Podcast recap: “Do you need religion to be pro-life?” with Equal Rights Institute
Josh Brahm of Equal Rights Institute invited me to record several podcast episodes with him. In this episode we explore the different reasons people think the pro-life view is inherently religious, and why Secular Pro-Life disagrees. You can watch/listen to the full episode here or read the summary below.
Key Takeaways
- You don’t need religion to oppose abortion. Atheists and agnostics (and anyone else) can hold pro-life views grounded in philosophy, biology, and human rights.
- Both pro-life and pro-choice positions rest on philosophical claims, not science alone. But the relationship between philosophical claims and religious views needs to be more carefully established.
- “I’m just being honest” is a poor excuse for abrasiveness. People can be truthful and also persuasive.
Summary
“We’re talking about whether or not you need religion to be pro-life.”
And the answer from Secular Pro-Life is? No, you don’t.
That’s the short answer, anyway.
People on both sides misunderstand what grounds secular opposition to abortion. Pro-life Christians sometimes argue that without God there is no objective morality and so no coherent basis for opposing abortion. Pro-choice critics similarly sometimes assume there can be no secular reason to place so much value on embryos.
To the Christians, we respond that (1) there are arguments for moral realism without theism (examples here), but also (2) Subjective morality is the idea that values are based on individual or cultural perspectives; it doesn’t require believing all actions are permissible. Even people who think morality is subjective still usually conclude that human beings have value and should be protected by law.
To the pro-choice critics, we point to examples of valuing prenatal life outside of the abortion debate. In particular, it’s very common and normal for people to grieve our miscarried children, including secular people. It doesn’t necessarily follow that therefore people must oppose abortion, but it opens the door to conversations about different bases for valuing embryos and fetuses.
“Why are pro-life atheists the only group that has to recreate ethics from scratch to be in the conversation?”
Biology tells us embryos and fetuses are human organisms. Whether they have moral value is a philosophical question, and it’s just as philosophical for pro-choicers as pro-lifers.
The idea that embryos are so morally valuable we can’t kill them is a philosophical premise. So is the idea that they are so morally irrelevant we can kill them for any reason. So is the idea that bodily autonomy is more important than the right to life in all circumstances. These are all philosophical premises.
Pro-choicers will describe pro-life philosophical premises as “religious” while treating their own philosophical premises as neutral. This double standard obscures the real disagreements. We both value autonomy, equality, protecting others from violence, etc, and we both argue for laws to reflect our values. We diverge on which humans we count as “people” and, after that, how bodily autonomy interplays with the right to not be killed.
If people have to first establish the metaphysical underpinnings of human rights before debating abortion, this standard applies to pro-choice atheists as much as pro-life ones. Pro-choicers argue for the human rights of bodily autonomy and gender equality, and pro-lifers argue for the human right to not be killed. We’re all arguing for human rights, so the question of where human rights come from applies to all of us.
In practice, the abortion debate is not usually about where morality (or human rights) come from, but about which humans qualify for human rights and why.
“If the debate has life-or-death consequences, then you need to care very, very much how persuasive you are.”
This can apply whether the debate is about saving lives from abortion or saving souls from hell. If a debate carries extreme consequences, we need to do more than bluntly state truths. We need to care about how effective our approach is, and whether people are going to be receptive to our points. Persuasion is more likely when we understand where people are coming from, build rapport, and tailor our arguments. That approach takes more time and energy, but it also produces more lasting results.
If you listen to the full episode and have feedback, please tell us here.
Additional Resources
- Is belief in God necessary for the pro-life cause to succeed? – an essay published in Human Life Review
- “Where do atheists think human rights come from?” – sources about moral realism from non-theistic perspectives
- Examples of pro-choice religious-esque views: “‘Where does life begin?’ is a spiritual question” and “We invited the child’s spirit to revisit Earth another time.”
If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one time donation here or volunteer with us here.
