Dear pro-choice atheists: Atheism is not your clubhouse. You don’t get to decide who can or can’t be an atheist and who gets to partake of the atheist community, be it its conferences, its blogs, or its online forums. Yes, pro-life atheists are a minority (19% of the non-religious identify as pro-life) but that doesn’t mean those of you in the majority get to bully us into silence and absenteeism!
I recently attended my second American Atheist Convention and for the most part it was a positive experience. Those who came by our table found reasoned and philosophical discussion about human rights and whether or not the right to the bodily autonomy of one can supercede the right to life of another. They shared their arguments and I told them why I believe it’s inaccurate to compare pregnancy to forced organ donation. Most of them left with a smile, hug or handshake, as well as with a “Thwart, Don’t Abort” condom, and I believe the exchanges overall were mutually civil and often quite pleasant.
Unfortunately, not all pro-choice atheists at the convention responded to us with the same open-minded grace. While some simply ignored our table or made sour-milk faces at us as they hurried by, one young woman tried to rub her pro-choice majority in our face by putting up a Planned Parenthood donation box right next to our table. It wasn’t an original gesture (as a reaction against our presence, someone had done it in 2012 when I’d tabled with Secular Pro-Life) but it’s still just as rude: Imagine being a meat eater and setting up a donation box to a slaughterhouse right next to a Vegan table just to spite them.*
“We already know we’re in the minority here,” I told her gently as she set up her donation bag (on my new pro-choice friend’s table, no less) “Why do you feel the need to further mark the division between us, where we’ve mostly had a spirit of diversity and open discussion all day?” Her response to my question was a diatribe so hot and angry that it prompted her organization’s leader to later make an apology on her behalf. Like many I’d chatted with that weekend, I appreciated the leader’s affirmation of diversity among atheists. Still, the intense animosity of the young woman had been nonetheless disappointing.
There are some among you, my dear atheist peers, who think being secular means making a world of people who think exactly like you. Those like atheist blogger Greta Christina who a couple days ago wrote an open letter to American Atheists disparaging them for “courting atheist conservatives”. For the record, I and most of Pro-Life Humanists’ members are quite left wing on most issues (most of us identify as anti-death-penalty, pro-GLBT rights, anti-war, pro-welfare & state-funded daycare, pro right-to-die so long as the dying person makes the choice, anti non-consensual genital alteration, and anti-violence overall – which is why we side against the violent choice of abortion) … but even if our pro-life views came from a larger Conservative philosophy, who gets to decide that we don’t belong in your events? When did atheism become yours anyway? Sorry, but I must’ve missed the conference where we elected the Atheist Pope and agreed on a Catechism of acceptable Atheist views and doctrines.
When Christians lose their faith and come to atheism, sociologists like Phil Zuckerman have demonstrated that most leave religion only after first falling out of step with their church’s conservative values. This creates the illusion that atheist = liberal, but only because liberals are more likely to abandon the religion that doesn’t match their values. On the other hand, a growing number of people are leaving religion not because their values conflict with their church, but rather because they take issue with the mythologies and so-called sacred writings themselves. Values which hinged on those writings (standards of sexuality & hetero marriage, for example) usually get tossed or significantly modified, while values like human rights, which were already grounded in a larger philosophy of non-violence and in our understanding of human bodies’ biological beginnings, remain with us. Becoming secular doesn’t mean we all start thinking alike and churning out cloned liberal conclusions. It merely means that when we talk about the social issues that divide society, our discussions will no longer be clouded by religious gobbledygook. Atheists have collectively eliminated the red herring, but that’s not the same thing as having correctly solved all of society’s moral mysteries.
