United States anti-abortion movement: Difference between revisions
m →External links: oops... adding space again for better readability |
|||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
Not all people in the pro-life movement have religious motivations, and even those that do often avoid relying on religious justifications when making public policy arguments in the legislative and judicial arena. <ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html Atheist and Agnostic Pro Life League Homepage]</ref> |
Not all people in the pro-life movement have religious motivations, and even those that do often avoid relying on religious justifications when making public policy arguments in the legislative and judicial arena. <ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html Atheist and Agnostic Pro Life League Homepage]</ref> |
||
The primary argument is made in terms of legal philosophy (typically [[natural law]]), appealing to the [[right-to-life]] as a fundamental [[human rights|human right]] which should be guaranteed by law. Biologically speaking, the zygote created at [[fertilization]] possesses a unique [[genome]] of human [[DNA]], and |
The primary argument is made in terms of legal philosophy (typically [[natural law]]), appealing to the [[right-to-life]] as a fundamental [[human rights|human right]] which should be guaranteed by law. Biologically speaking, the zygote created at [[fertilization]] possesses a unique [[genome]] of human [[DNA]], and the biological manifestations of a [[Life#A conventional definition|living organism]]. Pro-lifers believe that this constitutes [[personhood]], and therefore morally object to killing human embryos and fetuses. This belief also relates to the popular slogan of the pro-life movement, "human life begins at conception". This contrasts with the beliefs of many [[pro-choice]] activists who hold varying opinions on what constitutes personhood. |
||
Another strand of argument posits that the rights of the man who impregnated the woman should have some input as to whether the fetus is aborted. This position enjoys scant support in recent case law in Western societies, where courts have determined that a pregnant woman's rights trump those of the would-be father.{{citeneeded}} |
Another strand of argument posits that the rights of the man who impregnated the woman should have some input as to whether the fetus is aborted. This position enjoys scant support in recent case law in Western societies, where courts have determined that a pregnant woman's rights trump those of the would-be father.{{citeneeded}} |
||
Revision as of 00:46, 30 June 2006
Pro-life is a term adopted by a variety of movements focusing on bioethics issues. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic human stem-cell research and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion. The term describes the political and ethical view which maintains that all human beings have the right to life, and that this includes fetuses and embryos.
Many pro-life individuals believe that personhood begins at fertilisation rather than at birth or at some point in-between. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo kills a human being. Any purposeful destruction is considered ethically and morally wrong. Such an act is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of a person who wants to end their own life.
On the issue of abortion, pro-life campaigners are opposed by pro-choice campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-choice view does not consider a human fetus to have the full legal rights of a human being, so the issue is instead considered to be the human rights of the pregnant woman to control the fertility of her own body by choosing whether to become pregnant or to carry a pregnancy to term.
The movement in the United States largely began after Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that held abortion to be a constitutional right.
Attachment to a pro-life position is very often but not exclusively connected to religious beliefs about the sanctity of life (see also Culture of Life). There are secular arguments against abortion but these tend to be a minority viewpoint among the most vocal pro-life campaigners. In the United States in particular, the religious motivation of many pro-lifers is often used to discredit the pro-life movement as being almost theocratic in its aims and philosophy.[citation needed] This is certainly true of some elements on the Christian Right which have a much broader political agenda.[citation needed] However it does not deal with the substantive issue of the morality of abortion itself.
Diversity of pro-life views
A major stated goal of the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life".[1] This 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 euthanised.
Some pro-lifers, such as those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic, oppose virtually all acts that end human life. They would argue that abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust war are all wrong and would also hold firm stances on issues relating to other choices where life may be ended. Others argue that the death penalty can be a fair punishment for murder, justifiably inflicted by lawful authority, whereas abortion is an attack on innocent human life that could never be considered just. This issue is one that has gained more attention in recent years as some pro-life persons wish to have the concept represent a more unified pro-life ideal that includes outlawing the death penalty. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the strongest proponents of this outlook. This is particularly controversial and may be gaining attention because of the larger Catholic following in the pro-life movement that is also striving to adhere to recent religious statements from the Vatican on the death penalty.[2]
While some pro-lifers are opposed to euthanasia of humans under all circumstances, others do believe that individuals, especially adults, should have the right to choose to end their life if they become terminally ill or severely disabled. One area of controversy is that many such individuals are unable to communicate their wishes. While some believe that direct euthanasia should only be an option for persons with the ability to communicate at the time the procedure would be considered, others believe that individuals should be allowed to state their wishes in advance, such as in a living will, or that family members and/or persons with power of attorney or guardianship should be allowed to make decisions regarding euthanasia for persons who are unable to communicate.
Cessation of life support for an individual who is unable to live without it is sometimes referred to as indirect or passive euthanasia. Although many pro-lifers support indirect euthanasia for persons judged by their doctors as having little or no hope for recovery, other pro-lifers oppose indirect euthanasia, even under those circumstances. Some pro-lifers strongly disagreed with the court decisions which allowed Terri Schiavo's husband to have her feeding tube removed. Indeed, most pro-lifers commenting on Terri Schiavo's case framed the issue as one of direct euthanasia, on the grounds that nutrition and hydration, in their view, do not constitute "life support".
