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.
Because I said so? ;)
Well, what exactly makes it wrong - I mean why would it be wrong to kill everbody on the planet?
The biggest reason being that if everyone on the planet was killed, I would be amoungst the killed and so would those I loved. I have a strong self preservation instinct. And I don't have much family left livin', so I wanna keep them around too.
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).
All morals have logical foundations too. That gives them double support. I was raised to believe it was morally OK to hate blacks because they bore the mark of Cain (dark skin). Problem was, it didn't hold up against logic.
Well bless your heart, Humble. That's easy for you to say, seeing as how you've already been born.
Cordially,
Truth hurts sometimes, I believe I admitted that to you. But as I pointed out to you before, sometimes the distastefulness of a subject is equal to the argument needed to balance it. Cathryn and I have NOTHING in common on this point.
Actually, some pro-aborts just hate humanity and think it needs culling, some are in it for the money, and the rest like the fact that it's easy and convenient and don't really want to think about it.
The argument need not be distasteful, or so I was raised to believe.
" Cathryn and I have NOTHING in common on this point."
That's not how I understand it. I think your positions have a good deal of commonality.
On part one: it's good I have no intention of running for public office. Flat statements on that topic either way will doom a campaign.
On part two: it's not a case of teaching the children. We need to encourage development of character to the point where abortion isn't considered or necessary except in medical cases. That carries over to the rest of life's decisions as well.
True. It was really scary to see how many people agreed with the Unibomber's views.
They justify their views by claiming we're on the verge of a Malthusian overpopulation catastrophe. Of course, even if true that wouldn't justify murder, but it's just another liberal myth.
Damn.
You cannot change someone's mind based solely on morality if they do not share the same moral standard as you.
Under the cold logic of Dred Scott v. Sanford, a black was not a legal person.
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.