It’s time to stop giving conservatives and pro-lifers the cold shoulder. My irony metre nearly broke when I heard the same young woman who’d so vehemently opposed the presence of pro-life atheists in the exhibit room, later that day bemoan over a secular podcast just how badly it hurt to be ostracized by her ethnic community for being in a non-believing minority. Pro-life atheists bleed the same hurts you do! Many of us have likewise been cut off from very religious friends and family or are unable to spend time alone with our own nieces and nephews because our family fears we might try to dissuade them from their young faiths. And so long as you’re concerned with not “alienating the millions of female atheists”, remember that most pro-life atheist leaders are females – and we don’t take kindly to being alienated by you either. We come to the atheist community for the same sense of family and fellowship all atheists do – except unlike other minorities within atheism, pro-life atheists find ourselves being ostracized further and sometimes yelled at, simply because we support rights for humanity’s pre-born.
Last I checked, American Atheists was not called “American Pro-Choice Atheists”. Neither is there a group out there called “Center for Inquiry on Everything but Abortion” nor an online forum for “The Thinking Pro-Choice Atheists Who Won’t Think About Pro-Life Arguments” etc. So please stop moaning that people who are different than you are being allowed into your club. Atheism isn’t your clubhouse. It’s our clubhouse – the atheist community belongs to all of us!
—–
* In the spirit of inclusivity, I’m hoping that American Atheists will select a less divisive charity than Planned Parenthood for future charity events held officially by the conference. Women’s shelter, food bank, animal rescue, children’s hospital, low-income reading program… we have common ground to work with!
Liked our post? We are only able to do this with the financial support of readers like you. Help us to continue to speak out in the community for the pre-born!
I wonder if atheists of the Ayn Rand variety would be welcome at the convention?
Find some and see? I would be interested in the discussions they might generate.
It's true that these groups should not be ostracizing people for the varied beliefs they hold (and atheism can ill afford such exclusion anyway). But here's the thing… the term "pro-life" is very misleading. Isn't EVERYONE pro-life? It isn't as if anyone is "pro-death". I think anyone can agree that abortion is not a good thing. We should have less of it. But the way to do that isn't by outlawing it. That will only lead to poorly-performed abortions. We should encourage better sex education, and greater access to contraception. These are not typically policies which are embraced by religions. Instead, religions are well-known for actually BLOCKING these efforts, despite their having been proven to reduce abortions. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she should certainly be made aware of her options, including adoption. But she should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term that she does not want. Abortion should still be an option, even if it is the last one considered. It is HER body after all, and what is inside her, despite its potential, is not yet a "child" or a "person". It is a clump of cells which is entirely dependent on her physiology. I think it should absolutely be her choice. It seems bizarre to me that other people should have a say in what she can do with her own physical being.
What’s inside her body isn’t her body though, that’s the problem. You say it’s not a child or a person but that’s the very matter that’s up for debate. Biologically speaking, every human being begins his or her development at fertilization, and by the time most abortion occur that “clump of cells already has a head, arms, legs and all of his or her organs. Living things develop and get bigger and more complex but we do so according to the pattern of what we are.
PLH does encourage contraception use and a move toward solutions that address the needs of women without having to leave her to resort to violence against her pre-born dependent. We identify as pro-life because that’s the term most commonly understood as being against abortion. If the pre-born are human then abortion is an act of violence which ought not be condoned and tolerated by a civilized society. We can do better than that!
“You say it’s not a child or a person but that’s the very matter that’s up for debate.”
Right. Who cares about debating whether women who already know they don’t wish to become mothers should be forced to carry a child for nine months and then raise it for another 216. Who cares about that.
There are other options other than being forced to carry and raise a child. Why aren’t women who know they don’t wish to become mothers being allowed to choose sterilization even in their twenties? Why aren’t better and free birth controls on the market for women who want to delay? Why is it that half the women seeking abortions did not use contraception in the month they conceived? Surely there’s more than needs to be done on those fronts?
There are also other options other than raising a child. In the United states there are 30 couples waiting for ever 1 infant available for adoption.
"Unfortunately, not all pro-choice atheists at the convention responded to us with the same open-minded grace. While some simply ignored our table or made sour-milk faces at us as they hurried by, one young woman tried to rub her pro-choice majority in our face by putting up a Planned Parenthood donation box right next to our table. It wasn’t an original gesture (as a reaction against our presence, someone had done it in 2012 when I’d tabled with Secular Pro-Life) but it’s still just as rude: Imagine being a meat eater and setting up a donation box to a slaughterhouse right next to a Vegan table just to spite them."
