must honor, then there would be no obligation for society to punish such persons.
I think you haven't been reading my posts clearly. Civilly, of course I have the 'right to life'; NZ government declares it to be so, and as such, under the law, the psycho would be punished for killing me. However, it would be perfectly possible for society to abolish the concepts of rights and still punish the killer. All it would have to do is replace 'Murder is wrong because it violates the right to life' with 'Murder is wrong'... because we say so, because it's against the law, or without any qualifier at all. There's no particular reason the law has to explain itself.

By the same token, I can replace 'Abortion is wrong because it violates the rights of the fetus' with 'Abortion is wrong because the Bible declares it immoral', and still end up with the same conclusion--abortion is wrong. It's no weaker an argument; in fact, philosophically it's a lot stronger.

In short, God's saying (in a non-civil setting) 'Do X to Y' does not imply 'Y has a right to X'. God tells me to honour my husband--a command--and you would immediately turn that around and declare that my husband has a 'right' to be honoured. You have not explained your reasoning here; saying it's obvious is a copout. Why does my obligation become his right? My obligation is nothing to do with him; it's between me and God.

[Glenn P]

Particularly the "right to life" argument is suspect in my opinion because it relies solely on modernist categories of thought that have no basis in the biblical worldview. Rights are granted by humans, just as they were invented by humans, and humans can just as easily revoke them as grant them.
I daresay that's just ignorance of modernism. The outset of the modern outlook was committed to the view that rights arise because of God and His law, expressed in nature but rooted in His will.

Natural rights were most certainly not conceived of as things invented by humans, but rather coming from the hand of God.