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.

[Zack Nguyen]

I might use a more utilitarian argument, but we have to accept that it might be to no avail. There is really no reason for a humanist or atheist to be pro-life. In fact, in order for a humanist or atheist to be pro-life they must ignore their own philosophical pre-suppositions and hold the position illogically.

After all, if there is no God, there are no eternal moral standards to begin with. In addition, if we are only animals that have gotten lucky and evolved, there is relaly no reason why we cannot kill a baby in utero. So I expect the atheist and humanist to be pro-abortion. I am surprised when they are not.

[Cathryn Crawford]

So I expect the atheist and humanist to be pro-abortion. I am surprised when they are not.

I, on the other hand, would expect the humanist, at least, to be pro-life. The way to change their mind would be to convince them that abortion hurts themselves, not, necessarily that it hurts the baby (whether we feel that way or not, or whether they consider it to be a baby or not.)

[k2blader]

Isn't arguing that abortion hurts women akin to saying abortion is wrong?

The reasoning process might go something like this: "Abortion hurts women --> Hurting women is wrong --> Abortion is wrong."

Morality still enters the picture.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Abortion hurts women --> Abortion hurts me or a woman I love --> Hurting feels bad --> Feeling bad makes me feel unhappy --> Unhappiness is bad --> Abortion is bad.

No morality. Purely hedonistic.

[Zack Nguyen]

What philosophical chain of thought could possibly lead a humanist to believe that an unborn baby has a gretaer right to live than he/she has to convenience? If they are evolutionists, their is really no reason to expect it. They must be inconsistent to do it.

[Zack Nguyen]

Logic without morality is meaningless.

Bingo! Nothing can be separated from our philosophy, whether that philosphy is right or worng.

[Cathryn Crawford]

That's only if you convince the humanist that the baby is really a baby.

[k2blader]

Ahhh, I see...

So in other words you are advocating appealing to certain folks' sense of self-interest over their sense of right and wrong.

How sad... to think some people may only be convinced abortion is unacceptable out of pure selfishness. Ironic too in that there are many who think abortion is acceptable based on pure self-centeredness.

[Zack Nguyen]

Exactly! The humanist has his own frame of reference unique to himself. He can call on nothing Higher to enable him to make a moral judgement. He is really lost in a moral quagmire.

[Cathryn Crawford]

You've got my point. I consider it sad that we have to do that, but I believe that we have to appeal to every possible reasoning that we can in order to stop one woman from having an abortion.

[Cathryn Crawford]

...lost in a moral quagmire.

I'm willing to agree with you. Most people are lost in a moral quagmire, but the humanist is doublely so.

[Consort]

What do devout Christian Humanists have to say about all this?

[Proud2BAmerican]

Does the child know how it was conceived? Does your opposition to abortion in certain circumstances view that child as an individual in those circumstances, but not an individual in rape or incest?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Are there any?

[Proud2BAmerican]

So you would argue that we should have no laws at all, therefore no punishments for misdeeds of any kind -- and just focus on "encouraging character development"?

[Consort]

If not, then something is missing in the debate.

[Cathryn Crawford]

How so?

[Proud2BAmerican]

I confronted my libertarian friend w/ just this logic, and you might be surprised to hear that he has taken the step (which I had never heard anyone express but which I had always posited as the inescapable fulfillment of arbitrarily picking a date that "humanness" begins) of advocating infanticide as being legitimate. That is, parents have the theoretical (although not legal at this point) right to terminate their child's life up until the time the child is able to care for itself, or in the absence of someone volunteering to take care of the child.

Tha is, if there is a child born, the parents do not want the child, and nobody else is willing to care for the child, then the parents should have the right to teriminate the child's life.

I've always said it was the inescapable conclusion of abortion logic, but I've never heard anyone actually advocate it. Yeah Libertarians.

[Proud2BAmerican]

So funny...I have always heard the counter-argument of "Who's going to care for all these unwanted babies??" as justification for abortion, as if we'd all be suddenly walking down streets congested w/ crying babies in every which way. I used to think maybe there was a point there -- after all, *I* wasn't signing up to adopt a child anytime soon. I thought that, until my sister found out her husband was impotent, and they decided to adopt a baby...3 years, and thousands and thousands of dollars later, sacrifices made, they finally were able to adopt a child. And there are thousands and thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands -- of good, decent, loving parents who are dying for that baby that is about to die in the womb. But hey, those abortion doctors gotta pay the bills too -- it's a lucrative business -- that's what really drives it anyway.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Yeah, and pity the child that was able to kick, but didn't because he was sleeping or just didn't feel like kicking --- and got his brain injected w/ saline soluation b/c he wasn't on the ball. You snooze, you lose.