Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality
The Washington Dispatch ^ | June 6, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

Posted on 06/06/2003 10:32:33 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; feminism; humansacrifice; idolatry; prolife; ritualmurder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 641-643 next last
To: Clint N. Suhks
I wonder how many people die from piercings a year?

7,291.

And that's just the people who got their ego's punctured.

241 posted on 06/06/2003 1:26:08 PM PDT by Lazamataz (I've decided to cut back my tagline, one word at a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
You want me to have a positve attitude for people who promote abortion?
242 posted on 06/06/2003 1:26:58 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
>>I graduated from High School in 1973. I personally know of two women that I went to school, with that died because of an abortion that went wrong.
I have always been against abortion all my life. That basic concept is horrible to me. However, I have faced facts of life.

In 1973, I offered to marry a girl who became pregnant. We had always been good friends since we were in 9th grade. I was not the father, but she had few choices left and I offered to give the baby a legal name.

She chose to have an abortion in Canada.

Today, I still think that she made the wise choice.<<

Perhaps someone should have informed your class about the adoption option?
or the birth control option?
or the respect yourself and don't have intercourse before you are an adult option????


243 posted on 06/06/2003 1:27:29 PM PDT by netmilsmom (God Bless our President, those with him & our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
"Truth hurts but I never claimed it makes me happy to deliver the message."

Yeah yeah. I'm sure Jesus feels your pain.

"I honestly feel very sorry for you and would like to help you, if you'd like to have a private converstion about it without the barbs freepmail me."

What is this, split personality good cop bad cop? You can't seriously be saying that after dozens of public attacks on me, all you really want is to have a helpful, serious conversation without barbs in private. What can possibly be going through your head?

"But if you continue to make public statements about how your homosexuality is OK then be prepared for the same."

What kind of mickey mouse threat is that?

Don't let me stop you from alienating people.

244 posted on 06/06/2003 1:27:36 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
No. I want you to act like you give a damn whether or not you change anyone's mind concerning abortion.
245 posted on 06/06/2003 1:28:52 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
"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."

What are you talking about? Now you've just gone and lost the plot...

246 posted on 06/06/2003 1:29:24 PM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Hunble - this article exposes the myth of back alley abortions..

More on Illegal Abortion Myths By Dr. Frank Beckwith

Anyone who keeps up with the many pro-choice demonstrations in the United States cannot help but see on pro-choice placards and buttons a drawing of the infamous coat hanger. This symbol of the pro-choice movement represents the many women who were harmed or killed because they either performed illegal abortions on themselves (i.e., the surgery was performed with a "coat hanger") or went to unscrupulous physicians (or "back-alley butchers"). Hence, as the argument goes, if abortion is made illegal, then women will once again be harmed. Needless to say, this argument serves a powerful rhetorical purpose. Although the thought of finding a deceased young woman with a bloody coat hanger dangling between her legs is -- to say the least -- unpleasant, powerful and emotionally charged rhetoric does not a good argument make.

The chief reason this argument fails is because it commits the fallacy of begging the question. In fact, as we shall see, this fallacy seems to lurk behind a good percentage of the popular arguments for the pro-choice position. One begs the question when one assumes what one is trying to prove. Another way of putting it is to say that the arguer is reasoning in a circle. For example, if one concludes that the Boston Celtics are the best team because no team is as good, one is not giving any reasons for this belief other than the conclusion one is trying to prove, since to claim that a team is the best team is exactly the same as saying that no team is as good.

The question-begging nature of the coat-hanger argument is not difficult to discern: only by assuming that the unborn are not fully human does the argument work. If the unborn are not fully human, then the pro-choice advocate has a legitimate concern, just as one would have in overturning a law forbidding appendicitis operations if countless people were needlessly dying of both appendicitis and illegal operations. But if the unborn are fully human, this pro-choice argument is tantamount to saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other people, the state should make it safe for them to do so.

Even some pro-choice advocates, who argue for their position in other ways, admit that the coat hanger/back-alley argument is fallacious. For example, pro-choice philosopher Mary Anne Warren clearly recognizes that her position on abortion cannot rest on this argument without it first being demonstrated that the unborn entity is not fully human. She writes that "the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..."

Although it is doubtful whether statistics can establish a particular moral position, it should be pointed out that there has been considerable debate over both the actual number of illegal abortions and the number of women who died as a result of them prior to legalization. Prior to Roe, pro-choicers were fond of saying that nearly a million women every year obtained illegal abortions performed with rusty coat hangers in back-alleys that resulted in thousands of fatalities. Given the gravity of the issue at hand, it would go beyond the duty of kindness to call such claims an exaggeration, because several well-attested facts establish that the pro-choice movement was simply lying.

