Dan Barker - His Views On Human Dignity

"the real drive behind the antiabortionists: misogyny. I don't believe that any one of them cares a hoot for a fetus."1

There is quite a bit to deal with in this tightly wrapped statement. To begin with, it is refreshing, at least, that he qualifies his statement by admitting that he is not basing his statement on fact, figures, statistics, studies or anything but what he believes, or rather "I don't believe." Of course, the first logical question to pose would be, "Fine, that is what you believe but how do you know that? What makes you think that?"
It seems sad but obvious that Dan Barker is basing this particular belief on his personal prejudice. We may note that his term for the position generally known as Pro-Life is "antiabortion_" What is the difference? It is just a window into his mindset.

Moreover, he thinks that he is uncovering a secret: antiabortionists claim to have concern for human babies but the "real drive behind" is misogyny which is a hatred of women. Not only is he uncovering a supposed conspiracy but he is charging any and all antiabortionists with misogyny. Of course, by doing so he is charging millions of women with misogyny.

Clearly, in making such statements Dan Barker is not revealing anything at all about the actual antiabortion movement, or position, but is revealing quite a bit about himself, his prejudices and his manner of thought.

Now let us consider Dan Barker's views on what is a baby in the womb:
To start with, let us note that his use of the term "fetus" is actually very revealing. Firstly, he narrows his comment to the fetus while abortion is broad enough to encompass human babies at any stage and not only the fetal.
Secondly, the utilization of the term fetus is telling in that it signifies someone who is attempting to dehumanize the human baby. Proof of this is very, very simple to come by: ask any pregnant woman (who wants to give birth) about her pregnancy and she will not state, "I hope that my conceptus is a girl," or "I am already setting up a room in our house for my zygote," or "Oh, my embryo is kicking!," or "No, I don't yet have a name for the byproduct of conception."
No, to a woman who loves the life inside of her, the baby is a baby from the time it is a "mere" clump of cells until it is in her arms. As I write this I am the father of a baby that has been within my wife's womb for mere weeks. I assure you that from the nanosecond that we found out that we were pregnant this was our baby. My wife is taking notice of what she eats because she is mindful of the baby. We are thinking about how to rearrange our home in expectation of our baby's birth, etc.

So, what is Dan Barker's view? In his debate with Dinesh D'Souza on Christianity versus Atheism he stated:

"I support a women's right to choose an abortion. Jesus never said anything about a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, He was silent on the issue, I think Christians should be as well. I think for most women an abortion is a blessing in her life, it is a wonderful thing. Obviously, there is a difference between a fetus that's the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck? It's not a fully developed, it's like the difference between an acorn and a tree. Obviously, there's some potential there. Ever sperm has potential, every sperm want to be a future being as well and yet, we don't make masturbation a crime, right? So, we, we, we have to make moral distinctions and, and I think the reason I support a women's right to choose is that it's her problem, it's her issue, it's none of your business or mine to butt in with her private decision with her doctor and with her priest and her rabbi and her lawyer."

Dan Barker has the rare gift of somehow managing to combine a great number of fallacies into one succinct package. Let us open the package and examine its contents.

I should perhaps begin this section by admitting that I too support a women's right to choose. Yes, I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to get pregnant.

Short of rape one is left to wonder why a woman that does not want to get pregnant would engage in the one and only naturally occurring activity which produces pregnancy (the tremendous evil which is rape accounts for a very minimal number of abortions and is something that Dan Barker claims is not absolutely immoral, see here). This is as opposed to acting in the one and only manner in which to achieve 100% certainty of not getting pregnant - yes, I am here referring to the modern day Scarlet Letter, the "A" of abstinence. This goes to say that when people engage in copulation, or fornication for that matter, they aught to expect that a pregnancy will result and be surprised if it does not rather than expecting that it will not and be surprised if it does.
As to the statement, "Jesus never said anything about a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, He was silent on the issue." Granted, Dan Barker is an ex-pastor and appears to get quite a bit of mileage from that fact in the form of arguments from authority: Dan Barker says that the Bible says and he is an ex-pastor so he must know what is talking about and I will take his word for it. While it is true that some religions are based upon the sayings of one person, Christianity is not like that. The Christian, the Judeo-Christian, view is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are our guidance and so it is fallacious to claim that if Jesus did not make a statements on a certain topic then Christians may not only not have a Biblically based opinion but actually aught to simply remain silent. It is fascinating to note that Dan Barker complains that the Bible commands women to be silent in church while at the same time telling all Christians to remain silent regarding abortion (I discuss the issue of silent church women in the "Women: Property, Silence, Rape and Booty" section of my essay Positive Atheism's Cliff Walker's Weak Bible Week Poster). Furthermore, Jesus did not need to make a statement about any and every sort of action that takes a life. Jesus held to the commandment that states "You shall not murder," what more need be said?

