Pro-life redirects here. For other uses, see Pro-life (disambiguation)

The pro-life movement is a political and social movement focused chiefly around opposition to elective abortion, and support for its legal prohibition or restriction. Those involved in the movement generally maintain that human fetuses and, in most cases, embryos are persons, and therefore have a right to life. People involved in the movement may also be associated with opposition to euthanasia, the death penalty, human cloning, and research involving human embryonic stem cells. The pro-life movement is commonly supported among Christians, although many non-Christian countries have restrictions or bans on abortion as well[1]. On the issue of abortion, pro-life campaigners are opposed by pro-choice campaigners, who generally advocate for what they see as women's reproductive rights.

Overview

Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.^[1] From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others, as such benefits are coming at the expense of the life of a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth, such as anencephalic fetuses. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by many pro-life people based on a belief that all human life is sacred and must be protected.

Some pro-lifers oppose certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as Emergency contraception (ECPs), and copper IUDs which prevent the implantation of an embryo. Because they believe that the term "pregnancy" should be defined so as to begin at fertilization, they refer to these contraceptives as abortifacients.^[2] The Catholic Church endorses this view,^[3] but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is disputed within the scientific community.

Attachment to a pro-life position is often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also Culture of Life). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates.^[4] Many holding the pro-life position also tend toward a complementarian view of gender roles, though there is also a significant feminist element inside the movement.^[5]

Religion and pro-life movements

The variety in opinion on the issue of abortion is reflected in the diverse views of religious groups. For example, the Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion under almost all circumstances, while traditional Jewish teachings sanction abortion as a means of safeguarding the life and well-being of the pregnant woman.^[6]

Christianity

Much of the pro-life movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, evangelical Protestant denominations, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).^{[7][8][9][10]} However, the pro-life teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but permit acts which indirectly result in the death of the fetus in the case where the mother's life is threatened. The National Association of Evangelicals and the LDS Church oppose abortion on demand, but consider abortion allowable in cases with clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, dire threat to the life/physical health of the pregnant woman, or when a pregnancy results from rape or incest.^[11] The Southern Baptist Convention believes that abortion is allowable only in cases where there is a direct threat to the life of the woman.^[11] Other mainstream Protestant denominations such as the Episcopal Church, Disciples of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, and the United Church of Christ are pro-choice.^[11]

Islam

There is very little discussion about the abortion debate in Islamic countries.^[12] In many Muslim countries, Women must gain consent (medical, religious, state or spousal) for an abortion.^[12] Although there are different opinions among Muslim scholars on the topic of Islam and abortion, most agree that the termination of a pregnancy after four months - the point at which, in Islam, a fetus is thought to become a living soul - is not permissible. Many Islamic thinkers contend that in cases prior to four months of gestation, abortion should be permissible only in instances in which a mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape.^[12]

Hinduism & Sikhism

A vocal pro-life movement is limited in India, the nation with the largest Hindu population.^[13] Most abortions in India are done for sex selection, with boys being favored.^[14] As a result, activists who argue against abortion in India are typically women's rights activists. Recently, these anti-abortion activists took Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft to court, suing to remove web ads that sell products that enable parents to determine the sex of a fetus.^[14] Some Hindu institutions oppose abortion,^[15] and teach that abortion prevents a soul in its karmic progress toward God.^[16] Other Hindu theologians believe personhood begins at 3 months and develops through to 5 months of gestation, possibly implying permitting some abortion up to the third month and considering any abortion past the third month to be destruction of the soul's current incarnate body.^[17]

Judaism

In Judaism, views on abortion draw primarily upon the legal and ethical teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, the case-by-case decisions of responsa, and other rabbinic literature. In the modern period, moreover, Jewish thinking on abortion has responded both to liberal understandings of personal autonomy as well as Christian opposition to abortion.^[18] Polls of Jews in America report that 88% of American Jews are pro-choice.^[19] Prominent Jewish pro-life activist Michael Medved has said, "Jewish law for millennia has been extremely clear, that abortion is only permitted when the life of the mother is directly threatened... To link Jewish tradition to the pro-choice position is 'ludicrous and ignorant'."^[19] In Israel, the major pro-life organization is Efrat,^[20] which primarily raises funds to relieve the "financial and social pressures" on pregnant women so that they will not terminate their pregnancies.^[20]

