Religion
Related: About this forumYes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them
March 11, 2014
By Hemant Mehta
This is a guest post written by Kristine Kruszelnicki. Kristine is the President of Pro-Life Humanists.
-----
There was a time when the lines seemed clearer and the slogans said everything. Pro-lifers were Jesus-loving Pope-followers with a passion for sticking rosaries on ovaries, and atheists were quick to respond with Keep your theology off my biology!
But then lines began to blur. Atheist and civil libertarian journalist Nat Hentoff said that Being without theology isnt the slightest hindrance to being pro-life. Atheist philosophy professor Don Marquis declared abortion is immoral because it denies developing fetuses a future like ours. The host of CFIs Point of Inquiry, Robert M. Price, author of books like Jesus is Dead and The Case Against the Case for Christ, called abortion second-degree murder on one of his podcasts.
Well, at least we still have the Four Horsemen safely in our ranks, right? Not quite. Even our beloved Christopher Hitchens considered the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society. He also argued that the unborn entity has a right on its side and identified himself as involved with the pro-life movement.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)It's anti-choice and anti-women. Until then...not worth reading sexist crap
P.S. My body..My choice. And Fuck Y'all who think they can change that
CrispyQ
(36,424 posts)All men pontificating on a topic that they'll never have to deal with. Bunch of fucking assholes.
Response to CrispyQ (Reply #2)
Post removed
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)What I'm not is anti-choice..
There is a difference and it doesn't help when people deliberately blur distinctions.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Like the distiction between a mentally deranged killer and your average church goer.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And in his case, there wasn't at all.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But I have been accused of claiming that many times over.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Are you not blurring the distinction between Religion and Mr Washington?
"Not religion, but mental illness, you say. It can be difficult to tell them apart"
What is difficult about it exactly? Is the distinction that blurry?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)as long as that position only applies to your individual choices.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)reference to "souls".
Being pro-life is fine. Being anti-choice is not.
She makes her case for her own personal perspective. In light of that, she has the right to continue any pregnancy she might personally have.
But she still doesn't have the right to put restrictions on those who do not agree with her premises.
Jim__
(14,063 posts)The religious usually ground their claims about abortion in their understanding of God's laws. Since she is an atheist, her claims have nothing to do with any god or her laws. I'm not sure how we ground human rights - aside from legal rights - but I believe it is important that we do so.
The March 3rd edition of "The Nation" had a review by Michael Rosen of Ronald Dworkin's last book, Religion Without God. In it, he discusses Dworkin's views on the law, morality and human rights.
A brief excerpt:
Grant the idea that human beings are surrounded by this invisible shell of inherent rights and everything fits together. But there are still two obvious (and connected) objections: What reason is there to think that these strange things called rights exist, and what lets us recognize them in enough detail to determine how far they extend? If we turn back to the eighteenth century, the authors of the Declaration of Independence make it clear where they think rights come from: God. Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, a view that the American founders took more or less directly from the seventeenth-century British philosopher John Locke. At about the same time, in Germany, Immanuel Kant was equally emphatic: the Rights of Man, he wrote, are Gods most sacred institution. So is the idea of rights as prior to law no more than a hangover of religion? Bentham certainly thought so: Right, the substantive right, is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisonsBentham means, no doubt, Christianity and its priestscome imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters, gorgons and chimaeras dire.
One replyRichard Rorty was among its best-known advocatesis to say that, although rights dont have a foundation in religion, they dont need them: morality is just about the ways that people judge and respond to various situations, and rights theory is the name for one kind of response. To say that you believe in rights is no more than a substantivized way of expressing that you are convinced there are things that ought not be done to people, even in pursuit of a good end. Theres no need to think that rights are some spooky kind of entity hovering behind the ways that people think and behave. To borrow a phrase from Rorty, ascribing rights to people is the way we do things around here.
Yet there is a very important difficulty with this subjectivist position. When ruthless utilitarian aggregators defend their view, they can justify it by pointing to the way it leads to the advancement of something that is evidently good (happiness) or the avoidance of something bad (suffering). It means that there is an immediate, intuitively plausible response when utilitarians are asked what kinds of values underpin their moral theory. Yet what justification can be given by someone who rejects that view? What is it about the individual whose life would otherwise be sacrificed for the collective good that makes the sacrifice wrong? To say that she or he has a right not to be put to death in order to save others is just to put a name to the problem. We also need, it seems, a satisfying reason whysomething about the victim that explains why he or she has a value that overrides instrumental calculations about the greatest good. It is at this point that religious-sounding vocabulary tends to slip back into the discussion. Rawls, for example, talks about each person having an inviolability founded on justice, although he does not explain just what inviolability might amount to.
