On being a pro-life atheist

[rug]

August 1, 2013, 4:22 pm ET
by Sarah Terzo
Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the clinicquotes.com website. She is a member of Secular Pro-Life and Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.

I was very disappointed to read Live Action’s article “Shawn Carney on the pro-life movement’s greatest victory” in which he says:

“And it has to be a religious movement because we can’t face this on our own. It’s too overwhelming. And when it’s based on our faith in God it means it’s something that’s never going away. There are few things as clearly religious in our country than the pro-life movement. It is one built of people of faith. And that’s our biggest asset….But that’s a crucial point and it’s the most important point – that this is a religious movement and that it is one made up of sinners.”

In fact, there are many pro-lifers who are not Christian. And it’s attitudes like Carney’s that make it very, very difficult for us to stay in the pro-life movement.

I am an atheist pro-lifer. I am not the only one. Secular Pro-life is an organization that draws nonbelievers from many walks of life. I can honestly say, if that supportive group did not exist, I may have left the pro-life movement long ago. Why? Because it is so demoralizing to be in a movement where so many of your fellow workers simply don’t want you there.

A while back, I posted a poll in a pro-life forum, where I asked pro-lifers if they would march side by side or work with a pro-life atheist. Almost half of them said they would not. They told me that they would not want to be “unequally yoked” with a nonbeliever.

http://liveactionnews.org/on-being-a-pro-life-atheist/

http://www.secularprolife.org/

[Jim__]

1. "In fact, there are many pro-lifers who are not Christian."

That's probably true. I can't help but wonder how many pro-life atheists there are. Without some form of command morality, e.g. commandments from god, there doesn't seem to be an ethically compelling case against abortion. I say that after reading the article Pro-Life Without God on the secular pro-lfe website.

[customerserviceguy]

2. Can one believe in human dignity without believing in a soul?

If so, then it's all a matter of which beings one accords that human dignity to. There's your rationale for pro-life atheism.

[Jim__]

5. A phrase is neither an argument nor a rationale.

Does human dignity include a right to privacy?

[customerserviceguy]

8. Of course

If you believe there is only one human involved, then of course, that human's right to privacy is all that matters.

[Jim__]

9. Once again, you're not making an argument.

[customerserviceguy]

20. The argument is

Human rights go to those beings which are elevated to human status. We have people who advocate that same (or a similar) status be accorded to some non-human primates and marine mammals. Eventually, our society may face the question of whether or not to elevate the status of all animal life to the point where it is considered unethical and eventually illegal to eat them.

It's all a game of definition. Where we draw the line between human rights and non-rights has always been a fluid thing.

[Jim__]

21. If it's just a game of definition, then it's not a compelling case. - n/t

[customerserviceguy]

27. I'm sure that a hundred and fifty years ago

slaveholders felt the same way about their "property".

[Jim__]

29. You're the one who claimed it's just a matter of definition.

From your post #20:

It's all a game of definition. Where we draw the line between human rights and non-rights has always been a fluid thing.

My point is that you are free to define things any way you like. Changing definitions does not change reality. That's why a game of definition does not make a compelling case, not when you just define the fetus as fully entitled to human rights, and not when you just define the slave as not fully entitled to human rights.

[customerserviceguy]

34. Getting back to the OP

I can see how one can claim to be both atheist and against abortion. There's no solid "atheist" opinion on abortion, like there is with say, Catholicism.

[el_bryanto]

10. I think what it boils down to is what is the value of a human fetus?

I think you miss the boat a bit when you mention commandments. The question is more closely aligned with whether a fetus counts as a Human Being or a Human Baby. For a Christian at some point a soul and a physical being combine to form a human - whether that happens at Birth or at Conception isn't something you can know (in my opinion. Obviously some people believe they do know and have strong opinions).

In those Christians who are strongly Pro-Life, it comes down to competing values (at best) - the right to privacy of the Mother verses the Right to Life of the Fetus. IN their minds the Fetus is the equivalent of a full grown human being because that is it what it will become. And so when they weigh the damage caused to the Mother verse the damage caused to the Fetus - they come down on the side of the Fetus. I say at best above, because of course there are plenty of Christians who don't see Women as the equivalent of full grown males, and believe that men need to make decisions for them.

Obviously if you don't see a Fetus as the equivalent of a full grown human being, the situation resolves the other way.

For the record, I am Pro-Choice. This is a difficult choice in my opinion, but that choice should be made by the person most impacted by it, the pregnant woman. I so no reason to assume that the Government or well meaning (or less than well meaning outsiders) will make a better decision than the pregnant mother.

Bryant

[Jim__]

22. If you can't know, then the case is not compelling. - n/t

[el_bryanto]

23. I say that I can't know - obviously some people believe they do know. nt

[Jim__]

24. But they can't convince you, or most other people.

If they have a compelling case, they should have the arguments and evidence to win other people over. Just claiming that something is so, does not constitute a compelling case.

[el_bryanto]

25. Fair enough.

Compelling case is interesting; obviously they do believe their case to be compelling. Again it goes back to them seeing a fetus as the equivalent of a human. If you accord the developing fetus the same status of a human, than killing it becomes very bad. And if you don't know or aren't sure, but do believe that a soul enters a fetus at some point, you might well decide that preserving potential human life outweighs other concerns.

Here's a thought experiment; a ten year old child, a 35 year old adult (in the prime of life) and a 70 year old adult are murdered - are these three crimes equivalent? Or is one worse than the others, and if so, why?

Bryant

[Jim__]

31. I assume all else is the same.

Here's a thought experiment; a ten year old child, a 35 year old adult (in the prime of life) and a 70 year old adult are murdered - are these three crimes equivalent? Or is one worse than the others, and if so, why?

