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]

My own Christianity...non-pious as it is....has nothing to do with my views on abortion and I have never used it as an argument to dissuade.

Good for you!

[Scenic Sounds]

I also tend to think a lot of desperate, pregnant women - Christian or not - would respond better to a helping hand than what they sometimes get.

This is such a great point, I think. What good are moral or logical arguments if they are being made to someone who is so frightened and desperate that she can't even think clearly?

[jethropalerobber]

PETA would say that the life of the dog was worth no less than the life of the children. I find that sicknening.

in your opinion, what is it that makes human life more valuable than other forms of life?

[jethropalerobber]

Did anyone ever notice how most acts that have traditionally been defined as immoral have negative psychological, physical and/or spiritual consequences for individuals? Maybe there's a connection there somewhere....

what do you mean by 'spiritual consequences' ?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Animals have a body and a soul. Humans have a body, soul, and spirit. That's a personal belief. Humans have a capacity for spirituality that animals do not.

[jethropalerobber]

pardon my ignorance, but are your personal beliefs part of a certain religious creed?

also, what is the difference between soul and spirit?

also, do plant forms possess souls?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

What good are moral or logical arguments if they are being made to someone who is so frightened and desperate that she can't even think clearly?

True - and I also believe it's more than just an inability to think clearly. There may be no support system. She may not know how she will support a child. She may have a boyfriend who wants no part of it. She may have parents who would not be supportive. Abortion may seem like the only possible exit for what feels like an impossible situation.

Someone coming along and saying, "Oh, by the way, if you do this, you're going to hell" is probably the least of her worries - but someone coming along and offering help may be able to make a difference.

[Scenic Sounds]

Someone coming along and saying, "Oh, by the way, if you do this, you're going to hell" is probably the least of her worries - but someone coming along and offering help may be able to make a difference.

I agree completely. Someone in that situation doesn't need to be judged; she needs to be helped.

I'm sure that an unwanted pregnancy can seem really overwhelming. And I can see how it might be difficult for someone in that situation to be able to visualize the future without an abortion.

P.S. When you gonna write me a new tag line? ;-)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Very interesting, very informative post. Thank you.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

P.S. When you gonna write me a new tag line? ;-)

When you hand me some puka shells, buddy!!

[Scenic Sounds]

LOL. You can count on that, even if I have to string them myself. ;-)

[k2blader]

... 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;

I think this is what caused me to miss your point. Frankly, the above strikes me as both illogical and humanistic/anti-God, even if unintended.

This column was my take on those people who seem to consider morality as the only argument to be pro-life.

Really? I have never met such people. I've found that folks who believe abortion is immoral are also quite understanding of its negative consequences, e.g. increased risk of breast cancer and risk of complications later in life with other pregnancies as you mentioned in your article, not to mention the physical/emotional/psychological trauma resulting from the procedure itself.

I happen to believe that approaching someone who is not a Christian with a Christian argument for being pro-life is not the most productive or persuasive way to do things.

Maybe not. But who is to say? And I suppose it depends on how one presents his "Christian argument." Mine would be: Fundamentally, I believe abortion is wrong; not only does it take the life of an innocent but it profoundly hurts the mother as well.

Have you seen the latest Gallup poll on the issue? 53% of those surveyed believe abortion is "morally wrong" (up from 45% two years ago).

Basically, I think people know abortion is wrong because they just *know* it, kind of like how they know lying or hurting others is wrong. No one is unaffected by the inherent "moral law" of this world, which I like to think has been set in place by our Creator.

I can't think of a bad reason to not have an abortion. So by all means, attempt to persuade others to the pro-life side as you see fit. But at the same time, be prepared to answer the person who asks, "Why is abortion wrong?"

[Igraine]

Thank you. I'm glad somebody read it.

I was thinking more about this last night and I think a good place for the pro-life movement to start would be to interview girls who have had abortions and who now regret it and ask them what arguments might have stopped them from having abortions.

It seems to me that the pro-life movement spends so much time arguing with the Patricia Irelands and Hillary Clintons that they forget that who they have to convince not to have abortions are not middle-aged feminists but very young women, usually unmarried, usually scared, usually with a boyfriend urging them to "take care of the problem."

Pro-lifers can't wait for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. They need to start RIGHT NOW offering support to these women and letting them know that abortion is not the easy way out.

[Zack Nguyen]

Not everyone has the same moral beliefs as I do.

This is certainly true. Many people have many different moral philosophies. However, please do not fall into the trap of thinking that all moral philosophies are equal because they are honestly held. That is not so. Pro-life is right because it is Right.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Not everyone has the same moral beliefs as I do.

This is certainly true. Many people have many different moral philosophies. However, please do not fall into the trap of thinking that all moral philosophies are equal because they are honestly held. That is not so. Pro-life is right because it is Right.

Not that I disagree with you, but...you say pro-life is right because it is Right. That's kind of inconsistent with your other statement, isn't it?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Fundamentally, I believe abortion is wrong; not only does it take the life of an innocent but it profoundly hurts the mother as well.

I don't see that as a "Christian" argument. What facts do you use to back that up?

[Zack Nguyen]

No, let me explain myself further. I was simply stating that it is a fact that people live by different moral systems. That does not mean that those moral systems are right. In fact most of them are probably wrong.

For instance, many people believe that it is okay to kill an unborn baby. This is a different moral system, yet it is horribly wrong. Therefore you see, pro-life is right because it is Right. That is, it corresponds to the morality of Christ, who is the final arbiter. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

So we never need shrink from the truth of being pro-life. It is right and can be defended, and pro-abortionism is simply wrong, and can easily be shown as such. I hope I am more clear now.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I completely understand where you are coming from. Now, let me ask you something:

Your statement:

For instance, many people believe that it is okay to kill an unborn baby. This is a different moral system, yet it is horribly wrong. Therefore you see, pro-life is right because it is Right. That is, it corresponds to the morality of Christ, who is the final arbiter. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

How would you use that statement to persuade a humanist, atheist, or hedonist to change their position from for abortion to against abortion?

[k2blader]

Murder is wrong. Fact enough?

Re. abortion hurting women, see facts here.

BTW, what exactly is your argument-sans-morality against abortion?

[Cathryn Crawford]

That site was a good example of my argument sans-morality:

Abortion hurts women.