Exactly. They don't seem to get just how rude it is. Because they are in the majority, they are able to do things like that and often have the support of everyone around.
Being an atheist already puts someone a minority, but when you are against abortion and killing of other animals, you find out how alone you are.
I don't want to let pro-choice philosophy to be synonymous with atheism. Is that not what the Christians accuse atheists of? That they have no morals or respect for life?
When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she should certainly be made aware of her options, including adoption. But she should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term that she does not want. Abortion should still be an option, even if it is the last one considered. It is HER body after all, and what is inside her, despite its potential, is not yet a "child" or a "person".
-citation needed.
In my opinion the entirety of your argument is accurate, except for your commonly-cited qualifier at the end, which implies that the only reason it is ethical to decriminalize a zygote or fetus’ destruction is because it is not yet a child or person. But so what if it is? It doesn’t change the reality, which is that a woman who is not ready to become a mother in America in 2016 should not be forced to become one simply because she got pregnant unintentionally. I believe the embryo is a human being from the moment of conception, but I also believe that the distinction, for purposes of this discussion, is utterly irrelevant. Abortion is often a difficult, even desperate, decision. There is no point in trying to make it more palatable, only more safe, legal and accessible.
On behalf of Atheist conservatives everywhere, thank you.
Linda Post … if those words have no more meaning than "zygote", then why bother defining the various stages of life and development at all? Do I need a citation to say it's not yet an "adult", or will that be challenged on the basis that it can one day BECOME an adult? We're all going to be corpses one day too, does that mean we should refer to each other as such? Regardless of what you call it, it's HERS. It's not an independent life of its own. It's a segment of her body. She should make the choice. Making it illegal isn't going to solve the issue, but helping spread good sex education and contraceptive access will. We all want to reduce abortions. But I don't like the term "pro-life" as it seems to frame the opposition as "anti-life", which is not the case. Ultimately, we have to think about the position we're putting women (full-grown, self-actualized, independent "persons") in if we criminalize a medical procedure. It isn't something that's done for vanity or fun. It's done because parenthood drastically alters one's life. People should have the power to decide when they become parents, and that decision shouldn't be thrust upon them unwillingly just because a condom broke, nor any other reason.
Yes, you are pointing out a technical weakness in her argument that harangues the pro-choice argument needlessly. As I pointed out in my response to her post, the distinction as to whether the zygote is human or not has always been a straw man in this discussion. It has no impact on the reality, which is that abortion must remain safe, legal and accessible.
Jeffrey Savage " if those words have no more meaning than "zygote", then why bother defining the various stages of life and development at all? Do I need a citation to say it's not yet an "adult", or will that be challenged on the basis that it can one day BECOME an adult?"
Of course not, but then you're missing my point, which is, no matter WHAT stage of life a person happens to be in, they are still a person. They are still a member of our species, which makes them a person by default.
"We're all going to be corpses one day too, does that mean we should refer to each other as such?"
No, but the corpse of a once-living organism is not the living organism, which a child in utero IS.
"Regardless of what you call it, it's HERS."
Children are not property belonging to their parent(s). They are in the care of their parents, but not belongings.
"It's not an independent life of its own."
Sure they are. They are undergoing their own life processes with their own bodies/genetics/organs/organ systems/etc.
" It's a segment of her body."
False, and a simple DNA test would prove as much.
"She should make the choice."
The choice to have one's minor child killed should never be a legal one to make.
"Making it illegal isn't going to solve the issue, but helping spread good sex education and contraceptive access will."
There are very few things (nothing, really) which have totally been eliminated through legislation, but that's not the point of legislation, entirely. Part of making something illegal is to deter the action, of course, but the other part is seeking justice and recompense for the harmed party. But I agree with you about sex education and contraception. Here's a great article from Secular Pro-Life which shows that the most effective course of action is a middle ground of comprehensive sex education with an emphasis upon abstinence:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/07/fewer-abortions-fewer-births-ca-teen.html
"We all want to reduce abortions."
