As the 2013 Canadian March for Life launched to a live band singing “We Want to see Jesus lifted high” (to be followed up with choruses of “Yes! Yes! Lord” and a myriad of other worship songs), I was yet again reminded of how out of place I am as an atheist in the pro-life movement. I’m pro-life because every embryology or biology text book tells me that a new human entity comes into existence at fertilization, and I believe that all human beings – even at their youngest and earliest stage of development – deserve equal right to life and protection. Most assuredly, my goal in being in the movement is not to “see Jesus lifted high”.
I’m not alone. It’s not merely pro-life atheists who are apt to feel excluded from pro-life involvement. How likely is it that a Jew might want to see Jesus lifted high? Or a pro-life Muslim? Or even a pro-life pagan or the myriads of Hare Krishna followers who respect all life, including animal life? I have met pro-lifers who affiliate with all these non-Christian belief systems, but few of them feel comfortable participating in traditional pro-life events. Is the goal of the pro-life movement Christian evangelism? Or is it truly to save unborn lives?
I addressed in blog entry Pray to End Abortion? why I believe the tendency to paint the pro-life movement as something that is Christian-only is problematic and detrimental to our movement. To reiterate briefly: in order to win a political majority in this country we will require the yes vote of people from all religious and political stripes. Wearing our most religious colours so loudly, our movement tells every onlooker who does not seek to affiliate with Christianity, that they should just go ahead and ignore us. We further the misconception that abortion, unlike every social ill prior, simply cannot cease within secular society.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think that Christians should necessarily hide their faith. I appreciate that for many, it is their religious convictions that compel them to care about “the least of these”, per the instruction of Jesus. I may be embarrassed by the men in feathered hats, the church groups chanting the rosary, and the man doing interpretive dancing with his giant crucifix, but I do respect their right to be a part of the movement. I do however, think that all Christians should seriously consider the appropriateness of their public displays and ask themselves whether there might not be a better way of reaching a curious onlooker with sound pro-life arguments, than by performing a religious ritual. It is after all science and reason that bolster the position that the “least of these” is in fact one of us.
That being said, my plea to organizers of the March for Life and similar public events is this: Can we please keep the public face of the pro-life movement secular and inclusive to individuals of all faith and no faith? Let groups and individuals pray and chant on their own if they must. Church groups certainly have a right to their vigils and prayer meetings. But when we stand on the podium to address the nation, can we set aside the exclusive Christian prayers and songs? History is after all ripe with inspirational peace and freedom songs to remind us all that we are following in a long line of champions of human rights.
Science and reason provide arguments that can be understood and received by anyone, regardless of their faith convictions. It is my deepest hope that from here on in, the pro-life movement will collectively seek to see reason and biological facts lifted high.
At first I was excited to find another non-religious pro-life group because I’m a big fan of Secular Pro Life. I have issues with the way Christians display their Christianity, too, and share some of your complaints above. HOWever… I think you guys really need to consider honing the direction and focus of your message.
[A] Some Cheese (For Your Whine)
In your anti-theist parallel reality, Christians can do no right. Even when, on abortion, the vast majority of Christians got it right and the vast majority of atheists got it wrong, you want to blame this on the Christians? Since when did anti-theists need affirmation from Christians in order to loudly, proudly and publicly stand for what they believe in (‘Reason’ Rally, anyone)? You feel out of place at a MFL? What, are you afraid you’ll get cooties? Or lose some anti-theist street-cred? Would SPL organizers bar you from making a secular case for life in the name of your secular organization? You feel out of place at the MFL? Ask SPL about the flak they get at atheism conferences. If the Christians are generally motivated to defend the unborn but the atheists generally aren’t, whose fault is that?
The answer isn’t to tell the Christians to tone down the legitimate link b/t Christianity and action on behalf of the unborn (though I do wish they would do a lot of things differently, we’re in agreement there). The answer is to tell everyone else to show up and be counted. And go recruiting among your wayward atheist brethren who’ve uncritically assumed prochoice because it struck them as the anti-Christian thing to do. No one’s “painting” the pro-life movement as primarily Christian; it *is* made up primarily of Christians. Whose fault is that?
[B] Reason?
Christians are prolife because of, not in spite of, their Christianity:
[1] Their Christianity teaches that every single human being has inherent, inalienable value, and Christians are morally obligated to actively affirm that (never mind “do unto others…”, try “love your enemies”).
[2] It’s clear when a new human individual comes into existence.
[3] There’s no morally relevant difference between the born and the unborn that can justify killing the latter but not the former, and no non-arbitrary point post-conception for assigning personhood (never mind the issues of trying to make personhood a non-intrinsic aspect of human beings).
Or more simply: Christians are obligated to love everyone. Period. And the unborn are undeniably people. Therefore their unjustifiable legal slaughter is abhorrent on the same scale as the Nazi Holocaust.
It’s not rocket science. But you’ll notice it’s an equation that includes [1] Judeo-Christian theism (inherent inalienable value), [2] science (life begins at conception), and [3] reason (no moral justification for killing the unborn).
