What Does Secularism Have to Do With Women's Rights?

For a long time I've sort of taken my reproductive rights for granted. While I've never been faced with an unintended pregnancy, I've faced that possibility since puberty, and will continue to face it until menopause. I've always felt assured that I'd be able to get a safe, legal, early-term abortion, if that's what I so choose. Based on the privileges of where I live, my age, and my income, that presumption is sound. 

For now. 

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, Americans remain conflicted about abortion. Anti-abortion activists continue to harass women at clinics, commit horrific acts of violence, and passionately lobby for countless laws that restrict women's access to abortion, regardless of the real life financial, healthcare, and even criminal consequences. If we value reproductive choices and the most sound public health care policies, this is not an issue where we can afford to back down. 

There's another thing I've always taken for granted: that the secular movement, which I've been involved with since I was 19, politically stands for women's reproductive rights. 

When I say I've "been involved" with the movement for 16 years, this is no casual interest. After being VP and President of the campus freethought club at the third largest university in the USA, I became one of the founding board members of the Secular Student Alliance, and editor of the first publication of the SSA's Group Running Guide. I've been VP of HCCO, one of the largest local chapters of the AHA, and when I moved to Philadelphia I became heavily involved with HAGP, one of the AHA's oldest local chapters. I was twice a camp counselor for Camp Quest. I was a celebrant certified by the Humanist Society, and for 6 years I officiated secular weddings, baby namings, and one memorial service. I have given talks on secular humanism for a class at Penn State. I was the coordinator for the launch of PhillyCoR (the precursor to UnitedCoR). I'm even mentioned by name in Greg Epstein's book Good Without God. At this point the number of volunteer hours that I have put into this movement are incalculable.   

I list all this to make clear just how much of a personal stake I have in the secular movement. These are "my people." This is my "comfort zone." Of course I don't agree with everything I hear anyone at a meeting or conference say. I enjoy a spirited and intellectually challenging debate with a Libertarian atheist over, say, school funding or gun control. 

On the issues where critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and compassion heavily weigh on one side (vaccination, science education in public schools, government funds for faith-based initiatives, and embryonic stem cell research, for example) our leadership and the most visible representatives of our community take a firm stance. 

Right? 

Maybe not. 

Three days ago I wrote about David Silverman's statement at CPAC about "secular argument against abortion" and Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta's giving a platform to two different secular, anti-choice organizations. 

Massimo Pigliucci of the long-running and popular blog Rationally Speaking weighed in with David Silverman and the Scope of Atheism. 

Pigliucci puts a lot of effort into defending philosophical debates over the morality of abortion. And he repeatedly makes it clear that he thinks this is okay because supposedly we're not talking about anti-choice laws and political activism. He writes (my emphasis in bold):  

Of course there are logical, science-based, and rational arguments against abortion. They may turn out to be ultimately unconvincing, or countered by better arguments — as I believe they are — but they certainly exist.

...

Are these arguments sufficient to justify forceful state interventions on women’s bodily integrity, under any circumstances? Very likely not. But plenty of countries (including the US) do already regulate, for instance, late term abortion, noting the ethical complexity of the issue and of course making room for a number of special circumstances, usually having to do with the health of the mother. 

... 

Now, does that mean that we should therefore advocate a restriction of women’s rights as they are currently defined in the US? Of course not, nor do I see any evidence that that’s what Dave meant to suggest.

Regardless of what Dave Silverman meant to suggest, while at a convention of parties which officially advocate severely restricting if not outright banning abortion, Silverman made a statement which implied that there are reasonable, secular arguments that favor such anti-choice political activism. It is worth noting, too, that American Atheists allowed Secular Pro-Life, an extremely anti-choice activist organization, to table at their 2012 conference. 

Regardless of his own pro-choice stance and pro-choice writings, Hemant Mehta gave a platform to two anti-choice organization leaders, both of who, through their anti-choice activism, apply the same sort of irrational and dishonest arguments and tactics used by religious anti-choice activists. 

