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.
I'd argue that since it straight-lines the left position, but is so over-the-top on the right position, that it is satirical. I read it at right-slanted, or at worst, neutral.
Or -- more likely -- it is merely intended to be funny. Not everything is ideological.
I had to put down my favorite dog a few years ago - he was a beautiful blue-eyed husky. Smartest, most vociferious dog I ever had.
But he liked to hunt, and his choice of game was a problem. Horses, sheep, and the neighbor's kid's pet goats.
After he got the goats, he got loose one day, and my neighbor came running out of her house, grabbed up he kids, and ran terrified for the safety of her house.
I thought, "That dog would never touch those kids. But I would not live in fear like that, and neither shall she."
So I put the dog down.
But my point stands: Go back and read the ENTIRE post I posted... :o)
One of the founders of NARAL gave an interview months ago stating that his statisticians were never able to find more than 200 botched back-alley abortions in a given year. Underwhelmed by their actual findings, the abortion industry inflated that number to 50,000 (per year!) and sold it to the American public without a shred of evidence.
The majority of these illegal abortions occurred in the 60's. By the 70's, abortion was already legal in a number of states. Roe v Wade came along in '73, making abortion legal everywhere by prohibiting states from criminalizing it.
So how many people, exactly, did you know who died from illegal abortions in the 70's? And why were they more willing to untrust unlicenced, black-market "doctors" with a risky, complicated surgical procedure rather than just crossing state lines and having it done legally?
I don't believe this is true science.
I'm not saying it is. I am just saying that if ANY prebirth characteristic can be determined (i.e. genetic, chemical composition, size of brain stem, anything...) that indicates a predisposition toward gayness can be found...How will the "gay community" feel about the "right" to abortion being excercised at a high rate on those babies???
Alterman also credited organized and well-financed conservative organizations that mobilize the media when they feel their message is not being heard.
"Every time [conservatives] read anything they don't like, they are on the case of the media, they are working the reps, and they are saying, 'How dare you say that all homosexuals aren't going to hell?'"
However, let me say that when I say morality is based on logic it is because it "works." You say that morality is "practical" for the same reason.
Maybe a small distinction, but not for me : I dislike using the word "practical" because it implies just doing something without much deliberation or forethought, and the hell with scruples!
If you are saying that morality works because it is in line with natural law, then we are in total agreement.
Again, we can consider natural law. It is informed by religion. It is not apart from it, if the religion is a valid one.
No, you cannot legislate morality,
But that's what law is really. It is based on a society's (or tyrant's) view of morality. We don't have to subscribe to the philosophy, but we do have to follow the laws until we can effect a change. (Example--I may not think that lying to save face is wrong, but if I lie under oath I will have perjured myself and incur penalty regardless of what my personal beliefs may be.)
I understand your statement about legislating morality in the manner you intended, however. Someone who is persistently careless about protecting oneself and others won't be stopped by ever lower speed laws etc.
One of the founding fathers commented that democracy only works with a moral populace (John Adams?).
Well, I'm not for pro-lifers showing up at nursery, daycare, or early elementary schools to show what's happening, either. But name one where pro-lifers have targeted any of those.
Since you qualified "children" by saying "young" I will agree with you they should not be specifically targeted. I figure anyone old enough to have an abortion minus parental permission--which is most middle-school kids in this country--is old enough to see graphic images of aborted babies and be specifically targeted.
Now if you are absolutely opposed to any young child seeing these images at any time for any reason, then your above statement is just a p.r. piece. The reason being that any young child could show up at any given public display. Therefore, your bottom line worldview is that these displays really shouldn't happen at all due to this high risk.
And if this is the case, then your statement, "I'm not opposed to public display of aborted fetuses" is just rhetoric being tossed about. If you are absolutely opposed to any young child seeing these images, then you really are opposed to public display of aborted fetuses. And if this is the case, you've just engaged in a politician's favorite game of double talk.
You just lost all the non-Christians.
You've illustrated my point.
Of course, since your point is that morality should be left out of the equation. Christ would have no welcome, which is why I reject your proposal entirely.
Perhaps some think such a statement on my part is "too moral" and thus offensive. No doubt some would rather me keep my "moralizing," my Christ and cross and God-stuff to myself.
Are belief and faith so blithely cast aside?
Also note that I was responding specifically to your assertion that the "basic argument" of "the mainstream religious pro-life movement" is that abortion "is a sin and you’ll go straight to hell." My disagreement over such an argument would be with the supposed Christian(s) who uttered it, not with those have no basic understanding of sin and salvation.
Excellent point.
Assuming one is able to reason that morality exists, how is it possible for him to believe it can be "left out" of anything?
Perhaps some think such a statement on my part is "too moral" and thus offensive. No doubt some would rather me keep my "moralizing," my Christ and cross and God-stuff to myself.
Are belief and faith so blithely cast aside?
Also note that I was responding specifically to your assertion that the "basic argument" of "the mainstream religious pro-life movement" is that abortion "is a sin and you’ll go straight to hell." My disagreement over such an argument would be with the supposed Christian(s) who uttered it, not with those have no basic understanding of sin and salvation.
You've missed the point entirely. The point is not that you keep your moralizing and Christianity to yourself. (Some people seem to have taken this article as an attack on Christianity, which I find rather ironic, since my entire family is comprised of deeply devout Christians. My brother is a Christian minister and I ran this column by him. He fully agreed and, indeed, understood my point.)
This column was my take on those people who seem to consider morality as the only argument to be pro-life. I did not, no where in this column, claim that all prolifers used this argument. I was adressing those who do.
I happen to believe that approaching someone who is not a Christian with a Christian argument for being pro-life is not the most productive or persuasive way to do things.
What do you think about what I just said?
This should be obvious to everyone.
I also tend to think a lot of desperate, pregnant women - Christian or not - would respond better to a helping hand than what they sometimes get.
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.