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.

[Cathryn Crawford]

A lot of conservatives get happy and excited when they read things suggesting a link. You're right. I missed that. He didn't say Christians, however.

[Cathryn Crawford]

And, I left out my paragraph tags. Brilliant.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Still didn't answer my point. You're good at squirming out of inconvienent situations by calling the other person names.

[Lorianne]

I didn't "contrue" that sentence. Our SC Justices did and you are right, they are are using "control of reproductive life" as a euphamism for abortion.

Basically, they are saying that a woman's ability to "particpate equality in the social/economic life of the nation" is CONDITIONAL on her parental status, or in other words, NOT being parent. Of course they don't want to say it in a straightforward way, but that is what they are saying. Abortion is just the mean to un-parent yourself. Their main argument for upholding Roe v Wade (abortion) is that being a parent hinders women moreso than it hinders men. So abortion is justified to corrcect this arbitrarily contrived cultural inequality. (It is not about pregnancy, it is about being a parent).

The argument is that a woman parent cannot presently (and implicitely will NEVER be be allowed) to participate equally if she is a parent ..... relative to men who are parents.

This is essentially true the way our culture is frameworked today. However, it doesn't have to be true. The SC is basically saying this fundemental culturally derived inequalty WILL NEVER CHANGE FOR WOMEN. Don't even ask. Therefore, they reason women have to have the right to eliminate their offspring to offset this culturally imposed inequality between men and women parents. (Note: they did not give this "right" to men, because it is implied that men don't need it. Male parents are not hindered socially/economically relative to female parents).

They are basically telling women that their equality is conditional on being UN-parents. They are not saying the same thing for men parents, so they are upholding a basic inequality as something to be preserved and enshrined into LAW.

The odd thing is that some feminists actually agree to go along with this further enshrined cultural inequality.

I believe this is what Pres. Bush and others need to tackle in their "creating a culture of life". Right now we have a culture of "get ahead at all costs and stick women with the full responsibility for children".

These two viewpoints are at odds. If we were to instead treat every child as a net ASSET to society, instead of a net liability (and a liability more to women than men) then we could circumvent the need for abortion in the first place. As long as there is a double standard in this area. As long as parenting is culturally re-enforced as a social/economic liability (for women more than men), abortion will continue to be perceived (even by our most learned legal minds SC justices) as the "solution" for women being "equal".

As I said, it's a Faustian bargain, but one that many people seem to have no problem with. I do. My equality is NOT conditional because I'm a woman. I refuse to be told it is. I'm a parent just like many men are parents. As a parent I deserve equal opportunities in the public sphere as any male parent. I demand equal educational opportunities, jobs opportunities, and equal time parenting.

If women DEMANDED real unconditional equality it would be a much different world, and I believe a world where abortion would not be a reasonable choice.

[Clint N. Suhks]

He said it was about my religion, do I have to cite that too? So where is your condemnation?

[stands2reason]

I don't fit into the typical party girl frame, Laz.

This is what I was referring to. I said nothing about sleeping around.

[MHGinTN]

tpaine: Your comment is too juvenile to necessity countering, for anyone familiar with what were the actual causes of the Civil War. To waste time recounting history to you is not my way to enjoy a discussion thread and it lends to you far more significance than you are due. ##########

Cathryn, you've made this assertion several times on this thread:
    How are you going to argue your moral belief that abortion is wrong with, say, a hardcore moral relativist?

I spend a whole lot of time in abortion and related life issue discussions. It is not the hardcore whom we must convert in order to bring a legal end to abortion on demand (we will never outlaw the practice compeltely because it is proper to end a pregnancy when a woman's life is endnagered by an unviable child in her womb ... right of self defense). It is the vast moderate American public who have purposely avoided becoming interested in the debate over abortion and who by and large have little or no facts regarding life before birth upon which to call when the issue of voting for abortion champions or abortion opponents comes up. It is to that vast moderate public that your combined logical and moral approach suggested will have the most positive impact.

BTW, great essay; thought provoking, obviously.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You're good at squirming out of inconvienent situations by calling the other person names.

I didn't call you a name but Ms. Hyperbole will do. And I've answered your quetion several times but here goes again. You address the argument with simple right an wrong, not logic because logic can change, get it?

[tpaine]

Your whole argument relies on two very weak presumptions, first the argument that the baby is not "viable". The basis if "viable" is basically that a human must be able to breathe and have a hearbeat on their own.

That is the USSC legal position.. Feel free to present a better consitutional solution. No one has to date.

The logical extension of that argument is that as soon as a person is unable to feed and care for him/herself (such as a serious brain injury) or temporarily needs a ventilator in the case of an illness or injury then they are no longer "viable" and therefore have no rights under the Constitution.

Absurd illogical conclusion. They were a legal person ~before~ the illness/injury..

The second weakness is the screwy definition of "personhood". Only by twisting the definition to say that a an unborn baby is not a person though it is undeniably both human and alive is insane.

Its a moral & legal dilemma. Find a solution.
As Cathryn has mentioned, calling your opponents on the USSC 'insane' does nothing for your cause.

[Cathryn Crawford]

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.

Your first post. You brought up the "anti-Christian zealots" that I pinged to the thread.

[Cathryn Crawford]

That's nonsense. Logic doesn't change.

[MHGinTN]

So, are you saying that the SCOTUS has authorized women to choocse death as the alternative to bringing an already alive being into the air-world? Has the SCOTUS authorized child killing as a means to establish equality, yet they have couched the legalization of killing in the obfuscatory term 'reproductive rights'?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Thanks, Marvin, I'm glad you liked it, and I'm glad it gives people something to think about. That was the point.

[Cathryn Crawford]

LMAO

[Qwerty]

"You address the argument with simple right an wrong, not logic because logic can change, get it?"

In other words, don't use any other methods but the also often changeable concept of right and wrong to persuade people.

Clint, why not use logic if it might win people over?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Ah...my posts are getting confused inside my head...I need air...;-)

[Colofornian]

Right now, the perception is the pro-aborts debate the issue logically and us pro-lifers are trying to shove our morality in society's collective face.

You've obviously never heard one of the more prominent spokesperson who goes around the country debating pro-aborts and offering discussions on this in classrooms: Scott Klusendorf of Stand to Reason. As the name of the organization implies, Scott uses scientific reasoning

[Sparta]

Sure. I thought I was already on it.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Clint, why not use logic if it might win people over?

Because he doesn't care.

[billbears]

You will not convince people of an argument based solely on morality

I disagree. The very argument that abortion should be even considered an option was first raised by questioning the morality of whether or not it was legal to kill an unborn child. Why should conservatives be forced to use methods not even used in reverse by liberals?