Now about “lifting reason high.” The fact is, Christians have the resources within their particular theistic worldviews to make a coherent case for life (this is true regardless of whether or not theism is true; of course if their theism is untrue than its prolife coherency is moot, but that’s beside the point here). Atheists don’t; they must reach the same pro-life conclusion without the first of the three factors listed above. In practice they just bluntly assert a sanitized version of the first premise of equality and human rights (this is basically plagiarizing it from the cultural influence of Christian theism, rather than providing from within their own atheistic worldview), counting on their hearers to accept it unchallenged. But that’s leaning on cultural common ground, not reason. I’ll demonstrate.
You give a two-part rationale for being pro-life: “I’m pro-life because:
[1] every embryology or biology text book tells me that a new human entity comes into existence at fertilization…”
When a new human individual comes into existence is not a moral or philosophical question, or a value judgment; it’s straight biology, and science is clear. Very reasonable. So far. I agree. But on its own it’s not enough to produce a pro-life conclusion, so you continue:
[2] “…and I believe that all human beings…deserve equal right to life and protection”
That’s nice. But you merely assert this, without providing any *reason*. In fact you’re asserting a couple things here: a moral obligation to equality, and to respect and defend the “right to life” of others.
Science can tell us when a new human being comes into existence. But neither science nor reason, on their own, can tell us what is morally right or wrong to do regarding that new human being (or any other human being). Science doesn’t do morality. And reasons, or philosophies, have to demonstrate that morality exists and that we have moral obligations. Whether or not they can do this depends on the content of the worldview they are working with.
Why should I believe all human beings deserve equality (or anything else)?
Why should I believe any human being has a “right to life” (or any other right)?
Why should I believe in the existence of “rights”?
Even if human beings do deserve [something, anything], even if they do have “rights”, how am I morally obligated to act on the behalf of others?
Or, in more formal terms, where within your atheistic universe are you getting these objective moral values and duties? I see no ontological grounding for either; they simply don’t exist in an atheistic universe.
Maybe you don’t think objective moral values and duties need to exist in order to claim “all human beings (a) deserve (b) equal (c) right to life and (d) protection.” In other words, “Sure, ‘morality’ is relative and really all boils down to individual personal preference, but opposing equality and the basic rights of others is still wrong.” How does that work?
Or maybe you think you don’t need to provide an ontological grounding in order to assert the existence of objective moral values and duties (which would provide a basis for the premises under-girding your pro-life conclusion). “Who cares if we have no rationale for explaining the existence of morality and moral duties? That’s a stupid abstract question that no one can answer. Decent people will just accept they exist and get on with living decent lives.” Not only is this blatant plagiarizing of theistic worldviews, it shows contempt for reason.
“Science and reason provide arguments that can be understood and received by anyone, regardless of their faith convictions.”
Can they? Or must they also depend on the hearers’ accepting unquestioned a major premise that is ultimately grounded in an objective morality that only certain theisms can provide?
[C] Can’t We All Just Get Along?
But the fact that I think the atheist pro-life case is ultimately incoherent ***doesn’t stop me from happily fighting alongside atheists for the rights of the unborn.*** We accept the same basic pro-life equality-and-human-rights-based premises (even though I think atheists do so without good reason), so we can move forward together on this particular issue. I don’t have to attack their faulty premise in order to work together, because even most pro-abortion-righters accept those premises (for now anyway).
Are you guys primarily about promoting anti-theism, or the rights of the unborn? The direction and focus of your message will reflect that.
Thanks for the great feedback! You’ve raised some good points that I hope to address further in future blog entries.
Ask SPL about the flak they get at atheism conferences.
I know very well. 🙂 That was me all three times. It was at my suggestion and initiative that SPL’s Kelsey Hazzard and I went to the American Atheist Convention and that in turn led to Matt Dillahunty hearing about us and challenging us to a debate, which I did at the Texas Freethought Convention last October. (I also attended the American Humanist Convention of my own volition, though the humanists were surprisingly more receptive than the atheists.)
I expect flak as an atheist introducing a new idea in a secular culture. I am trying to make pro-life converts so it’s to be expected that I’d be rubbing up against the grain. But as an atheist at a pro-life event I’m merely trying to be publicly pro-life, not render anyone atheist. I have no trouble whatsoever with Christians being Christians, even if I sincerely wish they would publicly present their best secular arguments rather than their rosaries. But I’m talking about the public face of the movement – the one most visible at the platform and the press releases that says “this is the pro-life movement and it’s a Christian one”.
I feel strongly that more emphasis needs to be placed on inclusiveness in the movement and to that end I wish we could all “just get along”. If we’re going to have corporate singing and song-leading, why not ensure they are songs that everyone feels comfortable singing and marching to? If we’re going to have public prayer, why not ask a Muslims and a Jew to offer one as well and ask a secularist to read a thoughtful poem so no one feels out of place or left out? The way pro-life events are currently run, one would be justified in believing that there are ONLY Christians in the pro-life movement. I really hope to see that change.
Thank you for this site. I’ve tried to comment on the need for pro-life unity from a personal perspective through my own blog at WordPress and Blogger, which my name links to.
