Someone asked for a response to this, so here is a quick one. Responses are in text beginning with ###
A very interesting and intriguing question.
People who are both non-religious (agnostic or atheist) and pro-life typically arrive at their position through one or more of the following perspectives:
1. Science & Biology
Many atheists and agnostics believe that human life begins at conception based on biological principles.
### Yes, but EVERYONE understands that mammalian bodies start at conception or soon after. This does not support some kind of anti-abortion conclusion, for many reasons.
From the moment of fertilization, a unique human organism with its own DNA exists, growing and developing through all the stages of human life.
### Yes, but EVERYONE understands that.
If personhood is based on human biology rather than religious or philosophical ideas, then abortion is seen as the destruction of a human life.
### No, personhood is not "based on human biology." Random human skin cells have human biology: they are not persons.
We know that we are biologically human organisms: the question then is what makes biologically human organisms like us persons? The answer "that we are biologically human organisms" is not an informative answer.
In thinking about whether AI will ever be a person, we are not thinking about whether it will be biologically human.
There are or could be non-human persons: non-humans could exist that fit the concept of "person."
Here are some thinking activities to think about what persons are:
We might begin by thinking about what makes us persons. Consider this:We are persons now. Either we will always be persons or we will cease being persons. If we will cease to be persons, what can end our personhood? If we will always be persons, how could that be?Both options yield insight into personhood. Many people think that their personhood ends at death or if they were to go into a permanent coma: their body is (biologically) alive but the person is gone: that is why other people are sad. And if we continue to exist after the death of our bodies, as some religions maintain, what continues to exist? The person, perhaps even without a body, some think! Both responses suggest that personhood is defined by a rough and vague set of psychological or mental, rational and emotional characteristics: consciousness, knowledge, memories, and ways of communicating, all psychologically unified by a unique personality.
A second activity supports this understanding:Make a list of things that are definitely not persons. Make a list of individuals who definitely are persons. Make a list of imaginary or fictional personified beings which, if existed, would be persons: these beings that fit or display the concept of person, even if they don’t exist. What explains the patterns of the lists?Rocks, carrots, cups and dead gnats are clearly not persons. We are persons. Science fiction gives us ideas of personified beings: to give something the traits of a person is to indicate what the traits of persons are, so personified beings give insights into what it is to be a person. Even though the non-human characters from, say, Star Wars don’t exist, they fit the concept of person: we could befriend them, work with them, and so on, and we could only do that with persons. A common idea of God is that of an immaterial person who has exceptional power, knowledge, and goodness: you couldn’t pray to a rock and hope that rock would respond: you could only pray to a person. Are conscious and feeling animals, like chimpanzees, dolphins, cats, dogs, chickens, pigs, and cows more relevantly like us, as persons, or are they more like rocks and cabbages, non-persons? Conscious and feeling animals seem to be closer to persons than not.[13] So, this classificatory and explanatory activity further supports a psychological understanding of personhood: persons are, at root, conscious, aware and feeling beings.
2. Human Rights & Consistency
Some argue that human rights should be universal, applying to all humans regardless of their stage of development. They see abortion as a violation of the right to life, just as they might oppose killing newborns, the disabled, or the elderly. A consistent human rights perspective—especially one rooted in concepts like bodily autonomy, non-aggression, and protecting the vulnerable—can lead someone to be pro-life.
### No leading or plausible theory of human rights proposes that we have rights simply because we are biologically human: such a theory implies a living human toe has rights.
No leading or plausible theory of human rights proposes that we have rights simply because we are biologically human organisms.
Theories based on ideas from Mill, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rawls and pretty much all other historically influential thinkers propose, ultimately, that we have rights because of characteristics that relate to us having minds or being conscious beings:
3. Secular Ethics & Moral Philosophy
Some pro-life atheists adopt secular moral frameworks, such as utilitarianism or deontological ethics, to argue against abortion. For example:
Utilitarianism: They may argue that abortion causes harm not only to the unborn child but also to society, diminishing respect for life.
Deontological Ethics: A principle-based approach may assert that killing an innocent human is always wrong, regardless of circumstances.
### Interestingly, no leading ethical theory in any way obviously condemns early abortions. Utilitarianism doesn't, since it's focus is on sentient beings. Kant's ethics doesn't: it's focus is on rational beings. Rawls' theory of justice doesn't. Really, no theory does.
The claim (which is not a "moral framework") that "killing an innocent human is always wrong, regardless of circumstances" is either false or just not applicable to cases of early abortion, for many reasons.
4. Concern for Exploitation & Social Justice
Some non-religious pro-lifers, especially feminists and progressives, argue that abortion is often a symptom of societal failures—poverty, lack of support for mothers, and male irresponsibility. They see abortion as a way that the powerful (governments, corporations, or irresponsible partners) avoid responsibility rather than addressing the needs of women and children.
### These "progressive soundbites" don't fit the case, despite sounding good to people who want to hear them. And they involve just assuming that abortion is wrong or "begging the question." See here: https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/11/abortion-and-soundbites-why-pro-choice.html
Pro-Life Soundbites
Abortion is wrong because:
- fetuses are human or human beings.
- human beings have rights.
- human rights protect all humans.
- we should advocate for equality, including equality for unborn human beings.
- abortion ends a life.
- abortion is killing.
These soundbites can sound good because human beings are generally wrong to kill; human rights do protect human beings; human rights apply to all humans; equality is a good thing; and ending lives and killing are often wrong. Denying these things often results in silly assertions: that fetuses in human women aren’t human or aren’t alive, or that abortion doesn’t involve killing, etc.
That these soundbites are based on what seems to be common sense can make these simple cases against abortion seem strong. [See the link for why these are deceptive!]
5. Personal Experience
Some atheists and agnostics who once supported abortion changed their minds after experiencing it firsthand—whether as fathers who lost their children to abortion, former abortion workers who saw what happens inside clinics, or women who felt deep regret after an abortion. Their shift is often based on emotional and ethical reflection rather than religious beliefs.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks again for such an interesting and intriguing question.
### OK, sure, but people have the "opposite" personal experiences also, and they also sometimes actually rigorously study the issues too and come to contrary conclusions!
No comments:
Post a Comment