Why are so many atheists pro-abortion-rights?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Deborah on February 2, 2009 at 2:29pm

No, I am not related to Steve.

Regarding your statement "So there is a widespread moral belief that fetal value grows in parallel to gestation."

I see two possible bases for the widespread moral belief:
(i) that a fetus of an advanced stage of development has interests of its own that should be protected or at least taken into consideration; and
(ii) that the interests of society are served when a fetus of an advanced stage of development has some measure of protection from harm, for example by placing some limitations on the legality of late term abortions.

Although an argument could be made on the basis of (i), I was actually trying make an argument on the basis of (ii).

I think that routinised violence in a society perpetrated by humans on other humans, can make violence an ordinary, unremarkable occurrence to members of that society, thus leading to an indifference to violence and a general coarsening of attitudes. I am concerned that legalising late term abortions would have the same effect. This is my opinion but I think that it is shared by many others, and that it provides an explanation for the abovementioned moral belief amongst many members of society, including atheists.

More generally, I think that there is a widespread belief that it is in the interests of society that reverence for human life and the integrity of human bodies should be promoted. The limitations placed on late term abortions are just one expression of this belief. It is expressed in other ways too. For example, in the widespread taboo on cannibalism (including the cannibalism of persons who died a natural death).

Thus, people who are of this view believe that the interests of society as a whole would be detrimentally affected by the promotion of unrestricted access to late term abortions, and that, for the reasons mentioned above, this would not lead to the geatest good for the greatest number. If this were a small minority viewpoint, I could understand that a utilitarian would see such views as not being of much account. But if it is the viewpoint of the majority of society, surely a utilitarian should take it seriously?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Kane on February 2, 2009 at 3:51pm

I'll have more time this evening to read your post closely, but I want to point out that research indicates that legalizing abortion has an inverse relationship to crime. Wherever abortion is legalized, crime rates go down about twenty years later.

This is likely caused by children not being born to women who are not in a position to provide them a materially secure home in which they will receive sufficient nurturing and attention. Such dysfunctional homes produce a high proportion of children who commit violent crime when they are 18 - 24.

The study by John Donohue of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2001.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Kane on February 3, 2009 at 10:31am

Deborah wrote on February 2 …the interests of society are served when a fetus of an advanced stage of development has some measure of protection from harm, for example by placing some limitations on the legality of late term abortions….

I think that routinised violence in a society perpetrated by humans on other humans, can make violence an ordinary, unremarkable occurrence to members of that society, thus leading to an indifference to violence and a general coarsening of attitudes. I am concerned that legalising late term abortions would have the same effect.

I like this approach, because its validity can be tested by examining experience in the real world. In my post yesterday I mentioned studies that showed that legalizing abortion resulted in a drop in crime rates about 20 years later, as there are fewer children who were reared in dysfunctional homes.

Nostalgia for an idyllic time of innocence and virtue is hard to justify on objective criteria. Social conservatives often yearn for the simple times in the 1950s, before the rebellion against tradition that characterized the ‘60s. Or the War Generation in the 1940s, or the noble suffering of the Depression years, or the rugged independence and self-reliance of the epoch of the frontier. But direct statistical comparisons are difficult, and changes in the level of violence are the result of multiple causes. Any comparison would have to take into account the enormous progress that has been made in the intervening years against social injustice, through the passage of laws that have greatly improved the lives of people of color and of women. Around the world, giving women control over their reproductive lives by making health services available such as contraceptives and abortion are strongly associated with reducing poverty. (Yes, I will have to find if studies confirm this.)

So it will be very difficult to prove the effects of legal abortion on society, and surely intelligent and honest people may disagree. But at least we will be talking about things real and objective – actual consequences in people’s lives.

Deborah continued: This is my opinion but I think that it is shared by many others, and that it provides an explanation for the abovementioned moral belief amongst many members of society, including atheists.

I first encountered the argument in the early 60s, specifically from Catholic clergy. But I do not know of any nation in which legalizing abortion has led to increased violence or diminished respect for life. The Scandinavian nations legalized abortions before nearly all of our states, but they have very good human rights records. Compare that to the epidemic of murder going on in Mexico, where all abortions are illegal.

If there are any cases of increased violence or diminished respect for life in a nation or state that legalizes abortion, I would love to hear about it.

Deborah continued: More generally, I think that there is a widespread belief that it is in the interests of society that reverence for human life and the integrity of human bodies should be promoted. The limitations placed on late term abortions are just one expression of this belief. It is expressed in other ways too. For example, in the widespread taboo on cannibalism (including the cannibalism of persons who died a natural death).

