I think maybe your shooting smug blanks here.

Just a quick response:

Of the two largest Pro-Life groups I know of:
1) The Catholic Church
2) The Southern Baptist Convention

Not to mention many smaller sects such as the Salvation Army and the Calvary Chapel movement.
You sir would be HARD pressed to find any groups, secular or religious that have done more for the poor,
undernourished and disadvantaged.

These organizations are not perfect but it has been shown many times over that they are the MOST generous
And most sacrificial.

So eloquence doesn’t always relay fact.

Your argument makes little sense. Just because atrocities of all kinds ocur we should abandon the idea that human life is sacred? Of all the pro-lifers I know ( I am not one of them but understand the value of human life, just disagree where it begins), beliefs about human protection extend to all of those areas you mention. Valuing a fetus as a human does not= de-valuing older humans. What a ridiculous conclusion!

I think this author was using facts from HUMAN NATURE to contradict the notion that life is sacred. The argument for Pro-lifers is often "life is sacred" so we shouldn't perform abortions. All of the things shown by the author are aspects of the human condition refuting the sacredness of the human life.

On a different note, why are humans more important/valuable/sacred than cows or chickens or pigs that we so willingly kill and treat poorly for our appetites?

I agree with him that human life is not SACRED. Does that mean we should stop trying to stop these atrocities? No. It does mean that the abortion argument often given is a faulty one.

I come from a very Catholic family. They use this sacred life argument readily, but don't raise a stink about the death penalty, poor suffering children, mosquito nets in tropical areas, HIV in Africa, the war in Iraq, etc...

From Webster.com: Sacred - dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity

Humans are NOT deity.

I think Dr. Ryan is spot on.

Is it true that legalized abortion in the 70's resulted in a significantly reduced crime rate in the 90's? If so, it makes a rather obvious point...don't you think? Perhaps someone would like to address this issue?

As much as I agree that abortion should be legal and that it's silly to oppose it, attacking the opposition rather than the argument isn't going to get you anywhere. It's not a good way to argue.

While it's true that a lot of anti-abortion people are hypocrites, the argument can only be approached with respect to the benefits to society.

@Anonymous
Churches also try to force people into worship by holding food from them until they say they've accepted Jesus. Secular charities tend to work better because the institution of the church is expensive.

@Anonymous
Churches also try to force people into worship by holding food from them until they say they've accepted Jesus. Secular charities tend to work better because the institution of the church is expensive

This is just a plain LIE.

I've heard of some charities that will give a message during meals but you can't provide ONE example of this....(Unless it's very fringe)

I can show you thousands of examples why many faith based charities ARE MORE efficent.

And I'm not evanglical - just honest and fair.

I can show you hundreds of abuse examples by just googling of SECURLAR ABUSES.

Sorry.

Food for thought - especially in the wake of the murder of Dr. Tiller (who always wore a button saying "Trust Women"). The following article from Revcom.us is a must read.

The Deadly Illusion of “Common Ground” on Abortion
Response to Obama’s speech at Notre Dame on common ground and abortion
By Sunsara Taylor

In the weeks leading up to Barack Obama’s delivery of the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, the national eye was drawn once again to the question of women’s right to abortion. Anti-abortion Catholics and Christian fundamentalists, many of whom have been at the heart of some of the most violent tactics against doctors, women and clinics, descended on the campus. They trespassed. They got arrested. They put up billboards. More than 70 bishops condemned Notre Dame’s decision.

However, on March 17, when graduation day finally arrived, Obama received a standing ovation upon entrance, a glowing introduction from the Catholic president of the university, and repeated cheers as he spoke.

In his speech, Obama called for “fair-minded words” on both sides of the abortion issue. He called on people to express their differences but not to demonize those who think differently than themselves. He called for “common ground” and pointed to where he felt this could be found, as well as some of the challenges he sees in achieving it.

To many, these were reasonable words. To many, the response to him by the overwhelming majority of the student body—together with a significant number of prominent Catholic figures—represents motion in a positive direction.

But, when Obama speaks of “common ground” on abortion, he is not standing on some neutral “middle ground”—he is accepting the terms of the anti-abortion movement and adapting aspects of a pro-choice position into that framework while gutting the heart of the abortion-rights position. In so doing, he is legitimizing and strengthening a viciously anti-woman program while both abandoning the much needed fight to expand access to abortion and birth control and giving up the moral and ideological basis on which the pro-choice position stands.

