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.
I am my parents.
I'm not a public school product
You don't know what you're missing at a government indoctrination center publik school.
I was homeschooled in my early years and I finished at private prep school. Maybe that's why I don't subscribe to the moral relativism.
I tend to find people who were schooled at private schools to be more liberal both socially and politically. I don't know why, but it just seems that way.
Some of the more severe prolifers here have a problem with the legal definition thereof...it doesn't fit theirs. There was a discussion of this a few nights ago.
Another of their favorites is calling abortion providers "serial killers", in complete ignorance of the term's true meaning and definition.
Perhaps it's nitpicking on my part, but I hate it when someone misuses words to twist an argument. Leftist do this all too often and we should not emulate them.
Of course you do. They come from upper middle and upper class homes, mostly ruling elite and mostly liberal.
No just showing you your silly statement was wrong. The logic as per Ms. Hyperbole was that abortion causes cancer so don't do abortions, and that logic changed with little effort. Ergo logic changes.
I feel sorry for your kids then, not to bright and a little immature.
Yes, but it's still so odd. Arguing with me, I can understand. Arguing with the dictionary.. that's a problem.
There's more to life than the dictionary, one is common sense to which you apparently lack in this point.
: Stating that abortion is morally wrong is not logical?
I'm glad to see someone point this out. I think perhaps CC should substititue the word logic with reason. Perhaps she should examine how human reason is often corrupted by human will.
Either objective morality exists or it doesn't. If it does,it should be understandable through human reason. If it doesn't, we're well down the road to nihilism.
No, Clint. You are wrong.
"The logic as per Ms. Hyperbole was that abortion causes cancer so don't do abortions, and that logic changed with little effort."
Clint.. the logic was always "Avoid getting cancer, it can kill you". That particular bit of logic is still sound, only you can't apply it in this situation because abortion may not be linked to cancer. It is NOT the only logical argument against cancer.
This isn't hard. You should be able to work it out.
And if I might return the compliment, you've always been a nobody.
Ahh, but there you see the difference tween us. I've never claimed to be anybody, as you do.
Ok, Clint. Forget the dictionary, it all depends on what the definition of "is" is, anyway. Let us just feeeeeeel our way through conversation, shall we?
Look, if you want to participate in conversations, you're going to have to master English. Especially basic words.
Don't forget all 100 of us atheist pro-lifers.
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.