FR Columnists Corner - "The Pro Life Movements Problem with Morality" by Cathryn Crawford

Free Republic Newtork ^ | 7-31-03 | Cathryn Crawford

[Scenic Sounds]

To bad you feel unable to address them.

I already posted to Kevin Curry in post 28. ;-)

[Wormwood]

I believe that I formed my opinion on abortion through reason, not moral certitude.

Since I do not know when human life truly begins, I do not know whether a fetus is a human being or an unviable tissue mass.

Therefore I choose to err on the side that results in the least potential harm to what could possibly be a human life.

Is that moralistic or just good sense?

[Torie]

Moralistic. You have enough doubt and queasiness about the issue, to be willing given such doubt to restrict a woman's freedom to make up her own mind. If it were a mere theoretical statement, that nothing is for certain, you would not come out as you do.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"If there is no morality there is no right and wrong."

Thats just what some people want. I believe those people to be the 'wrong' of society.

[ggekko]

"Why should Roe v Wade be considered final?.."

Until Roe v. Wade is overturned it is final, in a legal sense. The point I was trying to make was that the outrageousness of the Roe decision caused the pro-life move to focus on overturning Roe to the detriment of other strategies.

I think the pro-life movement's lack of success in stopping legal abortion since Roe is related to loss of cultural influence exerted by those promoting the pro-life position among elite opinion in this country. The top law schools, journalism schools, universities in this country all promote philosophies that are inimical to the Christian philosophy of the sacredness of human life.

I wish that the pro-life movement would marry continued legal assaults against Roe with a broader cultural strategy that would involve the a direct attack on all the bad ideas currently being promulgated by academia and the media. An example of this strategy was wildly successful in the field of political economy. Milton Friedman and a host of other economists and free-market thinkers challenged the intellectual assumptions of the command economy and helped to defeat socialism intellectually before it was defeated politically. I believe the same approach could work for the incomparably more important issue of Life.

[tpaine]

And I gave you my opinion of your post.
Anything else new?

[Scenic Sounds]

Anything else new?

Well, I'm having some surgery on Thursday. LOL. I'll catch you tomorrow, buddy. Take care.

P.S. I've many times enjoyed reading your posts. Keep up the good work. ;-)

[jmc813]

Why, how gracious and broadminded of Crawford to crampingly and grudgingly concede the point. I realize it annoys Crawford and other relativist libertarians that morality still has some small part in regulating life and preserving liberty in its truest and broadest sense. They would much rather toss it in the dumpster and get on with their Ayn Rand hollow and cockamamie "no initiation of race" substitute for morality.

It looks like someone's jealous that their miserable screeds haven't been selected by the FRN to be promoted. That's OK, you keep alienating undecided people with your "libertarians are evil" nonsense. Methinks Cat will win over more minds and hearts with her method. Just a hunch.

[Sparta]

It looks like someone's jealous that their miserable screeds haven't been selected by the FRN to be promoted. That's OK, you keep alienating undecided people with your "libertarians are evil" nonsense. Methinks Cat will win over more minds and hearts with her method. Just a hunch.

I have a feeling you're right. Though I don't Kevin realizes it because you're an evil libertarian. :)

[Cathryn Crawford]

Significant progress for the pro-life movement has only happened when they have accepted the constraints imposed by and then worked around these constraints.

Explain to me how they have failed to work around these constraints, please.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I realize it annoys Crawford and other relativist libertarians that morality still has some small part in regulating life and preserving liberty in its truest and broadest sense.

I am not a moral relativist, and I'm not a libertarian.

...but you already knew that.

[Cathryn Crawford]

And by the way, the authors premise is wrong, the country is more pro life today, especially the younger generation as compared to boomers, than it has been for 30 years.

I'm pro-life, and as a member of the "younger generation", I can assure you that my pro-life views have nothing to do with the fire and brimstone reasons that I was given at a young age as to why abortion was wrong.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Here's Crawfords first thread:

Thanks for posting that, tpaine.

[tpaine]

Glad to be of service.


"Isn't it amazing" how fast the flaming opinions stop when the orginial thread appears?

Truth still talks. -- BS still walks.

[Cathryn Crawford]

"Isn't it amazing" how fast the flaming opinions stop when the orginial thread appears?

I noticed that. Thanks.

I don't think there's anything I could say here that I didn't say a thousand times on the original thread.

[tpaine]

I don't think there's anything I could say here that I didn't say a thousand times ---
-CC-


Well, -- you never did admit that I was right bout most everything we discussed, but I can understand your foolish pride. ;-|

Maybe next time.

[ggekko]

"Explain to me how they have failed to work around these constraints, please."

One extremely promising strategy that has been marginalized because of the furor over Roe is the idea of suing abortion clinics for medical malpractice. Most abortion clinics are run like MASH units with the incidence of egregious examples of medical malpractice being shockingly common. A consistent national stratgey of suing abotion clinics for these practices would have bankrupted the abortion industry in less then 10 years. To date this strategy has only been pursued sporadically in a handful of jusrisdictions. Where it has been tried this strategy has been remarkably effective with several massive judgements being rendered against abortion providers. Had this stratey been pursued nationally it might have soon been impossible for abortion providers to get medical liability insurance.

Another line of attack that has not been pursued with sufficient energy is the use of existing State regulations pertaining to abortion providers. In many cases abortion clinis do not operate in compliance within the admittedly minimal State regulations. Had this non-compliance been litigated many abortion clinics would have been forced to shut down.

I abhor Roe and consider it to be the worst reasoned legal decision in our nation's history. Having said this, however, I wish that the national pro-Life movement had devoted more resources to the lines of attack described above.

[jwalsh07]

And by the way, the authors premise is wrong, the country is more pro life today, especially the younger generation as compared to boomers, than it has been for 30 years.

I'm pro-life, and as a member of the "younger generation", I can assure you that my pro-life views have nothing to do with the fire and brimstone reasons that I was given at a young age as to why abortion was wrong.

Well Cathryn, it's nice that you're pro life and nice that you think enough about it to write a screed on it.

However the facts are the facts, right is right and wrong is wrong.

And so it goes.

[independentmind]

BTW, basket-weaving would never do for me. :)

[exDemMom]

That's not to say that you can't mention things like higher infections, sterility, higher suicide rates, etc. but this should never be the sole or even primary reason for opposing abortions.

The only reason I would have for mentioning the adverse health effects of abortion is to try to get those who unquestioningly accept abortion to start questioning it. Planned Parenthood has, for years, sent their "counselors" to high schools to tell young girls that a) a fetus or embryo is not alive, b) contraceptive methods are dangerous and unreliable, c) pregnancy and childbirth are unacceptably dangerous, and d) abortion is perfectly safe and has no side-effects (among other propaganda). If a pro-abort can be shown that, for instance, statement d is false, they just might wonder what other lies they have been believing all along.