Much of what is wrong with Obama’s approach is concentrated in a few key sentences of Obama’s speech, where he speaks directly to the question of abortion:

“Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoptions more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”

First, and very importantly, abortion is not a “heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make.” A great many women are not conflicted at all about their abortions. Many feel relief and even joy at having their lives and their futures more fully back in their control.

This is as it should be. The simple fact is that a fetus is not a baby, it is a subordinate part of a woman’s body. A woman has no moral obligation to carry a fetus to term simply because she gets pregnant. And a woman who chooses at whatever point and for whatever reason to terminate a pregnancy, should feel fine about doing so and should be able to.

When it comes to abortion, there really is only one moral question: Will women be free to determine their own lives, including whether and when they will bear children, or will women be subjugated to patriarchal male authority and forced to breed against their will?

By denying the experience of the many women who feel positively about their abortions, Obama is undermining the legitimacy of this response and reinforcing all the many voices in society that tell women they should feel heart-wrenched for terminating a pregnancy.

As for the fact that many women do feel conflicted or even deeply guilty about getting an abortion, this doesn’t prove that abortion is a morally complex issue any more than the fact that many women feel guilty or ashamed after being raped makes rape a morally complex issue.

To understand where these feelings of guilt come from, where they do exist, it is necessary to pull back the lens from the individual woman to see the larger culture and forces shaping their responses.

Women have been told—for centuries in every major religion and almost every culture—that the most meaningful thing they will ever do is bear children. Women are conditioned—and expected—to plan their lives around when they will have children, and, once they do, to evaluate every major decision from the framework of how it will affect their children. Women who do not subordinate their own dreams and aspirations to the raising of their children are openly considered selfish and routinely demonized.

On top of this, there have been decades of relentless ideological assault on abortion that has been orchestrated from the highest levels of government and power. Women have been told that they are “murderers” if they choose to abort—by Christian fundamentalists at the doors of women’s clinics across the country, by talking heads on the major media and by blockbuster movies and TV dramas that invariably portray abortion, at “best,” as a desperate and regrettable act. Women have been told there is something wrong with them if they don’t feel guilty.

All this conditions the guilt that women feel, where that is part of their experience. But none of this means that there is anything about abortion that women should feel guilty about.

From here, Obama moves forward, stating that “common ground” can be found by working “together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions” and to “reduce unintended pregnancies.”

But, as I wrote previously, “To talk today of reducing the number of abortions is to talk about strengthening the chains on women. The goal should NOT be to reduce the number of abortions. The goal should be to break down the barriers that still exist in every sphere of society to women’s full and equal participation as emancipated human beings. In this society, right now, that means there will be—and therefore should be—more abortions.

“This is because there are many, many women who want abortions who are unable to get them due to the tremendous legal, social and economic obstacles that have been put in their way. These obstacles include parental notification laws, mandatory waiting periods, anti-abortion fake clinics that disorient and delay women, the fact that 84% of counties have no abortion providers at all, and countless other cruel and humiliating restrictions.”

Right now, as you read, real women’s lives are being foreclosed and degraded due to lack of accessible abortion services.

As for reducing unintended pregnancies, it would be truly wonderful if all young people received frank and scientific education about their bodies, their sexuality, and how to form healthy and mutually respectful emotional and physical relationships. It would be truly wonderful if birth control were widely and easily available and its use was popularized. This would be the best and most effective way to reduce unintended pregnancies. However, this is not something that the forces behind the “pro-life” movement will agree to. The same biblical scripture that drives these forces to try to force women to carry every pregnancy to term, also drives them to oppose birth control. There is not a single “pro-life” organization that supports birth control.

At its core and from its inception the “pro-life” movement has been driven by the biblical mandate that women must leave it up to god to decide how many children they have. This mandate is rooted in the Christian mythology of “original sin” and its repercussions.

As the Bible tells it, “god” created man (Adam) first, and then made a woman (Eve) out of his rib. These two lived in innocent bliss in the “Garden of Eden” until a serpent tempted Eve and Eve tempted Adam to eat the “forbidden fruit.” For this “original sin,” Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise and ever since—so the myth goes—mankind has had an evil nature which has led to all the horrors humankind has inflicted on each other ever since.

