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.
BullSh!t…”back alley” abortions is propaganda and before Roe was RARELY done. It’s all about the inconvenience of living with the consequences of ones actions period.
It will be the first and only for ANY behavior.
A severe and antagonistic misunderstanding of operant behavior has led to both camps, or all camps, standing on curbs and corners flashing signs at each other. Morality is a personal thing, and ethics is a legal matter. The only aspect of this that is even close to philospohical logic is ethics. It is legal. End of story. Making something illegal and punishing misbehavior is a typical liberal act. If we wish to discourage this practice, we should encourage character development in our youth. Maybe character doesn't matter to a certain hedonistic former President, but it certainly matters to most of the rest of us. Do that: encourage character development so that citizens can handle life with some grace.
I enjoy debating the logic, because at root the pro-aborts have only two arguments, that the fetus is not human (demonstrably wrong) or the utilitarian argument that some human life should be sacrificied to enhance the quality of life of other humans. Once you get them to admit to the utilitarian argument, you've got them, because the consequences are truly ghastly - its the same argument the Nazi's used to justify the Holocaust.
Don't need either alternative. Humanity is universally recognizable through our emotions such as empathy. If we value and nurture our ingrained desire to not see other recognizable humans in pain, then abortion will be a much less likely personal decision by women.
You sure? Alcoholism, violence? If not genetic, then chemical, physical, etc.
Women...more than one? Bullogna! The so called back alley abortions happened in the 60's, Roe was 1973.
I didn't say that all the activists in the pro-life movement made this mistake. I think that a lot do; and I think it's a serious issue.
You will not change people's minds using a standard of beliefs that they do not agree with.
NO genetic markers have been found for behaviors.
2) Defining a class of humans as "subhuman" was a root cause
3) We currently define a "fetus" as subhuman, based on an arbitrary date (third trimester, etc.)
4) Pick a date (8 months, eg)
5) My son (Chris, currently a greenbelt, IQ 150+) was born at less than 8 months. Pick another.
6) Late the liberal date picked = N. Why was the child a child on N, and not on N-1?
7) QED, No date can be picked. 8) So we have to find another criteria - brain activity, or some such.
It's a start.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
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.