Why? If the child in utero is nothing more than a body part of his/her mother, why should we care about reducing abortions at all?
"But I don't like the term "pro-life" as it seems to frame the opposition as "anti-life", which is not the case."
Sure it is. Abortion ends the life of a child in utero. It kills someone and causes their death. Death is the opposite of life.
"Ultimately, we have to think about the position we're putting women (full-grown, self-actualized, independent 'persons') in if we criminalize a medical procedure."
As a woman who has been through a crisis pregnancy situation and emerged as an adamant Pro-Lifer with my daughter in-tact, please take my word for it: We women are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves, as "full-grown, self-actualized, independent persons". It is the child in utero who has no voice or means of protecting themselves who deserve your advocacy. Thanks. This "medical procedure" kills the child in utero, who oftentimes has no one to speak for them or protect them. Priorities, please.
" It isn't something that's done for vanity or fun. It's done because parenthood drastically alters one's life."
I can attest to that. But any alteration in my life would have been a poor excuse for taking the life of my daughter. I don't care *WHY* a child is killed in an abortion-it is unjust. Killing a child is not a legitimate solution to anyone's problems.
" People should have the power to decide when they become parents…"
I agree. Unfortunately, according to Biology, people have already become parents after conception has been achieved after intercourse and a woman is pregnant.
"…and that decision shouldn't be thrust upon them unwillingly just because a condom broke, nor any other reason."
Our will has very little impact over biological reality, I'm sorry to say. If you go to Burger King for every meal and take a nap shortly after, you can be unwilling to gain 500 lbs., but you probably will, anyway.
We sometimes hear arguments such as "Most scientists/PhD's/professionals are pro-choice" (and therefore the pro-choice position must be correct).
Could it be that some people also think they have an argument "All atheists are pro-choice" (and atheists are rationalists/objective/intelligent, therefore the pro-choice position must be correct) — ?
And they don't want to lose the utility of that argument by facing the fact that it's not true?
And they don't want to lose the utility of the argument "No one could be pro-life unless they are superstitious" — ?
Yeah I’m sure that’s the case to some degree. It’s easy to think that “we’re all so much better thinkers and that’s why we’re all atheists and pro-choice”. It just doesn’t work that way in reality – we’re marring that perfect concept.
Jeffrey Savage If it's a segment of her body, why do you say that abortion is not a good thing and that it should perhaps be the last option considered?
This is brilliant. Thank you.
Thanks Rachel! Share and repost if you want to. 🙂
Ugh, I've been banned from so many atheist facebook pages for being prolife. They assume I can't be atheist if I'm anti baby killing. lol. I don't think they understand the definition of atheist.
Sorry to hear you’re going through that Kyrie! You definitely have a place within Pro-Life Humanists! Please feel free to sign on our email list and watch for our forums coming soon!
Kristine Kruszelnicki
As has already been stated, non-theists are ALREADY in such a minority that
we CAN NOT AFFORD to alienate each other.
I see POSSIBLE compromises.
Could the PRO-LIFE side agree to:
1) Increasing sex education AND access to FREE contraception for all?
2) DRASTICALLY improving social welfare programs (by FAIRER taxation policies
and CUTTING military spending) with SINGLE-PAYER healthcare, PAID 6-month
maternity leave policies, free daycare for low and middle-income families,
and INCREASED food/housing/utility assistance for those that need it!
3) STRONGLY DISCOURAGING, but not PROHIBITING, abortions during the first 12 weeks.
4) LEGALLY RESTRICTING abortions after 12 weeks, and PRACTICALLY PROHIBITING
them after 20 weeks.
If PRO-LIFEers AND PRO-CHOICERers could come together on this, I think the world
would be a better place!
