BEING “PRO-LIFE” IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION, BUT LET’S SMUGGLE IN “GOD” AND “SOULS”

When confronted with irrefutable evidence-based pro-choice arguments, religious pro-lifers unfailingly end up smuggling in “God” or “souls” without even realizing that even if we disregard the fact that religion is necessarily faith-based and therefore should not be imposed, the insertion of religious concepts in the abortion debate brings several problems of its own. I have many times mentioned some of these problems and have as yet only been faced with complete silence. So, I’ll give it another try here. Perhaps someone might surprise me.

There are two suggested explanations for consciousness which is defined as the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings: the scientific and the religious one. The scientific explanation, derived not least from neurological experiments and the study of victims of severe brain injury, says that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain resulting from the communication of information across all its regions. The religious hypothesis that lacks any evidence at all claims that consciousness derives from (or actually is) an immaterial “soul” that precedes the development of the brain and survives the brain and body’s eventual demise. The former theory, supported by the evidence, says that consciousness is a gradual incremental process that follows the incremental development of the brain and is malleable to change that comes with personal experience as well as physical changes (such as brain injury). On the latter religious hypothesis, it is generally held that a soul, being “spiritual”, cannot be directly affected by the physical environment, be it one’s own brain or any other physical being or thing. A “soul”, it is claimed, survives even death (more on this in “The Ghost in the Machine”).

What do I mean by “smuggling in souls”? John B Pace, for instance, in a comment in The Times of Malta, says that I categorically deny that a pre-sentient foetus can have any preference for continued existence. This, of course must necessarily be true if sentience and consciousness, as the scientific evidence shows, are emergent properties of the brain which develop gradually over time commencing from the 24^th week of gestation. The only fact that could make my statement possibly wrong would be the existence of “souls” that predate and survive a brain. Short of mentioning his belief in “souls”, which must be implied in his questioning of my statement, John B Pace follows it with non-sequitur such as that “biological humanity should not be conflated with personal identity (of course not); that the “embryo/foetus is a living organism” (of course it is); and that “human life is a continuum with innate existential rights” from conception until death (it is a continuum but the claim regarding “innate existential rights” from conception is just a faith-based assertion that he does not back up with any argument).

David Carrington then comments in a similar vein. I will quote Mr Carrington in full and make my own comments below.  

Mr Carrington says:

“The trouble with today’s age is that it is far too physical in orientation. What you can sense with your normal faculties – sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell – is the only reality. Only the body exists. The brain is believed to be synonymous with the mind and so on. Anything more subtle tends to be sidelined as being either unproven (by PHYSICAL means) or dismissed as the primitive imaginings of old-fashioned religion.

But neurologists disagree with psychologists over in whose territory the mind belongs. And nobody has defined what consciousness IS and where it sits.

Therefore, assertions that a human individual is body, mind AND soul (each distinctive but inseparable, hence “individual”) is beyond comprehension to modern logic.

However, throughout the ages, in all cultures, philosophers, sages and enlightened men and women have accepted and taught the hidden reality of existence. And millions have experienced it at one time or another in everyday living.

A foetus does not have a developed mind nor body but those who accept the wisdom of the ages will assert that it is a soul, first and foremost, with the body and mind developing naturally to birth and beyond. To interrupt this process is unconscionable”.

Let’s not dwell on the fact that the wisdom of the ages, prior to Copernicus for instance, also placed Earth at the centre of the universe and believed the Earth was flat – a fact that only goes to show that “philosophers, sages and enlightened men and women” can be wrong. Let’s assume the existence of souls. How would this be relevant to the abortion question? Mr Carrington would still have all the work ahead of him.

Carrington would need to explain, for instance, how it could even matter to an “immaterial soul” whether it inhabits or remains in a body. He would need to explain what happens to a soul when a body dies, and when he does, explain whether a soul would be better or worse off if or when its body dies. Is the soul “immortal”? Do souls go to a heavenly place? Would a minute in heaven be preferable to a lifetime on Earth? And if it would be, would a soul prefer to enter heaven sooner or later? Would abortion actually BENEFIT a foetus’ soul? No one has yet taken up my challenge and answered these relevant questions. And yet, we are to take faith-based assertions as fact and tailor our laws according to their contradictory, inexplicable and faith-based opinions.

Essentially, if the religious (especially Christian) believers are honest about their belief in the “afterlife”, they would have to concede that abortion would be the best thing to happen to a foetus, given that, even if they have the capacity for suffering (and the scientific evidence shows us that they do not), what is a few minutes of suffering compared to early entry into eternal heavenly bliss? Or am I missing something here? Perhaps Carrington or someone else might take my challenge and explain. Because as far as I see it, the inclusion of religious faith into the abortion question actually makes the case for the anti-choice position even worse.