Pro-life Efforts Must Always Be Anchored In Justice For The Unborn

At LTI blog Scott highlights a recent posting by Frank Beckwith.

Key question: Should we pursue a new pro-life strategy (NPS) of victory, termed consequentialism, which “concedes the first premise of the abortion-choice movement: the self-interest and well-being of an autonomous adult (in this case, the pregnant woman) trumps any other interests”?

Or should the principles of justice and right to life of the unborn always eclipse other motives or arguments in our pro-life efforts?

That’s the question Beckwith weighs in on.

Because many abortion-choice supporters maintain that abortion is good for women, some prolifers, such as Paul Swope and David Reardon, advance arguments that conclude that abortion has negative physical and psychological consequences for women who procure abortions, e.g., increased risk of breast cancer, guilt, depression.

....

From a strictly moral point of view, abortion is not a serious moral wrong just because the woman suffers as a result of choosing or having one.

....

Even if the NPS’s approach reduces the number of abortions, it does not follow that the culture is becoming more accepting of the prolife perspective. Although an appeal to self-interest may persuade some women not to have abortions, the choice not to abort for this reason is not the same as a moral conversion and intellectual assent to the prolife perspective.

Beckwith has started an important discussion here and others have added good comments as well. Let's stay on top of this point because it will help us to stay focused on the soundest approach in our pro-life work.

More conversation on this at STR blog.