Posted on 02/05/2014 7:08:55 AM PST by Morgana
The weekend before last I had a wonderful time meeting up with other SPL members and representing Secular Pro-Life at San Francisco’s various pro-life events. On Saturday afternoon, SPL spoke at the Walk for Life West Coast rally, then gathered together and held our banner high for the entire Walk. On Sunday, pro-life atheist Ellen and I tabled at the first ever west coast Students for Life of America training conference, which lasted all day.
Throughout all of these events, I was inspired by the number of religious pro-lifers who so warmly welcomed us. They said our speech was refreshing and our attendance encouraged them. They thanked us for our participation. Some people seemed downright relieved to have us there. It was a lovely response that recurred all weekend; it’s clear to me that most religious pro-lifers happily accept our presence. I think most religious pro-lifers actually want us to be more involved and visible in the pro-life movement.
But many other things happened last weekend that make me think, yes, people of faith want us involved, but they haven’t the slightest idea how to encourage our participation.
secularprolifeTime and again it was clear that the events were designed for Christian participation. And I don’t feel that way simply because there were (as there always are) so many religious signs at the Walk, “Soul at conception,” “Such-and-such Parish for Life,” prayers over bullhorns, groups singing hymns, etc. That’s just how people participating in the Walk chose to express their beliefs, which is their right.
But beyond the average participant, the way the Walk itself was organized seemed to endorse a specifically Christian discussion. Clearly it was not an exclusively Christian discussion, given Walk organizers were thoughtful enough to invite SPL to speak at the rally. To my knowledge that is the largest voice anyone has given to secular pro-lifers, and SPL supporters are very grateful, myself included. However, beyond SPL’s speech, here’s what the Walk rally had to offer:
The rally opened with a somewhat lengthy prayer from an Anglican bishop, continued with a brief speech from a Catholic chaplain discussing the “spiritual desert our country has become,” followed by the Archbishop of San Francisco* reading a letter from another Archbishop sending greetings and gratitude from the Pope, and every speaker except for me focused very much on God’s plan and purpose as reasons for our pro-life activism. In fact, I think I may have been literally the only person on stage who did not refer to God and faith in my discussion of pro-life activism.
The following day, the SFLA conference wasn’t as overt. There were many speakers whose messages applied independent of religious belief. (And, by the way, if you can go to an SFLA training conference sometime, I recommend it. It was very well put together, with a lot of ideas I hadn’t considered. Very interesting.) However, there were also many speakers who referenced or relied heavily on their Christian faith in their messages, there was a group-lead prayer, a sermon from Pastor Walter Hoye, and at least two occasions where speakers made a point of mentioning they think atheists really struggle to defend their worldview.
That last part really did me in. Abortion isn’t the only topic I’m passionate about. I have very strong opinions on a lot of topics, including religion and God specifically, and including topics indirectly related to religion, like homosexuality, like certain gender issues, and so on. I spent the entire weekend saying not one word about my passionate feelings on many other issues, despite being saturated by people expressing views I don’t hold, because I wasn’t there to push those views on people: I was there to work together to fight abortion. And here we are—Ellen and me—sitting at a table labeled “Secular Pro-Life,” having talked to people all day about the secular position and the fact that yes, we are both actually secular, and we get to sit silently by while people give us furtive glances and speakers talk about how our beliefs are indefensible?
And Christians ask me why they don’t see more involvement from secular pro-lifers.
Now, hear me out, because I’m a little bit conflicted about this. I have secularist friends who believe the pro-life movement would grow a great deal more if pro-lifers would remove religion from their pro-life advocacy. Nonreligious folk (including both people who don’t believe and people who believe but don’t really care) would take a greater interest if they realized there was something in this debate beyond faith. I think that’s true.
But, on the other hand, how many deeply religious people would take less of an interest? During the SFLA conference, one of the speakers whose message relied heavily on the Christian faith was David Bereit of 40 Days for Life. And, frankly, his talk was fantastic. While David and I don’t share the same faith, it was clear to me that the conference attendees were moved and inspired by his talk (“talk” doesn’t really do it justice though—it was more like very compelling story telling). And David wasn’t the only example—there were many speakers who spoke overtly about God and the role of Christians, and I think the overall effect of the day was that hundreds of pro-life high school and college students felt called to action, and excited to fulfill their roles in the pro-life movement. That’s a great effect to have on people.
