In 2019, the religious right in America lobbied state governments to have their theological assumptions about abortion embedded in law. Several states complied, outlawing abortion under most circumstances. Likewise, in 2014, radical feminists in Canada successfully persuaded federal politicians to criminalize the purchase of sexual services. Six years later, the Canadian law remains in effect.
The stakes here are real. Secular values involving truth, equality, freedom and compassion are being undermined by both religious and feminist ideologues.
Evangelical Christians and Abortion: Church and State Collide
America is a nation that prides itself on separating church and state—that is, unless the issue is abortion. A recent rash of state restrictions on abortion rights clearly demonstrates three elemental truths about the Christian right: it wants to make religion operative within secular law; it demands punishment for transgressors; and it ignores empirical research when crafting legislation.
Republican politicians defending the pro-life perspective have made no attempt to conceal their religious biases. Take, for instance, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey. She believes that the sanctity of life ethos, which is grounded in Christian belief, should be the guiding principle shaping the state’s new foetal heartbeat law. “This legislation [HB 314] stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,” affirmed Ivey.
Likewise, in Texas, Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington), the state representative who introduced the Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act, has admitted that God is foundational to his legislative aims: “God creates children in his own image, regardless of how that child is brought into the world, it’s created in his image, and how can someone want to destroy that?”
In Georgia, HB 481, dubbed the “Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act,” would ban abortion when a foetal heartbeat can be detected, typically at six weeks’ gestation. After signing the bill into law, Republican Governor Brian Kemp confirmed that HB 481 was a declaration that “all life has value, that all life matters, and that all life is worthy of protection.”
The act’s sponsor, Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth), maintains the traditional Christian notion that life begins at conception: “The fact that, morphologically, certain organs have not grown or their arms aren’t as visible, doesn’t change the fact that they are living, distinct human beings.” Other Republican lawmakers who supported the legislation have outlined their position in vividly theistic terms: “There are many scriptures that make it clear to me that God knew us and had a plan for us when we were still in our mother’s womb,” admitted Republican Sen. Greg Kirk.
Ohio’s own heartbeat bill, SB 23, formerly known as the “Human Rights Protection Act,” bans abortion after just six weeks. It was the brainchild of anti-abortion activist Janet Folger Porter. A zealot with a track record of conjuring up conspiracy theories, Porter claimed that God, “put this idea into my heart,” adding that she was inspired by Ohio’s state motto: with God, all things are possible.
For anyone who rejects religious dictates and seeks out an abortion, there is no mercy. In Missouri, doctors who perform abortions will be given five to fifteen years in prison for violating the eight-week cut-off. In Alabama, any physician who terminates a pregnancy at any time after conception faces up to 99 years in prison. Not only did Texas politicians forbid exceptions for rape, incest or foetal abnormalities, but women who have abortions could be prosecuted for murder—and potentially receive the death penalty.
In December 2019, Ohio made headlines again when Republican legislators proposed to ban all abortions. They demanded the death penalty for both women and for doctors who break the law, allowed no exceptions for rape or incest and wanted to require a medically impossible procedure to implant an ectopic pregnancy into a woman’s uterus. Governor Mike DeWine did not view these measures as “extreme,” admitting that his is a “pro-life administration.” But death penalty opponents found it disturbing that a supposedly pro-life government would invent a new capital crime—aggravated abortion murder—and then put someone to death for aborting a foetus.
When lobbying for abortion restrictions, religious militants and the politicians who enable them tend to ignore evidence-based inquiry that challenges their narrative that abortion is psychologically harmful to the mother. This claim was debunked by a 2015 American study, which found that more than 95% of women did not regret their abortions. In fact, “women overwhelmingly felt abortion was the right decision in both the short-term and over three years, and the intensity of emotions and frequency of thinking about the abortion declined over time,” the study concluded.