I was heartened to learn that the AHA's Humanist magazine not only published criticism of this rise of secular "pro-life" activists, but also refused to publish this response by anti-choice activist Kristine Kruszelnicki. 

At least the humanist wing of the movement maintains integrity on this issue. 

Massimo Pigliucci's article evoked such a critical response that he added a Postscript defense. In it he writes: 

Look at it from the point of view of a parallel between atheism and gay rights. The gay rights movement has rightly focused on the issues that are closest and most specific to it: the legal rights of gay people.

So women's rights are not one of the "closest and most specific" issues to the secular cause? Even though the scientific evidence tells us that women are equal to men in terms of sentience and intellect, but a non-viable embryo/fetus has no more sentience than a tree? Even though evidence also tells us that early-term abortions (which account for almost all abortions) are safer than pregnancy? Even though critical inquiry tells us that late-term abortions are rare and sought for reasons which are tragic? Even though compassion should compel us to defer to the women's personal moral judgement and the ethical standards of the medical establishment?


The importance of quality science education public schools is close and specific enough to our cause, but women's rights are not?

The importance of preventing school authorities from leading students in prayer is close and specific enough to our cause, but women's rights are not?

The Secular Coalition for America unites 13 of the largest and most active organizations in our movement, including American Atheists. On the issues page Health and Safety they indeed state they have an interest in defending women's rights with regard to abortion:

Religiously Based Health Care Policy- Government officials should rely on high quality research, not religious beliefs, when making health care policy decisions. (stem cells, women’s health care, substance abuse treatment)

Image by artist Barbara Kruger

So maybe this is why Massimo Pigliucci focused on a philosophical debate over the morality of personally choosing to have an abortion. Maybe he's taking Roe v. Wade and its support for granted.  

I might not mind people sitting around discussing the morality of abortion (as a personal decision, not something up for legal banning) so long as my right to a safe, legal, abortion for any reason during the pre-viability stages of pregnancy AND my access to health care which promotes my health over that of a fetus is fully supported by all present company. 

If not, I'm not having that conversation. I refuse to have a calm, philosophical discussion about the morality of abortion with anyone who doesn't respect and defend equal rights for me and all other women. To expect me or any other feminist to do so is belittling and offensive. 

The secular movement is better than that. At least I hope it is. Otherwise I've seriously wasted much of the last 16 years of my life. 

All the Other Good Reasons to Have an Abortion

Image attribution

My first year of college my roommate and I had a conversation about abortion. We were both politically pro-choice, of course, but were both also bothered by the idea of personally getting an abortion. We both casually agreed that if we were to have an unintended pregnancy, we would carry it to term and put the baby up for adoption.

Ah, the naivete of youth.

A few short months later, she had a boyfriend, fell in love, lost her virginity, and got pregnant. She also got an abortion as fast as she could find a clinic.

When she told me about the abortion, I could tell she was afraid I would morally judge her due to our previous conversation. But within minutes of taking it in, I realized, I (who by that time was also in a relationship and sexually active) would have done the exact same thing.

I would have done the same thing for probably the same reasons as my roommate (and several other women I know who have had abortions under similar circumstances); our lives were great! We were 18 and out on our own for the first time. Being in college was exciting and challenging; there were so many interesting people to meet, so much to learn, so much to do. Sure, we were in love, but we weren't planning any weddings. (And neither of us married those boyfriends.) We had nothing, but also nothing weighing us down. We were free to explore a multitude of opportunities.

Nine months of pregnancy followed by the birth of a baby would take it all away. Such an event would change the course of our lives forever. Neither the opportunity to become a young mother dependent on her parents, nor to be a human incubator for someone else's adoptive child were the least bit appealing. Nor were all the health risks of pregnancy.

