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.
And that proves what dear?
It's clear you now are a hypocrite.
I am scared to interpret this sentence.
You've obviously never heard one of the more prominent spokesperson who goes around the country debating pro-aborts and offering discussions on this in classrooms: Scott Klusendorf of Stand to Reason. As the name of the organization implies, Scott uses scientific reasoning
No I have not. I was just pointing the perceptions the soccer mommies and the media have of us. As a libertarian, I tend to be more open to rational arguements than just moral arguements, although morality combining with reason is preferable of course.
What's brown and sounds like a bell? DUNG......
Hehehe...
Logic: Abotion causes cancer so don't do it.
Logic changed: RU486 doesn't cause cancer so now it's OK.
There might be plenty of negative things to be said about Clint, but I do believe that he does care deeply. I think he just has no social skills.
Welcome to tpaine. A more disagreeable, less humorous person, you will never find.
Consider this quote by Ohioan:
I fear that too many on our side simply seek a feel good sense of their own moral superiority, to want to actually approach the issue tactically, as opposed to emotionally. (Maybe that is being unkind, but some of them sure do not understand the art of persuading the not already committed.)
The answer to your question of why is - to save lives. We have to do anything we can.
I'm slowly losing my mind. ;-)
Don't worry, just change your party registration to Libertarian and we'll all understand. ;-)
Sorry my little moral relativist but right and wrong are always right or wrong, they never change. And guess what, murder is always wrong.
For the most part, people are quite illogical (even though most would deny that). The vast majority of Americans operate based upon emotions. I think we'd do better to stir up the emotions of those whose minds we wish to change.
It's not cellular division, it's cellular completion. Neither a spermatoza nor an egg is a complete cell - until you put them together.
Then it is human.
Clint, the logic never changed. The logic was that IF RU486 causes cancer, you should avoid getting cancer by avoiding RU486.
If RU486 does NOT cause cancer, that particular point is moot but logic remains constant.
Ms. Hyperbole, you win! I don't care about poor children being murdered.
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.