Severe medical complications and deaths from abortion are highly unlikely, largely because most abortions are performed early in the pregnancy. A landmark 2018 report entitled “The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States” found that 90% of all abortions occurred during the first trimester, and complications from abortions were “rare.” There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that women suffer adverse long-term emotional or physical effects from abortions.
The religious right also lacks a moral majority. According to a 2019 CBS News poll, two-thirds of Americans want Roe v. Wade—the landmark 1973 case that protects abortion rights—left in place. If the law were overturned, almost twice as many Americans would be dissatisfied/angry as opposed to happy/satisfied (48% and 26%, respectively).
In a 2018 Gallup poll, when asked, “with respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?” more Americans sided with the former designation than the latter (49% and 45%, respectively). And, according to a 2018 Pew Research Survey, 58% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, whereas only 37% believe that it should be illegal. In addition, 77% of Americans—including 57% of those who identify as pro-life—support abortion in cases of rape or incest.
More Americans identify with the pro-choice side of the debate and want medical access to abortion and few women experience physical or psychological drawbacks. For secularists, these hard truths should help to inform public policy and law, but religious extremists are not interested in research. From the beginning, their goal has been to pressure Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade. With the inauguration of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s controversial nominee, they are closer than ever to achieving that aim.
Americans face an important litmus test. Do they want laws grounded in secular ideals—evidence-based reasoning, freedom of choice, and compassion for women—or do they want them to be shaped by religious dogma? Pro-choice supporters need to be ready to defend secularism because pro-life forces have already decided that faith trumps fact.
Radical Feminists and Prostitution: Ideology Reigns Supreme
Although they reject patriarchal religions, radical feminists have, ironically, become a new priesthood. They imagine a world in which prostitution is permanently outlawed, a utopian fantasy based on the grand narrative that men exploit and oppress women whenever they purchase their sexual services. To impose this ideological worldview on others, radical feminists dismiss any empirical studies or competing perspectives that challenge their sacred beliefs. The end goal—to punish men who purchase sex—is what truly matters.
Abolitionist feminist organizations first tried their luck with the judiciary. In Bedford v. Canada, a 2010 Ontario Superior Court of Justice case that found the Criminal Code provisions surrounding prostitution unconstitutional, feminist interveners suggested that prostitution was “a global practice of sexual exploitation and male violence against women that normalizes the subordination of women in a sexualized form.” Prostitution, they claimed, “exploits and compounds the systematic inequality of women.” In 2013, leading up to an appeal of Bedford before the Supreme Court of Canada, the interveners once again staked out their position clearly: men were “the source of prostitution’s harms.”
However, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the radical feminist position. On the basis of decades of research, the justices emphasized that the current criminal code provisions prevented prostitutes from working indoors, forced them to spend less time vetting clients and prevented them from hiring security. In other words, the law made the lives of sex workers more dangerous. Radical feminists ignored the decision and, like their religious counterparts in America, began to lobby politicians directly.
When the Conservative Party of Canada passed Bill C-36, the “Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act,” in 2018, radical feminists were instrumental in framing the bill’s major conclusions. For instance, grave concerns were expressed about “the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution,” as well as “the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity.” Of import was the need “to protect human dignity and the equality of all Canadians by discouraging prostitution.” First and foremost, this would be accomplished by prohibiting “the purchase of sexual services.” To anyone familiar with women’s studies discourse, this is the rhetoric of second-wave feminism writ large.
Obsessed with victimhood, radical feminists place their faith in the oppression paradigm—the belief that prostitutes can be reduced to a single category and are universally exploited and violated. Credible evidence, however, contradicts this model. For instance, in Sex Work in Canada, a report issued by Cecilia Benoit and Leah Shumka, the authors note that “anywhere from 60–80% of indoor workers report never experiencing any work-related violence.”
