Humanist Critique of
Abortion
To understand what a humanist is,
and explain what they would think
about abortion
From this image, what do you think are
the things that a humanist cares about?
A humanist…
• Wants happiness and justice for
everybody. kindness and deep
sympathy for all. Not prejudiced,
because we all have a common
humanity.
• This is the only life we have, or that
matters.
• Doesn’t involve God, or what God
says, because they are not sure God
even exists.
• Uses reason, logic and science to
work out the best solutions. Reason,
not revelation.
• Social commitment, to help others.
We should take action to make a
difference. science can make a
difference.
1. Bullet point what a humanist believes
2. Explain how their approach might be
- similar to a Christian/ Catholic’s
- different from a Christian/ Catholic’s
*Draw your own version of a humanist logo
Apply this info to explain how a humanist
would respond to
• a famine…
• the problem of homelessness in London
**how is the humanists’ approach different
from a Christian/ Catholic?
Was Jesus a humanist ..?
Yes because….
- Showed sympathy for
others
- Had no prejudice
- Took action: offered help
No because…
- didn’t use science
- emphasised faith to
obtain results
- Was “unreasonable” in
putting love first
• Find evidence for Yes and No columns &
write it out next to the points.
• Overall, was Jesus a humanist?
Treat others as you would
like them to treat you
A woman, afflicted with
bleeding for 12 years, had spent
all she had on many doctors,
but was no better. Believing in
Jesus, she reached out and
touched his cloak, and instantly
her bleeding dried up.
No man has greater love
than he who lays down his
life for his friend.
When Jesus saw the man who had
been paralysed for 38 years lying there,
he asked him, "Do you want to get
well?"
Jesus felt sorry for them, for they
were like sheep without a
shepherd… (teaching & feeding of
the 5000)
Jesus taught the Parable of the Good
Samaritan – the Samaritan was the one
that Jesus praised, because he alone
helped the man who had fallen among
thieves, no matter if he was a Jew or
Samaritan
For truly I tell you, if you have
faith the size of a mustard seed,
you can say to this mountain,
‘Move from here to there,’ and it
will move. Nothing will be
impossible for you.”…
So what would be a humanist’s
attitude to abortion?
•
•
•
•
•
•
happiness for everybody
Take action
reason and logic
use science
No prejudice
no God
A woman has just spoken to her
parish priest, who told her
about sanctity of life & now she
is unsure about having the
Discuss with
yourher
partner
abortion.
Answer
with awhat
you think
letter
fromaahumanist
humanistwould
point of
say..
view.
Reject the idea of “Sanctity of Life” – because they do not believe in a God who
gives human life holiness. Prefer to consider “Quality of life” ( a person’s feeling
of well-being and satisfaction with life).
Humanists think that an unborn baby is not a person yet, so they don’t worry
about its happiness. It does not have feelings or rights. So the mother’s right of
choice comes first.
A humanist would carefully and rationally think through the different options –
the effects of abortion or of having the child on the quality of life of the mother/
parents
• if it is disabled, could it be cared for.
• if aborted, will mother be able to have children later, or feel too much guilt?
But Humanists think abortions are not the best solution to unwanted pregnancy
– it is better to reduce abortion by better sex education/ access to
contraception.
What would Jesus say
to Stephen Fry, a
humanist?
Peter Singer:
“Speciesism”
1. Explain 3 of Peter Singer’s views
SCENARIO
You
pushing
a pram along
2. are
Give
an example
of onethe
his views.
pavement
a 2 month
baby in it. A
3. Whatwith
would
he say old
about
dog runs
out in front of you. You crash into
abortion?
it and the baby gets thrown out of the
**What is your view about allowing
pushchair. It is lying on the ground, its legs
elderly people with dementia to be
in a strange position, bleeding and crying.
killed off,
they
are ayelping
financial/
Nearby,
theifdog
is also
in pain.
emotional burden on their carers?
A passer by calls an ambulance. It arrives in
5 minutes. The paramedics take the dog
into the ambulance. They tell you: “we will
come back for the baby in 30mins.”
Is this fair? Why?
Faced with the choice of rescuing from a fire either a severely retarded infant,
who is unlikely to ever want more than eat, excrete and avoid pain, and an
ape, we should rescue the ape – since we should always act in such as way so
as to increase happiness & enjoyment, and reduce suffering - and the ape
has more ways of being happy, than the disabled child, so it should be saved
first. Any animal with a higher mental capacity, is more of a “person”.
Animals have rights because they also have strong preferences to enjoy
pleasure, avoid pain, move about freely, and not be separated from their
mates & families. But the rights of individuals do not matter so much, if by
killing one individual, we can increase the happiness of many others (eg
Hitler). Also, if they are a non-person human, their rights do not count: ie. a
member of the human species, but unable to think, feel, hope and choose.
(unborn babies, new-born babies, elderly people with dementia). It is OK to
kill them if doing so would add more to the happiness and enjoyment of
others, or reduce their suffering.
What does Peter Singer think we should judge the
value of creatures on?
Do you agree?
Catholic Responses to Singer
Go around the room and
write up some of the
responses to Singer.
Order them from best to
worst arguments
Singer says that most valuable creatures
are those with highest mental capacity
to enjoy and suffer. But isn’t he wrongly
judging by human standards, that
“mental capacity” for consciousness is
what is best fabout other creatures?
It is not logical to say that we should
always try to increase overall human
happiness, because increasing
happiness for one person, does not
make a difference to others: if
someone sees their football team win,
the people in China are no better off.
Or as CS Lewis said, if two people
suffer toothache, they do not suffer
more, because of the other person’s
toothache.
Singer says we should not allow our emotions to
blind us to what is the “rational” thing to do. But
making moral decisions can never be a purely
rational, emotionless process. Our emotions,
instincts help us to care for others, and to find things
important, even when it isn’t “rational”. Singer
himself cared generously for his elderly mother
when she had dementia.
Human beings do not
stop being “persons”
even when their mental
capacity or awareness is
not functioning. The
unborn, those in a coma,
the demented elderly, as
still “persons”.
Singer is unrealistic, to think that
happiness can be “calculated” and
“maximised” – how can you calculate and
compare the happiness of a monkey
compared with a disabled child?
If singer says all animals have
rights, is it speciesism to destroy
wasp’s nests, or cull deer?
The highest creatures are not those with
most mental capacity, but those with a
spiritual soul, made in the image of
God. Only human beings have this
special dignity. So you can never say that
a dog and a human baby are “equal”. We
can therefore use animals for our needs,
but this does not mean that we can
disrespect them (eg animal
experimentation, wearing leather, meat
eating is OK) .
Summarise the
Catholic responses a
brief headings around
a mindmap
Number them in order
of how good an
argument they are