I believe the law treats them all the same. Whether it does or not, whoever is charged with meting out punishment, either a judge or jury, will probably be inclined to give harsher punishment for the murder of the ten year old? Why? The ten year old has probably begun to show some promise and some interest in her own future. She may well have started to work towards some goals for achieving her promise. To her parents she represents hope, and if she's an only child, maybe the last chance for a continuation of the family. To her contemporaries, her death may well be their first exposure to the death of a friend and so a loss of innocence, and the fact that it was murder makes it even more devastating to them. Given these concerns, the loss of the ten year old seems worse than the loss of the others.

There are circumstances that could change that. This is based entirely on an assumption of all else being equal.

[el_bryanto]

33. Counter argument

Cards on table, I can't really distinguish between them.

That said, a 70 old person who has contributed to society his or her whole life. Paid taxes, raised a family (maybe), worked hard, perhaps done other things to serve the community and the neighbors - hasn't such a person proved their worth? A 10 year old child might turn out to be great. Or might turn out to be a jerk. But someone who's already proved them selves - aren't they of more significance?

I guess this argument does assume that the 70 year old has contributed to society.

Bryant

[Bok_Tukalo]

26. How about a DNA test

I think we determine if the individual in the womb is human or not.

[Jim__]

32. I think everyone involved in the discussion, including the justices who decided Roe v Wade, is ...

... aware of the fetal DNA.

It's not the question that is being asked. From post #10:

Obviously if you don't see a Fetus as the equivalent of a full grown human being, the situation resolves the other way.

[MNBrewer]

35. That would also tell you if your hair was human or not.

[Bok_Tukalo]

36. And?

I mean, it is my hair and I am human.

What is your point?

[MNBrewer]

37. A DNA test can tell whether tissue is human, not whether it is A human

[PassingFair]

11. Can one believe in human dignity without according women the freedom...

to make their own decisions regarding what happens within their own bodies?


Hint: The answer is "NO"

[customerserviceguy]

19. It's all a matter of whom you consider human

We had the same discussion a hundred and fifty years ago about slaveholders and their "property". We had the same discussion fifty years ago about being able to "privately" beat your own wife.

[PassingFair]

28. What discussion was that?

I thought we were talking about abortion.

[customerserviceguy]

30. I'm talking about societal discussion

Of course, you and I weren't here a hundred and fifty years ago, or perhaps even fifty years ago (I was, but was a kid). As a society, we're still discussing abortion, and the idea of human rights (and who has them) is just as much a part of that discussion as it was for the other two topics before they were settled.

[cbayer]

3. Interesting. I've never met an atheist pro-lifer.

[dimbear]

4. It's certainly not impossible, but it's easier to favor the mother's choice if you

don't have a supernatural evaluation of those few cells. I think that's why atheists are pretty overwhelmingly pro-choice.

[Dawson Leery]

6. That secular pro-life website uses the same

bulls**t religious fundamentalists use to argue that only "abstinence only" sex ed works.

How much do you want to bet that website is a front made by christian fundamentalists?

[rug]

7. If you read the rest of the article, they won't work with her or that group because they're atheists

[LeftishBrit]

14. Not necessarily - they could be social conservatives without particular religious belief

In fact, I suspect that some so-called fundies also meet that description.

[okasha]

15. I'll bet some sugar on your porridge.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Yes, it's possible to be a pro-life atheist

(I am talking here about political pro-lifers. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice, but would not personally be able to have an abortion; but that is a different matter.)

Two main varieties:

(1) The ultra-nationalist, who opposes abortion and often birth control because they want to increase the population of their own country or ethnic group, rather than on religious grounds. An extreme example was Ceaucescu (sp?), who was indeed one of the most vicious and destructive political pro-lifers ever, and like most such was utterly indifferent to the plight of the children once born, and caused a tragic epidemic of horrible physical and psychological deprivation in Romanian children.

(2) The Christian-Rightie-without-the-Christianity. To many religious right-wingers, religion is more an excuse than a cause for socially and usually economically right-wing attitudes. I am sure that there are plenty of American Christian Right politicians and pundits who are also atheists or agnostics: they support social bigotry and political harshness, and use Christian jargon as an excuse. They would not admit to being unbelievers, however, as that would ruin their careers. In the UK, it's different: it is quite possible for a right-wing atheist or religious minority member to be quite open about the fact that they are not personally Christians, but nevertheless to lament the rise of secularism because it interferes with social and economic conservativism and keeping nonconformists and the Lower Classes in their place. Atheist/agnostic examples include Norman Tebbit and the journalist Simon Heffer. Then there is Melanie Phillips, who is a not particularly religious Jew, but laments the decline of Christianity in Britain because it supposedly leads to a decline in Traditional Morality.

The situation is further complicated in the UK by the fact that (a) churchgoing and explicit religious belief are far rarer than in the USA; (b) many people here are agnostics or religiously indifferent to the point that they don't know themselves whether they are atheists or Christians; (c) there is a significant religious left in this country.

Personally, I loathe the political pro-life movement, whether religious or nonreligious. Not only because I disagree on the specific issue, but because political pro-lifers are almost always right-wing campaigners on other issues.

[rug]

16. That's a fair breakdown.

[okasha]

18. I think you've pretty well nailed it.

The US has the Cato Institute (Rand-ite) and figures like Richard Mellon Scaiffe (sp?) who seem to have no particular religious beliefs of their own but heavily fund such things as Mel Gibson's ultra-right wing "Catholic" church and the anti-LGBT separatists who have left the Episcopal church in the wake of the consecration of two LGBT bishops and the ordination of LGBT priests.

[mr blur]

13. An atheist explains...

[cbayer]

17. Cute, but what does it have to do with the article?