You’re most welcome! And thank you for commenting, Robert! 🙂
I’ve read some of your stuff. It’d be lovely to do an exchange of guest blogging at some point. Let me know if you’re interested.
Hi, I saw your sign at the MFL13, just wanted to say that as a Christian I agree wholeheartedly with your views in this post. Although my faith does motivate me to take this issue seriously, my primary reasoning for being pro-life is through logical argument. I am all for secular groups such as this one and the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (www.unmaskingchoice.ca)
Although Christians (and other religions) can and should have their own rallies about this, I believe that the secular pro-life movement is the best way forward for the pro-life movement as a whole, to join people from every different walk of life in this fight.
Although my faith is different then yours, I just wanted to say keep up the great work!
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your support. It’s great to know we have allies and that others also see the need to keep pro-life presentations secular. Believe it or not, it wasn’t always this way. Abortion began as a human rights issue before it became intentionally religified by those in and out of the movement.
We’re a new group and just getting started in Canada, so if you like what’s we’re doing an want to lend a hand to our outreach projects (one of our main goals is to bring a pro-life presence to as many secular and atheist events as possible), please contact us about becoming a sponsor.
Thanks again for the love! 🙂
You Sir/Madam are the enemy of confusion eveyrwhere!
The enemy of confusion… that’s a good thing, right? The enemy of confusion is the friend of clarity? 🙂
to suggest separate rallies for diffrent denominations only ensures to set the consideration of worldviews over the rational argument of abortion. The strength of an argument is displayed in the unity of all of those for that argument across all denominations. And don’t be surprised if you get atheists to struggle with the idea of logic and reasoning as a lot of people who define themself by being atheist are lacking a coherent worldview. Otherwise they would identify themself by what they are, and not what they are not, calling themselves humanists or materialists or marxist or whatever their worldview is as to call atheism a worldview is like calling not stamp collecting a hobby – and even Matt agrees that atheism is not a worldview as fundamental Atheists claim to have no beliefs.
I agree with Pro-Life Humanists about almost everything related to abortion. Among other things, I agree with you that we should not try to prove what we want to prove by appealing to God. However, I don’t think we can ultimately prove what we want to prove by appealing to science, either. I think we have to appeal to intuition.
First of all, what is it that we want to prove? I think we want to prove that:
a zygote deserves protection (1-step argument)
or
1. a person or human being deserves protection
2. a zygote is a person or human being
3. therefore a zygote deserves protection
(3-step argument).
A zygote has more value if it is a person or human being than if it is a zygote per se, so let’s try the 3-step approach.
Steps 1 & 3 will be little debated. Regarding 2, should we try to prove that a zygote is a person, or is a human being? All persons are also human beings, whereas some might debate that a human being at an early stage is a person. Moreover, in the US context, the 14th Amendment protects “persons,” not “human beings.” So it would be better if we could prove that a zygote is a person.
If a human being is defined by scientific convention as a living organism that is a member of the human species, then a zygote is, scientifically, a human being. But a “person” has no def. by scientific convention, and science is not in the business of proving that any particular thing fits a label undefined by scientific convention. So I don’t think we can prove scientifically that a zygote (or anything) is a person. As the “Secular Case” post remarked, “The question of personhood leaves the realm of science for that of philosophy and moral ethics.”
So if not scientifically, how CAN we prove that a zygote is a person?
Well, everyone will agree that a zygote has the POTENTIAL to become a person. Now at this point we have to appeal to intuition. I commented in reply to the above “Secular Case” quote:
“Since we have to leave the realm of objective science, I like to make a subjective appeal that relates to science:
“‘One can define personhood, or define anything, in any way one likes. But to view any object of the universe, not to mention an unborn child, with disregard of its potential, would be a very reductive and disconnected way of seeing reality. Full human potential exists at the zygote stage.
“‘I think the more anyone grows, the less will be the appeal to them of reductive and disconnected ways of seeing reality.”‘
In my “Some Comments on ‘Personhood and Citizenship'” post on my blog, I also replied to one reader:
“Objectively speaking, none of the definitions is right or wrong. It is all semantics. I put my definition, rather, on a subjective, psychological basis: if one disregards the potential, one’s view of anything will be very abstract and disconnected. If one disregards the potential of an unborn child, one’s view will be ‘disconnected from the deepest nature of our species.’
“No one can prove this objectively, but look deep enough within yourself and you’ll see it. You appeal to objective science, but in the field of psychology, objective science cannot even presently prove that you are aware of your thoughts, although you know that you are. Science can prove by the outcomes of your thinking that you have thoughts, but cannot prove that you are aware of them. Each of us has to do lonely experiments in our own mental laboratory to test some hypotheses of psychology.”
It seems to me that this is the closest we can come to proving that a zygote is a person — the most effective proof that we have.
Next, I have said that my 1, “A person or human being deserves protection,” “will be little debated.”
Can we prove it scientifically? No, I agree with Abolitionist73 that “neither science nor reason, on their own, can tell us what is morally right or wrong to do regarding that new human being (or any other human being).”
Rather, again we have to resort to intuition. I think the proposition will be little debated.