History and current activity of pro-life movements throughout the world

In the United States

Role of Roman Catholics in the creation of the pro-life movement

Before the Roe v. Wade decision making abortion legal in the United States, the pro-life movement in the United States consisted of elite lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.^[21] The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States.^[21]

Role of Evangelicals

Randall Herbert Balmer, Ph.D., argues in his book, Thy Kingdom Come, that despite the popular belief that anti-abortion sentiments galvanized the fundamentalist evangelical movement, what actually galvanized the movement was evangelical opposition to the American Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS stripped evangelical universities, like Bob Jones University, from their tax-exempt status for remaining racially segregated.^[22][23][24]

Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention officially advocated for loosening of abortion restrictions.^[25] During the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon "to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."^[25] W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."^[25]

By 1980, conservative Protestant leaders became vocal in their opposition to legalized abortion^[22], and by the early 1990s Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition of America became a significant pro-life organization.^[26] In 2005, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said that making abortion illegal is more important than any other issue.^[27]

In Europe

Most European countries have active pro-life movements.

• In France, the first specifically pro-life organization, Laissez-les Vivre, was created in 1971 during the debate that was to lead to the Veil Law in 1975. Its main spokesman was the geneticist Jérôme Lejeune. Since 2005, the French pro-life movement has organized an annual March for Life in Paris attracting several thousand demonstrators.
• In the United Kingdom, the most prominent pro-life organization is the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.
• In Spain, over one million demonstrators took part in a march in Madrid in October 2009 to protest plans by the government of José Luis Zapatero to legalize elective abortions and eliminate parental consent restrictions.^[28]

In Israel

In Israel, the major pro-life organization is Efrat.^[20] Efrat activists primarily raise funds to relieve the "financial and social pressures" on pregnant women so that they will not terminate their pregnancies.^[20] Efrat is not known to do any other kind of activism.^[20]

"Consistent Life Ethic"

A major stated goal within the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life."^[29] This protection would include fetuses and embryos, persons who cannot communicate their wishes due to physical or mental incapacitation, and those who are too weak to resist being euthanized.

Some pro-life advocates, such as those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic (formerly known as the Seamless Garment), oppose virtually all acts that end human life. They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong. Others argue that the death penalty can be a fair punishment for murder, justifiably inflicted by lawful authority, whereas abortion is an attack on an innocent. The increasing attention paid to this controversial position may result from the large Roman Catholic membership of the pro-life movement, striving to adhere to Catholic Church teachings on the death penalty.^[30]

The debate

In some countries, the abortion issue remains one of the broader and more controversial societal issues. A broad spectrum of positions exists on this issue, from those who advocate abortion-on-demand at any point during a pregnancy until birth on the one end, to those who oppose every form of abortion on the other. Between these two there is a considerable range of positions. Some oppose abortion, but are content to work at reducing the number of abortions through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, a task they accomplish through encouraging abstinence, targeted sex education and/or increased availability of contraception. Current legislation in United States Congress, the Pregnant Women Support Act, seeks to reduce the abortion rate in the U.S. without making any procedure illegal and without overturning Roe v. Wade. There are many who support legal abortion within the first trimesters but oppose late-term abortions. Those who oppose late-term abortions usually take the view that once a fetus has reached the point where it could live independently from the woman, the balance of rights swings in favour of the fetus. Some oppose most abortions but make exception for cases where the woman's life is in serious risk. In this category, some likewise make an exception for severe fetal deformities. Others make exceptions when the pregnancy was not caused by consensual sexual activity or may violate social taboos, as in cases of rape and incest. Some allow for all these exceptions, but stop short of abortion-on-demand.