Flowing from this—and central to the “right-to-life” movement—a special additional curse is put on women. Right there, in Genesis, the “Lord” is quoted as saying to women, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Later, the Bible articulates that women can only redeem themselves by submitting to men and bearing children: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, providing they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” (1 Timothy 2: 13-15)

There can be no “common ground” with this view, even in the aim of preventing unwanted pregnancies. And, by seeking to find “common ground” here, Obama is just moving the ball further down the court towards enforced motherhood; he is leading pro-choice people away from the fight that needs to be waged for abortion while at the same time setting the stage for another losing battle around sex education and birth control.

What’s perhaps even more outrageous is the fact that Obama—rather than challenging the mandate embedded within the “original sin” mythology that women become obedient breeders—himself cites and legitimates this farcical and very harmful myth. Earlier in his speech, Obama offers a non-explanation as to why “common ground” is often hard to find between, among others, “the soldier and the lawyer” who “both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm” and between “the gay activist and the evangelical pastor” who “both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts.” He says, “part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of men—our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin.”

No. “Common ground” is not hard to find because we demonize those who are fighting to subjugate women, those carrying out torture and war crimes against detainees, or those who want to deny fundamental rights to gay people. “Common ground” is not difficult to find because we have big egos or are too prideful or insecure.

“Common ground” is difficult to find because those who uphold women’s right to abortion are coming from a point of view that is completely antagonistic to those who are trying to take away this right. In the same way, those who condemn torture are coming from a view that is antagonistic to justifying, covering up and continuing that torture. And those who recognize the basic rights and humanity of gay people as well as the need for real education about safe sex are coming from a view that is completely antagonistic to the biblical motivation that sees any sex outside of procreation as an abomination.

As I stated earlier, there is no such thing as a “neutral middle ground” between antagonistic positions. Even the illusion of “common ground” can only be achieved when one side capitulates to the terms of the other side. This is exactly what Obama has done.

When it comes to abortion, the “common ground” Obama is putting forward is one where everyone accepts the notion that there is something morally wrong with abortion and where the legitimacy and the very existence of women who are perfectly okay with their abortions is erased. At a time when abortion is very hard to access for a great many women and the freedom to abort is undermined by the mountain of guilt and shame that is heaped on women for even considering this option, Obama’s “common ground” is one which abandons the fight for abortion access and retreats instead to a rear-guard battle to reduce unintended pregnancies without ever even mentioning birth control.

Finally, Obama tips his hat entirely to the anti-abortion position when he says we can unite to “provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term.” Here, in one phrase he accepts the unscientific, anti-abortion rhetoric that refers to fetuses as children. Flowing from this, a woman who chooses to terminate is killing her “child.”

In many ways, the approach Obama has taken to abortion—and what he mapped out in his speech—could prove even more dangerous to women’s rights and women’s lives than the religious fascists who were gathered at the gate. This is because Obama is dragging along many women and men who ought to know better—who, if there were outright attacks on the legality of abortion very well might be up in arms, but who are being lullabied to sleep by Obama’s calm and reasonable tone as he barters away women’s fundamental rights.

It is imperative that people see this speech, and Obama’s position overall, for what it truly is. It is not a reasonable middle ground, but a step-by-step waltz into a world with fewer and fewer rights for women and less and less ground to stand on to resist. It is urgent that people bring forward a new framework: one that values the lives of women above fetuses, one that sees the positive value in women being enabled to live full social lives including by controlling their own reproduction, one that recognizes that this is good for society as a whole.

I hear this argument too frequently and it's always flawed. The taking of any life is a sacrifice, sacred or not. Even the most primative cultures have realized this. Any animal's life can be sacred but it can be given up for a "holy" enough purpose. Something being sacred only means it belongs to God.

This applies to to many cultures and eras including this one. We sacrifice our young people's lives in war when we deem it important enough. The victims of war, those "collateral" ones are also sacrifces and will be remembered among the survivors. It doesn't make their lives any more or less sacred than the lives of others.