International studies have produced similar results. In Nevada, where prostitution has been legal since 1971, the exploitation myth has been widely discredited. Of the brothel workers surveyed by Barbara G. Brents and her colleagues, the vast majority (84%) felt safe in their jobs, were free to come and go, and had not been forced into the trade. A 2011 Queensland, Australia report by the Crime and Misconduct Commission acknowledged that, “regulated brothels are the safest and healthiest work environments for sex workers.” And, according to a 2004 report by the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, the “vast majority” of workers in Dutch brothels and window units report that they “often or always feel safe.”
But empirical findings are only relevant to those who subscribe to objective standards. Sadly, abolitionist feminists do not. They feel that paid sex constitutes violence, so, from their point of view, personal conviction should dictate legislative aims. But radical feminists who seek to criminalize consensual sex between adults in private—and then arbitrarily select which gender belongs in prison—are clearly motivated by animus. Their methods speak for themselves.
First, those who buy sexual services (primarily men) are labeled victimizers and targeted for criminal sanctions. By contrast, those who supply sexual services—mostly women—are treated as victims of sexual violence and offered exit strategies. Known as asymmetrical criminalization, this legal tactic treats men and women differently under the law. From the abolitionist feminist perspective, some are more equal than others.
Because radical feminist ideology informs Bill C-36, men face incarceration for up to five years in prison for the “crime” of offering financial compensation for sexual services. And women who wish to stay in the sex trade often find themselves in more dangerous, underground environments, which directly threaten their health and even lives. Phoebe J. Galbally puts it succinctly:
The radical feminist perspective of sex work, as deployed throughout the enactment of Bill C-36, has the effect of undermining the capacity for women to consensually engage in sex work, directly criminalizes their status, and provides no alternate means for their subsistence—a factor that is particularly problematic in light of the noted effects of poverty and social disadvantage in generating the need to engage in sex work.
If Galbally’s conclusions are true, it is anti-prostitution legislation—not sex work—that is a form of violence.
The fact is: most Canadians do not have a moral problem with sex work. According to a 2011 Angus Reid Survey, 67% of Canadians believe that prostitution “should be legal between consenting adults.” A clear majority of respondents (62%) “support the notion of prostitutes working indoors”: a far safer option than call-out work. The same percentage agreed that “they would be comfortable living in a society where prostitution is legal.” A mere 35% of the populace supported Bill C-36.
Radical feminists have never addressed the tough questions. For example, why do more than 150 human rights organizations want the Canadian federal government to decriminalize sex work? Moreover, why do Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization all support decriminalization? Why do liberal feminists support sex workers’ rights? Most importantly, why do Canadian sex workers themselves lobby for decriminalization?
Answering these inquiries honestly would force radical feminists to concede that their political position is fallible. Too often, though, radical feminists view uncertainty as a threat to their worldview. This insecurity leads to the reinforcement of two cognitive biases: noble cause distortion (a belief that, if the cause is just, illegal or unethical means may be used to achieve it) and confirmation bias. Left unchecked, these weaken the link between evidence and sound decision-making and corrupt the rational basis of law.
If new legislation were passed based on secular values, the Liberal Party of Canada, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, would quickly resolve four important issues. First, the government would be delivering the compassionate message that the health and safety of sex workers is being taken seriously. Second, if neither sex were liable to criminal charges, both men and women would be treated equally under the law. Third, by removing the ideological basis of Bill C-36, liberals would reaffirm the position that sexual freedom takes precedence over state paternalism. Lastly, legislation would be grounded in evidence, not dogma.
Two Choices: Secularism or Ideology
Secularism’s core values—truth, freedom, equality and compassion—lead to a more just society. Religious fundamentalists and radical feminists undermine these values whenever they reject evidence-based inquiry in favour of belief. In this sense, they are two sides of the same coin.
Both groups want the law to be tailored to fit their perfectionist ideals surrounding reproductive choice and sexual behaviour. Their underlying motivation is the need to control the actions of those who offend against their ideological worldviews.
