Jump to content

United States anti-abortion movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 132.216.68.123 (talk) at 06:31, 15 March 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Prolife-DC.JPG
Pro-life protestors make a silent demonstration in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in bioethics. It can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly (especially in the media and popular discourse) to abortion, and support for fetal rights. 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 conception rather than at birth or at some point in-between. This perspective is historically derived from the Christian tradition and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.[1] 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 people who want to end their own lives.

Pro-lifers are frequently (but not always) in opposition to certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as ECP's, which, in rare cases, may possibly cause the death of an embryo after conception but before implantation. Because pro-life advocates largely believe that life begins at conception, they often regard these forms of birth control as abortifacients.[2] The Catholic Church recognizes this view,[3] but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is currently disputed within the scientific community. (See Also: Emergency contraception and implantation)

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 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.[4]

Diversity of pro-life views

File:Pro-life protest.jpg
Pro-life activists at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on January 22, 2002.

The major stated goal of the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life."[5] 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, 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 innocent human life that could never be considered because it lacks the same due process protections that a criminal trial requires before any imposition of the death penalty. In recent years, the issue of the death penalty has gained more attention because some pro-life advocates wish to create a more unified pro-life ideal that prohibits the death penalty. The Roman Catholic Church is one of the strongest proponents of this unified position. The increasing attention paid to this controversial position may result from the large Roman Catholic membership of the pro-life movement, a membership that is also striving to adhere to recent religious statements from the Vatican on the death penalty.[6]

While some pro-life advocates are opposed to euthanasia of humans under all circumstances, others believe that individuals, especially adults, should have the right to choose to end their own lives if they become terminally ill or severely disabled. Because many such individuals are unable to communicate their wishes, euthanisia will likely remain controversial within the pro-life community. While some believe that direct euthanasia should only be an option for persons with the ability to communicate at the time the procedure, 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 life support is sometimes referred to as indirect or passive euthanasia. Although many pro-life advocates support indirect euthanasia for persons judged by their doctors as having little or no hope for recovery, other pro-life advocates oppose indirect euthanasia, even under those circumstances. Some pro-life advocates strongly disagree with the court decisions which allowed Terri Schiavo's husband to have her feeding tube removed. Indeed, most pro-life advocates familiar with the Terri Schiavo case framed the issue as one of direct euthanasia on the grounds that nutrition and hydration, in their view, do not constitute "life support".[citation needed]

The debate

Template:Factual

Pro-life marchers in Washington, DC.
A pro-life memorial in Bytom, Poland. Partial translation: "Dedicated in memory of unborn children – victims of abortion."

After more than forty years of debate, the abortion issue remains one of the broader and more controversial societal issues. A fair spectrum of positions exists on this issue from those who advocate abortion on demand to those who oppose every form of abortion. Some, for instance, who oppose abortion are content to work at reducing the number of abortions through prevention of unwanted pregnancies, a task they accomplish through targeted sex education and 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. The spectrum of opinions includes some who support abortion in the first two trimesters but oppose late-term abortions. Finally, some oppose all forms of abortion, regardless of trimester. Among these groups are also those who feel that the government should not limit access to abortion at all.

Even among pro-life advocates different positions emerge. Some regard abortion as 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 not caused by consensual sexual activity, as in cases of rape and incest.

Another issue is that 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 or 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 and to violate the right to privacy. Reasons cited are that mandatory notification of the father could put the woman's social standing at risk, while mandatory notification of a girl's parents may cause the parents to react abusively. However, among the public, there is some support for these measures. In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondents were in favour of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favour.[7] 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. On the other hand, the counter-argument claims that pro-life families have fewer abortions (and more children) than their pro-choice counterparts, and 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 towards more widespread support of the pro-life movement. However, these scenarios are not concurrent with the fact that abortion rates are high in states which traditionally elect pro-life legislators, and low in states which traditionally elect pro-choice legislators.[8] Furthermore, polls conducted by the Guttmacher Institute have shown that women from religious denominations that are pro-life are as likely to have abortions as women who are not.[9]

Democrats for Life of America demonstrates at the 2006 March for Life.

South Dakota is considered one of the most politically pro-life 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.[10] In March 2006, the state passed a ban on all abortions, except to protect the life of the woman, sending the measure to the voters. However, in the 2006 midterm elections, the ban was defeated in a popular referendum vote.

Although the pro-life movement in the United States is generally associated with the Republican Party, this is not always the case. The Republican group Wish List supports pro-choice Republican Women just as Emily's List supports Pro-Choice Democratic Women. And 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 late Robert Casey, a former two term governor of Pennsylvania, is among the most well-known pro-life Democrats. His son, Bob Casey, Jr. is now a pro-life Democratic US Senator. There are also Republicans who have taken stances in favor of allowing abortion, such as Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and former President Gerald Ford.

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 left-wing 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 thoughts can be distinguished within the pro-life movement: religious (primarily Christian) and secular.

Religious

Main article: Religion and abortion

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."[11] 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/embryo itself, and all life-sustaining options must be exhausted. (An example is chemotherapy treatment 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), artificial contraception (of which some methods may prevent implantation of a zygote 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)[12] 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.

