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… Bullet point what a humanist believes 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 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. 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 Find evidence for Yes and No columns & write it out next to the points. Overall, was Jesus a humanist? Was Jesus a humanist ..? Treat others as you would like them to treat you 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 Jesus felt sorry for them, for they were like sheep without a shepherd… (teaching & feeding of the 5000) 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. 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 No man has greater love than he who lays down his life for his friend. 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.”… When Jesus saw the man who had been paralysed for 38 years lying there, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?"

So what would be a humanist’s attitude to abortion? 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. 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 abortion. Answer her with a letter from a humanist point of view. Discuss with your partner what you think a humanist would say..

What would Jesus say to Stephen Fry, a humanist?

Peter Singer: “Speciesism” SCENARIO You are pushing a pram along the pavement with a 2 month old baby in it. A dog runs out in front of you. You crash into it and the baby gets thrown out of the pushchair. It is lying on the ground, its legs in a strange position, bleeding and crying. Nearby, the dog is also yelping in pain. 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? Explain 3 of Peter Singer’s views Give an example of one his views. What would he say about abortion? **What is your view about allowing elderly people with dementia to be killed off, if they are a financial/ emotional burden on their carers? 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 What does Peter Singer think we should judge the value of creatures on? Do you agree?

Catholic Responses to Singer 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? Go around the room and write up some of the responses to Singer. Order them from best to worst arguments 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. If singer says all animals have rights, is it speciesism to destroy wasp’s nests, or cull deer? 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? 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) . 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 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.

Summarise the Catholic responses a brief headings around a mindmap Number them in order of how good an argument they are