{"id":229636,"date":"2020-08-25T17:48:08","date_gmt":"2020-08-25T22:48:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=229636"},"modified":"2020-08-25T12:55:20","modified_gmt":"2020-08-25T17:55:20","slug":"un-special-rapporteur-opposition-abortion-religious-belief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/un-special-rapporteur-opposition-abortion-religious-belief\/","title":{"rendered":"UN Special Rapporteur says opposition to abortion is a ‘religious belief.’ There’s a problem with that."},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief recently made an unconvincing argument<\/a> in favor of abortion by claiming opposition to abortion is a religious belief. Ahmed Shaheed presented a report to the UN Human Rights Council, where he objected to the idea that \u201creligious beliefs can be invoked as a legitimate \u2018justification\u2019 for violence or discrimination against women.\u201d The UN independent expert called for \u201cgender-based discrimination laws\u201d prohibiting abortion to be repealed, adding that criminalizing abortion somehow \u201cimpedes [women\u2019s] ability to fully enjoy their human rights, including their right to freedom of religion or belief.\u201d<\/p>\n

Shaheed asserted \u201cthe right to freedom of religion protects individuals and not religions as such.\u201d He also voiced concerns about religious institutions and their followers supposedly using their faith to undermine gender equality.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhile religious organizations are entitled to autonomy in the administration of their affairs, such deference should be extended within a holistic conception of rights grounded in the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and inalienability of all human rights,\u201d Shaheed said.\u00a0<\/span>\u201cStates have an obligation to guarantee to everyone, including women, girls and LGBT+ people, an equal right to freedom of religion or belief, including by creating an enabling environment where pluralist and progressive self-understandings can manifest,\u201d he continued.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Shaheed has concluded that the pro-life position can only result from religious reasoning, which has led him to fear one group of people are attempting to force their religion on those who may not agree. However, Shaheed\u2019s assertions reveal a crucial misunderstanding about the nature of the abortion debate, and he has failed to see how his arguments undermine his own abortion stance.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The \u2018Religious\u2019 Label Is Not a Refutation\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Pro-lifers argue<\/a> abortion is wrong because it intentionally deprives an innocent human being of his or her life. To dismiss this claim as a ‘religious belief’ does not prove the position to be untrue, and does not actually even address the issue, as it fails to make a case for why children in the womb are not human.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Both sides of the abortion debate rely on the same metaphysical question: What makes humans valuable?<\/em> Pro-lifers defend their view by saying all humans have intrinsic value<\/em> because they are part of the human community with their own distinct human DNA. Abortion supporters often counter by saying certain arbitrary properties are necessary to achieve complete personhood. Whether an abortion proponent acknowledges it or not, this position is related to the metaphysics of the human person.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

However, unlike the pro-life stance, there is a fundamental flaw<\/a> behind the pro-choice reasoning for personhood. The nature of what someone is<\/em> cannot change if things like a working set of limbs or a certain mental capacity are lost or never fully acquired, as these are traits<\/em> that do not change the nature of that being. The preborn child is still human, even if he or she lacks the properties that abortion advocates claim grant them humanity.<\/p>\n