Kelsey Hazzard, the president of Secular Pro-Life, is not religious, so in her response to a pro-choice rabbi’s article pleading with pro-lifers to not impose their religion on the country, she counters that the rabbi is actually insisting that pro-lifers not “impose their science” on the country. An excerpt (the rabbi’s remarks are indented):
You possess a (not THE) definition of what constitutes life
The Princess Bride was wrong; there is no such thing as mostly dead and slightly alive. You are one or the other. It is a scientific question with a right or wrong answer. The “many truths” approach does not work when the issue is one of objective fact.
and you won’t back down from trying to defend it. There is much integrity to that consistency.
But, like all things religious, it is also potentially dangerous.
How is it “religious” when there are millions of pro-lifers in the United States with no religion? It can’t just be because there are religious folks who agree with us; most religious people also agree that human trafficking is immoral, but we don’t call human trafficking a religious issue.
Hazzard is right about being able to scientifically pinpoint exactly when a human being begins to exist as a live, whole organism. It always amazes me that pro-choicers who take the more mystical approach, saying that life is infused into a human organism at some date after the beginning of its existence, accuse pro-lifers of making an inappropriately religious determination on the beginning of life.
But of course, most pro-choicers know that the fetal human being is scientifically alive. What they’re really objecting to is the idea of intrinsic human value—i.e., the idea that every member of the Homo sapiens species is valuable, regardless of his or her individual characteristics and abilities, because every human being shares the same valuable human nature (which reflects the objective value of God). And usually, it’s this idea of intrinsic human value and its corresponding universal equality and human rights that they’re dismissing as being “religious” (which to them means “not part of objective reality”).
Hazzard recognizes that human value and rights are objectively real, and she can argue for them by appealing to our moral intuition (see here, for example), but not by appealing to science. Universal human rights depend on a shared human nature and intrinsic human value, which can’t be verified scientifically because the scientific method is not capable of detecting things like intrinsic value. Unfortunately, in a society infected by scientism, people have all the wiggle room they need to illegitimately dismiss a scientifically unmeasurable idea they disagree with from the public square by labeling it “religious,” since they can count on our culture interpreting that to mean “a subjective matter of preference.”
I found Hazzard’s comment, “[W]e don’t call human trafficking a religious issue,” to be particularly instructive as an illustration of how unstable rights are when the idea of objective, intrinsic human value is rejected. For of course, human trafficking was labeled a subjective religious issue when it suited the purposes of those who wished to traffic in African slaves.
From Chuck Colson’s preface to William Wilberforce’s A Practical View of Christianity:
Pitt moved that a resolution be passed binding the House to discuss the slave trade in the next session. The motion was passed. But then another of Wilberforce’s friends, Sir William Dolben, introduced a one-year experimental bill to regulate the number of slaves that could be transported per ship.
Now sensing a threat, the West Indian bloc rose up in opposition. Tales of cruelty in the slave trade were mere fiction, they said. Besides, warned Lord Penrhyn ominously, the proposed measure would abolish the trade upon which “two thirds of the commerce of this country depends.” Angered by Penrhyn’s hyperbole, Pitt pushed Dolben’s regulation through both houses in June of 1788.
By the time a recovered Wilberforce returned to the legislative scene, the slave traders were furious and ready to fight, shocked that politicians had the audacity to press for morally based reforms in the political arena. “Humanity is a private feeling, not a public principle to act upon,” sniffed the Earl of Abingdon. Lord Melborne angrily agreed. “Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life,” he thundered.
The time and place may change, but the objections never change. “There is no real harm! Our quality of life depends on it! A belief in universal human rights is religious and has no place in politics!”
Thankfully, in terms of the pro-life fight in this country, our legal system is already built on the foundation of universal, unalienable human rights, so we don’t have to fight for legal recognition of their existence. And happily, since atheists are capable of apprehending moral truths, many accept unalienable human rights, even though objective rights and value—grounded in a standard above human beings, and not dependent on our preferences—are inconsistent with their worldview. What we must do is clarify the indisputable fact that the unborn are members of the human race (as Hazzard does in her article), and then hold people to our nation’s established ideals.
Good post.
Recently, an MSNBC host, Melissa Harris-Perry, said that the question of when life begins depends, “an awful lot on the feeling of the parents”.
Ms. Perry, what about when the little tikes toss their milk cups across the room a tantrum? Do parent’s feelings still matter then?
We shouldn’t forget that’s the side of science and reason. Those against such notions are knuckle-dragging theocrats that want to “take us back to the stone ages.”
Yeah. Sure.
Posted by: KWM | July 26, 2013 at 07:34 AM
The main argument pro-abortion people make is not that the unborn isn't a person, but rather that you can't force a woman to stay pregnant or gestate against her will.
Posted by: Paul Reed | July 26, 2013 at 08:46 PM
Scientism: At a loss when challenged on evidence for (real) X, the X apologist accuses the challenger of scientism.
Bulverism: The fallacy of reason which deals with secondary questions (like the nature of skeptics of a claim) rather than the claim, thus avoiding the claim or evading the issues raised by trains of reasoning.
