Pro-lifers Should Focus On Morality Of Abortion

The Illinois Leader ^ | Matt C. Abbott

[mattcabbott]

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.)

[Mark]

Welcome to FR.

[Cicero]

I think there's room for a variety of approaches. Certainly the moral issue--killing an innocent human being--is the primary issue, and should never be forgetten. But some people could care less. A few of them might be reached by other arguments.

Furthermore, it greatly weakens the credibility of organizations like NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood, when people realize that they not only don't care about the lives of babies, they also don't care about the lives, health, or safety of women if it conflicts with their precious "abortion right."

A great revolution or cause requires all sorts of different people and different methods to bring it about. That applies as much to the pro-life revolution as it does to any other crusade.

[RJCogburn]

Pretty good essay.

In particular, the abortion breast cancer link is at the best, questionable. A pretty good study earlier this year showed that abortion, spontaneous or induced, actually lowered the incidence of breast cancer.

[mattcabbott]

Thanks! The reaction to my essay from certain pro-lifers, needless to say, wasn't so positive. One pro-lifer even accused me of "giving aid and comfort to the enemies of life."

Go figure.

[harrym]

Saw a great bumper sticker today. Short, to the point and very poignant, "Abortion stops a beating heart"

[Hugin]

I disagree. The most effective anti-abortion speach I ever heard was in a college speach class, given by a young woman in her early 20s who had an abortion at age 17. She spoke of the daily remorse she has had ever since and implored others in class not to do what she did. The effect was profound. Had she simply moralized on the issue, the mostly liberal audience would have simply come back with the stock "pro-choice" arguments. Instead you could see many actually had to question their own beliefs. I think she actually changed some peoples' minds.

[txzman]

Uh, I don't know where the heck this guy has been - the only ones who have been concentrating on the "after effects" are the liberal press - ie abortion may be bad for your health, ladies.

As a Christian, the only focus I ever see from my church, friends and other Christians is the horror of the deaths - period. It is and always will be murder.

I give my pro-abortion friends copies of Psalm 139 - at least it makes them think the next time the subject comes up.

[cartoonistx]

Frankly, I'm sick of the "abortion-industrial-political-complex" that has surrounded this issue on both sides. The truth is that most religous anti-abortion folks are REALLY against unmarried sex and view abortion as an evil procedure that flushes away the evidence of a woman's sin.

Most pro-aborts are all about undermining the concept of responsibility and responsible motherhood especially. They want women to have the freedom to be just as sexually irresponsible as they believe men have historically been allowed to be in our society. They don't want to suffer the shame of their sins.

We would all be better off if the true motivation behind our positions were told upfront. THEN America would decide which moral code it wished to follow.

[RonHolzwarth]

re: "the physical, emotional and spiritual consequences that the life-taking procedure has on the women who procure it."

(Yes indeed, I have known a few women who had abortions because they "weren't ready" or "couldn't handle it", and so they terminated the pregnancy. Every single one I personally know, regrets it deeply. Years, and decades later. They often speak wistfully of what the child might have been like.)

AND JUST WOMEN??? Isn't this kind of SEXIST???

You think guys who maybe might be 'unwise' and think they are 'in love' with their 'one and only', don't suffer too? You think there are NO guys out there that don't also suffer emotional and spriritual consequences? I think any DECENT guy would suffer too!

OK confession. Had a girlfriend years back, and due to my love for her and hopes of marriage and children with her, didn't mind being 'unwise'.

So. Many, many times, I heard threats from her that IF she got pregnant with my child, she was going to have an abortion.

I FREAKED OUT EVERY TIME!!!

I swore up and down, that if she did, I would NEVER speak to her again. She claimed she "wasn't ready for another baby".

Well, dammit, who REALLY is ready for parenthood? I think most parents understand THAT! You deal with it and do the best you can!

The fathers have no say in abortion at all. So, best bet is to prevent the problem in the first place, by reversing the order, you know, marriage, then conception. Kind of a radical concept today, though.

But you know, I still love her deeply, although we have not spoken for over 18 years now.

Never found anyone else, so stayed single.

(tears)

[TheOtherOne]

I happen to agree with you. Nice essay.

[Sacajaweau]

Notice that everyone goes bonkers when a parent "HITS A TWO YEAR OLD TOO HARD" and the child dies....but the same folks remains "non-commital when it's called abortion.

If the first is wrong (deliberate action resulting unintended death), surely the second (deliberate action resulting in an intended death) is wrong. The only difference is "age".

[IrishRainy]

Many, many times, I heard threats from her that IF she got pregnant with my child, she was going to have an abortion.

My 21-year-old son got his GF pregnant last year. She was going to have an abortion since she "didn't want a kid." My son, raised by pro-lifers, was very upset and told her "if she killed my kid," they were through, but to no avail -- she even had an appointment at the clinic, January 15th.

Praise God, she suddenly decided not to go through with it.

So our first grandchild, Teegan, was born last Wednesday! We're all crazy about her, especially her parents.

When I think about how she was almost not allowed to be born....well, I think my son's reaction to the idea of an abortion may have had something to do with her deciding against it, and I'm proud of him for that.

[LiteKeeper]

There is really only one issue...what is that thing that is inside the mother's womb? If you can demonstrate that it is not a baby, so be it. If it is a baby, you can't kill it. BUT...if you are not sure whether it is a baby or not, what gives any person the right to take it's life away?

[mattcabbott]

Praise Jesus! Wonderful news!!

[IrishRainy]

Thanks! I definitely see God's hand in this situation!

[jwalsh07]

It's a war that needs to fought on all fronts and fought with ferocity.

[IrishRainy]

That's too bad...you sound like a great guy, too! She lost out...a chance to have a child and a future with someone who loved her. ::sigh::

Like the ACLU, NOW is really doing a number on this country.

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

read later...

[PayrollOffice]

It's pathetic that we've come to this point, really. No wonder they took down the Trade Center. Perhaps western culture really is evil and deserves to be destroyed.