Unfortunately, quite a bit. Firstly, the response from pro-choice advocates (or shall we say antilife?) is that the commandment does not apply since we have to determine when life begins-we will get to this. Also, Dan Barker claims that the commandment does not refer to "murder" but to "killing." The point is that there are two major categories when discussing taking a life, which are termed killing and murder. Killing is taking a life in circumstances such as self-defense while murder is taking the life of an innocent person such as in a robbery attempt. We may say that killing is moral and legal while murder is immoral and illegal. Dan Barker fails to note that the greater context of the Bible is that murder was condemned while killing, such as is the case with capital punishment, was not. Moreover, even if the same term is used in both cases it is the context that determines the meaning of a word. Thus, even if we use one word for both we recognize that one word could have more than one meaning. A word, its root, what it means today or what it used to mean is not as important as the context which defines it within the text.

Now we come to a specific reference to abortion, "I think for most women an abortion is a blessing in her life, it is a wonderful thing." Did you catch his terminology? He stated "in her life," but what about the baby's life? This is the one sided and convenient arguments of the pro-choice movement. This is inhuman immoral pragmatism that amounts to, "I had sex and got pregnant but I want to do whatever I want even if I have pay a 'doctor' to murder my very own beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human baby in barbarically brutal ways." Her life is paramount while the baby's life is a mere obstacle. This I state within my given context since in a case where a difficult pregnancy and or delivery is risking the mother's life it is moral to have an abortion since the alternative is to sit by and watch both mother and baby die which would be immoral (this would not be a convenience abortion).

Now, we get a simply horrifying glimpse into the very heart, soul and thought life of Dan Barker as he declares his value of human life, life in the womb of its mother, "_a fetus that's the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?" Perhaps Dan Barker aught to expose himself to the thoughts and feelings of women who have had miscarriages and actually held these tiny little babies in their own hands. They weep and mourn because they know that these are not biomasses but are their babies, their children whom they loved from the very moment that they knew that they were pregnant. I am certainly tempted to unleash a flurry of emotionally charged statements against the inhuman, inhumane, and subhuman statement that Dan Barker made but when one reveals such depths of depravity and misanthropy it is perhaps best to merely expose it and let his shame remain. However, I suspect that Dan Barker is not at all shamed by his views. Yet, I suspect that this may be because shame is integrity's daughter thus, you cannot have shame without integrity.

Let us notice that he is making his comments based on a very narrow, conveniently narrow, parameters. He is premising his comments on the "fetus" because, in his view, the "fetus" is easier to dehumanize.

Next, he exposes his arbitrary distinctions, "It's not a fully developed." Well, neither is a baby that has been in the womb 5 months, or 8 months. "Obviously, there's some potential there," yes, the potential to become a grown man whose parents did not abort him who now shamelessly excuses the brutal and painful murder of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies.

Now we come to the issue of when life begins and to another stunningly ignorant statement, "Ever sperm has potential_we don't make masturbation a crime, right?" No, and every egg has potential but we do not make menstruation a crime, right? If we observe the lifecycle of a sperm and an egg that do not come together we note that the sperm is eventually absorbed back into the male body while the egg is washed out of the female body. However, when the two come together in fertilization we observe that the cells begin to divide and produce an entirely different organism with an entirely different lifecycle. This is why life begins at conception.

Lastly, if abortion is a blessing and a wonderful thing why does he refer to it as her problem. I know, I know, it is because ignorant and superstitious religious types have made something as wonderful as brutally murdering a human baby into a taboo. Thus, his moral view is that if a woman wants to commit murder, even the murder of her very own baby, we should just be silent and look away. It is none of your business or mine that a beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human baby if being brutally murdered, this ladies and gentlemen is Mr. Dan Barker's "morality." Indeed, I recall that this is what happened in Germany some time ago.

1. 1. Dan Barker, Losing Faith In Faith-From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992), p. 213