First, Dr. Bernard Nathanson -- who was one of the original leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-life -- admits that he and others in the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions.

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible.

Second, Dr. Nathanson's observation is borne out in the best official statistical studies available. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital,pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968. The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.

This is not to minimize the undeniable fact that such deaths were significant losses to the families and loved ones of those who died. But one must be willing to admit the equally undeniable fact that if the unborn are fully human, these abortion-related maternal deaths pale in comparison to the 1.5 million preborn humans who die (on the average) every year. And even if we grant that there were more abortion-related deaths than the low number confirmed, there is no doubt that the 5,000 to 10,000 deaths cited by the abortion rights movement is a gross exaggeration.

Third, it is simply false to claim that there were nearly a million illegal abortions per year prior to legalization. There is no reliable statistical support for this claim. In addition, a highly sophisticated recent study has concluded that "a reasonable estimate for the actual number of criminal abortions per year in the prelegalization era [prior to 1967] would be from a low of 39,000 (1950) to a high of 210,000 (1961) and a mean of 98,000 per year.

Fourth, it is misleading to say that pre-Roe illegal abortions were performed by "back-alley butchers" with rusty coat hangers. While president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." It seems that the vast majority of the alleged "back-alley butchers" eventually became the "reproductive health providers" of our present day.

Dr. Frank Beckwith is Associate Professor of Philosophy, Culture, and Law, and W. Howard Hoffman Scholar at Trinity Graduate School, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL), California Campus. He holds a Ph.D. from Fordham University. Prior to coming to Trinity, Professor Beckwith held full-time faculty appointments at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas(1989-96) and Whittier College (1996-97). His many books include Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights. His articles and reviews have been published in numerous journals including Journal of Social Philosophy, Public Affairs Quarterly, International Philosophical Quarterly, Focus on Law Studies, Simon Greenleaf of Law and Religion, and the Canadian Philosophical Review.

247 posted on 06/06/2003 1:30:10 PM PDT by KMG365
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I keep asking you when you are going to cut back that tagline...
248 posted on 06/06/2003 1:30:32 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Interesting argument.
249 posted on 06/06/2003 1:31:07 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Well, I'd tell you, but
250 posted on 06/06/2003 1:31:32 PM PDT by Lazamataz (I've decided to cut back my tagline, one word at a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: BabsC
"I will not give mine up if I am raped and some cells start that mitosis thing inside of me."

That is ranks right up there with the most cold-hearted things I've ever heard said.

251 posted on 06/06/2003 1:31:55 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Okay. I chose the wrong words. Sorry. :-)

How are you going to argue your moral belief that abortion is wrong with, say, a hardcore moral relativist?
252 posted on 06/06/2003 1:32:50 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Your attitude certianly is a shining example of Christianity.

You think it's OK for gcruse to accuse Christians of praying for cancer for those who have abortions? I think calling him a liar and a fool are both accurate and rather mild compared to me. You are just a little too sensitive plus there's history between us so don't get your undies in a bunch.

253 posted on 06/06/2003 1:33:06 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Gary's a friend.

Doesn't the Bible say, "Call no man a fool, lest ye be in danger of hellfire"?
254 posted on 06/06/2003 1:34:12 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Qwerty
Ok
255 posted on 06/06/2003 1:36:44 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
How would you use your morality to argue the abortion point to a hard-core moral relativist? Or a hedonist?

Do they think murder is wrong?

256 posted on 06/06/2003 1:38:19 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
"with any kind of surgery comes risk"

Which is increased when the 'surgery' is an abortion. Abortion mills are operated on an assembly line mentality. In addition, it's not always someone with a medical degree performing the procedure.

257 posted on 06/06/2003 1:38:23 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Absolutely correct. It would be much more profitable, therefore, for the pro-life movement to develop working relationships with these groups. Would you agree?
258 posted on 06/06/2003 1:38:54 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Absolutely.
259 posted on 06/06/2003 1:41:00 PM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
No. I want you to act like you give a damn whether or not you change anyone's mind concerning abortion.

You can't change the mind of a moral relativist, those who believe right and wrong are relative are never going to give into their own selfishness no matter how much logic you put in front of them. We have to agree to disagree here.

260 posted on 06/06/2003 1:42:12 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 641-643 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson