Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality
The Washington Dispatch ^ | June 6, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

Posted on 06/06/2003 10:32:33 AM PDT by Cathryn Crawford

The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality

Exclusive commentary by Cathryn Crawford

Jun 6, 2003

Making claim to being pro-life in America is like shouting, “I’m a conservative Christian Republican!” from your rooftop. This is partly due to the fact that a considerable number of conservative Christian Republicans are pro-life. It’s hardly true, however, to say that they are the only pro-life people in America. Surprisingly enough to some, there are many different divisions within the pro-life movement, including Democrats, gays, lesbians, feminists, and environmentalists. It is not a one-party or one-group or one-religion issue.

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. You can believe that abortion is morally wrong, yes, and at the appropriate moment, appealing to the emotions can be effective, but too much time is spent on arguing about why abortion is wrong morally instead of why abortion is wrong logically. We have real people of all walks of life in America – Christians, yes, but also non-Christians, atheists, Muslims, agnostics, hedonists, narcissists - and it’s foolish and ineffective for the pro-life movement to only use the morality argument to people who don’t share their morals. It’s shortsighted and it’s also absolutely pointless.

It is relatively easy to convince a person who shares your morals of a point of view – you simply appeal to whatever brand of morality that binds the two of you together. However, when you are confronted with someone that you completely disagree with on every point, to what can you turn to find common ground? There is only one place to go, one thing that we all have in common – and that is our shared instinct to protect ourselves, our humanness.

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. Too much time is spent on the consequences of abortion and not enough time is spent convincing people why they shouldn’t have one in the first place.

What about the increased risk of breast cancer in women who have abortions? Why don’t we hear more about that? What about the risk of complications later in life with other pregnancies? You have to research to even find something mentioned about any of this. The pro-life movement should be front and center, shouting the statistics to the world. Instead, they use Biblical quotes and morality to argue their point.

Don’t get me wrong; morality has its place. However, the average Joe who doesn’t really know much about the pro-life movement - and doesn’t really care too much for the obnoxious neighbor who’s always preaching at him to go to church and stop drinking - may not be too open to a religious sort of editorial written by a minister concerning abortion. He’d rather listen to those easy going pro-abortion people – they appeal more to the general moral apathy that he so often feels.

Tell him that his little girl has a high chance of suffering from a serious infection or a perforated uterus due to a botched abortion, however, and he’ll take a bit more notice. Tell him that he’s likely to suffer sexual side effects from the mental trauma of his own child being aborted and he’ll take even more notice. But these aren’t topics that are typically discussed by the local right-to-life chapters.

It isn’t that the religious right is wrong. However, it boils down to one question: Do they wish to be loudly moral or quietly winning?

It is so essential that the right-to-life movement in America galvanize behind the idea the logic, not morality, will be what wins the day in this fight, because sometimes, despite the rightness of the intentions, morality has to be left out of the game. Morality doesn’t bind everyone together. The only thing that does that is humanness and the logic of protecting ourselves; and that is what has to be appealed to if we are going to make a difference in the fight to lessen and eventually eliminate abortion.

Cathryn Crawford is a student from Texas. She can be reached at feedback@washingtondispatch.com.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; feminism; humansacrifice; idolatry; prolife; ritualmurder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 641-643 next last
To: Cathryn Crawford
What about the increased risk of breast cancer in women who have abortions? Why don’t we hear more about that? What about the risk of complications later in life with other pregnancies? You have to research to even find something mentioned about any of this. The pro-life movement should be front and center, shouting the statistics to the world. Instead, they use Biblical quotes and morality to argue their point.

Many of us pro-lifers are trying to get the news out, but there's a conspiracy of silence (the mainstream media; politicians --notably the Democrat party, which won't even link Democrats for Life on its web site; apostate churches that falsely bear the name of Christ) when it comes to disseminating articles like The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent and Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births.

141 posted on 06/06/2003 11:53:12 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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?

No thanks, you go ahead, praying to Satan isn’t a Christian virtue.

142 posted on 06/06/2003 11:53:50 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
You have FRmail.
143 posted on 06/06/2003 11:54:22 AM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Thank you for those links!

Do you agree with the basic premise of my article?
144 posted on 06/06/2003 11:55:25 AM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks; gcruse
Clint -

You're a model of how not to act when you're trying to persuade someone.
145 posted on 06/06/2003 11:56:11 AM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
>>I grew up in the 1970's when women that I personally knew in High School dies from back alley abortions. If they must have an abortion, I do want it done legally and in a hospital.

Women? I highly doubt the authenticity of that claim. Women died on a larger scale before antibiotics were widely available. Once they were available, the number of deaths from illegal abortions dropped significantly.

To save a few hundred women a year from dying from abortion we allow the sacrafice of tens of millions of babies.

You would have a stronger argument if the abortion rate was equal to the death rate from illegal abortion. Instead of 300 women dying annually from back alley abortions, there would only be 300 leagal abortions and no deaths.

However, that's not the situation. To save the few we allow the sacrafice tens of millions. This is totally out of balance. If 300 women have to die from their own decisions then so be it if it means sparing the lives of tens of millions of innocent, unborn babies.

146 posted on 06/06/2003 11:56:35 AM PDT by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Cathryn, thank you for eloquently saying what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to say on another thread. I agree with you 100%.
147 posted on 06/06/2003 11:57:58 AM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
"Ancient": I'm glad you admit you base life and death choices upon the dark ages."


"Ancient" pre-dates the dark age by a few thousand years.
148 posted on 06/06/2003 11:58:51 AM PDT by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus, Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

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

Nope, it’s just Christian ethic to help those find help, but you can pretend there’s some subversive plot if it helps you demonize those who have faith. We understand about reprobates.

149 posted on 06/06/2003 12:00:10 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Too bad the "wisdom" of the mother cannot be judged by the child she had killed.
150 posted on 06/06/2003 12:00:53 PM PDT by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: najida
"Because..."

Well, what exactly makes it wrong - I mean why would it be wrong to kill everbody on the planet?
IF there is no moral absolute, then ANYTHING goes...(even hacking babies arms and legs off would be OK - wait, the Supremes say it IS OK - never mind).

151 posted on 06/06/2003 12:01:25 PM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is a war room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
On the one hand, you're right about arguing with logic. On the other hand, it is my personal view that you may have allowed the accusations of the pro-aborts to color your definition of pro-lifers, Christians particularly. Part of their strategy has long been to marginalize Christians. I've been to protests and read the false "news" reports. Flat out lies sometimes; distortions most of the time. It's just difficult for me to completely buy your argument when it starts with an accusation that I can't validate.

We have been losing this issue for years because it's off the charts on the liberal intensity meter. They live and die for this issue. They will stop at nothing to win. They've owned the media and therefore shaped the debate. The Internet, Fox, etc...are helping to bring balance back, and the truth is finally being heard. Advances in science are actually helping us as well.

Pro-life feminists? Where?

152 posted on 06/06/2003 12:02:17 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Implied promiscuity.
153 posted on 06/06/2003 12:02:50 PM PDT by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus, Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Good article Cathryn.

Have you heard of these groups? They make logic based non-religious (though not necessarily non-moral) arguments against abortion as well.

Feminists & Nonviolence Studies Association
http://www.fnsa.org/

Pro-Life athiests:
http://www.gurlpages.com/lifegurl/atheism.html
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Gays and Lesbians for Life:
http://www.plagal.org/

Liberatarians for Life:
http://www.l4l.org/

Feminists for Life (I know you've hearf of this one)
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
154 posted on 06/06/2003 12:03:14 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924025/posts
155 posted on 06/06/2003 12:03:27 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
He's got the wrong idea.
156 posted on 06/06/2003 12:04:09 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
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. Too much time is spent on the consequences of abortion and not enough time is spent convincing people why they shouldn’t have one in the first place.
 
I'm sorry, but I see this as a straw man argument, and do not agree with it all.
 
Even here on FR, where there are exceptionally passionate pro-life posters, I don't recall reading a "you'll go to hell" argument. The clarion call that I read far more often is the equating of abortion with murder -- which, if one wants to use logic solely, is incontrovertible, especially if less emotion-laden language is used. A life begun is ended. That's the big consequence.
 
The "it's a sin/you'll go to hell" argument is, in my experience, a phrase put into the mouths of pro-lifers by their detractors, mostly just to make them appear simple, dismissable. And while I will accept that that message has been blared on a sidewalk somewhere, I disagree that it is the most strident anti-abortion cry.

157 posted on 06/06/2003 12:04:42 PM PDT by AnnaZ (unspunwithannaz.blogspot.com... "It is UNSPUN and it is Unspun, but it is not unspun." -- unspun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
LOL! Interesting. Thanks for the link.
158 posted on 06/06/2003 12:05:16 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
You're a model of how not to act when you're trying to persuade someone.

It’s hard to persuade someone who uses lies and sophistry to do evil, some people are just rotten. But I get your point.

159 posted on 06/06/2003 12:05:59 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
"...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..."

Sure, that abusing children is just plain wrong. Why? because it just IS.
I think we're trying to over-complicate things here - abortion is wrong simply because it is the taking of innocent human life.

160 posted on 06/06/2003 12:06:47 PM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is a war room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 641-643 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson