Judith Thompson's In Defense of Abortion

In defending her view that abortion is at least some times permissible—in cases of rape or in instances when the mother’s life is endangered by her pregnancy, for instance—Judith J. Thompson advances a number of analogies to support her position. In 1971’s A Defense of Abortion, her analogies support her position by conceding the Argument from Personhood and instead attack the premise of a fetus’ right-to-life.

Thompson’s first analogy is to compare an unwanted pregnancy due to rape to one of us being kidnapped and having us wake up to find a famous violinist attached to us so that the violinist may use our kidneys to live. Thompson’s question is to ask us if it is morally required of us to consent to our newfound condition. In quoting the hypothetical doctor in her scenario, Thompson writes, “Violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body.” Our intuition is that this is preposterous and indicates there is something wrong with the right-to-life premise. This is because we generally believe we are not morally obligated to aid someone against our will, particularly when that aid requires an undue burden. As it applies to this analogy, being forced to let the violinist to use our kidneys for one hour is not an undue burden in the way that being forced to let the violinist use our kidneys for nine months is. (There have been cases where a pregnant woman alleges she didn’t know she was pregnant before birth or for months after being impregnated. This wouldn’t seem to count as a burden if someone didn’t know they were being burdened.) Nonetheless, having even one hour of kidney use be forced upon us would be a violation of our negative [unalienable] rights, if we are inclined to believe in such rights. Perhaps Thompson could have also argued for an undue burden insofar as the rape victim being reminded every day of her ordeal. This would strengthen the argument for allowing abortion in instances of rape.

In instances when the mother’s life is endangered due to a pregnancy, Thompson compares this to being trapped in a very tiny house with a rapidly growing child. If we do not take action, we’ll be crushed to death by the child. Earlier in her article, Thompson concedes that two lives may be equal in value, but hints that this equality does not necessarily exclude one’s right to self-defense. Thompson says that here, the proponents of a fetus’ right to life are wrong to equate the mother’s life with “the status of a house, to which we don’t allow the right of self-defense. But if the woman houses the child, it should be remembered that she is the person who houses it.” However, Thompson is careful to acknowledge that there are limits to self-defense but that this circumstance is special, being that both persons are innocent and in a situation neither has willed. For this reason, Thompson thinks it is understandable not to let a third party intervene, but the person whose life is threatened can. Unfortunately, Thompson doesn’t address the vital question of who, if anyone, is allowed to defend the defenseless, especially when she has conceded that a fetus is a person. If the situation is such that one person has the ability to “defend” themselves and the other does not, her analogy suffers.

Finally, Thompson defends abortion for those who have taken reasonable precautions against pregnancy. She makes a comparison between (presumably reliable) birth control methods and leaving a window open in a stuffy room through which a burglar climbs. “It would be absurd to say, ‘Ah, now he can stay, she’s given him the right to use her house—for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in.’” Abortion would be permissible in this case according to Thompson in order to preserve the quality of a woman’s life which, we presume, includes having sex for pleasure. This argument would give an unborn person a right to life so long as the potential mother took no precautions along with the understanding that having sex might result in a pregnancy. This would constitute a willful act on part of the woman and such intentions are where a fetus’ right-to-life would arise from. Proving a mother took no precautions along with the understanding that having sex might result in a pregnancy may be difficult, however. Thompson’s attempt to preserve a woman’s right to a certain quality of life hinges on the notion that it is permissible for woman to have sex for pleasure, a notion not widely entertained outside of Western cultures.

Thompson defends abortion on the grounds that a fetus’ right-to-life is suspect on a number of accounts, though some of those accounts are clearly stronger than others. Foregoing the Argument from Personhood, Thompson built an interesting case against a prohibition on abortion. If nothing else, Thompson taught us to go beyond the Argument from Personhood to see if there are any grounds for allowing abortion. It appears there may very well be.

People Have Rights Ideas Do Not

“Why won’t you die?”

“Beneath this mask there is more than just flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea...and ideas are bulletproof.” – V in V for Vendetta

I’ve been coming across a recurring theme when perusing the social media of New Atheist who are desperately trying to seem compassionate while dismissing the foolhardy beliefs of theists; the theme that people deserve rights or respect but that their beliefs or ideas do not. I seem to keep hearing, “People have rights. Ideas do not.”

