The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality

The Washington Dispatch ^ | June 6, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[Psalm 73]

"...foolish and ineffective for the pro-life movement to only use the morality argument to people who don’t share their morals."

Who does not share the view that murder (being the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong?
If we do not argue that murder is a moral wrong, then why is murder wrong?

[patton]

Laz - you - aaaaaarrrrrrrghhhhhhhh.

Go ask your wife if I need to re-up in SAS.

[Colofornian]

I believe that the world's major religions increase their number through proselytization (IIRC, Judaism does not, but the rest do). How is that anything but changing minds through moral example? Or do you want to argue that Jesus never changed anyone's mind without political lobbying?

Ah, excellent point, Teach. Proceed with tutoring. Oh, yes, I forgot, classroom teachers never use moral arguments in classrooms (say, a social science instructor spouting anti-war doctrines), do they? Of course, they never change any young impressionable minds in imposed environmental science lectures, do they?

[gcruse]

I have to go, now, CNS. There's a
group of us meeting by the fountain
to pray for an abortion-cancer link.
Sure you don't want to come?

[ModelBreaker]

Nice article. The argument from logic works when speaking to a particular woman about having an abortion. EG You will have an increase in breast cancer, suicide, and depression risk if you get an abortion.

But it carries little weight on the macro-level argument that abortion should be illegal. Without morality, abortion becomes just another choice where the risks (TO THE MOTHER, ONLY) are weighed against the benefits (TO THE MOTHER ONLY)--somewhat akin to a young woman deciding whether to use sunblock at the beach. Sure, her skin cancer risk goes up but, on the other hand, she will look great for her date next Friday with a tan.

Once morality is out of the equation, a life and death decision is trivialized. People who will not buy the moral argument will rarely weigh future risks very seriously and will weigh the immediate inconvenience of a baby very highly. These people are lost to society and God until the moral issue becomes important to them.

So the practical approach may save a few lives at the margin. But only the moral approach can stop the holocaust.

[patton]

Kicked him. Hard.

[najida]

Who does not share the view that murder (being the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong? If we do not argue that murder is a moral wrong, then why is murder wrong?

Because if we all got to kill the people we wanted to kill without consequence, then there would be no one left on the planet.

Especially after elections ;)

[Cathryn Crawford]

"Depends on whether or not one has accepted Christ as personal Saviour."

You just lost all the non-Christians.

You've illustrated my point.

[patton]

I have heard of relativism, but you are sick.

[Lazamataz]

I wonder what Gen. Patton would have done had you "comforted" him so warmly.

You'd be surprised at how receptive he was to being 'disciplined'.

And if I got dressed up in the Nazi costume... Oh my......!

[RAT Patrol]

Perhaps I need the definition of "shouting from the rooftop."

[1stFreedom]

>>I will stick with the "quickening" definition.

That definition was based upon scientific ignorance. A conceived human is in motion once it starts dividing cells. It quickens much sooner than you realize.

[gcruse]

Hmmm, is religious anti-abortion counseling another form of prosetlyizing?

[Cathryn Crawford]

See #11.

[Colofornian]

Who does not share the view that murder (being the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong? If we do not argue that murder is a moral wrong, then why is murder wrong?

Alright, alright, if we're supposed to get all of the amoralists on our radar screen and shoot our pro-life missiles using weaponry they can understand, then, say, for every public service announcement on child abuse, we should feature a protagonist and an antagonist arguing about whether it's OK to beat a kid...then we'll have the child-defender say the magic line that will quietly win the argument:

"You know, whether you know it or not, we have skin just like those kids...we share that in common...and part of our humanness is our instinct to protect ourselves."

[Clint N. Suhks]

The National Center for Heath Statistics reveals that before 1941, there were over 1,400 abortion-related deaths. Yet after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths was reduced in the 1950's to approximately 250 per year. By 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to 120. The reason? New and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population.

Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicaps or deformities, and when the pregnancy jeopardized the life of the mother (all of which constitute only 5% of the abortion cases today). There were two notable exceptions - California in 1967 and New York in 1970 legalized abortion on demand.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I don't think you're seeing my point.

[ValenB4]

That is actually really funny. So, how's it going in Suriname?

[gcruse]

Sorry, I got off point. My bad. I outta here.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I don't think that on a person-to-person basis, the moral argument is as effective in stopping an abortion from happening.

Not everyone shares the same moral standard.