The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality

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

[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.

[tbpiper]

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.?

I have not seen a lot of anti abortion arguments based solely on morality. Most of what I’ve seen and heard is on the order of ‘Abortion is immoral because it takes an innocent life.’ Are you suggesting that the pro-life crowd would be better off making the amoral argument that abortion should be opposed because it goes our instinct of self preservation?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Cathryn Crawford]

See post #11.

[Poohbah]

If I remember correctly, a pro-life group was successfully sued for contending that publicly, in an attempt to dissude women from going to abortion clinics.

Incorrect. The pro-life group filed the suit, and lost.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Perhaps. It should certianly be a part of the argument.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Don't think too hard.

So, what does my being a student have to do with anything?

[jmc813]

A genetic marker for gayness would not interfere with Christianity

But it would completely screw up the crux of most of the gay-obsessed FReepers' arguments.

[netmilsmom]

>>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.<<

I grew up in the 70's as well and stayed a virgin until I was 34. No need for an abortion without intercourse, HUH?

We are putting our children at risk of STDs, AIDS and sterilization from them by telling them that having sex with multiple partners is ok. My niece (21) works for one of the "Lovers" shops in Cleveland. She tells me that the girls of today have more sense then their mothers. They know what Outercourse is and use dental damns.

No need for backroom abortions without unwanted pregnancies.
We need to go back to the time when "petting" was the way to go.

[kesg]

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.

As if we must choose between being logical and being moral -- a false alternative.

[gcruse]

What about the increased risk of breast cancer in women who have abortions?

Scientists Claim No Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
Christine Hall
Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - Scientists attending a recent National Cancer Institute (NCI) conference claim that there's no link between abortion and breast cancer, a conclusion that was met with skepticism by pro-life groups.

The scientists evaluated a number of studies on abortion and breast cancer, some as yet unpublished, and found that the most credible studies showed no causal link between breast cancer and abortion.

"I think it was fair, and it was balanced, and it reflected the science as it is today," said Barbara Vonderhaar, an NCI scientist who participated in the conference. "I can honestly say I think that they were the world's experts on the topic," she added.

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,

One of the reasons we have abortion on demand is the horrible consequences of back alley abortions,
a much more common occurrence when abortion was illegal than botched abortions when it is legal.

[Cathryn Crawford]

That's not what I meant. Logic should be stressed more than morality.

[Clint N. Suhks]

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.

Yeah…that’s the best reason NOT to kill your own child…you might become impudent or have to take antibiotics? These anti-Christian zealots, and I see some have been pinged to this thread, are first to find fault with the religious reasoning behind certain points of view but can’t say why that point of view is wrong in its own vacuum. Moral relativism is simply an excuse for selfishness in light of some things being objectively and universally always right and always wrong, this is one of those things. BTW don’t bother with the rape and mother’s life scenarios, they’re just a red herring argument that has nothing to do with abortion being used contraceptively for purposes of inconvenience.

[Hunble]

Good point and the criminal argument was good.

I will stick with the "quickening" definition. If my daughter tried to abort her baby after it started to kick, then I would accuse her of murder.

Before that time, I would consider it her own personal choice.

This is a very difficult choice for me at the moment. My stupid daughter got pregnant with a married man in an effort to force him to marry him. She use a child as a weapon.

My first thought was to demand that she get an abortion! Well, she did not tell me about it until it was too late. Once the baby started to kick, that is no longer an option.

Now my daughter must live with her choice and be held responsible for the rest of her life.

[patton]

Why was gassing the Jews wrong?

(I am leading you through an arguement that one may even use with liberals, here; This is called the Socratic method of teaching.

As Laz pointed out, I am doing it badly.

And, as Winston Churchil stated, "Personally, I love to learn. But I hate to be taught."

So you are forgiven if you decide to ignore me.)

[Cathryn Crawford]

I could learn if I understood what point you're trying to make. :-)

[kesg]

That's not what I meant. Logic should be stressed more than morality.

Well, my confusion here is that I don't separate the two in my own mind, but having now finished the rest of your article (including what you are actually referring to with the word "morality") I think I better understand your point and fully agree with it.

[jmc813]

I think he was just trying to play matchmaker not knowing, of course, that you're mine. :-)

[beckett]

With all due respect, I disagree with the premise of the piece. Pro-lifers regularly advance all the arguments you seem to think they ignore. The recourse to biblical proscriptions against abortion has a far less prominent place in staple pro-life arguments than it has had in years past. The main argument has shifted to the measureable negative emotional and physical effects an abortion has on the woman who has one, and to exposing as false, based on scientific knowledge which in turn is based on the rigorous application of logic, the unsupportable contentions that a child in the womb is just a "part of the woman's body" or a "mindless piece of protoplasm."

If the breast cancer/abortion link has not received the attention it deserves in the mainstream media, it's not because pro-lifers have ignored the story. It's because pro-choice activists and their confreres in media have worked hard to spike it.