The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality

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.

From www.TheOnion.com:


By Jessica Linden

It comes down to one thing: It's my body. Not Uncle Sam's, not Trent Lott's, not Pat Robertson's. Mine. Congress can demand a portion of my income, it can tell me how fast to drive, it can kill killers and anyone else it thinks it must to preserve a free and civil society. But my body—the skin, bones and organs that comprise me—is where the line gets drawn.

The decision to have or not have a child is mine and mine alone. I am not cattle for the government to order about, demanding that I bring an unwanted child to term. Stripping me of the right to control my own destiny dehumanizes me, period. Anything less than my choice, on my terms, reduces me to property.

The right-wing anti-choice movement loves to preach its views from an idealistic, pie-in-the-sky universe where nothing uncomfortable ever has to happen to anyone, but that's not reality. Life is filled with pain and hard choices. Choices one may or may not regret later. But it's that individual's right to make the choice.

You think America is the land of the free? The last country on Earth that would ever oppress women? My grandmother remembers when women could not vote in this country. And, boy, do we have a lot more progress left to make.

One certainly has to wonder: How would things be different if men could get pregnant? It would certainly be fun to watch the patriarchal elite of Congress scramble to cover themselves if it all changed overnight.

And one more thing: Who would care for all the children born into a world that prohibits abortion? Who would be there to raise all those unwanted, abandoned children? It would certainly be a different world, full of orphanages jammed with parentless children, robbed of a fair chance to grow up in a stable environment because of what some politician deemed moral in some oak-walled chamber on Capitol Hill. To say nothing of the women maimed or even killed by barbaric, back-alley abortions because a bunch of rich, white men made the safe alternative unavailable to her.

Keep your laws off my body, America.


By Gen. William Patterson U.S. Army

To protect America's interests, it is sometimes necessary to mobilize and deploy a military force. We now stand on the brink of such a time.

The tactical importance of Jessica Linden's uterus to national security is twofold: First, with its rich, fertile walls, this uterus is a vital source of future Americans. Second, the uterus is situated in an extremely strategic location, leaving it vulnerable to a hostile foreign power. This uterus must be given top priority by the Pentagon. Establishing a strong U.S. military presence in Jessica Linden's uterine region is by far the most sensible course of action.

I propose that four U.S. Army divisions be deployed to Jessica Linden's uterus no later than midnight Friday. Once there, a reconnaissance force of 200 men will be stationed on her cervical perimeter, denying entrance to any unauthorized personnel or equipment. Another two battalions will be stationed inside the uterus itself, where they will set up camp and, if necessary, conduct armed patrols in force.

Remaining personnel will conduct amphibious patrol in the forward vaginal canal and as far back as the fallopian entrances, scouting for cervical dilation or other such activity. The entire operation will receive air support from a wing of Blackhawk helicopters, which will rotate in pairs patrolling the greater vaginal area. Our forces will constitute a impenetrable iron diaphragm, preventing any and all foreign elements from compromising uterine security.

Should we encounter a foreign power disputing our claim upon the Linden uterus and surrounding vagina, we will be prepared to engage its forces in armed conflict. We will consider the nation's safety our number one priority, regardless of Ms. Linden's unwillingness to cooperate.

The Pentagon will consider a full-scale invasion of Jessica Linden's ovaries only as a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted. We recognize in principle Jessica Linden's sovereignty over the ovarian territory, but to prevent the loss of the reproductive system to a hostile power, we are prepared to do what we must, even if that means conducting a firebombing and strafing campaign that may result in full military hysterectomy. If we must destroy the uterus in order to save it, so be it.

If U.S. uterine occupation extends into the second week of October, we will install an irrigation and drainage system in anticipation of Miss Linden's menstrual cycle. This will not only benefit her, but provide our troops with a cleaner, more navigable terrain on which to conduct their military maneuvers.

I will further recommend that Congress establish a new Military Medal of Valor, to be called The Distinguished Cervix Cross For Courage In The Uterine Theatre. Naval soldiers may also request a burial within Miss Linden in the event of loss of life.

The U.S. must and will defend its interests in Jessica Linden's uterus, no matter what the costs.

However, I follow the ancient rule about abortions: When the baby starts to kick, then it is has become an individual and his/her life should be protected. My own daughter is in this situation. Once that baby started to kick, abortion is no longer an option. If she dared to have an abortion, I would never speak to her again.

"Ancient": I'm glad you admit you base life and death choices upon the dark ages. So glad you've insulated your morals and ethics from scientifically enlightened postures likes ultrasounds and basic human fetal development.

So, if you're a blind mom of a 1-week old...and if she's never initiated a kick or touch w/ya, I guess she's fair game for the garbage heap: See no baby, hear no baby, feel no baby=is no baby, eh?

Nice arbitrary standards in place. I can imagine it now, you having a convo w/your 13 yr old grand(son/daughter) {baby mentioned by you}: "Yup, I told your Mom that once she felt you kick, you were worth loving. But up until then, well, Chip, I just wanted you to know that I subcribe to a theory of A.M.T. (arbitrary magical transformation). You see, you weren't really Chip until you were strong enough to kick so that your Mom could feel you."

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.