Paul Reed,
It't not one or the other. It's both. If, by 'person', you mean the primary concern of ethics, then a 5DE (five day embryo) is not a person. And, guess what! A woman is!
RonH
Posted by: RonH | July 27, 2013 at 06:53 AM
Ron, if one requires empirical evidence for something before it is considered to be "real," that is scientism. Asking for empirical evidence for rights and value is a category error. And the demand is not made consistently for every non-material thing, which makes the demand look like a convenient way to dismiss things they don't want, according to their own convenience. Rights granted according to instrumental value are as non-material and not empirically measurable as intrinsic value, yet they're not rejected.
Posted by: Amy | July 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Paul, there are two categories of arguments for abortion. The objections are either bodily rights arguments or arguments that assume the non-humanity of the unborn. See here and here for more on that. For a response to bodily rights arguments, you can see a recent post here.
Posted by: Amy | July 27, 2013 at 10:51 AM
No Amy. If one requires empirical evidence for everything before it is considered to be "real," that is scientism. Maybe.
Or maybe
But is there really anybody that holds this view? Even after they have been shown the view is self-defeating?
You'd like to get your beliefs accepted on the basis if labeling me scientistic. Maybe you will even have some success with that.
But I'm not scientistic and nobody scientistic just because they ask you for evidence of souls or rights or whatever it is today.
Furthermore, suppose you did find a scientistic person somewhere. How is that evidence for your claims?
I'm convinced you have a mind not because it has been proven to me scientifically but because the existence of your mind is by far and away the most probable explanation for certain evidence I have before me. The existence of your mind is required to explain all that evidence.
If you can show that there is something requiring for it's explanation the introduction of a completely separate realm inhabited by immaterial souls and real rights and god(s) and so on, then you have evidence for that realm and it's inhabitants and you won't have so much trouble convincing people to believe like you do.
Posted by: RonH | July 27, 2013 at 12:34 PM
RonH,
You mean if you employ the principles of scientism to philosophy but not to some other area, you're not employing the principles of scientism to philosophy?
Posted by: SteveK | July 27, 2013 at 01:29 PM
SteveK,
Let's just say I think WLC's definition is better. I'd go with that.
Please ignore the start of my comment. Pretend it starts from the first quotation of WLC.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | July 27, 2013 at 06:53 PM
"It always amazes me that pro-choicers who take the more mystical approach, saying that life is infused into a human organism at some date after the beginning of its existence, accuse pro-lifers of making an inappropriately religious determination on the beginning of life"
Who makes that argument? The standard is the viability of the fetus. Always has been.
Posted by: jre | July 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Jre,
Really? I’m unaware of this particular standard. I'm curious how you would distinguish viability from any other arbitrary measure that could be used to determine when an unborn baby shouldn’t be killed.
I’d also add that it’s legal in a lot of places to kill viable unborn babies, so they didn’t get the memo regarding this standard you mention.
Posted by: KWM | August 01, 2013 at 10:05 AM
KVm,
"The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
Posted by: jre | August 01, 2013 at 01:02 PM
Jre,
You misunderstand the OP. It’s talking about when “life begins” not when abortion is legal. I was responding to the apparent matter-of-fact way you wrote that the standard was viability as it relates to when "life begins". I understand state abortion restrictions, Casey, etc., but there is no standard way people view the question of, “when life begins” except for embryologists. People are all over the map on this one. I’ve heard at the first breath, believe it or not.
Also, you wrote:
I’d say many do. It gets even worse. Some, as I mentioned in the first post, think the question of when life begins is influenced somehow by the feelings of the parents. Whims. Today it’s life, tomorrow if I’m having a bad day; maybe it’s not a life. We’ll see.
Who makes that argument?
Melissa Harris-Perry. MSNBC Host.
Posted by: KWM | August 01, 2013 at 02:57 PM
KVM,
I think your are making a semantic point between
"when life begins" and "when abortion is illegal".
ROE v Wade is based on the idea that they are the same thing.
But to your other point, you are right, "standard" is the wrong term. "Overwhelmingly Majority Opinion" would have been more accurate.
Posted by: jre | August 02, 2013 at 02:13 AM
On second thought, I'll stick with "standard".
Yes, agreed there is some deviation away from that point (toward birth). But, in this case, viability is the "standard" to measure that deviation. Again, overwhelmingly majority m. But, I do concede that "standard" as I originally used it to assume that there was no deviation is inaccurate.
Posted by: jre | August 02, 2013 at 02:23 AM
Jre,
This isn’t semantics. When life begins and when abortion is legal are two very different things. Let’s take the definition of life for starters, what is it? As I mentioned, what do the embryologists say? Look it up. The sources are a mile long. Did they consult people in black robes to make their determinations? Did they need the Chief Justice to weigh in?
What does Dr. Noel Tulipan say on the matter? Those that perform fetal surgery at 14-18 weeks? Do surgeons typically operate on non-living things?
The question of “when life begins” is a question of medical science. The abortion laws in this country only pay lip service to that question if at all. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
It’s a life, but many think it’s okay to kill it. Except when that life gets too big. Then things get messy.
Whims and more whims.
Posted by: KWM | August 02, 2013 at 07:37 AM