A Secular Case for Life?

At The Dispatch David French responds to the argument made by many Pro-Choicers that those opposed to abortion are invariably animated by religious motives.

Thus, the argument goes, to oppose a law that guarantees a right to abortion would be a government imposition of religion:

Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, I’ve seen a number of people argue that Dobbs is essentially “theocratic,” that it’s the result of a Christian majority of judges imposing their religious beliefs on a religiously-diverse country.

To these critics, arguments against abortion are inherently and inescapably religious—which makes laws curtailing abortion a form of state establishment of religion that violates the religious liberty of dissenting Americans.

An example of this point of view is presented by Matthew Yglesias in a tweet last week in which he wrote:

Abortion policy is the most fun issue to debate on Twitter because one side is motivated by religious considerations and yet the people who hold that view have all been trained to deny that’s the case as if at any minute they might be pressed into arguing a Supreme Court case.

Yglesias believes there are no compelling secular reasons for opposing a right to abortion. French disagrees. He argues that there's a secular case to be made for being pro-life.

I, however, happen to agree with Yglesias on this one, but before I explain why let me summarize French's argument. He writes:

An unborn child has its own separate DNA. It isn’t a tumor or other form of growth that is an extension of the mother. It’s utterly dependent on its mom to live, no question, but it is a separate human life.

Moreover, it is not an inherently religious decision to grant worth to that life—any more than it’s inherently religious to grant worth to any life.

...A friend once explained it to me in these memorable terms. It was because he believed that life was the secular version of a miracle, he said, "The idea that evolutionary processes could lead to the creation of a person who could think, feel, and love was one of the most remarkably improbable things that he could imagine. The natural world was a wonder for him, and the natural world included you and me."

French quotes a left-wing thinker named Mary Meehan:

It is out of character for the left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak and the poor.

The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient. The basic instinct of the left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves. And that instinct is absolutely sound.

It's what keeps the human proposition going.

This is not an inherently religious argument...It is a moral argument, and moral arguments are not the exclusive prerogative of people of faith.

All that French says here is true, but it misses the point.

It's a biological fact that an individual human life begins at conception, but we can't derive a moral principle from a biological fact.

We cannot base the answer to the question why it's wrong to destroy that life on the biological fact that it's a human being. There must be a higher principle that tells us that human life is sacred, but for an atheist what could that higher principle be?

Don't misunderstand. An atheist may accept that human life is sacred and believe that it's wrong to kill a fetus, but the decision to accept that principle is arbitrary. There's nothing in her atheism that requires that one accept it.

The arbitrariness of this decision is evident in a quote French gives us from a former colleague at National Review who is both an atheist and pro-life:

Over the years, I have had all manner of intricate explanations thrown in my face as to why I, a nonbeliever, might be so invested in saving the lives of human beings who, if left to their own devices, will get to experience all the beauty, heartbreak, and mystery of life.

But, all told, the answer is simple: I am one.

An atheist might ask Cooke why being human means that it would be morally wrong to take the life of another human? What's the higher principle that forbids the taking of human life and where does that principle come from?

Here's my point: I am pro-life because biology tells me that a human life commences at conception (If you doubt this ask yourself this question: When did you come into being?), but I believe it is wrong to take that life, in lieu of very compelling reasons, because I believe that God forbids the gratuitous taking of innocent life.

If I were an atheist I'd have no reason to think that the gratuitous taking of innocent life is morally wrong, or that anything is morally wrong, or right. Indeed, were I an atheist I'd have a very difficult time explaining what is even meant by the term "morally wrong."

So, atheists can and do oppose abortion, a fact for which we can be grateful, but their decision to do so, just like the decision of an atheist to be pro-choice, is purely subjective. It's based on nothing more than their feelings.

The arguments against abortion, like any moral arguments, are at bottom religious because the principles involved - primarily the sacredness of innocent life - are grounded in Divine sanction. They cannot be founded on anything else. No moral claim can be.

Read the rest of French's essay. Even though I think he misses the mark with his main point, his overall column, like most of his work, is interesting.