[RedBloodedAmerican]

People without morals resort to "logic".

[jocon307]

Good post. I thought the pro-life movement made an error when it chose "Abortion stops a beating heart" as it's main slogan. I've always thought it should have stolen an anti-drug slogan from the 1960s, origianlly applied to the drug(s) 'speed':

ABORTION KILLS - PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

[only1percent]

Part of me suspects that, when scientists develp the simple assay of genetic and congenital factors which will show, with near certainty, that an unborn child is highly likely to have gay or lesbian propensities, the entire gay movement will as one become pro-life.

On the other hand, science already has a good system to show whether a fetus is male or female, and those tests lead to tens of millions of abortions of girls a year in India and China, and the feminists don't seem to be doing anything about it.

[syriacus]

The pro-life movement doesn’t act like it, though. Consistently, over and over throughout the last 30 years, the pro-lifers have depended solely on moral arguments to win the debate of life over choice.

Intelligent people are allowed to couch things in religious terms, and still be taken seriously.

Einstein said, "God does not play dice."

Does his "choice," to use religious terms*, mean we should discount all his "scientific" ideas?

Nonetheless, I think the idea that abortion is a "religious" issue has been promoted, as a ploy, by the pro-death crowd since the 1970's.

By using that argument, the pro-deathers were able to accuse pro-lifers of trying to force their religious beliefs on others. They could argue that there should be no discussion of the abortion issue by anyone who was religious (even in the least degree).

By deliberately placing the anti-abortion stance in the religious realm, pro-deathers could allude to "separation of Church and State" to effectively squelch opposition.

The ploy was very effective.

*Einstein also said, "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."
and "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." and"Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God."

[Taxbilly]

Ms. Crawford Your commentary assumes that all members of the Christian faith are pro-life. You also assume that we of the "Conservative Christian Republican" crowd have the belief that we hold some sort of exclusive ownership on morality. Both assumptions are wrong.

Do Christians have the right to call on other Christians and non-Christians who have a sense of moral decency to stop what they believe is murder? Should they not call on those doctors of the Christian faiths to stop doing these acts and point out their inconstancy with their faith?

You are sure that there are a lot of pro-lifers in the democrat part? Have you watched the senate confirmation hearing lately?

So when will I see the gays for life movement? Or the lesbians for motherhood movement? Why are these groups not speaking out?

Home

[independentmind]

Wasn't this article posted by the nineteen-year-old writer herself a few months ago? What makes it so notable to you that you thought it deserved to be reposted? I'm always interested in gaining insights into the editorial decisions made by FR and its associates.

BTW, do you think the article strenghtens or weakens the pro-life position? If I recall correctly, many posters (including myself) disagreed with its premises.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

It is the left who are pushing the anti-life issue even if, as Cathryn says, pro-lifers are sprinkled throughout the spectrum. Why?

All that pro-life stands for, they are against. If each life is highly valued, in the form of the unborn, then individuality is highly valued. If value of the life of the unborn is minimized then individualism is undermined, making collectivism easier.

The mantra, "a woman's choice", is to minimize the moral issue and make it a freedom of the individual issue. That sounds opposite of the above but hypocrisy is no stranger to the left. The purpose is to minimize morality so that all standards may be lowered and the underpinnings of a viable society destroyed. That increases the need for government control to maintain order, again making collectivism easier.

So, with this anti-life position, the left has both sides of the argument covered, though disguised, to further their goal, and few point out the hypocrisy, or even notice it. Certainly not the media.

The main argument against abortion is both moral and legal - it is murder. However, there are times when a moral society can justify killing. Conservative views in favor of the death penalty are not contrary to their views on abortion, as is the leftist point of view. Taking out offenders of certain of societies standards is justified from both a punishment and a preventive stand point. Killing the innocent, abortion, and rewarding the guilty, murderers saved from proper punishment, is abhorrent on its face. Both liberal stances diminish the value of individual human life by minimizing the value of the innocent, the victim, and showing favoritism (lack of punishment) to the guilty.

Conversely, there are times when society may legally and morally kill the innocent. That is where the health of the mother issue comes in. If one must be destroyed it seems that the viable adult has first nibs. The rape and the incest issues are still immoral, IMO.