Another issue is that of mandatory notification and consent. Some believe that a pregnant minor should not be allowed to abort her pregnancy without notifying her parent or guardian because of the risks and possible medical complications. Likewise, some believe that notifying the woman's husband should be required because of parental rights. In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondents were in favour of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those polled.^[31] In many states, such restrictions are mandated by law, though often with the right of judicial oversight. Others believe that the child's biological father must be notified.

Generally speaking, the pro-life position regards abortion as a form of infanticide, and thus seeks legal restrictions on abortions. Pro-life advocates typically argue that if a pregnant woman is unable or unwilling to raise the child, there is the option of placing the child up for adoption.

One analysis suggests that, since pro-life families may be expected to have fewer abortions (and more children) than their pro-choice counterparts and they may pass their beliefs on to their children, this will change the voter demographic of future generations. In this way, legal abortion-on-demand may also serve to increase the dominance of the pro-life position in society. This hypothesis has been called the "Roe effect," and may explain the trend towards more widespread support of the pro-life movement.

The debate is often presented as between those who believe fetuses are persons and should therefore have rights, vs. those who believe fetuses are not persons but "future persons" or "potential persons". However, not all pro-choicers claim that fetuses are non-persons; there are also those who say that even if fetuses are persons, their position inside the body of another person entitles that other person to kill them anyway. This is sometimes called the "Body-Ownership Argument" or the "Abortion-As-Justifiable-Homicide Argument". It need not be based only on the fetus' location; it can also be justified by citing the fact that the fetus is taking nutrients from the mother's bloodstream, and injecting metabolic end-products into her bloodstream, and preparing to subject her to a major medical/surgical trauma (childbirth), all of which she is entitled to prevent, even by means of deadly force. (See, e.g., Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion," Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971), p. 47.)

Some pro-choicers also point out that, while they too would prefer to see abortion not happen, making abortion illegal encourages women with unwanted pregnancies to seek Unsafe abortion, placing their own lives at risk.^[32]

Legal and political aspects

The United States Republican Party platform advocates a pro-life position,^[33] though there are some pro-choice Republicans. The Republican group The Wish List supports pro-choice Republican women just as EMILY's List supports pro-choice Democratic women. The Susan B. Anthony List is dedicated to "increasing the percentage of pro-life women in Congress and high public office."^[34] The Democrats for Life of America are a group of pro-life Democrats on the political left who advocate for a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party's platform and for pro-life Democratic candidates. The former vice-presidential candidate Sargent Shriver, the late Robert Casey, a former two-term governor of Pennsylvania, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), a vocal pro-life proponent and leader of the Democratic pro-life caucus in the United States House of Representatives are among the most well-known pro-life Democrats.^[35]

Controversies over terminology

Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues and, in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby", "unborn child", or "pre-born child",^[36][37] while some pro-choice advocates insist on scientific terminology (often distinguishing between a zygote, a blastula, an embryo, and a fetus, and objecting to "fetus" as a blanket term). Pro-life individuals may also prefer to refer to the pregnant woman as a "mother", while some pro-choice individuals consider this inappropriate, and some in the medical community may see its usage as insensitive and biased in certain narrowly defined contexts.^[38]

Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. "Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life"^[39]. Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.

The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".^[40]

Types of advocacy

Pro-life advocacy involves a variety of activities, from promoting the pro-life position to the public in general, lobbying public officials, or reaching individuals - for example by attempting to dissuade individual women to forgo abortions. Some efforts involve distributing literature, providing counseling services, conducting public demonstrations or protests and private or public prayer.

