Pro-lifers Should Focus On Morality Of Abortion

In recent years, a segment of the pro-life movement has been focusing on the aftereffects of abortion -- namely the physical, emotional and spiritual consequences that the life-taking procedure has on the women who procure it.

It is certainly understandable. The effects can be profound, and many women do experience them to varying degrees. For instance, there is the condition known as Post-Abortion Syndrome. After (sometimes years after) the abortion is committed, if the defense mechanisms of repression and denial prove "unsuccessful," the woman might experience regret, remorse, shame, lowered self-esteem, insomnia, nightmares, flash-backs, hostility toward men, crying, despair, recourse to drugs and alcohol, and even suicide attempts ("Why Can't We Love Them Both?" by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, Hayes Publishing Company, p. 47-48).

Also of note is the purported abortion-breast cancer link. Several studies have indicated such a link does in fact exist, and various pro-life organizations have made a tremendous effort in getting the word out to the general public. And they have had some success at it.

But, not surprisingly, the abortion industry, and its numerous accomplices in the media, have gone to great lengths in an attempt to refute the aforementioned pro-life assertions. I say "pro-life assertions" not because the information is bogus - pro-aborts, of course, claim it is - but because the main reason we pro-lifers put forth such information is to save babies from abortion. And the only way we can do that, barring a change of heart, is to, in effect, "scare" the abortion-seeking women into carrying their pregnancies to term.

Is there anything immoral about doing this? I don't think so. After all, since abortion is such a grave evil, why would it be wrong to use truthful information to "scare" women out of procuring abortions, especially if doing so is successful?

The problem arises when certain pro-lifers respond to the accusation that we attempt to "scare" women out of procuring abortions by asserting that we "are merely interested in women's health and well-being" or that we merely want to "give women an informed choice."

Yes, of course we are interested in women's health and well-being. But to insinuate that our interest in women's health - not saving babies from abortion - is the primary reason for putting forth such information is to be, well, disingenuous. Pro-aborts, especially in the media, easily recognize this disingenuousness, and they use it to their advantage. They continue to run story after story about how the majority of "reputable" doctors and scientists discount the existence of Post-Abortion Syndrome; and that the abortion-breast cancer link is a myth, trumped up by "abortion foes."

So where does that leave us? With the simple fact that because induced abortion kills an innocent human being, it should be outlawed by the government, whose main duty is to protect the common good and thus the fundamental right to life, from conception/fertilization until natural death. Period.

Such should be the main message of the pro-life movement - always. Sure, the pro-aborts respond even to this message, but they do so with far less cogency than with the "Abortion will hurt you physically, emotionally and spiritually" and "Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer" assertions, however true those might be.

Not that I am denigrating the efforts of those who work in post-abortion ministry and the like. On the contrary, I applaud them, and their work should continue unabated. But, I would submit, it is in our best interest to focus on the moral aspect of abortion. Otherwise, we run the risk of being disingenuous while trying to appear compassionate. And that will only hinder - not help - our cause.

(Matt C. Abbott is the former executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee and the former director of public affairs for the Chicago-based Pro-life Action League, respectively. He is also a contributor to "The Wanderer" Catholic newspaper.)

You are one of the few potential father's out there who sincerely care about their potential unborn children.

That is the greatest lie in all of human history, and the most society-wrecking one as well.

It is also the 800-pound anchor that has kept the pro-life movement underwater for 30 years: when the father of the pre-natal baby is pre-emptively demonized, his natural right to protect his child from being aborted by the mother can be brushed aside or relegated to the periphery.

Most men care about the children they father, from conception forward, and do not want their children killed by the mother via abortion.

Most abortions happen despite the father of the baby's objections.

Abortion will never be stopped by the shame/blame approach. Abortion can only be stopped, or substantially reduced, by a cultural and societal change among women AND MEN toward sex and conception and most of all, personal responsibility.

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.