Therefore, the moral issue cannot be separated from the legal (logical) issue. They are one and the same.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It is so essential that the right-to-life movement in America galvanize behind the idea the logic, not morality,

They have.

Murder of an innocent human is wrong. (A generally agreed upon principal.)

The child is human. (Humans never give birth to anything but humans)

The child is alive. (Consult any dictionary)

The child is innocent. (A generally agreed upon principal.)

So to kill it would be wrong.

How much more logical can you get?

[votelife]

good article

Why Frist and all won't go 24/7 (Vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/958139/posts?page=1

[baxter999]

I disagree with many of the authors premises.

1. I don't know that the pro-life movement is failing at all. The polls I have seen show opposition to abortion except in rare instances is increasing. So maybe the pro-lifers are effective.

2. What's this about the pro-choicers being "easy going pro-abortion people"? Nonsense. The pro-abortion people are the biggest bigots and nut-cases out there. The pro-lifers are much nicer people in general.

3. If your reason to oppose abortion is based on the latest Guttmacher Institute study showing marginally higher uterine infection rates after abortion, then you are only one skewed study away from losing your "logical" reason for opposing abortion. It is wise to base opposition to abortion in moral terms because it takes the debate out of the devil's playing field into God's. 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.

One of my favorite "logical" reasons against abortion is that after the first trimester you are more likely to die from the abortion than the preganancy. Therefore if the feminists really are concerned with life (and they're not), they should back laws forbidding abortion after the first trimester.

Overall imho, this poster has some interesting points but misses the main point of the abortion debate.

[Dan from Michigan]

Ping

[Scenic Sounds]

At the risk of repeating myself (lol):

Arguments framed in terms of morality are great for persuading others who share our moral views and who are therefore more or less predisposed to agree with us anyway. Much of the time, though, “preaching to the choir” just doesn’t gain enough supporters to carry the day.

And the reality is that it’s next to impossible, by repetitive recitation of our moral views alone, to persuade those people who do not themselves share those views. Attempting to pummel people or trying to shame them into “agreement” is usually a complete (and very ugly) waste of time and energy. Like you say, it becomes necessary at that point to find some other common ground (like logic and reason) upon which an appeal to those particular people can be based.

Another great column, Cathryn. Keep up the good work. ;-)

[Dan from Michigan]

Since I think morality can not be legislated, I use a libertarian view mixed with state's rights to support my pro-life stance.

1. It's a state issue by the 10th amendment. Roe V Wade needs to be toast.

2. The most important libertarian issue resonates with use of force. Once force is initiated against another human being, then it's an issue that governemnt can get involved in on the state and local levels.

3. If I had my way, I'd like to see 50 states passing laws opposing abortion.

[Kevin Curry]

Don’t get me wrong; morality has its place

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.

[wgeorge2001]

"It seems that the mainstream religious pro-life movement is not so clear when it comes to reasons not to have an abortion beyond the basic arguments that it’s a sin and you’ll go straight to hell."


No,this is wrong. The pro-life conservative christians are very much aware that immoral acts against the living God and his Christ not only are immoral, but that they always have physical, emotional, and mental consequences on the women who have abortions and make women suffer.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Don’t get me wrong; morality has its place.

But, not in the bedroom.

Not at the altar.

Not in the classroom.

Not in the Boy Scouts.

Not on the Supreme Court.

When the writer can't begin to define what is moral, I don't know how the argument can continue.

[Van Jenerette]

ABORTION: Big People Killing Little People

[Torie]

The article misses the mark. Views about abortion turn about beliefs as to when protectible human life begins. The most effective arguments are ones that present scientific evidence about the "humaness" and capabilities of a fetus, and when. All else is noise, including discussing higher risks of disease later in life. That is a prudential matter, not one that justifies making abortion, or some abortions, illegal. If some feminist is pro legalized abortion until she finds out that women who have aborted have a higher risk of breast cancer, and then suddenly wants to make abortion illegal, is a woman who has her priorities all screwed up, and really does want to over-regulate folks' lives through law.

The bit about the debate being animinated by rabid moralists misses the mark to. Most agree that killing innocent human life is wrong, and "immoral." So it is a moral issue, totally, and to take a moral position goes straight back to wrestling with the issue posed above.

[TBP]

Morality and logic support the pro-life position.

How does one get involved in "Columnists Corner"?