In America, theists want to shape law according to a militant form of evangelical Protestantism. With the support of Donald Trump, along with a Republican-dominated Supreme Court, their hope is to make America religious again. Unfortunately, this means that women must now live with the kind of draconian abortion legislation that harkens back to the laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
In Canada, radical feminist ideology has influenced legal matters concerning prostitution. This has resulted in the passage of Bill C-36, an act that has nothing to do with protecting women. The law is being used as a means to deter the demand for sexual services.
When framing legislation, the secular state is supposed to keep ideologues at bay, but governments can, at times, fail in this regard. The ability of religious extremists and radical feminists to bend legislation in their favour should be a stark reminder to us all that where ideology thrives, secularism dies.
30 comments
“three elemental truths about the Christian right: it wants to make religion operative within secular law”
As usual secularists fail to understand that their own deeply held, axiomatic belief system, tho it might lack a deity (other than themselves) and official places of worship, is in all practical respects a religion and they themselves feel entirely comfortable making it operative within secular law. Apart from abortion, one of the few areas where Christians want to interfere with another person (because the feel the unborn have the right to life … hey, let’s have a slogan: ULM … unborn lives matter.) — apart from that I find that it’s the secularists who are constantly interfering with my freedom and trying to remove the freedom of others. The most bigoted, closed minded, simplistic people I know are the fundamentalist secularists.
Fundamentalist “anything” is closed-minded, but secularists in general are not. Besides, secular arguments require constraints anchored in science, logic, or constitutional law. Religious fanatics just cite “God” as the Republican politicians in America did to pass anti-abortion laws. So yes, there is quite a difference between religious fundamentalists and secularists (the former being quite arrogant and dogmatic).
“secularists in general are not”
That is not my experience with them. Mind, I want to be careful how much guilt by association I tar you with, but the woke are surely on your side of the barricade and …
“secular arguments require constraints anchored in science, logic, or constitutional law.”
… the woke believe that there is no such thing as biological sex and that men and women have identical aptitudes. This is Correctness but not science. Further, science informs us quite clearly that a near term fetus is a human being in every respect. There is neither science, nor logic in the pro-choice position which, for some reason it considered ‘secular’ probably because the people who oppose it are likely to be (but not required to be) religious. As for law, the law is what we make it.
“(the former being quite arrogant and dogmatic)”
In the opinion of the secularists, but again my experience is that it is the secularists who are arrogant and dogmatic most of the time — not that there isn’t enough to go around!
oh Stuart. Prepare yourself for a barrage of unfounded assertions, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. Just as one would expect from religious fundamentalists who describe secularists as being their own deity.
“Just as one would expect from religious fundamentalists”
See what I mean about bad logic Stuart? In particular jumping to conclusions and ad hominem. Not to mention intolerance and arrogance.
I’m an agnostic.
Ray, you equate secularists with “woke,” but the latter term is associated with the far left, whereas secularists could be from any political bent.
“you equate secularists with “woke,””
Pardon sir but if you reread you will note my apology in advance for perhaps tarring you with too wide a brush. I only point out that most of the woke would consider themselves secularists and are thus ‘on your side of the barricade’. I know that probably most secularists are entirely sane and reasonable people, as you are.
Ray, secular beliefs do not constitute a religion; hence, the separation of church and (secular) state.
“secular beliefs do not constitute a religion”
Sometimes they do tho. I know many secular fundamentalist who consider their moral views to be beyond question. IMHO what makes a religion is not a deity and formalized worship and such, it is a kind of mind. Not to quibble about semantics, but when you hear that ‘Nazism was a religion to many Germans’, or similar expressions, you understand what is meant and you probably agree. Perhaps not a religion in the narrow sense, but creating the same kind of dogmatism, intolerance, arrogance, and so on.
