The Sanctity of Human Life vs. the Sanctity of Conscious Life: A Durkheimian Perspective

 

The recently leaked Supreme Court draft to overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision has caused a political uproar because the court’s leaning is not in alignment with the opinions of most Americans. A recent poll from Pew Research shows that only about 10% of Americans are anti-abortion hardliners, and that the vast majority of the country has nuanced views on this issue.

The pluralistic view is to seek compromise and avoid coercive measures that force one’s own beliefs onto the rest of the population. With the abortion issue, the common ground could be increased access to birth control since studies have shown that this will significantly reduce the number of abortions.

But the fact that sacred moral values are nonnegotiable makes it difficult to have this conversation. This is a moral conflict between opposing groups. There is the sanctity of human life for the anti-abortionists (and some that are morally opposed to abortion but still pro-choice because of additional counterbalancing moral values) and there is the fairness and liberty of a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body. The liberty of bodily autonomy is part of my own moral matrix as well, and it also pains me that these rights could be taken away from women.

I read the book “A Critical Introduction to the Ethics of Abortion: Understanding the Moral Arguments” by Bernie Cantens. Since I was coming at this issue through the lens of moral foundations theory, the field of ethics seemed like an exercise in cogent motivated reasoning. As I expected, the end result was two mutually exclusive, coherent worldviews; both of which think that they are right and the other wrong. But also emphasized in the book is that the moral perspective is different than the legal perspective. Many people recognize that we all have different views and aren’t comfortable forcing their beliefs on others. It was therefore no surprise that the vast majority of hardline, anti-abortionists are affiliated with the Christian Right. For them, the sanctity of human life is absolutely nonnegotiable.

While the sanctity of human life isn’t one of my own sacred values, the sanctity of conscious life is. This lead me to become a vegan, and I can completely relate to the pain that anti-abortionists feel. It’s the same pain I feel knowing that animals are slaughtered every day for meat. I find hope in the innovation of plant-based and lab-grown meat. Perhaps one day in the not-too-distant future the demand for animal meat will decline as a result.

While I don’t advocate for a ban on meat, there is still a sense of moral outrage that the court doesn’t make the connection between anti-abortionism and veganism. People evolved for religion. We all have that god-shaped hole in our hearts. According the 19^th century French philosopher, Emile Durkheim, religion doesn’t require the belief in a supernatural being. The concept of God can be further generalized to our sacred values. In theory, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment should provide religious protection, but in practice the courts first need to adopt the Durkheimian definition of religion in order to stop giving preference to theistic religions over others. (I have plenty of Christian friends and I’m not intending to downplay anyone else’s religion, but this is how I view my own connection to religion.)

There have been cases where vegans have rejected vaccinations based on religious claims that the vaccine contained animal products. Two vegans can make the exact same case, and only the one whose belief is derived from a theistic religion will be considered. The requirement for a god is completely arbitrary except to those that are already a part of the theistic religion. I’d really like to know if there’s a legal path forward towards changing this discriminatory practice.

If the court really is going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, it would only be fair for vegans to have the same treatment regardless of whether or not they’re praying to Artemis and Themis to come down from heaven and bring them legal recognition. Or just maybe making this connection between sacred values and religion would make the court think twice about coercion in the first place.