When most people consider the religious aspect of the pro-life versus pro-abortion debate, they probably think of the pro-life-and-Christianity connection. Yet, what about the religious worldview behind the pro-abortion viewpoint? That would be the religion of humanism. In January 2020, the American Humanist Association (AHA) Facebook page posted a Vox.com article about the upcoming Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Supreme Court case. The outcome of this case may determine whether or not state governments can force religious organizations to pay for abortifacients (drug-inducing abortions) via their health insurance plans. The outcome of this case will have significant sanctity of life and religious liberty implications.
As various humanists left comments on the AHA’s post, there was one particular reply to a comment that caught my attention, so I decided to reply and initiate a debate thread. In all, seven humanists joined the thread in response to my comments. I dubbed this discussion the Life and Religious Liberty Debate, and I will share the debate transcript over the course of six blog posts.
Below is Part 1 of 6 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate. Names are abbreviated for privacy and brevity.
American Humanist Association [Root Post]:
For the record, this is about discrimination and not "religious liberty." https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21059931/supreme-court-birth-control-religious-liberty-pennsylvania-little-sisters
LB [Root Comment on the Post]:
Religious liberty these days is the freedom to push your religious beliefs onto other people. It's become a deleterious liberty in the hands of fanatics, zealots, and extremists.
CJ [Reply to LB’s Comment]:
Absolutely!! Because everyone already has the right to NOT have an abortion if they don't want to - so why do they have to push their beliefs onto others?
Kevin:
CJ, what about the rights of the child in the womb? I understand that most humanists falsely believe that a child in the womb is not a child, but just a clump of cells--so when someone with such beliefs chooses to kill their child in the womb, aren’t they forcing something on someone else with permanent (deadly) consequences?
KG:
KH, nope
Kevin:
KG, Why not?
CA:
KH, your own Bible states that life begins at first breath.
Kevin:
CA, How so? I think I know where you’re trying to go with this, but I want to see your explanation. I will also add a few thoughts for your consideration: have you considered Luke 1:15 where the scripture says “and [John the Baptist] will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Or how about Luke 1:41 where baby John the Baptist “leaped” in his mother’s womb upon hearing the greeting of Mary. Or what about Judges 13:7 where the angel of God says this concerning Samson: “…for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.” There are many other examples, but this suffices for now.
LV:
KG, I laugh and sadly shake my head, these same people scream from the rooftops about their precious "castle doctrine" with regard to perceived intruders but I guess a female doesn't have a right to protect what she deems as her "castle."
Kevin:
LV, Interesting analogy; let’s apply it more appropriately. Parents who love their children desire to protect their “castle” from intruders who may harm their children—they don’t purposely allow their children to be murdered. Likewise, they don’t murder their own children because of whatever inconvenience is involved in taking care of them. With exception to countries that mandate forced abortions, females generally have the right to protect their own children in the womb. If a woman has the “right” to murder her child in the womb, how is that “protecting”?
I did not see any additional comments from KG and LV, but CJ and CA do reply and continue the debate.
CA and other humanists claim that life begins at “first breath,” and even try to claim that the Bible supports this view. Both claims are easily refuted. The humanists continue to perpetuate these claims in Part 2 of the Life and Religious Liberty Debate, which I will share in my next blog post.