In an excellent article at Public Discourse, Russell Nieli recounts a Princeton University debate and explains what pro-lifers can learn from Karl Marx:
"Karl Marx," I said, "got most things wrong" (some cheers went up). "But he understood better than most thinkers before or after him how people's self-interest can warp their moral sense to the point that they are rendered incapable of discerning and acknowledging right from wrong."
Marx’s biggest concern, I explained, was that material interests can distort our moral compasses. Drawing on the slavery analogy, I posed some simple questions: "Why did the Scarlett O'Haras and Rhett Butlers of the old South approve of the institution of slavery? Why did they think Africans so inferior to whites that it was morally acceptable to enslave them?"
The answer, I said, was simple: It was in their interest to believe these things. I went on: We human beings are very good at coming up with reasons and claims to justify what is in our interest to believe. So perverse is the human mind that we actually come to believe the sophistic arguments we tell ourselves when they reinforce our material or other vital interests.
The abortion issue, I said, is similar to the controversy over the rights and wrongs of slavery, since in both cases intense personal interests often dull the conscience. There are many out there, I said, who want to have sex but don't want to have babies. They want to have sex because they find sex highly pleasurable. They don't want to have babies because babies are enormously burdensome to take care of. So, like the plantation owners in the old South, they try to convince themselves that what is really a monstrous evil is no evil at all. Killing babies in their mothers' wombs is no big deal. Human embryos are just globs of tissue without sentience or thought. Those who claim a human right to life for such entities just want to cause trouble.Jill Stanek describes the conflict between young abortion supporters and older "legacy" leaders, contrasting that with the cross-generational cooperation seen in the pro-life movement. Her explanation for the difference:
[T]he “legacy” pro-abortion movement . . . fought for the freedom to murder all these young up-and-comers before they were born . . . This fact must also bring some level of distrust on the part of young feminists, even if subconscious. (And youthful abortion pushers will run into the same problem if their movement survives long enough.)
I’m not blind to the fact there are older leaders in the pro-life movement who have trouble passing the baton. But in general I see love, pride, and encouragement toward our young people. After all, they’re why we are here. We covet their participation and leadership.And finally, Life Dynamics has released a new website, SafeAndLegal.com, that documents the abortion deaths of Marla Cardamone and her unborn son. (Warning: contains heartbreaking autopsy photos.) LifeNews reports:
When 18-year-old Marla Cardamone was killed having an abortion at a Pennsylvania hospital, her mother, Deborah, vowed that she would never let her daughter be forgotten. Then, late last year, she approached the pro-life group Life Dynamics and asked the group’s president Mark Crutcher to help her show the public the risks women face when they submit to abortions.