Demonstrations and protests

• Mass demonstrations: every year, American pro-life advocates hold a March for Life in Washington, D.C., on 22 January, the anniversary date of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States. Similar events take place on a smaller scale in other U.S. cities, such as the Walk for Life in San Francisco, California. In Spain, over a million pro-lifers took part in a demonstration on 17 October 2009 protesting the legalization of abortion.^[41] On a lesser scale, the Paris March for Life gathers thousands of French pro-lifers every year in January.
• The life chain: The "Life Chain" is a public demonstration technique that involves standing in a row on sidewalks holding signs bearing pro-life messages. Messages include "Abortion Kills Children", "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "Abortion Hurts Women". Participants, as an official policy, do not yell or chant slogans and do not block pedestrians or roadways. Many Right to Life chapters hold Life Chain events yearly^[42] and the annual worldwide 40 Days for Life campaigns also use this technique. Some pro-life advocates question the effectiveness of this tactic.^{[citation needed]}
• The rescue: A "rescue operation" involves pro-life activists blocking the entrances to an abortion clinic in order to prevent anyone from entering. The stated goal of this practice is to force the clinic to shut down for the day. Often, the protesters are removed by law enforcement. Some clinics were protested so heavily in this fashion that they closed down permanently. "The rescue" was first attempted by Operation Rescue. Ever since President Bill Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act into law, the rescue has become prohibitively expensive, and has rarely been attempted.

• The truth display: In conducting a "truth display", protesters publicly display highly-magnified pictures of aborted fetuses. Some pro-life groups believe that publicizing the graphic results of abortion is an effective way of making their case. The Pro-Life Action League has used this form of activism in its Face the Truth displays. Members of one group, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, have been jailed numerous times for these types of displays which they set up both legally and illegally on university campuses. "Truth displays" are a controversial tactic, including within the pro-life movement.^[43]
• Picketing: The majority of the facilities that perform abortions in the United States experience some form of protest from pro-life demonstrators every year, of which the most common form is picketing. Besides the clinics themselves, other sites for right-to-life picketing include abortion workers' homes, churches, and second-job workplaces, and abortion workers' children's schools.^{[citation needed]} Most facilities that perform abortions experience picketing at least 20 times a year;^{[citation needed]} in 2007, 11,113 instances of picketing were either reported to, or obtained by, the National Abortion Federation.^[44]

Counseling

• Sidewalk counseling: "Sidewalk counseling" is a form of pro-life advocacy which is conducted outside of abortion clinics. Activists seek to communicate with those entering the building, or with passersby in general, in an effort to persuade them not to have an abortion or to reconsider their position on the morality of abortion.^[45] They do so by trying to engage in conversation, displaying signs, distributing literature, or giving directions to a nearby crisis pregnancy center.^[45] The "Chicago Method" is an approach to sidewalk counseling that involves giving those about to enter an abortion facility copies of lawsuits filed against the facility or its physicians. The name comes from the fact that it was first used by Pro-Life Action League in Chicago.^[46] The intent of the Chicago Method is to turn the woman away from a facility that the protesters deem "unsafe", thus giving her time to reconsider her choice to abort.^[47]
• Crisis pregnancy centers: "Crisis pregnancy centers" are non-profit organizations, mainly in the United States, usually established with the goal of presenting pregnant women with alternatives to abortion. Though many CPCs refrain from engaging in the public debate on abortion [2], they are often staffed by supporters of the pro-life movement. The total number of CPCs has been estimated at several thousand in the U.S.^[48] The Care Net network as well as the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates each claim over a thousand affiliated centers, Heartbeat International 900 and Birthright International several hundred. While originally these centers concentrated on providing direct material support or information on available social help, a growing number have more recently acquired medical and paramedical equipment: an estimated one CPC in four offers free sonograms in the hope of convincing pregnant women not to abort.^[49] Critics have claimed that many CPCs engage in deceptive tactics to attract and persuade women contemplating abortion.^[50] Some CPCs have been court ordered to stop representing themselves as providing a complete range of health services, including abortion.^[51]

Polling

See also: Abortion_in_the_United_States, Societal attitudes towards abortion

Americans, as noted by Gallup in "More Americans Pro-Life Than Pro-Choice", are now being polled as Pro-Life, as opposed to Pro-Choice, for the first time since 1995, when Gallup began tracking the issue.^[52] CNN, in May 2007 earlier achieved this result, with just 45% surveying as Pro-Choice compared to 50% Pro-Life,^[53] though at the time, Gallup a week later found 49% responding Pro-Choice with only 45% Pro-Life.^[54]

