Yesterday, I noted
[H]historically, the roots of mass opposition to abortion spring from Christian seed.
That means that there are lots of people from other (and no) faith traditions who see no reason at all why they should oppose abortion and who regard the attempt to make them embrace a theology they do not, in fact, embrace as an imposition on their conscience. Such people are inevitably going to fight for abortion rights on the ground of religious liberty.
One reader asked:
I don’t follow your argument here Mark. As I don’t live in the US I am not well versed in the political and religious context you comment from but to address your main point:
The majority of embryology textbooks teach that a new human life begins at conception.
Most people would agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
So I would say that the argument against abortion is clear from a scientific and ethical perspective even before one brings their theological perspective to bear.
Secondly, bringing Christianity into the equation, do we not have a precedent for a minority (and annoying to the majority) bunch of Christians insisting on human rights being protected for groups of humans currently denied those rights? I’m thinking of Wilberforce and co.
Be interested to hear your thoughts on these two points.
I agree with the Church’s teaching that human life is sacred from conception to natural death. Interestingly, the Church has never defined when personhood begins, though it has long *practically* behaved as though the conception of Jesus is the template by which we evaluate that question. Without that template, there are other cases to be made, such as the secular argument you cite which is nicely summarized by Atheists for Life as “Because the Embryology Textbook Tells Me So”. So, for instance, atheist Christopher Hitchens opposed abortion because he knew that, at the end of the day, it takes the life of someone or something distinct from all other human beings, including its mother.
But, like it or not, that is again a religious take since the sciences can say nothing yea or nay about whether a zygote is a person with rights at all, much less rights equal to its mother’s. And (as a reading of Jewish opinion shows) there are religious worldviews that deny equal rights to the unborn, just as there are religious views that deny the unborn are persons, or place personhood at this or that stage of development. If you hold, as many Jews do, that personhood comes with the first breath, why would you feel compelled to obey a legal framework that tries to force you to say a person (as distinct from some subhuman organism) exists at conception?
As I say, I affirm the Church’s view of abortion as a grave evil and I have always done so, ever since Roe was decided (and long before I was a Christian, much less a Catholic). But at the end of the day, what I realize is that the Church’s teaching throws light on a sort of moral instinct I had before I was Christian at all, rather like Hitchens’ moral instinct. Many people share that moral instinct who are not Christian. Some few Christians can articulate their opposition to abortion in light of the Christian tradition. But without belief in the Christian tradition, there is no argument I can see that “scientifically” proves that a zygote is a person because personhood is not a scientific category. That does not mean there are no such things as persons. It means that science measures and manipulates the metric properties of time, space, matter and energy, not things like personhood, metaphysics, rights, souls, and the value of a human being.
Hitchens was a wise enough man to see that. So despite his deep moral opposition to abortion, he opposed the folly of trying to outlaw it (as do about 93% of Americans). Sooner or later, those who oppose and dislike abortion (and that is about 80% of Americans have to face the fact that if we are serious about lowering abortion rates, we have to address its real causes, which are, 3/4 of the time, economic, not legal. Women do not have abortions for fun. Nor, most of the time, do they do it because they are “pro-choice”. They do it, paradoxically, because they feel they have no other choice. And that is because “prolife” conservatives consistently support economic policies that punish poor women.
Advertisement
One Response
Isaiah 49:16
“See, you have engraved me on the palms of your hands.”
“Me” not “what will become me”
How can you even transcribe something as ludicrous as a first breath conferring personhood? I suppose you should do a deep dive into the other flights of fancy (to be kind)to be found in the Talmud.
The Jews rejected Jesus Christ. The temple was destroyed. What we observe today doesn’t even resemble the faith of the Jewish people 2000 years ago. It has morphed into something strange–an unrecognizable cult. It has completely lost its moorings. People have perpetrated all manner of horror in the name of religion.
Human life is sacred. Period. Abortion on demand is a monstrosity. We know because we aren’t animals. The fact that we are not animals is what will bring judgement down upon us if we treated our fellow human beings as objects to be abused, exploited, and thrown to a garbage dump.
Why *you* quoting the Talmud disappoints me doesn’t need an explanation. What on earth happened?