I am intrigued by the parenthetical aside. Pro-abortion advocates generally claim–
against all scientific evidence–that the developing child in the womb is not yet a human being. But surely whatever is developing is part of a natural process. As part of nature, the fetus must have “the right to exist.” Also to “persist” and “flourish.”
That the rights of nature must apply to the rights of human beings raises another point. Despite the Orange County reference to “nonnatural person,” human beings are part of nature.
The notion that “nature” applies only to rivers, trees, mountains, and wildlife, but not people, implies that human beings are not part of the natural order. That mindset arguably causes the environmental exploitation and degradation that environmentalists decry. And yet environmentalists often contribute to this same way of thinking.
But human beings are physical entities, just as rivers and mountains are, and we are biological beings, just as trees and wildlife are. We are subject to the same laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. We are part of nature. To switch to theological language, we are part of creation.
Thus the issue is not just “nature rights,” but, in the term used by classical thinkers, “natural rights.” The basis of which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is our creation, and they are endowed by our Creator. And “natural rights” also implies “natural law.”
Consider, for example, the Orange County insistence that the river ecosystems have “the right to carry out their natural function.” Sexuality is a biological phenomenon that has a “natural function.” Sex and gender are not subjective or self-chosen identities; rather, they have to do with our bodies. Their natural function is reproduction; that is, generating new life.
This fact of nature has a bearing on our current moral controversies–abortion, homosexuality, extramarital sex, transgenderism–as well as on cultural issues such as those surrounding marriage, parenting, and the family. But culture itself is tied to our natural existence. We need food, shelter, and protection in order to survive. Thus we have an economic system, a division of labor, property laws, and governments to protect our lives, our “flourishing,” and our natural rights.
Thinking in terms of “natural law” does apply to how we treat our environment, including nature in the wilderness sense. God created rivers, mountains, animals, air, and water. Though He has given human beings dominion, that also entails stewardship. What God has created, He evidently wants to exist. We are obliged to conserve His creation. Clean air, clean water, the preservation of beauty–these are all in accord with natural law, both in our own survival interests and in our obligation to their and our Creator.
We tend to think in terms of individuals and culture. But looming behind both of them is nature. Perhaps “nature rights”–while problematic in themselves–can help us recover “natural rights.”