My first question is this: How do you divorce beliefs or ideas from the people that hold them particularly when beliefs or ideas make up the core of a person’s identity? Many people identify themselves along the lines of their beliefs, such as being Christian, Jew or Muslim but also along national, ethnic or social lines. If you give no rights to ideas or have no respect for the ideas a person holds, exactly who or what are you extending rights or respect to? Should we have extended rights or respect to Adolph Hitler the being as divorced from his genocidal tendencies? ‘Cause that’s where the argument winds up going.

The problem is this: Once you try to divorce people from their beliefs and ideas, the rights and respect left to bestow are upon the shell of a human being. As long as more than one person is around, there exists a social construct from which people set themselves apart from the other person (that is, identity). If that ability to form an identity is removed, all that is left is a biological human being who for all intents and purposes might as well be an empty shell. In trying to deny identity – or at least an identity New Atheists do not like – is to deny an aspect of humanity that people often use to position themselves in a special place within the animal kingdom. I find it peculiar that (liberal) New Atheists want to bestow rights and grant respect to the biological entities that people are while at the same time denying that a fetus is a person or that it is okay to terminate a brain-dead patient. What is a person? we are inclined to ask New Atheists. There appears to be an inconsistency in the New Atheist line of reasoning regarding rights and respect (at least when the reasoning is taken to its fullest extent).

I contend that beliefs and ideas are equally important if not more important than the people who hold them.* First, because as I’ve implied, people are their beliefs and ideas so long as there are social interactions. Moreover, when people put their beliefs and ideas into action, beliefs and ideas exit the realm of abstraction and into the realm of recorded history. We also tend to remember people for their beliefs and their ideas instead of the people as mere biological entities.

[*But not by necessity since people are not important by necessity. Refer to my blog Why I Am Not A Humanist for clarification.]

Second, I have to wonder, where would the world be without beliefs and ideas? The answer to that question is a double-edged sword, of course, as without beliefs or ideas, human beings would have never invented the wheel or religion. In the case of religion, look at what happens when some people, such as ISIS, with particular beliefs or ideas do not afford any rights or respect to the beliefs of others; personhood is withheld from a victim and a beheading or sexual slavery is the consequence. It is easy for New Atheists to say that they don’t have to grant rights to or respect theistic beliefs and ideas, but granting a person rights and respect is surely a difficult thing to do when the theist’s beliefs and ideas are dismissed. Kindly reference pretty much all of recorded history if you don’t believe me.

Granted, it seems obvious that some beliefs or ideas are more valid than others but how do we choose which are important and which are not? We can easily say that freedom is a good idea that should be granted some rights or respect, but most of us are saying that from the position of relatively free people with no one to club us for agreeing. Naturally, we also have to ask exactly how free we are supposed to be to retain any hope that freedom is indeed a good idea. But, you never see New Atheists – or anyone else for that matter – getting down to these kinds of nitty-gritty details. If there are any difficulties in the New Atheist assertion that beliefs and ideas should be formed only when there is suitable evidence for them, they are such that beliefs must always be open to revision (easier said than done) to say nothing of the difficulties in trying to determine exactly when an inference based upon evidence is deemed justifiable. I would also challenge any New Atheist to prove that all the beliefs they hold are warranted by evidence. To this New Atheists will likely reply that most of the beliefs or ideas people hold are harmless until certain – particularly theistic – beliefs or ideas are put into action. But as I’ve said many times before, there is no historical evidence that indicates a global community of atheists would be any better than the world such as it is now. So why is this belief being held onto to fiercely by New Atheists? But I digress.

I’m not saying rights or respect should be granted to ideas out of hand; certainly ideas – all ideas – should be open to examination and criticism. But New Atheists need to concede that when they criticize ideas, they are criticizing a person. That person may become offended, which is fine since there is no legislation or unwritten societal rule that prohibits all offensive criticism. People don’t have a right to not be offended.* Oh, so I guess sometimes people don’t have rights. Hmph!

[*At least not in the U.S.; the EU is working on it, though.]

“People have rights. Ideas do not,” is in itself an idea which in no way need be granted any rights or respect. It’s one of quips that looks cute at first glance but loses meaning if you think about it for more than a second. There certainly isn’t any evidence for what New Atheists are trying to assert here. Better luck next time, gang.

Why I Am Not a Humanist

Although I like people just as much as anyone else, I don’t like people just as much as everyone else…with perhaps the exception of secular Humanists. Of course, like everyone else who likes and doesn’t like people, secular Humanists are no exception to hypocrisy and irrationality and so I’m taking this opportunity to examine the views of secular Humanists – or just Humanists with a capital “H” – to point out some flaws in their thinking. First, what is Humanism (as it relates to secularists)?

