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.
There they go again ... fabricating extremely ridiculous sterotypes of Christians who abhor abortion while trying to suggest that gays are "moral" and might agree with them. LOL! Gays are immoral. If they happen to get the abortion issue right (por life advocates) that's not by design but a coincidence.
Actually, that's one of the multiple lies put forth by the (very) profitable abortion industry.
The MD who testified before congress of many "thousands" of back alley abortions before Roe v. Wade, now freely admits he made the figure up from whole cloth--and neither he nor anyone else has any reliable method of knowing. Use your head, "back alley" means secret, so how can we possibly know very personal facts, purposely kept secret--at a time when statics weren't nearly what they are today. Let say though he was right....that indeed THOUSANDS of back alley abortions used to occur in pre-Roe times. Assuming even a large percentage of these were botched, still compared to the 1,400,000 abortions that America is responsible for every year... its very probable that the number of "botched" legal abortions today, even if relatively small, far exceed the total number of botched illegal abortions of yesteryear. Simple numbers--more women are very likely to suffer today, due to the much (much) higher number of babies whom modern America kills now, compared to then.
I find it sad and very sick that more people, religious or atheist or whatever, aren't more troubled about the huge numbers of Americans who willingly kill their offspring--their children--simply to cover up acts they are ashamed of, or simply for convenience. Such blood spilling is the real shame of our land.
"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice can not sleep forever..." --Thomas Jefferson on slavery
Good so far
That particular bit of logic is still sound,
OK
only you can't apply it in this situation because abortion may not be linked to cancer.
Sorry, simple sophistry is still simple. Abortion IS linked to cancer. Logic by definition is reason or motive (a statement of justification) and in this case for NOT doing something, if the motive or reason changes then by its virtue the logic changes…you’ve simply reversed the definition to meet your own sophistry. Are you madg’s alter ego?
Nice try, but thanks or playing anyway. Did your professors actually teach you that bit of BS or are you just another casualty of liberal education?
It seems pretty self-explanatory to me...
Good for you and your common sense.
I disagree, God is law abiding: he never violates his own nature. A Christian does not become divorced from morality. His relationship to morality changes. A Christian is no longer an enemy to morality but a loving friend, not for what morality does (it cannot save) but for what it reveals. Abortion is first and foremost a sin against God. A sin with a dreadful and instantaneous punishment making the perpetrator a victim. It's despicably inhuman, inhumane and wrong and we should treat it as such.
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law...Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good...For I delight in the law of God after the inward man...Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
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.