Nevertheless, as Gallup now notes, abortion attitudes are indeed shifting. According to Gallup's most recent polling of the issue, the gap has now narrowed to a virtual deadlock:^[55]

According to Gallup's long-time polling on abortion, the majority of Americans are neither strictly Pro-Life or Pro-Choice; it depends upon circumstances. Gallup polling from 1996 to 2009 consistently reveals that when asked the question, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?", Americans repeatedly answer 'legal only under certain circumstances'. According to the poll, in any given year 48-57% say legal only under certain circumstances (for 2009, 57%), 21-34% say legal under any circumstances (for 2009, 21%), and 13-19% illegal in all circumstances (for 2009, 18%), with 1-7% having no opinion (for 2009, 4%).^[55]

"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

As detailed in Abortion_in_the_United_States, and further cited from the aforementioned Gallup poll on Abortion,^[55], Americans overwhelmingly support abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, or when rape and incest has occurred, but do not support it when the woman does not want the child for any reason, or can not afford to have the child (perhaps given that adoption is the preferred alternative). They furthermore support abortion by a large margin in the 1st trimester, but only a small minority support it after the 3rd month of pregnancy. Polling by Gallup also reveals substantial support for many of the Pro-Life community's legislative initiatives.

Pro-choice violence against pro-life movement

AbortionViolence.com states that "Human Life International has documented more than 8,519 acts of violence and illegal activities by pro-abortionists", including 1,251 homicides and 360 fatal botched abortions.^[56] AbortionViolence.com also contains a state-by-state breakdown with more detailed information.^[57]

A notable recent case would be the killing of noted pro-life activist James L. Pouillon on September 11, 2009.^[58]

Very interestingly, a 2005 Planned Parenthood animated video, 'A Superhero For Choice', showing the drowning of an abstinence educator, shootings of pro-life protesters, and ending decapitation of a Pro-Life protester, failed to draw any scrutiny whatsoever from the media. However, it did draw criticism from Christianity Today^[59], Concerned Women For America^[60], LifeSiteNews^[61], WorldNetDaily^[62], and TheMediaReport.com^[63].

Violence against abortion providers

Violent incidents directed against abortion providers range from the murders and attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff to arson and bombings of abortion clinics, to ordinary fisticuffs. G. Davidson Smith of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) defined abortion extremist, animal rights, and environmentalism-related violence as "single issue terrorism".^[64] Acts of violence against abortion providers and facilities in North America have largely subsided following a peak in the mid-1990s.^[65] The National Clinic Violence Survey, conducted by the pro-choice Feminist Majority Foundation, reports that severe violence now affects 18.4% of abortion providers and facilities Template:PDFlink figures), a figure lower than at any time since 1994, which is consistent with statistics from the National Abortion Federation showing that violence against abortion clinics or providers has decreased steadily since 2001.^[44]

A notable example of anti-abortion violence in the United States is the murder of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, who was shot point-blank through the eye in the foyer of the church where he was a member.^[66] A large number of pro-life leaders and groups condemned the killing.^[67][68][69] The vast majority of pro-life advocates, as well as mainstream pro-life organizations, reject the use of extra-legal violence in support of pro-life goals and/or in opposition to abortion^{[citation needed]} on the basis of the belief that both may qualify as murder. They rely upon other forms of activism like picketing and vigils, as well as legal and political action. The National Right to Life Committee, the largest pro-life organization in the United States, has stated that it "unequivocally condemns any acts of violence used by individuals regardless of their motivation".^[70] The American Life League has issued a "Pro-life Proclamation Against Violence".^[71]

References

External links

• National Right to Life
• Abort73.com (Online Abortion Education from a pro-life perspective)
• Feminists for Life
• LifeNews.com (Pro-Life News Source)