Of course I didn't feel that my roommate had done anything wrong. Any more than I feel it is wrong to be a sexually active woman. Even if we take precautions, unintended pregnancies happen. In fact half of the pregnancies which occur are unintended. During the early stages of pregnancy (when 90% of abortions are performed), an embryo is nowhere close to sentience or viability. Early term abortions are generally safe (posing less health risks than seeing a pregnancy through) so why should any woman be ashamed of choosing to abort an early term pregnancy?

The answer is, she shouldn't.

Typically in debates and discussions over abortion laws and regulations, pro-choice advocates bring up rape and incest. In other words, the most extreme circumstances under which a woman is morally justified in getting an abortion.

I understand why this rhetoric is used. It makes the point that when push comes to shove, most of us agree that the woman's health, life, rights, and dignity surpass that of an embryo or fetus.

But while it might be politically effective to highlight rape and incest, it has the unintended consequence of giving the impression that abortion, even early term abortion, needs a moral justification beyond that the woman simply doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth.

I can't help but think that the emphasis on rape and incest as a justification for abortion contributed to the naive feelings my roommate and I had about abortion before the issue hit home.

Anti-abortion activist Kristine Kruszelnicki, apparently suffers from the same sort of naivete. Except she takes her naive conclusions and puts them into trying to rob women of our reproductive rights. In her guest post on Friendly Atheist, she writes:

If we all work together to come up with real choices for women — better birth control, better maternity leave, subsidized daycare, a living wage, flexible work schedules, better schooling options, more attractive open-adoption and temporary foster care options, etc. — abortion may roll itself into the world of obsolescence, regardless of its legal status.

(As an aside, don't let that "regardless of its legal status" line fool you. Kruszelnicki's organization Pro-Life Humanists works to limit access to abortion at any time for any reason. They want abortion to be seen in the eyes of the law as equivalent to killing a toddler. Just scroll down to the subheading "Personally pro-life, but don't change the law?" here to read just how extreme and threatening their cause is to women's basic reproductive rights.)

Even if every social reform Kruszelnicki lists were achieved, countless women would still choose abortion because we don't want to be pregnant and have a baby. We should have the right to that choice.

About half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy, and more than a quarter will decide to have an abortion at least once in our lifetimes.

Given those staggering numbers, it is obvious that abortions are not only chosen by women who are low-income, poorly educated, scared, or alone. They are chosen by women of all walks of life.

Abortion is for  the musician working a day job to pay the bills while spending all her free time in rehearsals, concerts, and promotion.

Abortion is for the dancer who trained for years and has just achieved her dream of being accepted to a prominent company.

Abortion is for  the newly trained doctor fulfilling her first residency (where the cap on hours is 80 per week.)

Abortion is for the ambitious lawyer working insane hours as she eagerly aspires to make partner before she even considers starting a family.

Abortion is for the archeologist who is about to travel to Africa for an excavation.

Abortion is for the woman in a crappy relationship, and for whom an unintended pregnancy was just the wake-up call she needed to face the fact that this guy is bad news, so walk away.

Abortion is for the married mother who has decided with her husband that their family is complete, and that adding more kids at this point could very well fuck up the good thing they've got.

That last example applies to me. And also Elyse of Skepchick, who so eloquently offers this statement:

If I were to get pregnant today, I wouldn't have to think about it. I would have an abortion. It's not that I'm "not ready" to be a mom. It's not that I'm waiting for the right time. It's not that I'm single. It's that I simply detest being pregnant and I don't want more kids. And my husband (quietly) detests when I'm pregnant and doesn't want more kids. There will be no crying. There will be no hand wringing. There will be no thoughtful contemplation. There will be no more kids. Not in my body. 

My sentiments exactly.

I shouldn't need to have been raped or gotten knocked up by my uncle to get an early term abortion. The truth is, any reason a woman has for getting an early term abortion is a good enough reason to defend our right to make that choice.

Friendly Atheist Gives a Platform to Anti-Choice Atheists

Hemant Mehta, of the popular blog Friendly Atheist has twice in one month given a platform to anti-choice activists who act under the banner of freethought. This comes at the same time as President of American Atheists David Silverman's statement:

I will admit there is a secular argument against abortion. You can’t deny that it’s there, and it’s maybe not as clean cut as school prayer, right to die, and gay marriage.