The debate
The abortion debate is not a simple "yes-or-no" issue; there are shades of gray. In fact, the mildest levels of opposition to abortion generally are not in conflict with the pro-choice movement. For example, many desire to lower the number of abortions that are performed, generally using methods that focus on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies through improved sex education and increased availability of contraception. A piece of legislation in Congress, the 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the abortion rate by 95% over the next 10 years without making any procedure illegal or by overturning Roe. Some people who support abortion in the first two trimesters oppose late-term abortions. Finally, some are personally opposed to abortion and would not have one themselves or recommend it to anyone who asked, but feel that they ought not limit the rights of others on this matter.
Even among those whose opposition to abortion is strong enough to conflict with the pro-choice movement, there is some variation. Hard-liners directly equate abortion with murder and oppose it in all cases, except perhaps if 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 due to no fault of the woman, as in cases of rape and incest. Among pro-choice people, this may raise the question of why the choice to have sex should take away the choice to abort.
Finally, there is the issue of mandatory notification and consent. Some believe that a pregnant minor should not be allowed to abort her pregnancy without the notification or consent of a parent guardian. Likewise, some believe that notification or consent of the woman's husband or the child's biological father should be required. These sorts of restrictions are often seen within the pro-choice movement as attempts to limit access to abortion by putting the woman's social standing and safety at risk; among the public, there is some support for these measures. In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondants were in favour of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favour.[3] In many states, such restrictions are mandated by law, though often with the right of judicial oversight.
If a woman does not terminate an unwanted pregnancy and is unable or unwilling to raise the child, there is the option of placing the child up for adoption. Many Christian groups encourage that these babies be adopted by Christian families, so that Christian values can be taught. In this sense, restrictions on abortion rights may indirectly serve to increase the pro-life position in society. However, assuming that pro-life families have fewer abortions (and more children) than their pro-choice counterparts, they may pass their beliefs on to their children, thus changing 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 latter hypothesis has been called the "Roe effect," and may explain the trend toward restricting abortion.
Legal and political aspects
South Dakota is considered one of the most politically anti-abortion states in U.S. In 2004, a law to completely ban the practice failed to pass by one vote. The state's Legislature passed five laws restricting abortion in 2005.[4] In March 2006, the state passed a ban on all abortions, except to protect the life of the woman.
Although the pro-life movement in the United States is generally associated with the Republican party, this is not always the case. 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. There are also Republicans who have taken stances in favor of allowing abortion, such as Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
In many nations, such as Canada, the nations of Europe, Australia, the nations of Asia and Africa, and even in the U.S. there are many on the economic Leftwing and political centre who either have personal disagreements with abortion or who oppose legal abortions outright. Both groups generally consider themselves pro-life.
Motivations
Two strands of thought can be distinguished within the pro-life movement: religous (primarily Christian) and secular.
Religious
 |
Christianity
Christian opposition to abortion is based on a number of sources. The Didache, a short early Christian treatise, specifically prohibits abortion. The Bible, unlike the Didache, makes no specific mention of abortion, although it does mention unborn life several times. For example, Luke 1:44 cites Elizabeth exclaiming to the Virgin Mary, "Behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb (John the Baptist) leaped for joy". Jeremiah 1:4-5, retelling God's appointing of Jeremiah to be a prophet, says: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you".
The Catholic Church teaches that "abortion is a grave sin against the natural law."[5] It believes that human life is sacred, and begins at conception. Under this view, abortion is equivalent to murder, and there are no permissible exceptions. When the life of the woman is in jeopardy, it is permissible to obtain life-saving treatment which may have the secondary effect of killing the fetus, but no direct action may be taken against the fetus itself, and all life-sustaining options must be exhausted. (An example is chemotherapy treament for a pregnant woman with uterine cancer.) It also ascribes to a Consistent Life Ethic: euthanasia, the death penalty, unjust war, embryo research, in vitro fertilization (which involves discarded embryos), birth control (of which some methods may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining), and abortion are all condemned as violence. Church law provides that anyone who directly participates in an abortion is automatically excommunicated (provided they are aware of this penalty at the time of the act). A valid sacramental confession remits this penalty. In accord with its opposition to abortion, the Catholic Church provides support to pregnant women in "crisis pregnancies," as well as to low income families.
Other Christian denominations hold varying positions on abortion. Conservative, evangelical, or fundamentalist Christian groups are more likely to oppose abortion, whereas liberal or mainline Protestant churches are more likely to allow for it.
The Christian Alliance for Progress, most notably, has come out in opposition of abortion, but has advocated a program of assistance and prevention as opposed to the criminalization of abortion, opposes the death penalty, but maintains a neutral stance on euthanasia. Their views have often brought them into conflict with other Christians. [citation needed] The Quakers have declined to express an official view on abortion or euthanasia, but as a pacifist organization, they oppose the death penalty.
