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]

I don't have to work at it, sadly.

[najida]

9. In the last episode, there is this scene where she visits "heaven" (or something like it), and meets some of her dead friends, including her father. She runs into another friend as well as a tiny little baby boy. She looks at it, and realizes, that's her kid, and her friend tells her, "Don't worry, I'll take care of him."

But the last two scenes were cool because it showed that many women do realize that they killed their own child, and feel grief for it. Perhaps there are a lot of girls who have abortions, but don't realize they killed a person until afterwards (like Claire). So maybe this show will make them realize this before it is too late.

____________

I saw it too! The last seen with dead sister in law and the baby was perfect.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You show up entirely to be rude?

Nope, just to be fair and balanced.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Wow! Your attitude is exactly what's wrong with this country! A living specimen to show what I've been saying all along.

Obviously you don't care too much about the cause.

Did you just show up here to insult people?

[tpaine]

"You cannot change someone's mind based solely on morality if they do not share the same moral standard as you."
-CC-




Very true..
-- And instead of relying upon our various different religions to teach moral standards, we must demand that our constitutinal 'morality' be taught as a required course for full citizenship, imo.

[Cathryn Crawford]

...If one wants to speak to a Frenchman, one should speak French. Even if the target understands more than one language, the target will be most accepting of arguments presented well in their native tongue. If one wants to convince those who are not currently part of the prolife movement, one should speak their language. Making religious arguments to an atheist or an agnostic is simply not going to work. That is common sense, which naturally means that too often it is not followed. Religious conservatives would be more effective prolife advocates if they kept this in mind.

Exactly my point. Exactly. It's not that the morality is wrong - it's just not always effective.

[Cathryn Crawford]

And instead of relying upon our various different religions to teach moral standards, we must demand that our constitutinal 'morality' be taught as a required course for full citizenship, imo.

What do you mean by that, exactly, when it comes to this issue?

[netmilsmom]

>>200-250 works for me. That is surely more than the number of botched legal abortions today.<<

First of all, if you think that 250 women dying is just horendous compared to the numbers of babies dying from the procedure, you are cold.

Second, with any kind of surgery comes risk. I am positive that there are very many more mutilations if not the same amount of deaths from this procedure only because when one multiplies the number of times this procedure is now performed and compare the amount of risk in doing it, it only makes sense that the number of mistakes would increase.

Perhaps someone on the abortion ping list can help gcruse with a reference to this.

[Clint N. Suhks]

No dear I did not, I simply came to be the token Christian who won't let the likes of gcruse and qwerty demean an entire religion with erroneous stereotyping. I'm just being fair and balanced.

[Lazamataz]

Well, take pride if any valuable skill comes naturally to you!

[tpaine]

under this cold logic an unviable baby is not yet a legal person, as it is an inseparable part of its mother.

Under the cold logic of Dred Scott v. Sanford, a black was not a legal person.

We fought a war to free slaves.. Would you fight another to decree women who abort to be murderers?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Token Christian?

Your attitude certianly is a shining example of Christianity.

[epow]

And if I got dressed up in the Nazi costume... Oh my......!

AHA! I knew it! You're really Zero Mostel aren't you?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Being an ass is a valuble skill?

[netmilsmom]

Please reread my post. You and I wrote the exact same thing. We are in full agreement.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Second, with any kind of surgery comes risk.

I wonder how many people die from piercings a year?

[Lazamataz]

Being an ass is a valuble skill?

It was worth $400 to this fellow.

[William McKinley]

That's just part of it. As you stated here:

Surprisingly enough to some, there are many different divisions within the pro-life movement, including Democrats, gays, lesbians, feminists, and environmentalists.

Perhaps Jerry Falwell can learn to make arguments based on things other than morality, but he will always be handicapped at it since it is not what moves him. People are most effective arguing things they passionately believe. He will be most effective rallying those who speak his language. He can do better when trying to reach a different target audience, but he might not be the best one to reach that audience. He is never, ever going to be the best person to persuade gays to join the prolife movement.

Just as the prolife movement would benefit from learning to speak the language of the target audience, it would also benefit from leaders in those groups you identified stepping forward and becoming more forceful advocates. Jerry Falwell cannot reach gay men. Andrew Sullivan can. Lynn Cheney may reach lesbians, but Mary Cheney would have a better chance. The prolife movement needs nonreligious leaders to step forward.

[stands2reason]

But how is stating that going to change the mind of someone who disagrees that a baby is a baby

Believe it or not semantic discussions on the words "baby" and "murder" are not moralistic questions.