As a humanist and feminist (I used to think I could just say "humanist" and that then "feminist" would then be assumed. Now I'm starting to wonder), I am deeply disturbed by this, and dearly hope it is not reflective of a shift in the tide regarding abortion rights.

Back to the Friendly Atheist. February 17th Mehta criticized those who vandalized posters advertising a talk by Kelsey Hazzard of Secular Pro-Life. He then went on to post the video of Hazzard's entire talk, commenting:

Without getting into her actual arguments and whether they’re fair or flawed, I’m amazed that I haven’t seen a presentation like this at any of the atheist conferences I’ve ever been to. (At least I can’t remember seeing one like it.) If conference organizers are trying to reach out to a broader spectrum of people, Kelsey seems like a natural choice for a poised speaker who has a very different perspective to bring to the secular table. Even if you think she’s way off base, she represents not-an-insignificant portion of our community. It’d at least be interesting to see the two sides of this argument hash things out in front of a crowd.

Of course there haven't been presentations like this at any freethought conferences; their arguments are irrational, emotionally manipulative, and anti-women's-rights.

Ok. You're an extremist.

Whether performance enhancing drugs should be allowed use in professional sports is an interesting debate. Continuing a debate over a women's rights issue that should have been considered settled 40 years ago is unsettling, even alarming.

Secular White Supremacists such as the Creativity Movement have a very different perspective to bring to the secular table. Should we invite them to our conferences and help disseminate their video propaganda online, too?

Finally, "poised speaker"? Who the hell cares how poised the speaker is when she's spouting ignorance such as that abortion is a "quick and easy solution" and that part of How You Can Help is "Don't become pregnant before you are ready." It's like listening to fiscal conservatives characterize living on social assistance as luxurious and that the solution to poverty is for poor people to stop being poor.

Then on March 11th, Mehta did something even worse. He featured a guest post by Kristine Kruszelnicki, President of Pro-Life Humanists: Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here's Why I'm One of Them. 

Kruszelnicki opens up with the argument that since polls show that there's a lot of anti-choice atheists, they deserve a seat at the table of this movement. No, they don't. There is no magical percentage at which their arguments become any more rational or humane. If 19% of atheists were white supremacists, they still wouldn't deserve a seat at the table, and neither do anti-choice atheists. That is unless the secular movement wants to sink itself into a sandpit of mediocrity.

After admitting that the scientific evidence shows embryos and fetuses to be non-sentient, Kruszelnicki presents a weak and purely philosophical argument as to why we should bestow even a 2 week old embryo with rights equal to that of the woman.

Kruszelnicki pretends to address the issue of body autonomy, but she really doesn't. At one point she compares the responsibility the pregnant woman has to the embryo/fetus to the responsibility anyone has to an abandoned infant they discover on their front porch. As if 9 months of pregnancy and birth could even be compared to making a call to child services.

Kruszelnicki essentially argues that while a woman is pregnant, she and the embryo/fetus share her body, and thus have equal rights to that body. But physiologically this is not accurate. The facts are that the woman and embryo/fetus are two separate entities, connected by the latter's dependence on the former's body for survival, and in a situation which poses certain risks to the health of the woman.

A much better analogy than the baby on the porch would be a brother who needs a kidney to live, and his sister as a healthy, perfect candidate for organ donation. Do we legally compel people to donate their organs? No. Not even in death.

I'm bothered by Mehta wanting to have this debate within the secular movement because by even engaging in a debate with anti-choicers (opposed to mocking and dismissing them) we give legitimacy to their arguments.

But I'm more disturbed by the fact that Mehta put this out there without actually engaging in the debate himself. It seems that to Mehta that raising the visibility of anti-choice atheists is more important than defending women's reproductive rights.

The Friendly Atheist has no excuse, because as he knows from his own previous posts on abortion, equating abortion with baby killing sends us down a frightening path.