Ray, here is someone who explains the difference between secularists and fundamentalist religious believers: https://secularsociety.co.za/yuval-noah-harari-on-the-secular-ideal-six-commitments-for-the-twenty-first-century/
Thanks for the link. I’m not saying that secularists can’t be enlightened and rational, only that they don’t have a monopoly on that although they usually think they do, and they can be moronic fundamentalists as bad as any Bible thumper. One can have an honest debate whether the world would work better without religion of the theistic kind. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and PolPot thought so. Others say that religion is a sort of distillation of accumulated wisdom and God is the figurehead that gives it authority. I myself look at much of the legislation and social change that has come from secularists and I don’t see an improvement over the older views in some cases.
Ray, what’s wrong with secular laws supporting euthanasia? The result was less suffering. Not sure how that can be a poor law. It respects compassion, choice, and autonomy, all secular values.
“what’s wrong with secular laws supporting euthanasia”
I support them personally. But there is a case to be made against it that boils down to a slippery slope thing. You can call it religious, I call it looking more deeply.
Ray, I will be honest. I do not think that you understand what a “slippery slope” entails. Look more deeply by reading this: this:https://impactethics.ca/2020/02/13/media-promotes-baseless-slippery-slope-claims/
” I do not think that you understand what a “slippery slope” entails.”
Pretty credible logic there Stuart. I counter that the real defect in most SS arguments is that actually we are *always* on a slippery slope but then two more questions must be considered: are we actually ‘sliding’, and should we be sliding?
Every social question or policy is susceptible to sliding no? If we raise bus fares 10% we are on a slippery slope to increasing them 100X, no? All reasonable people stand on the slippery slope because they try to find the balance point between competing values. In fact all reasonable people should be prepared to slide a little bit one way or the other as situations change.
So when it comes to euthanasia of course we are on a slippery slope. Are we sliding? We very well may be and perhaps in the right direction. But perhaps not! What should be taken from SS claims is simply the reminder that we need to be cautious. Given the costs associated with looking after the old and the ill and the dying, the temptation to lower the bar will always be there and the pressure to do so will be high. This should be faced honestly and we should be very, very cognizant of it when modifying the law. SS is our friend if we use it correctly.
No Ray. For a slippery slope to be credible, the change must be proven to be “reckless.” We changed the law because the decision to euthanize dying patients (or those suffering in extreme ways) did not bring about any bogeyman, such as a return to Nazi eugenics. Change happens everywhere, so to say that we are shifting is meaningless. Is the shift dangerous? In euthanasia, it isn’t since there is no evidence of a reckless policy, one that undermines constitutional rights (i.e., killing someone against consent).
“Change happens everywhere, so to say that we are shifting is meaningless. Is the shift dangerous?”
That’s what I said. Folks take SS to mean that one is taking some action that might, taken to the extreme, be dangerous. I point out that that is *always* true, and so it is not sufficient to say that we are ON a slippery slope, it is required to show that we are (1) sliding on it and (2) sliding in a dangerous way — sliding in some way that can be shown to be dangerous. I don’t think we really disagree. In the case of euthanasia the SS is obvious but again the question is not if we are on a SS, the question is if are we sliding and is their sufficient valid cause for alarm to think that that slide is so dangerous that the right thing to do is abolish euthanasia. In my view that test has not been met. But I still am aware of the danger that it could become true. One should never loose sight of what could go wrong.
Well Ray, since a Nazi eugenics program has not appeared in Oregon, Canada, Holland, or Belgium, I am going to take a gamble and say that euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide/medical assistance in dying has not led to a society that is sliding off a cliff. In other words, safeguards work, and we know how to manage them.
“has not led to a society that is sliding off a cliff. In other words, safeguards work, and we know how to manage them.”
I agree. But note that the fact that, so far, we have not slid off the edge of the cliff does not mean that we can relax. We *are* on a slippery slope and if we are not careful overworked doctors and underfunded hospitals might, slowly, slowly, start to speed things along. See? I’m for euthanasia, but I’m also aware of what could go wrong. Others (not me) say that the risks are too great. I disagree with them, but their point of view is legitimate.
