Heart and Soul
A New Abortion Strategy
Paul Swope
Pope John Paul II, a man ahead of his times in many ways, was again a
prophet for our age when, in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope,
he exhorted pro-lifers to embrace a "radical solidarity with women." This
was no mere rhetorical flourish, nor was the pope selling out to the
feminist agenda. In fact, the Holy Father was putting his finger on the
approach that can substantially advance the pro-life position in the public
debate over abortion.
The greatest potential for changing opinion on abortion lies in understanding
the views of our modern society, and women in particular, with compassion. We
can employ the art of personal persuasion to reach out "in solidarity" to those
who share our position for the most part, but who are uncomfortable being
labeled as "pro-lifers." The challenge here is that the techniques of personal
persuasion are quite different from the techniques of polarized debate, which
have tended to dominate the presentation of the pro-life position to the public.
That our movement came to be oriented around principles of polarization
rather than persuasion is easy to understand. To start, polarization is natural
to the political and legislative arena, where the objective is to push people to
take sides. Further, it is a basic dynamic within the mainstream media, where
controversy and conflict are exploited to attract viewers and readers. Finally,
the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" labels have been used to create a radical
division that is a great disadvantage to the pro-life position. The way the
abortion debate is presented in these areas tends to engender a defensive
reaction and to harden current opinions rather than creating the opportunity to
consider a different viewpoint.
Pro-lifers do not need to convince other pro-lifers, and the small minority
of radical abortion activists will not likely be persuaded, so our energy should
be focused on reaching and persuading those who are undecided or on middle
ground. However, the current dynamics of the public debate work against this: In
politics the middle ground is rejected; in the media pro-lifers are portrayed as
violent extremists and thus utterly alienated from the middle ground; in the
pro-life movement itself moral principles allow no room for a middle ground; and
the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels portray the debate as a tug-of-war
between extremes. In all four arenas pro-lifers are not persuasively
communicating with the very group that has the potential to move in our
direction.
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Not Opposites
One of the most exploited dynamics of this debate is the use of the terms
"pro-choice" and "pro-life." Pro-lifers, myself among them, reject "pro-choice"
rhetoric as a sham. We may not verbalize our thoughts, but internally we react
something like this: "Pro-choice about your favorite ice cream, OK, but
'pro-choice' on whether or not to kill a tiny, innocent child? If you consider
killing a baby as a 'choice,' then you are in fact pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
'Pro choice' is a mere euphemism for an abhorrent and unjust act!" While we
reject the term "pro-choice" with logical argumentation, the media convey the
impression that the label signifies moderation, openness, and women's rights in
general. When the public perceives "pro-choice" as including women's rights and
basic freedoms, and "pro-life" as including terrorist acts against abortionists
and clinics, our chances for bringing people to our side are drastically
diminished. Understanding this distorted view explains why abortion advocates
have been so successful in portraying the pro-life movement as "anti-woman" and
presenting pro-life legislation as "radical and dangerous." Pro-lifers are
perceived as legislating against values that run deeper than the abortion
question itself
Our success at persuasion will be greatly enhanced by understanding that, in
the mind of the public, and especially women, "pro-choice" is not synonymous
with advocacy of abortion and therefore not a mirror-image opposite of
"prolife." As long as we appear to be attacking the larger issues surrounding
"choice," we will be unable to persuade those in the middle ground of the
abortion debate, which represents the majority of women and the public in
general.
Understanding Women and Abortion
More important than understanding how the terms of the debate have been
distorted is understanding how women of today really feel about abortion. Beyond
legislation, politics, media spin, or labels, why is it that so many women
declare themselves to be "pro-choice"? The Caring Foundation, a pro-life group
established to reach the public via television, initiated two landmark
psychological studies to address this question.
The key finding of these studies is that women understand that abortion
kills, but they also view the threat of motherhood to be so serious as to
represent a "death of self." Many young women have not incorporated the concept
of motherhood into their self-image. Who they are and plan to be revolves around
school, career, and perhaps marriage. Motherhood is so alien to their sense of
self that if it is suddenly thrust upon them it is seen as a complete loss of
self, a death. When these women consider abortion, they see it as a death to the
unborn life within them, whereas motherhood represents a death to themselves (a
psychological death but a death perceived as real nonetheless). Ultimately, the
choice of abortion is perceived as a choice of self-preservation. There is also
the belief that the child is better off aborted, given the difficult
circumstances into which he or she would enter the world. In general, our
society seems to agree that abortion is not a good thing -- in fact, is an act
of killing -- but most people will not support efforts to see it outlawed or
even seriously restricted.