Islam
Islamic opposition is based equally on the concept that abortion is considered murder. Islam does provide for some exceptions where abortion is permissible, albeit as a "lesser evil", such as when the woman's life is in jeopardy. A number of Islamic scholars also believe that pregnancy caused by rape or incest is also a permissible ground for allowing an abortion to take place. According to a hadith [citation needed], the fetus is not considered alive until the 42nd day after conception.
While the more moderate Islamic view of "ending life only when absolutely necessary" is generally more universal among Muslims, a number of Christian groups, as well as members of the Jewish faith, have broken off from mainstream opposition to present a more ambiguous view, particularly on themes of abortion and euthanasia.
Judaism
Jews are considerably divided in terms of life issues. Whereas it is a fundament of Judaism that the life is sacred, a number of factors based on historical events and the Torah have been put forward in support of abortion in certain cases, which has sparked a long-running debate among Jews.
Secular
Not all people in the pro-life movement have religious motivations, and even those that do often avoid relying on religious justifications when making public policy arguments in the legislative and judicial arena. [6]
The primary argument is made in terms of legal philosophy (typically natural law), appealing to the right-to-life as a fundamental human right which should be guaranteed by law. Biologically speaking, the zygote created at fertilization possesses a unique genome of human DNA, and the biological manifestations of a living organism. Pro-lifers believe that this constitutes personhood, and therefore morally object to killing human embryos and fetuses. This belief also relates to the popular slogan of the pro-life movement, "human life begins at conception". This contrasts with the beliefs of many pro-choice activists who hold varying opinions on what constitutes personhood.
Another strand of argument posits that the rights of the man who impregnated the woman should have some input as to whether the fetus is aborted. This position enjoys scant support in recent case law in Western societies, where courts have determined that a pregnant woman's rights trump those of the would-be father.[citation needed]
Term Controversy
The term "pro-life" is often used interchangeably with "anti-abortion", even though pro-life does not always refer to just the abortion issue, sometimes referring more broadly to right to life issues. "Pro-life" is often considered a loaded term implying the opposing view would be "pro-death" or "anti-life" (compare Culture of Life and Culture of Death). Similarly, "pro-choice" is also often considered a loaded term that implies that the opposing view would be "anti-choice".
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 people tend to use terms such as "mother", "unborn child", "unborn baby", or "pre-born infant". Pro-choice people tend to use terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus". Each side accuses the other of using a preferred set of loaded terms.
One method of resolving the dispute is simply to use the terms each group uses for itself. This approach is rarely adopted by news organizations.
Extremism
Violent acts of aggression by extremists have been visited upon people who or places which provide abortion. Such incidences range from the arson and bombings of abortion clinics, as committed by Eric Rudolph, to the murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp. G. Davidson Smith of CSIS defined abortion extremist, animal rights, and environmentalism-related violence as "single issue terrorism".[7] Actual acts of violence against abortion providers and facilities in North America have largely subsided following a peak in the mid 1990's.[8] The last act of violence against an abortion provider in North America was on July 11, 2000, in Vancouver, BC, Canada when Dr. Garson Romalis was stabbed in the back in the lobby area of the building where he worked.
The vast majority of pro-life advocates reject all such violence, rejecting the use of homicide to oppose abortion, on the basis of the belief that both qualify as murder. They rely upon non-violent forms of activism like picketing and vigils, as well as legal and political action. The American Life League has issued a "Pro-life Proclamation Against Violence." [9]
See also
- Abortion
- Anti-abortion movement
- Anti-abortion violence
- Consistent Life Ethic
- Culture of life
- Family values
- Feminists for Life
- Pregnancy
- Pro-choice
- Pro-life activism
- Religion and abortion
- Reproduction
References
- ^ National Right to Life Mission Statement
- ^ The Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- ^ Pew Research Centre "Public Opinion Supports Alito on Spousal Notification Even as It Favors Roe v. Wade"
- ^ South Dakota reins in abortion rights, Restrictions among toughest in country set to get harder
- ^ Declaration on Procured Abortion, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
- ^ Atheist and Agnostic Pro Life League Homepage
- ^ Single Issue Terrorism
- ^ Violence at US Abortion Clinics
- ^ Pro-life proclamation against violence
External links
- For a list of groups opposed to the pro-life position, see Pro-choice.
- The stance of the Christian Alliance for Progress on abortion in full
- A summary of religious views towards abortion on atheism.about.com
- A summary of Christian views towards abortion. on www.faithnet.org.uk
Pro-life political organizations and issues
- Abortion Watch (abortion)
- National Right-to-Life Committee (United States) (abortion, euthanasia, cloning)
- LifeNews.com (abortion)
- Medical Ethics Alliance (abortion, euthanasia)
- Physicians For Life (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell, human cloning)
- Pro-Life Alliance (UK) (abortion, euthanasia, cloning)
- Students for Life of America (abortion, euthanasia)
- Pro-Life Campaign Committee (abortion, cloning)
- Life UK (abortion)
- Libertarians for Life (abortion)
- University Faculty for Life (abortion, infanticide, euthanasia)
- Life Education and Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N. Inc.) (abortion)
- Pro-Life Daily (abortion)
- AbortionFacts.com (abortion)
- Feminists for Life (abortion)
- Homeschoolers for Life (abortion)