What is YOUR opinion?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
1. I can’t speak for the entire pro-life community, but I know that Pro-life Humanists definitely supports sex education and free contraception. We bring free condoms whenever we table at a convention. (Thwart Don’t Abort).
2. I definitely (and I think most of our members do too) support social welfare programs and things like living wage, paid maternity leave, state funded daycare, onsite daycare options at work and school for parents of infants and small children, ongoing parental leaves of absence, telecommute options becoming more readily available to parents and other social practices that are prominent in other countries, like Sweden for instance (see Michael Moore: Where to Invade Next). If you favour Democrat values, Democrats for Life would be another orgnaization who advocates for an end to abortion with improving society and social standards and I recommend following them. I wish they would become the new voice of pro-life politics, but Republicans still have the upper hand on pro-life at the moment. I’ll admit I don’t understand how pro-life can go hand in hand with Republican policy, but I’m glad that they’re fighting for the rights of the preborn nonetheless.
3&4 I disagree with #3 and #4 only because if there’s nothing morally wrong with abortion and if a fetus isn’t a human being, then I don’t think we should be either prohibiting or discouraging abortion at any stage in pregnancy. There’s no magic potion that lands on a fetus at 12.5 weeks that renders them more human than they were at 11 weeks, and I don’t think that human rights should be based on our age or on our developmental capacities. Pro-lifers are either wrong about the fetus, in which case there’s nothing worth prohibiting or discouraging, or else we are right and abortion is an act of violence against the youngest members of our species. If something is worth discouraging because it’s an act of deadly violence against the youngest among us, then surely it would be worth prohibiting as well? Shouldn’t we legally ban practices that bring extreme harm or death to other human beings? We don’t stop at strongly discouraging child abuse, rape, infanticide, sex trafficking…
Happy to hear your thoughts, thanks for adding to the discussion. 🙂
We bring free condoms whenever we table at a convention. (Thwart Don’t Abort).
Yeah, conveniently discounting the history of protest and civil disobedience that got condoms put in stores in the first place, much less free ones. From Wikipedia:
“Up to the 19th century, condoms were generally used only by the middle and upper classes. One reason for the lack of condom use was that the working classes tended to lack education on the dangers of sexually transmitted infections. Perhaps more importantly, condoms were unaffordable for many: for a typical prostitute, a single condom might cost several months’ pay.[2]:119–21”
In other words, it’s great that you bring free condoms to your conventions in 2016, but if the condom breaks, you should be able to pop an RU486.
Whether or not we know our history on the origins of the condom doesn’t automatically mean that an abortifacient drug ought to be equally accessible. One thing doesn’t equal the other. Condoms prevent conception, abortifacient drugs end the development and life of a very young human body after it has already begun.
“Shouldn’t we legally ban practices that bring extreme harm or death to other human beings?”
Not if you think war is sometimes necessary. On the other hand, since 1793, up to the present day, there have been numerous proposals for a Department of Peace at the cabinet-level of the executive branch of the U.S. government that’s never gotten any funding or approval. The Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928 outlawed war; the United States just ignores it. There’s an international ban on cluster bombs that the United States and Saudi Arabia are alone in the world on refusing to sign. We could start with all kinds of commonsense places where peace can’t get any traction, that have nothing to do with the State controlling the maternal destinies of mostly poor minority women of color.
Just war if one believes in such may perhaps be comparable to abortion to save the life of the mother. But when we discuss abortion on demand, that’s not really a fair comparison. Dismembering a young developing human body of a boy or girl simply because their life is ill-timed is more comparable to dropping a drone-nuke on a developing country simply because we don’t know how to adequately feed them all. There are other, non-violent, alternatives.
I have to say this is a wonderful website and I’m so glad to know there are pro-life atheists. I, myself am not an atheist. I’m a Christian, but it’s such a breath of fresh air to see reasoned, thought out arguments against abortion that don’t solely stem from “religious” reasons. I really hope and pray religious pro-lifers and nonreligious pro-lifers can find common ground and work together.
Thanks Jen! Your support is appreciated. We differ on religion but we have common ground and that’s important! 🙂