Hu·man·ism n.

1. A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.

2. Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.

Moreover, “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” – The American Humanist Association (AHA). Er, okay. Perhaps the official statement defining Humanism accepted worldwide by Humanists will be more helpful (or laughable, pick one). Note that my thoughts on each bullet point follow each bullet point in brackets. [ ] 

“The official defining statement of World Humanism is:

• Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction. [Okay, Humanism is ethical. Only, what kind of ethical system are we dealing with here, one that is evolutionary in nature? If so, their ethical system will be inherently flawed since many conscious, biological activities are irrational. (To be fair, it would be inherently flawed no matter what.) Sure, their ethical system is one that affirms worth, dignity, and autonomy, but who decides what worth a person has? Or does everyone have inherent worth and if so, how is that ethical view an intrinsic part of human nature? I mean, visiting violence upon each other is also an intrinsic part of human nature, so how are Humanists squaring the two? While I do agree that everyone should be as free as possible unless such free actions interfere with the freedom of others, Humanists don’t seem to realize that the greatest possible freedom to be had that does not conflict with the freedom of others demands the abolishment of 90% of existing cultural practices.]
• Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends. [So, for laughs, let’s say we’re up against an enemy who is determined to destroy us and cannot be reasoned with. How do we use science creatively to solve this problem, build a rocket to take us out of harm’s way or build an impenetrable wall? Or are Humanists saying we should build clever (that is, non-lethal) weapons to take our enemy out of the fight? If we take the enemy out of the fight, how will justice be balanced between our enemy’s neglect for our freedom and their inherent worth? As for human values tempering science, good luck with that. History is rife with counter-examples.]
• Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government. [Wait. One bullet point ago Humanism said it was rational, but seeing how democracies play out in the real world demands we keep looking for a better system of governance. Just because a democracy is the best system going does not mean it is a good system at all. (Arguably, democracies cause the least harm among its participants, outside of a benevolent monarchy anyway). Moreover, what IS the fullest possible development of every human being? How do we know when it has been achieved? My ‘deepity’ sensor is starting to go through the roof.]
• Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognizes our dependence and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination. [Whoa, whoa, whoa. The first bullet point made a huge deal out of autonomy and now they’re telling me to be socially responsible? Okay, so I’m NOT autonomous, great. Worse, “Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents.” Yet, they feel the need to write down their dogmatic bullet points. What’s next, that they’re going to tell you that you don’t HAVE TO use reason in your life and that you’re allowed to question whether 1 + 1 = 2? Humanists are lying through their teeth there.]
• Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-view on all of humanity. Humanism recognizes that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision. [So the alternative to dogmatic religion is dogmatic science? While science eventually winds up correcting itself at some point, science has been known to be almost as dogmatic as religion. Again, notice the hypocrisy of the Humanists telling you their not trying to impose any world-view.]
• Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognizes the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment. [Art is often irrational, so what is it Humanists; do you want us to be rational, irrational, or both? Can a Humanist even define ‘art’? If they did, how would that not be imposing a world-view?]
• Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our time. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere. [Sure, it CAN be a way of life as long as you don’t ask the kinds of questions I’m posing here. And this shit’s just off the top of my head. I mean, “…an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our time”? Here, again, as I’ve pointed out in two recent blogs, if secular people want rationality to govern our lives, a rationality that is based upon evidence that supports beliefs, the tenets of Humanism has some feeble legs to stand on.]

The Amsterdam Declaration explicitly states that Humanism rejects dogma, and imposes no creed upon its adherents. [Except that you must abandon your faith!] The Amsterdam Declaration was endorsed by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) at the 50th anniversary World Humanist Congress in 2002. According to the IHEU, the declaration is the official statement of World Humanism.
It is officially supported by all member organizations of the IHEU including:

• American Humanist Association
• British Humanist Association
• Humanist Canada
• Council of Australian Humanist Societies
• Council for Secular Humanism
• Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association
• Human-Etisk Forbund, the Norwegian Humanist Association
• Humanist Association of Ireland
• Indian Humanist Union
• Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)”

One would have to be exceptionally stupid to take Humanism at face value. After all, if we’re using reason – which they say we should – we should nitpick Humanist principles to death to be sure we’re not fooling ourselves. Unfortunately, Humanism doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory examination, meaning, we’re screwed even if religion were abolished. One bad system would just be replaced by another. Pick one. It’s a no-win situation.