First off, with relation to the specific Bears for Life display, I would like to congratulate their members on sticking to verifiable facts this year. It was an improvement over the fallacious statistics and irrational statements of last year’s display. This essay is not concerned with their display, or the opinions expressed in the student paper. Those issues will be dealt with in a separate and less formal post. The important issue is that the display, and others like it around the country, is only a simulacrum for abortion. “Graveyards of the Innocent” as well as the Pro-Life movement do only lip service to the goal of ending abortion while the real message is the promotion of Christian ideology. To demonstrate this point this essay focuses on the privileged use of Christian iconography, the message presented, the goals of the Pro-Life groups that present the message, the ideology of these groups, and a comparison of these methods and ideologies to a more liberal approach.

“Graveyards of the Innocent” are, nearly without exception, made up of a few thousand crosses that represent the number of abortions performed in a certain period. There is often little beyond the graveyard to promote any particular viewpoint and thus the viewer is left to draw their own conclusion as to the meaning of the display. The viewer is aided by a culture that has been constructed around the Pro-Life movement so that even without a single mention of abortion an artificial graveyard is likely to be either a Pro-Life or anti-war display; however, given that the religious right has become particularly hawkish in modern times, such anti-war displays are infrequent. Furthermore, most displays do contain at least one sign or mention that link the display to the Pro-Life movement. While such displays are aimed at being against abortion, the method of using Christian iconography in the form of crosses indicates an underlying and guarded motivation that is never explicitly expressed.

The cross has become a largely secularized symbol in American culture. The religious significance has been diluted by the extensive use of crosses in the American tradition, much in the same way that the court system of the United States has ruled “God” to be a secular term because of tradition and bearing no particular endorsement of religion.[i] Thus, the viewer often does not connect the cross to the religious ideology the cross represents. The cross being seen separate from the ideology demonstrates the privileged position of Christian iconography in America. The cross can never be fully divorced from its connection with Christian ideology.

Having established the connection between the cross and Christian ideology the use of the cross as the primary symbol of the Pro-Life movement can be explored. Two aspects will be explored in this essay. First, the implications of the cross and shock tactics and second, how the cross demonstrates the promotion of Christian ideology instead of an anti-abortion message. “Graveyards of the Innocent” as well as many other displays by Pro-Life groups, such as pictures of fetuses, are nothing more than shock tactics aimed at a susceptibility to sentimentality. They are made to appeal to a viewer’s emotions rather than logic. Shock tactics will be returned to in the discussion on Pro-Life methodology. The cross implicates that all of the aborted fetuses are or, more appropriately in terms of the Pro-Life movement, would be Christians. From this one extrapolates that the message is not that abortion kills babies, but that abortion kills Christians. Taking this line of reasoning further, the implications are that aborted fetuses are actually martyrs and that abortion is persecuting Christians.

The claim that abortion persecutes Christians needs to be expanded into a discussion of how the Pro-Life movement treats abortion as an attack on Christian ideology. The Pro-Life movement is not presenting a specific logical argument against a specific medical procedure, but rather, promoting their personal religious ideology under the guise of a secular movement. To do so requires an analysis of the complicated relations between the Pro-Life message, the ideology behind the message, and the methodologies used to promote that message.

Two phrases commonly are identified with the culture of the Pro-Life movement: “it’s a child, not a choice,” and “abortion is murder.” The first phrase is a reaction to the Pro-Choice movement that attempts to reduce the Pro-Choice movement to a single buzzword, in this case, “choice.” The phrase works to establish an irresolvable dichotomy of the Pro-Life ideology with that of the Pro-Choice movement, which the phrase seeks to other. In making the Pro-Choice movement the other, the Pro-Life group is given something to work against. The implications of creating an other will be returned to in the discussion on methodology. The second phrase has multiple forms which derivate from some form of life being sacred. From such a position comes the idea that life begins at conception, which has little grounding in actual biological science. Other arguments stem from non-scientific realms such as a debate on when the soul enters the body and interpretation of various Biblical scripture. Given that the former argument based on science and empiricism is a weak argument that often works against the Pro-Life’s surface level goal of ending abortion. The base for the Pro-Life movement is constructed from the Christian ideology through interpretation of scripture. For example, for ‘thou shalth not kill’ to apply, abortion must be seen as murder, which brings the discussion back to “abortion is murder.” The phrase is a product of the necessity to merge Christian ideology into the movement. The implications will be given greater meaning in a discussion of the methodology and message.

Before turning to the discussion on methodology, this essay will spend a brief moment on the goals of the Pro-Life movement. Overall, their claim is that they wish to end abortion. In praxis, the movement demonstrates that their goal is the criminalization of the practice. In other words, the goal is to legislate into law Christian ideology. The essay has already demonstrated the basis for the Pro-Life movement in Christian ideology. Pulling from the earlier discussion on abortion as a persecution of Christians, being Pro-Choice requires a rejection of the Christian ideology that forms that base. Hence, abortion is a debate over Christian ideology, not abortion. Abortion is only the proxy.

A full defense of this position requires the separation of the ideological method for ending abortion from the praxis. With a base in Christian ideology, there can be no compromise from the Pro-Life position. To compromise would be a rejection of the ideology and thus would be going against God. Since the Pro-Life movement cannot compromise, they must other the Pro-Choice movement. Only by othering can they insure against such compromise happening in praxis. By summary rejection of any middle ground, the Pro-Life movement protects their ideology. In essence, the Pro-Life movement is backed by an untenable position that cannot be subjected to debate. To enter into a dialectic would lessen their faith in the absolutism of their beliefs.

There are certain realities about abortion that play an important role in separating praxis from ideology. First, abortions are a symptom of unwanted pregnancy. Second, data shows that the chances of unwanted pregnancy can be lessened by practicing safe sex. Third, the same groups of people who are Pro-Life are statistically likely to be against comprehensive sex education and birth control. What would be expected from a secular group dedicated to ending abortion would be an attempt to eliminate a need for abortion; however, as stated in the third proposition, the Pro-Life movement is against methods to reduce the need for an abortion. In praxis, the Pro-Life movement is demonstrating a defense of Christian ideology in the proxy of abortion issues and not actively trying to reduce the number of abortions.

Prevented from entering into a dialectic, which could compromise their Christian ideology, the Pro-Life movement has to resort to sentimentality and shock tactics. Their only option is to demonstrate that Christianity is under attack from outside forces in order to bring more Christians, who make up a majority of the American population, to the Pro-Life point of view. The movement works to create a change in the position on Christian ideology not stance on abortion. Abortion is only the praxis through which the ideology is displayed.

The implications of Christian Ideology in the Pro-Life movement are part of the larger movement by Christians to see themselves as a persecuted group in America. By treating abortion as an extension of Christian ideology the legalization of abortion and the subsequent defense of abortion by liberal and feminist groups allows claims of persecution to be made. Liberal and feminist groups are othered as non-Christian, despite their actual religious affiliations. The othering also creates additional points of contention. By claiming othered groups to be going against God, not only are their views on abortion seen as being against God, but also every position held. The religious right in America preys upon every issue by framing it in terms of Christian ideology. Dissenting opinions aren’t just a disagreement over ideology, but are set up as an attack on God.