Faith gives many people hope and courage and joy, and that moves them to do good things. Obviously I don’t believe you must have faith to feel hope, courage, or joy. I don’t believe you must have faith to feel inspired to action. I don’t have faith, yet still feel all of those things, and I know many secularists who are the same way. Still, I recognize that, for many people, their faith is their main source of inspiration. So I’m not actually sure what overall effect we’d have if we removed religion entirely from the pro-life movement. I think it would encourage some people to participate, but it would leave others less inspired to help. And that’s one reason I don’t advocate removing religion entirely. I think there’s a time and place for religion in the movement. I just don’t think that time and place is constantly and everywhere.
Later during the SFLA conference, a speaker mentioned that “this is not just a Christian event.” I don’t know if this particular speaker was suggesting SFLA ought to make it less Christian, or if he sincerely believed it had already been an experience people of many faiths or no faith could equally engage in. I suspect the latter.
So again, I think many religious pro-lifers want secular pro-lifers to be more involved and more visible, but just aren’t sure how to make that happen. I have some ideas on that front, but before I put together a blog post of suggestions, I put the question to you guys, our SPL supporters. I don’t care if you personally are religious or secular or what—I’m interested in your ideas. What are the best ways the pro-life movement can encourage secular participation?
*Archbishop Cordileone said at the outset, in his greetings, that “we include everyone, of faith and no faith, of all ages, men and women.” Even just a small sentence like that makes a big difference in promoting inclusiveness, so thank you, Archbishop!
LifeNews Note: reprinted with permission from Secular Pro-Life.
Yes, we do. But secularists must learn to get along with religious people. It can’t all be one-sided. We used to know these things...
This is true too.
I am a person of faith who is prolife. I am thrilled to realize how many secularists are fed up with abortion.
As a scientist, I must say that the attitude of many so-called pro-lifers (whose pro-life views are based on a particular religious interpretation, rather than on a solid understanding of fetal development) is frustrating, to say the least. I think promoting the scientific view—that which is observable, measurable, and objective—is the strongest pro-life argument there can be. As I see it, the place of religion is to establish the morality of abortion—of killing the human being that scientific observation tells us is there.
The nervous system begins forming at 3 weeks post-conception. By 5 weeks post-conception, it has taken its place as master controller of the body. In order for it to have that function, it must receive sensory input—in other words, it is aware. And that awareness increases with each passing day, as the brain becomes more complex—a process that is finally complete at about age 25 years.
I don’t think insisting that “God put a soul in at the moment of conception” is very convincing to a young radical atheist feminist who has believed all her life that having abortions somehow validates her as a woman. She’ll immediately reject that as religious extremism. But teaching her the scientific facts about fetal development just might convince her to consider using contraceptives instead of abortions for birth control.
Yes, yes, yes, we want ALL pro-lifers at the table! But let’s not forget it has been Christians, and Catholics and evangelicals in particular, that have been carrying the pro-life torch for 40 YEARS. And...contrary to contemporary propaganda, religion DOES include science.. it supports natural law.
Part of that movement could be the equating of slavery with abortion.
In both cases, a segment of humanity was deemed “less human” than the one with power over it, justifying maltreatment and denial of rights and life.
They both use some of the same arguments as well, based on the same theory, evolution
- in the slavery situation, black people were assumed less evolved
- in abortion, the argument is forwarded that the embryo is “just in the ‘fish stage’ of development”.
I agree. Perhaps as seculars see the "why" of why we are Pro-Life, it will become an opportunity for us to present them the Gospel.
One of the best videos on the development of unborn life from conception to birth was by a secular Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth. A must see video:
"Image-maker Alexander Tsiaras shares a powerful medical visualization, showing human development from conception to birth and beyond."
You have to admit it took science and technology a longer time to come to your conclusion above. The old joke is enough scientists will scale a tall mountain and when getting to the top will be welcomed by a bunch of theologians:)
On a serious note, I posted up thread a good video which supports some of your points. From Alexander Tsiaras (secular): Conception to Birth:
But teaching her the scientific facts about fetal development just might convince her to consider using contraceptives instead of abortions for birth control.No, contraceptives is what most likely got her into trouble to begin with. Contracepting is what brought abortion all about. You contracept not out of love, but lust. Hence, if you get pregnant on contraceptives, which happens, then you want to get rid of what you didn't want in the first place; hence, the need for abortion.