You don’t have a right, within this argument, to call fetuses “human life,” as this assumes the ‘personhood’ that you have to prove in order to prove a case for human rights for the fetus, including the right to life.

In an earlier post I showed that the rationalist proof of the universal value of human life collapses when we try to extend it to include fetuses. I also mentioned that the conventionalist argument from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights only asserts rights “from birth.” From a utilitarian standpoint, the quality of life in society is clearly improved when we recognize human rights, but that does not appear to be the case with respect to fetal rights.

I don’t know anything at all about cannibalism. Some women eat their placentas – I’ve seen a recipe for placental stew. Isn’t that cannibalism? I don’t think there is any law against that.

Deborah continued: Thus, people who are of this view believe that the interests of society as a whole would be detrimentally affected by the promotion of unrestricted access to late term abortions, and that, for the reasons mentioned above, this would not lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. If this were a small minority viewpoint, I could understand that a utilitarian would see such views as not being of much account. But if it is the viewpoint of the majority of society, surely a utilitarian should take it seriously?

In utilitarianism, the right action is the one that leads to the greatest surplus of benefit over harm. This restricts the analysis to objective facts – peoples’ opinions are not a moral consideration.

In a utilitarian analysis, each person is the ultimate judge of whether an action harms him or benefits him. Whenever anyone tries to judge the harm or benefit to others, we have to recognize the exposure to subjectivist errors. Of course it is impractical to survey everyone who is affected by a broad social policy on how it affects him alone, so we do make assumptions and guesses. But it is always required then to examine those assumptions when reasonable challenges are raised.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Deborah on February 3, 2009 at 5:55pm

Referring again to your statement of 2 February 2009 that "there is a widespread moral belief that fetal value grows in parallel to gestation", it would be reasonable to suppose that persons who have this belief would be against a law that permits unrestricted access to late term abortions, and would be unhappy with such a law. I assume that, for the purpose of your utilitarian analysis, such unhappiness would be regarded as an objective fact. So from your utilitarian standpoint, the issue of whether it is right or wrong to permit unrestricted access to late term abortions will depend on how widespread is the moral belief that fetal value grows in parallel to gestation. Is this a correct statement of your view?

Permalink Reply by Renee Gura on February 3, 2010 at 11:30pm

On the flip side: denying women with uterii the ability to deny the use of that uterii also "cheapens human life" - in this case it is the woman's life that is cheapened.

I place more value on the woman than I do the fetus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Kane on February 3, 2009 at 9:02pm

Deborah wrote on February 3 Referring again to your statement of 2 February 2009 that "there is a widespread moral belief that fetal value grows in parallel to gestation", it would be reasonable to suppose that persons who have this belief would be against a law that permits unrestricted access to late term abortions, and would be unhappy with such a law. I assume that, for the purpose of your utilitarian analysis, such unhappiness would be regarded as an objective fact. So from your utilitarian standpoint, the issue of whether it is right or wrong to permit unrestricted access to late term abortions will depend on how widespread is the moral belief that fetal value grows in parallel to gestation. Is this a correct statement of your view?

Of course not. It made me very unhappy that Pittsburgh won the Superbowl, but that has no moral significance whatsoever. By your argument, we should dispense with the separation of church and state because so many people are upset that the state will not reassure them that they will spend eternity flying around clouds playing harp. I do not consider one's mood to be an attributable harm.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Deborah on February 4, 2009 at 1:41pm

In that case, I imagine that, in addition having a problem with legislation limiting late term abortions, you will also have a problem with a number of other types of legislation. The examples which spring to my mind are laws regulating the treatment of animals and laws aimed at protecting or improving the appearance of an environment.

A law providing that an owner of an animal should not allowed it to starve would, according to you, be unethical because it would be an unjustifiable imposition on the resources of the owner, even if the owner happens to be well-heeled. Similarly, you would say that a law prohibiting pit bull fights is unethical because it would result in an unjustifiable deprivation of a source of income to a person who wishes to hold a fight. A law regulating the number of billboards visible from a freeway would, according to you, be unethical because limiting the number of billboards that can be erected on properties adjacent a freeway would detrimentally affect the financial interests of advertisers and would deprive the owners of properties adjacent the freeway of income derived from the use of their properties to erect the billboards. This, you would say, would be unjustifiable, even if it were established that the vast majority of persons would prefer that the number of billboards be limited, since their preferences would, according to you, amount to purely personal and subjective tastes which should not be protected by law to the detriment of the objective, financial interests of others.