Again, I would like to draw attention to a distinction made (as I recall) by liberal Protestant theologian Harvey Cox in his 1964 book “The Secular City” between “secularity” as the separation of church and state, religion and legislation, sectarian belief and public policy, versus “secularism” as a dogmatic, fanatical hostility to religion that in effect “sacralizes” atheism and metaphysical materialism into a new religion itself. Devout Christians and Muslims in India, Cox observed, were ardent supporters of the Nehru regime’s adamant secularity in resisting the theocratic pressures of Hindu fundamentalists trying to bring back the caste system, untouchability, cow-worship, widow-burning, arranged child marriages, and the persecution of Christians and Muslims. Cox also quoted Christian dissidents in Eastern Europe wgo complained that by aggressively, intolerantly promoting their own official brand of dogmatic atheism and materialism the allegedly “secularist” Communists were in effect actually not being sincerely “secular” enough! In contemporary America, as I see it, traditional anti-woke liberals are staunch advocates of “secularity” in Harvey Cox’s sense, while the “woke” and “politically correct” are very much followers of Cox’s “secularism” as a dofmatic new religion.
“versus “secularism” as a dogmatic, fanatical hostility to religion”
Excellent post Peter. Indeed the secularism of true neutrality can so easily morph into the fundamentalist secularism of the militant atheist who is not neutral but hostile.
I am most chocked by the following statements in this article : “Radical feminists ignored the decision and, like their religious counterparts in America, began to lobby politicians directly.”
To make and pass law is the job of politician (wether they are good or bad at it is another story). The court role is to enforce the law in litigious cases and to clarify its application.
Thus, when one is in disagreement with a law, it is quite normal to try to lobby politician : if I think that or this law are not good or should be changed, what I have to do it to go see politician, not go to the court. At least that is how it should be. What is final is the political decision, not the court. Radical feminist may or may not be right about their claims and positions, but it is far more logical and sane in a democracy to go see the politician than to go to the court.
Frankly, I think one of the main reason abortion is still such an issue in the US is because there was no law on it, but a court decision. It means that at the time there was no real, political debate on this question. Thus, the pro-life feels, and they are right I think, that they have been wronged. A clean political debate in the congress would have end the debate : to be precise there would still be pro-life and a few lobbying but the game would essentially have been over (if the pro-choice had won the political debate that is).
The same is true for homosexual marriage by the way.
Court are not sipposed to pass law. It creates resentment and since we are in democaracy is unfair : I lose in the senate ? Well, I will by-pass democracy because my ideas are too important and good and right.
Note that from this point of view the radical feminists or evangelical christian abide more by the rule of the game than their opponents (nonethelss the right or wrong of their positions).
Second point is : people vote for representant in the senate, congres… those politician have dieas and campaigned fo them. If a pro-life majority won, then the rule of the democratic game is that they are allowed, and in some ways right to apply their programm, and thus to pass law against abortion. (and the contrar is true for pro-choice). I mean : those republicans never hides what were their ideas. They are not traitorous in making them true (even if it can be disgusting). That is democracy, somtimes you lose, sometimes you win. The wnner has the majority and legitimacy with him.
Third : to frame the debate on pragmatic and practical facts (safety of sex worker, feelings of women after abortions…) is important, but the non-secularist make their argument on another level I would say. For them the question is not that it is safe or not, but that it is morally wrong. If I can compare, it is like the secularist ask if the executionners in the case of death penalty fells good or not about their job. If they have no problem with it then we maintain death penalty, if not we do not. It is not the much apt comparison but I think it shows the difference between the level in the debate : pragmatism is good indeed but it is not the only point here.
In the same way by denying the use of religious argument, the debate is rigged against some people : the secularist is saying to its opponent : come, let’s fight on my ring, with my rules, and without your hands. It is easier to win when you deny your boxing opponent the use of its hand…
Religion and state should be separated, but it does not mean that church cannot do lobbying. Why forbid church to do lobbying ? And not company ? and not associations ?
secularist are right to fear and fight, but I think they should weight a little more their own argument and play a little fairer. Had they not overused of the court to pass on their visions, theyr opponnents would probably be less dangerous and radicals by now.