If you have medical evidence that usage of contraceptives causes women to get pregnant at a higher rate than they would if using nothing at all, please provide it. The FDA does not allow drugs or devices to be called "contraceptives" unless they can be shown in clinical studies to effectively prevent pregnancy.
Whenever I see someone trot out that tired old trope that using contraceptives somehow leads to abortion--despite the reams of evidence otherwise--I get the idea that the person saying that doesn't care about human life so much as they want to impose a certain restrictive way of life on everyone. Sorry, but there is little evidence that men and women will ever stop engaging in intercourse, or remain celibate except when trying to conceive.
Good points. Think how many conceived zygotes never make it to the uterine wall.
Indeed. Only a small minority of fertilized zygotes are capable of becoming a fetus. Even after implanting, about a third of them don’t continue to grow.
Humanae Vitae is one of the most important encyclicals to read in this regard. Had everyone listened up when it was written (me included!), there would be less abortion in this world, and more love between husband and wife. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
I am not a Catholic and do not subscribe to the Catholic ideal of refraining from physical interactions except for the purpose of getting pregnant. That whole ideal is unrealistic because it does not take into account the very strong biological imperative to engage in physical relations frequently (even during pregnancy). If a married couple wants to limit the number of children they have—few people can afford unlimited children—then, realistically, they must use some form of contraceptive to achieve that limit.
Given that God is rational, it would be more reasonable to say that a the spirit joins the body as early as 5 days after conception when the blastocyst attaches to the endometrium.
The entire process is a wonder of Biblical proportions when you think about it. That the zygote contains all the genetic material necessary to create a human body is phenomenal. The idea that the blastocyst is so designed as to create its own placenta just boggles the mind.
That a biological process of trial and error shaped by environment can lead to such complexity seems unnatural to me. The order I see around me, particularly the behavior of my fellow human beings, made in the image and likeness of God, all points to a creator. For some, evolution is that “creator”. It seems plausible to me only under the precondition that God got the ball rolling as part of the Plan.
Take a read of that book if you get the chance. I’d love to hear your thoughts and insights. I appreciate your comments here.
When there might be a soul present is not measurable or observable. I think that when the nervous system is capable of awareness, then the embryo can receive the soul. That said, I am all for counting implantation as the time when the embryo's life should be protected.
The entire process is a wonder of Biblical proportions when you think about it. That the zygote contains all the genetic material necessary to create a human body is phenomenal. The idea that the blastocyst is so designed as to create its own placenta just boggles the mind.
More is involved than just the genetic material. The DNA must be "reset" (in the form of methylation state) in order for development to proceed normally. Most blastocysts have some sort of defect (either genetic or in methylation state) that prevents them from growing. Interesting factoid: one of the proteins needed for placenta formation is actually a viral protein from a virus that inserted itself into the mammalian genome very early in evolution. (We have thousands of viruses in our genome.)
That a biological process of trial and error shaped by environment can lead to such complexity seems unnatural to me. The order I see around me, particularly the behavior of my fellow human beings, made in the image and likeness of God, all points to a creator. For some, evolution is that “creator”. It seems plausible to me only under the precondition that God got the ball rolling as part of the Plan.
Evolution really isn't all that random, because the laws of physics gives it absolute limits. Think of it like rolling dice: the result is a random number on top each time, but everything else about rolling them is predictable. The dice always land with two sides parallel to the surface on which they are dropped, and four sides perpendicular--we would be quite surprised if one landed balanced on a corner. The result of the roll always falls within a certain number range--like between 5 and 30, if you are playing Yahtzee. And so on. Evolution only proceeds randomly within a defined set of parameters.
Take a read of that book if you get the chance. I’d love to hear your thoughts and insights. I appreciate your comments here.
I read the description of the book, and it looks interesting. However, I will be honest--I have to read so much at work to keep up with the knowledge in my field that by the time I get home, I barely have any energy left for reading. I hate to say how many novels I have stacked up waiting to be read! So, if I do read that book, don't expect comments any time soon as reading it could take a while.
Discussed this very issue while attending the March for Life in 2012 with a friend. Agree whole-heartedly, and it’s a topic that can be argued simply from a “scientific” POV. The media goes to great lengths to avoid that, because as long as it’s framed as a right-wing religious issue, they have the upper hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.