I think that the difficulty in justifying the regulation of late term abortions in terms of your utilitarian ethical system is just one manifestation of a general weakness of your system, which is its discounting of communal aspirations relating to widely held sentiments and tastes in favour of other kinds of interests, such as financial interests.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Kane on February 5, 2009 at 1:07am

These are good questions, Deborah.

I’ve always had a hard time accounting for animal rights with a utilitarian analysis. Other utilitarians, like Peter Singer and Sam Harris, don’t consider it a problem, but I haven’t been convinced by what I’ve seen of there analysis. They consider pain to be an objective evil, regardless of what organism experiences it. I find the argument confusing when we move from talking about the painless slaughter of food animals to the extinction of disease-bearing insects. In the latter case, I don’t think the pain felt by the insects is a consideration at all. But I do not think that even the dearest pets can be counted among “the greatest number” in a utilitarian analysis.

I have always heard that children taking pleasure in harming animals is a strong predictor of later sociopathic behavior. So if a child sets the household cat on fire, we would expect the parents to get him psychological help, not be happy because he enjoyed himself. If an adult enjoys staging pit-bull fights, that is not made moral because of the pleasure that he derives, but neither is it bad because animal lovers deplore it. Rather, cruelty to animals is deplored because of its connection to sociopathic behavior.

I realize that your point is that abortion is bad for the same reason, what you called “the brutalization of society.” But I think this is a false comparison. As far as I know, animal cruelty really does correlate with cruelty to other humans. I have never heard, however, that the abortion decision correlates with any objectionable treatment of people. In fact, it is the opponents of abortion who have maintained the monopoly of violence in this dispute, bombing Planned Parenthood clinics and assassinating surgeons.

I have never before encountered your argument that the restricting billboards because of aesthetic offense is a parallel justification to restrictions on abortion. If it is not morally significant that legal abortions makes anti-abortionists cranky, why should it be morally significant that billboards also make people cranky? Can it be justified to restrict the billboard owner’s economic rights, causing him manifest harm, to satisfy the subjective aesthetic tastes of others?

I’ll admit that I do think that highway beautification is a significant quality-of-life issue, even though it’s effect is ultimately on people’s moods. A utilitarian analysis is always one of proportion, balancing benefit in peoples’ lives against harm to find how to maximize the surplus of benefit. My willingness to restrict billboards is because I consider the improvement in the quality of life to be enormously widespread, while the economic significance of the billboards is small and the limited to a few small companies.

In the abortion decision, I consider the effect on the quality of life of the woman, her partner and support group, and the child are enormous. Even if we consider only the effect on society as a whole, I consider the cost and danger of children being reared in dysfunctional homes as greater than the benefit of satisfying people that the government confirms their values.

I’ve written many times in Atheist Nexus discussions that I think that leaving the abortion decision to the pregnant woman leads to the best results in the United States in the 21st Century, but this is not a universal judgment. In a small nomadic society, where lifespans are short, every law to maximize the birth rate may be necessary for the survival of the tribe. In China, where sharply curtailing population growth is an essential component of the plan for economic growth, it makes sense to put the abortion decision in the hands of the state.

You asked good questions, Deborah. My baseline position is that moral and public policy right are determined by maximizing the surplus of benefit over harm in peoples’ lives. I hope that this shows that my judgments on these diverse issues are consistent in this regard.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PizzaTheHutt on February 5, 2009 at 11:39pm

No, i find pro-choice just the better thing to do as each individual has a choice and aren't bogged down because the majority chooses no. We are freethinkers us atheists and pretty much 99% of the time promote the liberal side.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nandi on July 29, 2009 at 4:41am

I'm pro choice because I've known people that all things considered, the more humane thing would have been to have an abortion than to have had them as kids and then treat them as so unwanted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adrian Lovett on July 29, 2009 at 4:55am

My question, and I apologise if due to my slow, slow computer I've missed the post that addresses this, is simply: is there any non-religious, non-spiritual, non-dogmatic reasons to be against abortion. Seriously, is there a secular objection?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brandon Benkosky on July 29, 2009 at 7:11am

this is exactly how i feel. Quality not Quantity.

Reply by BADWOLF on December 22, 2008 at 4:16pm
"i be anti abortion if 4/5ths of the human race gets wiped out but until then there are too many fuckers on this planet"

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page