But I may be partial in that, even if I am not Canadian nor American.
When you say that “I am most shocked by the following statements in this article: ‘Radical feminists ignored the decision and, like their religious counterparts in America, began to lobby politicians directly,’” you should be more shocked about how radical feminists argue the anti-prostitution side of the debate. In other words, what are the grounds for their arguments? It has nothing to do with evidence, and everything to do with ideology (i.e., a worldview or grand narrative). Radical feminists lost another court decision in Canada this past February (R. v. Anwar), and the judge summed up their arguments perfectly: Justice McKay further addressed the “inability of both [feminist/Crown expert’s] witnesses to consider any position other than their favoured ideology.”
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2020/2020oncj103/2020oncj103.html?autocompleteStr=r.%20v.%20anwar&autocompletePos=1
Okay, I agree with the author on both points, I disagree only on one “detail” on the issue of abortion.
On religion, I really advocate separating that from the state. In addition to being beneficial to society, it is in my opinion beneficial to religion itself, just see that when (religion) decided to impose its concepts until it committed its failures.
About radical “feminists” I see an error in the sense that they are going against individuality. As long as it is a free choice, it is up to women to decide what is valid or not to be done with their bodies.
Now let’s go to the “detail” you said. The author used the religious “argument” as a flaw and on the issue of abortion the author decided to use psychology with the argument that “few women experience physical or psychological disadvantages.” But further down, the author says: “Americans face an important litmus test. They want laws based on secular ideals – evidence-based reasoning (…)
When does life start? According to science (ie without religion) it is in fertilization. Did they change the biology I learned at school, or did they make a big discovery that supports abortion scientifically and I don’t know? Wouldn’t supporting abortion go against reasoning based on scientific evidence?
Well, is that why the issue of abortion was changed? Instead of the question when life begins, the question now is when does the fetus become sufficiently human? Is up to six weeks just any “object”? Where’s the scientific data?
I find it strange that people criticize religious for basing their opinions simply on faith without analyzing the scientific facts but using an argument presenting data from opinion polls, psychological data in relation to women but nothing scientific in terms of biology. The Governors went for the religious “argument”, but against arguing anything about science?
In order not to dwell on it, the real question that is still being asked by many still seems to forget is: Is the defense of abortion scientifically based, or is it opinion based only on philosophy?
Personally, I am still against abortion. I am in favor of women doing what they want with their own bodies, but not when it involves another being in development. The right to eliminate a life does not enter my mind because I do not want it. The fecundadão happened how? Do you get pregnant just by breathing now or does there have to be something for that? We are not in antiquity when there was no total awareness and access to contraceptive methods! Abortion in my view is the greatest genocide in the history of mankind, without using religion as an argument, I am not even a conservative. I know it is not a comfortable issue, and I am not even concerned about a rejection in the comments here but that is how I see the issue.
Don’t forget that secular values are quite comprehensive. It’s not just evidence that matters (although the governors supporting anti-abortion laws jettisoned evidence-based reasoning for evangelical Christian conceptions of life). Secular values also include freedom and compassion. Not sure how women can truly be free without reproduction choice and the resources needed to follow through with that choice. Also, compassion is sadly lacking in the American debate. Jailing women for years (or decades) or killing them for an abortion hardly seems compassionate (it’s also hypocritical for any pro-life supporter). In Canada, it’s not an issue. Foetuses are not people; therefore, they have no rights. In Canada, any politician who attempts to pass a law limiting abortion rights in any way has a short career.
Just making my point clear. It turns out that I did not defend the religious and their arguments. I defended precisely a scientific fact that life begins with cooking. Isn’t religion right? Not even those who are in favor of abortion can deny this, so they excluded the scientific data and used a philosophical discussion.
