A common objection to laws that would greatly restrict or eliminate elective abortion* is based on the premise that the pro-life view is merely religious in nature, and the conclusion that pro-life laws therefore impose unwanted religious doctrine upon non-religious citizens. This objection is promoted widely through popular and influential personalities and media platforms, and is frequently used by pro-choice advocates in the general public when debating the abortion issue.
This objection can be easily refuted by considering compelling evidence that religion is not a pre-requisite for the pro-life view, and therefore, anti-abortion laws are not inherently religious.
Is the pro-life view merely religious?
It’s very common for pro-choice advocates to dismiss the pro-life view as being merely a fundamentalist Christian belief they can easily reject on the grounds they don't share the same religious views. This is why it’s important (especially for Christians) to know how to defend the pro-life position with reason and science. (I gave this kind of defense in a previous blog.) Christians who support their stand against abortion solely with Scripture and theological views will quickly lose ground in the abortion debate, even though their views are valid.
While abortion does violate the religious teachings of Christianity (as well as Mormonism, Orthodox Judaism, and Hinduism), it also violates the ethical standards of many atheists. Several secular organizations take a pro-life stance based on science and respect for human rights, without appealing to any kind of religious doctrine. If you were unaware of this, it’s most likely because these non-religious pro-life groups and individuals are largely ignored by the media and the abortion industry.
In a 2017 America Magazine article, atheist Kelsey Hazzard wrote, “The abortion industry would have you believe that people like me do not exist. They would have you believe that the pro-life movement is almost exclusively old white men, with a few pearl-clutching church ladies thrown in. This characterization is insulting to both young and old…We see abortion not as a culture war or as a religious issue but as a human rights issue.” (https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/10/19/atheists-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights-227462)
Secular Pro-Life is an organization run by three atheist women. The home page of their website states, “You don’t have to be religious to have a problem with killing humans.” Their case against abortion is completely secular, based on science and ethics. (https://secularprolife.org/)
Another organization, Rehumanize International (whose Executive Director is a pro-life atheist), makes their stance on abortion clear: “Elective abortion isn't merely a medical decision. It is an act of violence that takes the lives of ~2,500 children a day in the United States alone. Human rights violations affect us all — and abortion is one of the largest human rights violations of our lifetime.” (https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/abortion)
This evidence clearly demonstrates that religion is not required to take a stand against abortion. To claim that the pro-life view is merely religious is a gross misrepresentation of the pro-life argument. The moral logic of the pro-life view makes no appeal to religious teachings:
· It’s wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being;
· Elective abortion intentionally takes the life of an innocent human being;
· Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.
(*I use the term elective abortion to differentiate between the majority of abortions that are performed, and those performed to save the life of the mother when it is impossible to save both the mother and the baby. In the latter case, the intent is not to kill an unborn child, but to save the mother’s life.)
Can morality be legislated?
People often debate whether or not morality can be legislated. One side argues that morality can’t be legislated because laws don’t change people’s hearts. You can’t force someone to be good. The other side argues that all laws legislate morality by criminalizing immoral behavior. It’s impossible to make laws without legislating morality, since all laws declare certain behaviors are either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I believe both arguments are valid, and that a more comprehensive and accurate understanding can be gained by acknowledging and merging the two views. Martin Luther King, Jr. communicated a good understanding of this issue during the Civil Rights Movement.
In a 1963 speech at Western Michigan University, Martin Luther King, Jr. defined the statement "You can't legislate morals" as a half-truth. He stated, “Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated.” This is the responsibility and purpose of civil government—to regulate behavior in order to restrain evil acts, and to protect life, liberty and property. King went on to say, “It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also.” He acknowledged that laws can't force people to be good, but he understood that they do play a significant role in regulating human behavior by imposing a moral code on society.
Do moral laws legislate religion?
Many laws that prohibit behaviors such as murder, theft, child abuse, and drunk driving, as well as laws that compel us to pay taxes, educate our children, and practice safety, are consistent with religious teachings. It doesn't necessarily follow that these laws are legislating a particular religion simply because their moral positions are aligned.
Consider as an example the fact that the Bible teaches against theft, murder, and giving false testimony. Should we deduce that laws against such behaviors should be repealed because they impose unwanted religious values? No, such moral laws are necessary for the safety and survival of a just and orderly society. Without moral laws, our society would collapse into chaos and self-destruction.
The same can be said for the abortion issue. The fact that a moral view on abortion is consistent with a religious view doesn't mean the view is exclusively religious. This was clearly demonstrated in evidence given above.
Those who object to the idea of legislating morality are employing an inconsistent standard. People who complain about morals being imposed on them are really saying they want their own morals imposed on everyone else. They only object to the morals they disagree with. To say it's morally wrong to impose morals on others is a self-defeating argument.
The truth is, people on both sides of the abortion debate want to impose their moral views on society. Both sides deserve to be heard; but in the end, it comes down to which morality is the right morality? If the unborn are not human, then a mother's right to liberty should take precedence. There is nothing to debate. If, however, the unborn are distinct human beings, as embryology has unquestionably demonstrated, the basic human rights of the unborn supersede any other person's right to liberty or privacy. This is not a religious claim. It is no more religious to say the unborn have intrinsic value by virtue of being human that it is to say the same about a 10-yr.-old child or a 32-yr-old adult.
Final thoughts
It’s true that laws don’t miraculously change people’s hearts. Making assault and murder illegal doesn’t prevent anyone from having an evil desire to harm or kill another person. In many cases, it doesn’t prevent them from actually committing the crime. People break laws by committing evil acts every day. It’s also true that all laws establish a moral code by defining how people ought to behave. Laws impose moral values on everyone in society. In that sense, it is impossible not to legislate morality.
History demonstrates that laws can and do change people's attitudes over time. People generally believe that what is illegal is also immoral (and what is legal is therefore moral). Abolishing slavery didn't change people's hearts immediately; but gradually, pro-slavery attitudes were replaced by the belief that slavery is morally wrong. Conversely, most Americans believed abortion was immoral during nearly the first 200 years of American history. Elective abortion (abortion on demand) was illegal in every state, with a few exceptions for rape and incest added in a few states in the late 1960s. After the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973, the attitudes of Americans shifted and began to increasingly reflect the morality sanctioned by the federal government. What was once considered illegal (and immoral) was now largely accepted as moral because it became legal. Given enough time, laws certainly can change people's hearts.
I believe if people who are pro-choice would seriously consider the scientific evidence and the logical reasoning for the pro-life argument, they would find they have more in common with those of us in the pro-life camp than they think, and would willingly join forces with us to make abortion unthinkable. Many already have. I pray many more will.
Recommended reading:
Legislating Morality – Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice – Francis J. Beckwith
Opmerkingen