When pro-lifers work to outlaw abortion, women react emotionally out of an
instinct of self-preservation. In the pro-life movement, we usually engage the
public from our own moral framework, in the belief that highlighting the
humanity of the unborn child will inevitably lead to a reaction against
abortion. There is no question that the facts of fetal development, and even the
graphic depiction of abortion, can be instrumental in changing some opinions.
However, it is not so clear that our culture is guided by the moral absolute,
"It is always wrong to take the life of an innocent child," precisely because
there is the perceived "death" to the woman as well, which greatly alters the
moral equation in the public mind.
Further, pro-lifers are perhaps too dismissive of the very real concerns
facing the unwed mother. Giving birth to a child, even in the best of
circumstances, involves perhaps the greatest sacrifice a woman will ever make.
It is a form of death to the life she had before the child. This sacrifice of
the self makes sense within the context of a stable marriage, but even in the
best circumstances, life will never be the same. Is it surprising that young
women who have not been taught basic virtues of self-sacrifice; who do not have
a husband, home, or career; and who do not have a stable future of any kind
should view sudden motherhood as a kind of death? A distorted maternal instinct
is also at work. These women want their baby to be happy and healthy, but they
view their own situation as so alien to the proper environment for raising a
child that it appears preferable to end the child's life in the womb.
Pro-lifers disdain the term "pro-choice," but we need to understand that when
a woman vulnerable to abortion uses the term, she uses it not in the sense of
"freedom to kill a baby," but rather "freedom to preserve my own life." We may
be quick -- and rightfully so -- to prioritize the real death of the unborn
child over the imagined death of the woman, but to do so is to miss the key
ingredient that affects society's attitude toward abortion, namely, the welfare
of the woman involved. If we are to stand in "radical solidarity with women," we
cannot lose sight of this dynamic.
This is why the ministry of crisis pregnancy centers is so crucial to the
integrity and credibility of the pro-life movement. These centers offer the
woman in crisis the practical and compassionate assistance necessary to help her
see that pregnancy is not the end of her life and that the future life of the
child she carries within her is not without hope.
The Principle of Inclusion
If our goal is to influence women vulnerable to abortion and those
uncommitted or conflicted about the abortion issue, a more effective strategy
than framing the debate according to the extremes would be to view opinions on
the abortion issue across a spectrum. This spectrum would range from a complete
rejection of abortion for any reason at one end to the acceptance of abortion
for any and all reasons at the other end. Because most Americans do have serious
reservations about most abortions, and therefore fall toward our side of the
spectrum, we should welcome those who make up this majority as our allies. When
we engage the radical left, it only serves to harden the views of those unlikely
to change anyway, while furthering the impression among the uncommitted that
"pro-life" is an inflexible, extremist position or merely a political group of
the right trying to impose its agenda through legislation.
If we move away from labels and polarized debate, the opportunities for
reaching women in crisis and advancing the pro-life position improve
dramatically. First, in the art of personal persuasion we have the enormous
advantage of working from a near universal and instinctive dislike of abortion,
regardless of how it is labeled or justified. However, in the minds of women and
the general public, the threat to the unwed mother and the potentially difficult
future life of the unborn child are sufficiently important to prevent their
support for outlawing abortion. If we are to move public opinion, we must
sensitively address these concerns. Put another way, reaching a consensus on the
life of the unborn child will not lead to a consensus against abortion, because
the decision to abort (or protect it as a right) is not based on the child, but
on the woman's own sense of self-preservation.
We can also build upon a universal attraction to children and, though often
seen as an unattainable ideal, to motherhood. Many women today see the ideal of
a happy mother and child as so far removed from their current situation that it
is rejected as a possibility. However, this image remains attractive to most
women today, so our task is to present motherhood as courageous, positive, and,
most importantly, attainable. Needless to say, we cannot simply present an
image, but must step forward in practical ways to help women in need.
We do not need to defeat the "pro-choice" label to win people to our
position. Indeed, the less we allow abortion to be anchored to the larger issue
of "choice," the better. Abortion by itself is inherently unattractive to the
public and should be kept isolated whenever possible.
Furthermore, in employing personal persuasion we are not dependent on
legislative successes, political victory, or advocacy by the mainstream press to
reach the public and impact the culture. We can send a persuasive message
directly to the American public via print, radio, and television. CareNet has
initiated successful billboard campaigns to reach vulnerable women. Birthright
and many other crisis pregnancy networks have aired persuasive, woman-centered
radio ads.