Now about female freedom I am in favor, of course, who would be rational against it? Now, from the moment a pregnancy happens, it is not just about your freedom, but about the right to preserve the life of another. Now there are two beings, not just one. Fetuses are not people, but a developing (human) living being is not a uterine cancer or object. We all know what a woman has to do to be pregnant, right? Free sex is legal and women have freedom as any man, but when the consequence of sex comes a “simple” solution is presented in the guise of abortion: Abortion! I’ve always been taught that there is no freedom without responsibility. In the secular world, preventing a life is right, is it freedom? “Cool then!”
Compassion? For those who see abortion as taking a life (science), they also have compassion for the developing human being. To be humanist is to be in favor of those who have not yet been born. Anyway, I’m just focusing on science and this one, pro-abortion can’t deny. For me, I’m sorry if women offend but abortion is murder (preventing a life). Again, advocates of abortion use beautiful rhetoric (reproductive rights) disguised as humanists but do not use science. What is the difference with religious?
In order not to go too long, I make two observations:
Point 1- I did not come to defend the religious vision and its interference in the State. Point 2- I am not in favor of the death penalty as they propose and I personally did not think what can be done in these cases. I think about preventing pregnancy, responsible sex education. Freedom / responsibility, that’s all!
Carlos, under the constitution, the right to “life” is given to those who are “persons.” Foetuses do not fall into that category; hence, they have no right to life. Therefore, abortion, by law, does not constitute murder. You say that, scientifically, there is a “life” there, but that’s not the same as saying there is a “person” there, and from the standpoint of constitutional law, “personhood” is what matters. Religious groups can believe all they like that abortion is murder, but that assumption is founded on God (i.e., evangelical Christian values or faith positions), not science.
If poverty and social disadvantage cause people to “need” to engage in sex work, why not do something to relieve the poverty and social disadvantage? Severe social stigma as well as physical and emotional health hazards are well known accompaniments to working as a prostitute. Legalization has not removed these dangers.
Like many AREO contributors, Stuart Chambers uses “secularism” to designate the liberal ideal of keeping government, legislation, and public policy free of sectarian or narrowly, fanatically ideological pressure–whether from traditional churches and religious groups, or from ideologies like Communism, Fascism. Nazism, Islamism, or radical feminism. It might perhaps, however, be more accurate and helpful to designate this ideal as one of “secularity,” and reserve the term “secularism” instead for dogmatic militant atheism or anti-religionism, like that of Communists, Ayn Randians, and followers of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. Most of us here on AREO are staunch supporters of secularity in my sense, I think, but I wonder how many of us necessarily favor what I call secularism?
Stuart Chambers is not quite wholly accurate in writing that “America is a nation that prides itself on separating church and state—that is, unless the issue is abortion.” Abortion may be the most currently prominent issue where many Americans want the state to enforce church morality or doctrine, or have succeeded in making the state follow their wish–but it has not always been the only such issue. Until quite recently, homosexuality was a crime in most American states and jurisdictions. In the 1920’s, evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants succeeded in making their objection to liquor the law of the land for over a decade with Prohibition, overriding the more permissive views not only of secularists but also of liberal Protestants and of Catholics and Jews. Also on the 1920’s, Protestant fundamentalists succeeded in making the teaching of evolution in public schools illegal in several Southern states–leading to the famous 1926 Dayton TN Scopes “Monkey Trial.” More recently, Protestant fundamentalists throughout the USA have tried to force public school biology classes to teach Creationism, Intelligent Design, or “equal time” (“teach the controversy”) for noth Darwinism and Creationism. Science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein was remarkably prescient about our own time’s American cultural and political trends in his 1940 novelette “If This Goes On…,” depicting a 21st century American theocratic dictatorship founded by the backwoods evangelist Nehemiah Scudder who’d successfully run for President in 2012, after which there were no further elections….