Get your own Free Home Page
(musings on the need for secular arguments)
To pro-lifers, abortion is the most blatant moral blemish of our modern western societies. How anyone can knowingly kill defenseless persons (and I use that word intentionally) is beyond us. That some women do it unintentionally is inevitable, as the pro-choice lobby has managed to brainwash western civilization into thinking that a fetus is either a blob of tissue, a non-human or a human not worthy of rights and protection(how incredibly elitist). How can radical pro-choicers get away with such unspeakable acts?
Simple. They talk the same language the general public does, while pro-lifers, in general, don't.
Pro-choicers are either secularists or religious people with secular thinking. They speak secular. They don't invoke arguments from authority, an authority to which the general public does not adhere (or adhere too closely). They invoke arguments within the framework of the socio-political discourse which aims at the lowest common denominator. And in case you haven't noticed, the Bible as an authority is irrelevant in this context because it does not speak to millions of non-believers and on-conservatives. And so we do not have their ears and therefore their confidence. In their eyes, we are radical nuts out to impose our illogical will.
So how do we argue the pro-life position? Same as any other argument--from natural law. Interestingly enough, the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in a natural law-- i.e. a moral and philosophical law which one can attain through use of reason. After all, they did not cite the Bible in order to justify the creation of the United States and its constitution. They cited natural law, in which they all believed, whether implicitly or explicitly.
The natural law posits the existence of universals and certain truths to which all people can agree as almost obvious. With these building blocks is constructed the essentials of a moral code. There is no absolute need for the Bible (although it does come in handy)-- it's simple common sense. For instance, the idea that all humans are created equal. This is not just a truism we decided to agree upon (after all, people fought for this concept). It's a truth of natural law which is based on other conclusions-- the existence of human nature, its essential qualities (e.g. the ability to reason, etc). The existence of human nature is also based on other conclusions and so on and so forth. So many religions agree to so many basic tenets because of the inherent existence of this natural law.
Radicals do not want people to believe in a natural law. Natural law is not on their side. They try to confuse the issue by coming up with weird theories built like a house of cards-- for instance, the notion that an individual is not a human being unless "it" interacts with others--thereby justifying the killing of the fetus. In this case scenario, then, the killing of feral children is moral. Nevermind that these children are human beings and deserve love like any other human. If you want to stretch the argument, you could even make an argument that autistic or profoundly retarded people can be killed-- because they do not necessarily interact. These arguments do violence to the concept of the universality of human nature, and the fact that we are all *inherently* equal-- an equality which is something we possess due to our human nature. These notions are completely irrelevant to the radical mindset, or they have mangled them out of recognition to support their untenable views (untenable from the perspective of universals).
Quoting the Bible in this context is just setting up, as French Quebeckers would put it, a conversation between the deaf. For more and more people, the Bible is a foreign and unknown book full of strange myths, waved about by mindless and illogical evangelicals who wouldn't know a syllogism if it bit them in the ass. Saint Paul says, after all, that when we proselytize, we must become like the people to whom we address ourselves. To the Jews, we must be like Jews; to the Greeks, like the Greeks. I therefore suggest that in order to convert people to the pro-life side, we must become like the secular people and learn to think like them as far as possible. As the Bible is irrelevant, then we should chuck it-- for discussion purposes only. After all, the pro-choice side has learned this tactic well. Who, after reading Christian newsgroups, hasn't seen the pro-choice "biblical" arguments. We must fight fire with fire. If we don't, we'll surely lose the battle. The natural law has has the advantage of being totally secular. You don't need to possess a religious affiliation to adhere to it.
One special problem, though, would be discussion of the natural law with agnostics and atheists, as the natural law posits the existence of God. The point here is not to discuss the issue of his existence-- that would just side-track the debate. The point here is to convince people of the moral evil of abortion and that it should be outlawed. Atheists, in general, do not believe in universals (which is why they do not believe in God) and they are often materialists who do not believe in things like an essential human nature. However, Atheists do adhere to many other points of natural law-- for instance-- the equality of all human beings. These kinds of broad beliefs can be used as a sort of quasi-universal for the purposes of discussion. An atheist would be much more open to a debate which starts from his values rather than one which starts from a Christian perspective.
--Suzanne Fortin
sfortin@bigfoot.com
Would you like to comment on this piece? Post your thoughts on Minerva's message board.
Get your own Free Home Page