Implementing the Art of Persuasion
The Caring Foundation utilizes the aforementioned insights to reach the
American people via television. Television has the advantage of presenting a
combined audio and visual message, near universal coverage of the American
public, a high credibility rating, and the ability to focus on particular target
groups. The art of persuasion has been incorporated in television in a number of
ways. For example, most Caring Foundation ads end with a question, rather than a
dogmatic statement. One such ad depicts a woman who admits to having been
pro-choice, and who "hasn't figured it all out yet," but asks this provocative
question, "Why, when I wanted the baby, it was a baby; and when I didn't, it was
something else? Think about it." This advertisement is intended to prevent
defensive barriers being raised against "those pro-lifers," while introducing a
question that helps to undermine the rhetoric of abortion advocates. A basic
rule of good marketing is to understand your audience and to appeal to a value,
an idea, or an emotion that is already within them, either consciously or
subconsciously. One advertisement shows a woman practicing ballet, with a
voice-over that says:
Your intuition is a small voice, round and whole. It tells you who to trust,
when it's best to be quiet, and what your best friend is feeling. It doesn't
always tell you what you want to hear, but when you think about it, when was the
last time that voice was wrong? If you're facing an unplanned pregnancy, you
don't have to have an abortion. There are other options.
This advertisement refers to God-given conscience in terms of female
"intuition," something to which every woman can relate and something about which
she has very positive feelings. In its "self-referencing" approach, it avoids a
defensive reaction, while awakening the woman's own voice of conscience. This
advertisement is not intended to reach the hardened feminist, men, or children.
It is a targeted message for a targeted audience.
Crisis pregnancy centers do not have the budgets to air on television; as a
result, most women are unaware of the assistance available to them through these
centers. The use of a toll-free number is an essential part of reaching out to
women with practical assistance. The Caring Foundation helps connect women in
need with centers able to help them, via a message that is positive and
persuasive. The central miscalculation of unwed mothers, and those who support
the pro-choice position, is that the mother would be better off having an
abortion rather than carrying to term. To address this, The Caring Foundation
has created advertisements that show a woman who has already had an abortion,
and who has realized, too late, that things cannot return to the way they were
before. The commercial ends by saying, "Abortion changes everything." This helps
women realize that abortion is not in their own best interest and is not, in
fact, an act of self-preservation. This message is effective because it does not
try to challenge the woman's access to abortion, and it does not tell her what
to do; rather, it shows her the regret and sorrow of a woman who has been
through the experience.
This is not to say that we should not make every attempt to achieve
legislative protection of unborn children, but only that this should not be
presented as the sole or primary interest of pro-lifers. The pro-life movement
needs greater diversification and sophistication, not less. There is no "silver
bullet" approach.
From the point of view of persuasion, our task is enormously closer to
realization than we may have previously imagined. We do not need to attack or to
change the most basic instincts and beliefs of women. For example, the
foundation's studies suggest that most women admire the mother who faces an
unwanted pregnancy courageously and carries the child to term. The key obstacle
is that many women simply do not feel they have the strength to do this. In a
sense, the problem is the distance the woman in crisis sees between the reality
in which she finds herself and the ideal of what should be. It is not that these
women like abortion any more than we do; they simply lack the strength to see
beyond the crisis, and abortion offers the illusion of an easier way out.
Effective persuasion will be realized when we approach women "in radical
solidarity," by avoiding polarizing forces, by gently supporting the voice of
conscience, by showing that the instincts of maternal concern and
self-preservation are not served through abortion, and by making the ideal of
motherhood more approachable to the woman in crisis. Fortunately, all of this
can be accomplished without reliance on legislative or political advances and
without the cooperation of the mainstream press. We can implement the art of
persuasion though many channels that are available to the public, such as
television, radio, newspaper, billboards, and all outlets for printed or spoken
communication. Radical solidarity with women will greatly enhance our movement's
effectiveness and help to realize another goal of John Paul II, namely to
overcome our "culture of death" by building up a "culture of life." v
Crisis v March 1999
For subscriptions call 800-852-9962.
Following is a link to a related article:
Psychology of Pro-Choice Women and
Effective Pro-Life Strategy
Paul Swope is national director of market expansion for The Caring
Foundation. 1-800-705-9497
For more information about The Caring Foundation call 1-800-705-9497, or
write The Caring
Foundation at 10 Park Avenue, Derry, NH 03038-2114. Donations are tax
deductible.