I think Dworkin took something like Rortys position when he published Taking Rights Seriously in 1977. But thirty-six years later, by the time of Religion Without God, he held a different and far stronger view: human beings do indeed have a special value that cant be overridden (religious thinkers commonly call it human dignity), though not because it comes from God. To the contrary, values exist independently of God.
...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to those rights?
The religious argument is that it happens at the moment of conception because the zygote has a soul or something else supplied by god.
Her argument is that it also happens at conception. She just leaves out the soul part.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)that he simply wanted to remove the very volatile abortion argument from the equation. His contention was with religion. He removed one extremely emotional obstacle to the argument. He had no dog in the abortion fight, so to speak, so he conceded the point by stating his opposition.
I couldn't prove that, of course, but still I suspect.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Still, doesn't matter. There's no pope position in the Atheist camp for him to occupy.
He supported the Iraq War too. He had his foibles just like anyone else.
pinto
(106,886 posts)And yes, married. She and her beau were married by her best friend, a minister in the Metropolitan Community Church.
My family has a fairly benign but pretty significant genetic defect that apparently runs in the maternal line. In rare cases it can be debilitating. My niece is my twin sister's daughter. I have it.
So months after the general yahoos! and well wishes I asked her privately what she would do if her fetus had the marker.
She looked at me askance. "Uncle pinto, what do you think? If the fetus is viable, we're having a baby." And it is.
I love her and her clear take on choice.
rug
(82,333 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)Unviable fetus - she would abort. Otherwise they're going for it. Other womens' choices are their own. No judgment or lines drawn as far as I can discern, one or two steps away from the picture.
LeftishBrit
(41,203 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)
I use the term 'political pro-lifer' to distinguish them from people who would not have an abortion themselves, but do not campaign to make it illegal.
Indeed, probably the worst political pro-lifer in history was the atheist dictator Nikolae Ceaucescu, who opposed abortion and contraception on nationalist, not religious grounds; and who also took the attitude that once babies are born, they don't count, to horrific extremes.
There are other nationalist pro-lifers; and there are also the 'Christian Righties without the Christianity' who openly admit that they are not believers themselves, but still lament the advent of secularism because it makes it harder to enforce social, and usually economic, conservativism. Americans of the type usually wouldn't admit to it, as it would be likely to damage their careers; but it's not that uncommon in the UK; e.g. Norman Tebbit, Simon Heffer, etc.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)On what grounds does one imbue a multi-celled blastocyst with personhood?
"Science cant tell us whether its wrong to rape women, torture children, enslave black people, or which physical traits should or should not matter when it comes to determining personhood. Science may be able to measure suffering in living creatures, but it cant tell us why or if their suffering should matter. However, science can tell us who among us belongs to the human species."
Depends on whether you view philosophy as a science. Philosophy brings us axioms like self-ownership, fully logically/internally consistent axioms that preclude the possibility of things like, non-consensual access to one's body, or enslavement, etc.
"Well, of course they cant. But why isnt a fetus self-aware or sentient? Why hasnt an embryo developed a functioning brain or the capacity to breathe on its own? Isnt it merely because she or he is younger? Isnt that just the way human beings at their age and stage naturally develop and function? While we wouldnt give our car keys to toddlers on account of their current capacities, neither would we kill them for not having reached a developmental milestone yet. If we deny personhood and justify the death of a fetus simply because he or she has not developed to the point of sentience yet, that makes abortion the deadliest form of age discrimination."
Bullshit. A multi-celled blastocyst isn't a baby at all. It's a set of blueprints, and self-replicating tools that will begin the process of CONSTRUCTING a baby. Do we hold funerals for the enormous percentage of fertilized ovums that never implant at all? No, because they aren't PEOPLE.
rug
(82,333 posts)When is that event?
If that event is before the birth of the fetus you're running into a balancing test between the mother and the fetus according to Roe v. Wade which pegged that event well past the blastocyst stage but before birth. The blastocyst argument is a red herring.
Do you think the fetus acquires legal rights to be weighed at certain points before birth, as Roe holds? The standard there is viability.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Those that oppose from conception, and those that oppose at some arbitrary stage. The latter being people who are actually pro-choice, as they are already agreeing to a large percentage of abortions, and simply haggling about the upper limit.
Those who are secular, and live in the first group, don't have much grounds to support it. And once you move them out of the 'conception' group, life just gets harder for them, as they have to resort to special pleading to defend their position.
That's why I start with the blastocyst, in all lines of inquiry, because that starting point tells me what I need to defeat the particular strain of pro-lifer I have encountered.
rug
(82,333 posts)The blastocyst argument really doesn't lead anywhere.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In mixed company I assert that I am pro-abortion, but that's really just to annoy certain people.
I do deplore the abortion rates, really, but just as a signal that we are doing an awful job of sex ed, and availability of family planning.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)with informed consent, by all means. I do not object.