A woman may sacrifice her unborn child if she feels the cause is appropriate. The life taken is still sacred. How sacred? I don't know who gets to answer that question. The state? The community, or individual? We can argue about that, but you can see how there really isn't any violation of logic in how something can be sacred yet still be sacrificed or killed.

Our laws reflect our society's values. I value freedom above all, the right to make our own decisions. There is a time when abortion is appropriate just as there is a time for war.
The real question here is not whether one mode of thinking is contrary to another, but a question of who gets to make the decisions. In any event, I hope we never sacrifice any our sacred freedoms over political wedge issues. That would be a sacrifice made in vain.

(We'll see if anyone reads this after that inappropriately long diatribe)
I'm a pro-choice liberal, and I think this editorial is useless. It's a classic example of a straw-man argument. Pro-lifers never debate on this level. They do not try to logically rationalize the "sacredness" of life; they believe that life is sacred because God said so (Man was made in God's image, etc.). If you're going to argue with these people, you can't just leave God out of it and pretend you've won. Christopher Ryan is not engaging his opponents. He is preaching to the choir. (tee hee)

Wow Polymathes. I'm one minute behind you. Great minds post alike, I guess. (The "long diatribe" comment did not refer to your astute post, but the one preceding)

Coming from a psychology undergrad....

If human life is not sacred, then who the hell cares about "Human Rights"? If human life does not mean anything, than who the hell cares if a gay couple can't get married? Who the hell cares that thousands of infants die due to lack of pure water? And most importantly, why even bother with psychology????

Your logic has that major hole in it, and runs on a complete double-standard.

** cultural determinants of "personhood"

• the concept of a person is not a biological one

‘Person’ won’t be found in a medical dictionary. A human being becomes a person when a culture bestows “membership” on someone formerly outside the group.

Considering newborns in traditional cultures, not all who are born get chosen to be persons. In contemporary state level cultures, established law and custom work together not always comfortably to determine what a “reasonable person’s” concept of a person is.

• The real issue is control --

male domination of women, including dismissing their rights over their own bodies. Religious zealots who call abortion murder do not rise to the level of reasonable person.

By trying to extend the concept of a person backward to cover fertilized human eggs and zygotes, male legislators placate right-wing moral absolutists who cannot ever win popular support in a secular and open society.

They hope to return control of birth to the paternalistic “norm” promoted by so-called great monotheisms -- judaism, xianity, and islam.

anti-supernaturalist

I'm one of those people that do believe that life is sacred and begins at conception. I work for a church that is not only pro-life but also meets all of the bloggers requirement that they "back up" their belief that life is sacred by donating mosquito nets to help countries protect their people from malaria, send out medical volunteers to countries where Christianity is not allowed to be preached (mostly poor Islamic countries)and they donate medicine and medical care at the cost to the church and the medical personnel that volunteer their time, as well as domestic programs that provide food and clothing to needy people here in the states. The money that I give to my church goes to meet all those needs as do donations at church organizations around the country. What is more perplexing to me is how a person with a PhD can make the galactically stupid argument that human life is not sacred. Why bother going into a career that deals with humanity at all, why not be a mechanic or computer programmer? He may have just as well have said that he wasted his entire life, not that it has any value anyway. The argument that if you don't participate in all of these programs that you lose your moral standing to say that all human life is sacred is ludicrous. Is the life of an unborn child more sacred than that of a poor child in Guatemala? No, and if there were 40 million poor Guatemalan children slaughtered in the name of choice, the loudest outcry would be from those who claim to hold religious beliefs!

To try to find a common ground between those that believe that abortion is taking a human life and those that believe that it is similar to removing an ugly growth on the face is folly, however there can be a peaceful solution. Step number one is that those who oppose abortion based on their belief that human life is sacred should not get abortions. I think we have that one covered. Step two is that abortion should not be funded by taxpayers who oppose it. If people believe that abortion is a fundamental right, they should pay the bill to keep those clinics open.

Finally to the person who believes that pro-life people want to subjugate women by "forcing them to have a baby" that's a load of crap! As a woman, I know how this whole baby thing works. If you don't want to be subjugated by a man, how about keeping your pants up OR more reasonable to the weak willed, how about using one of the numerous forms of readily available birth control that you can get at your nearest gas station for a couple bucks? They're 99.9% effective if used correctly. That would reduce the number of abortions by 39,996,000.

Human life IS definitely SACRED (see Einstein among others) but what the author says indeed is that it is not TREATED like it was, which is an unfortunate reality and something that would be impossible in an ideal society.

If human life was not sacred than all hell would break loose at the global level. "Legally" !!!

Some conspiracy theorists (and it's not difficult to agree with them) say that for quite a longtime the ultrarich and ultrapowerful would wipe all of us, the others, from the "map".

At a deeper level this MOST IMPORTANT notion that life is sacred is accepted by most but they are completely passive when there's talk about people starving in Africa, Asia or wherever.

That is NOT because they are hypocrite but it is much more difficult to do some activity that requires 'governmental' action.

In conclusion, LIFE IS SACRED but not all of us CAN DO whatever it takes to do to 'implement' this. However we all FEEL this and those who don't are DAMAGED or, if we want to be over-tolerant, under-developed (there's still a chance for them to realize the sacredness of life).

If this notion goes to the dump, the society goes to the dump as well and very fast.
BY FAR, this issue will become more and more obvious with the over-population pressure and we will have to enforce it very strongly.

PLEASE reply.

Arguing that human life is not sacred is very dangerous. Through this logic you can justify just about anything. We have witnessed examples of this within in this past century, genocide in Europe, genocide in Africa, genocide in Turkey. These things cannot be condemned if you use the logic that human life in not sacred. If we turn our backs on the principle that human life is sacred, then how long will it be until we are committing these atrocities ourselves? Some would argue that in abortion we already are. There are 42 million abortions per year world wide. 6 million Jews died in the holocaust. The total number of deaths for the entire war was a little over 56 million.

We all know that human life is sacred, we all know that murder is wrong, if someone starts killing just to kill, or because they enjoy it, or because they dislike a certain people group we all stand up and say this is as wrong as it gets. This is not the issue never has been and I hope never will be or we will go down the paths mentioned above, or go even father down that path. The issue is when does life begin, if it begins at conception that no amount of political jargon will justify ending that life and it becomes just as wrong if not more wrong than killing someone who has been born.

Abortionists try to classify those that disagree with them as anti-choice. It isn’t about choice or control though. I found a site than lists 960,851,582 known abortions world wide the earliest information was from 1922 through 2008. I’m sure that we are well over 1 billion now. We are so critical of those in Germany who knew what was happening and did nothing. Are we any better? Are we worse? It would be so much easier to see things the other way around. Free from any implications, any remorse, but I can’t. Just because we deem something moral acceptable doesn’t mean it is. Just because we say we are justified doesn’t mean we are. The truth is all that matters, everything else is just a lie.

From what I have seen, most people who are opposed to abortion are not passionate about it. It is an opinion they hold. They spend most of their life caring for those around them they can see and interact with. It is not illogical for a person to be opposed to abortion. Yes, the ones who are passionate for embryos and fetuses, yet don't seem to care for the millions of children, adults, old people who are suffering right now, are illogical. These passionate ones are the minority. I also find the passionate ones who are pro-abortion (pro-choice? what a misnomer!) are illogical. Does the aborted fetus have a choice? Does the father have a choice when you abort his son/daughter?

If the father is reasonably sane, he should have a choice of whether the fetus lives or dies. It's a shame that that right is usually taken away from them.

Of course human life is sacred in that it is valued, but it can't be proven that human life is sacred in a religious way because religion and logic don't mix. But saying that human life isn't sacred does not legitimize genocide and atrocities. Morality and ethics are dependent on human relations and interaction, so it would be more logical to say that murder is wrong because you in turn would not like to be murdered and not because yours or anybody else's life is sacred. Stealing is viewed as wrong because we as individuals would not like our things stolen. If anything ideas of higher morality only distort this reasoning and we end up with all sorts of nonsense. We don't need to be holy to be good, we can be good because that is how we would like to live around others.

Since a significant percentage of the world population believes in reincarnation then you would have to consider when the soul attaches to the body.

From a reincarnation point of view the soul is generally believed not to attach to the body at conception but generally in the last 5-4 months of the pregnancy.

If a fetus is aborted the soul would then choose another karmic vehicle.

And yet Life is Sacred but then what we mean by Life and by Sacred can be surprisingly different with each individual.