Hinduism

Hinduism teaches that abortion is a great crime and one of the worst sins. It is one of the six kinds of murder described in Hindu culture. Moreover, abortion thwarts a soul in its progress towards God, like any other act of violence. It teaches that a fetus is a living, conscious person deserving of protection. Hinduism has traditionally taught that a soul is reincarnated and enters the embryo at the time the embryo is conceived. In fact, one of the seven legendary immortals or Chiranjeevin in Hinduism, Ashwatthama, was cursed by Lord Krishna, avatar of Vishnu to immortality and eternal suffering partly for killing the fetus, later born as Parikshit, grandson of Arjuna when he was in his mother's womb. Parakashit was born stillborn but was raised from the dead by Shri Krishna.[13][14][15]

Islam

Islamic opposition is based equally on the concept that abortion is considered murder. Islam does provide for some exceptions where abortion is permissible, such as when the woman's life is in jeopardy. According to a hadith (Sahih Bukhari 54:430 and 55:549), the fetus is not considered alive until the 40th day after conception.[16]

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. Adherents to Orthodox Judaism are particularly stringent in these matters, as Judaism stresses the sanctity of life above virtually all other considerations. (Commandments for which one must accept death rather than violate include only murder, idolatry/apostasy, and forbidden sexual relations.) According to halakha (Jewish law) abortion is prohibited once 40 days have passed since conception. Before 40 days have passed, most poskim (Jewish legal decisors) still generally prohibit abortion, though this interval is considered a period of lenience. If a pregnancy threatens the life of the woman, all agree that the fetus must be aborted in order to save the woman's life.[17]

Other denominations of Judaism (Reform, Conservative, etc.) espouse more liberal interpretations of the traditional texts, or often reject them outright as irrelevant or outdated. Consequently, adherents to these movements often take a more liberal stance on abortion issues.

Secular

Some pro-life individuals hold no religious convictions, and rely upon non-religious sources to base their arguments. Even some of those who are religious have used non-sectarian justifications when making public policy arguments, including some prominent pro-life politicians (for example, U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan[18] and George W. Bush,[19] and U.S. Senator Sam Brownback[20]). One of the more prominent secular pro-lifers is Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice.

Many disciplines of philosophy may be implemented in the formation of a secular pro-life viewpoint. Some make use of natural law theory, which would emphasize the primacy of the right-to-life as the most fundamental human right guaranteed by law.

Biologically speaking, the zygote created at fertilization possesses a unique genome of human DNA, and many of the biological manifestations of a living organism. Pro-lifers assert that this constitutes membership in the human species, and therefore conclude that the deliberate harming of human embryos and fetuses is morally objectionable. Other pro-life arguments may hold that destruction of human embryos and fetuses constitutes discrimination against them, based on their stage of development.

Term controversy

Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of 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 the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life." 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[21] are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.

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", "pre-born infant" or infanticide[22]. 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.

Extremism

Main article: Abortion-related violence

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 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) defined abortion extremist, animal rights, and environmentalism-related violence as "single issue terrorism".[23] Actual acts of violence against abortion providers and facilities in North America have largely subsided following a peak in the mid-1990s.[24] The National Clinic Violence Survey, conducted by the pro-choice Feminist Majority Foundation, reports that severe violence now affects only 18.4% of abortion providers and facilities (2005 figures), a figure lower than at any time since 1994.

The most recent 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 most recent act of criminal damage against an abortion provider in North America was an arson attack on the Presidential Women's Clinic, in Lake Worth, Florida, on July 4, 2005[25]; and the most recent act of criminal damage by a pro-life extremist was an attempted suicide car bombing on the Edgerton Women's Health Center in Davenport, Iowa, on September 11, 2006 (the center did not provide abortions, but the perpetrator, David Robert McMenemy, apparently believed it did).[26]

The vast majority of pro-life advocates, as well as virtually all mainstream pro-life organizations, reject all such violence, rejecting the use of homicide to oppose abortion,[27] on the basis of the belief that both qualify as murder. They also believe that such violence will only hurt their cause. They rely upon other 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."[28]

Statistics from the National Abortion Federation[29] show that violence against abortion clinics or providers has decreased steadily since a peak in 2001. However, the majority of the health-care facilities that perform abortions in the United States experience protests from pro-life demonstrators every year, of which the most common form is picketing.[30] Most clinics that perform abortions experience picketing at least 20 times a year[30]: in 2005, 13,415 incidents of disruptive picketing were reported.[29]

See also

Look up united states anti-abortion movement in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

  1. ^ Holland, S (2003) Bioethics: a Philosophical IntroductionCambridge, UK : Polity Press; New York : Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Pub
  2. ^ Finn, J.T. (2005-04-23). ""Birth Control" Pills cause early Abortions". Pro-Life America — Facts on Abortion. prolife.com. Retrieved 2006-08-25.
  3. ^ "Emergency "Contraception" and Early Abortion". United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1998-08-01. Retrieved 2006-08-25. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 26 (help)
  4. ^ Wallace, James Matthew. "Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); line feed character in |title= at position 37 (help)
  5. ^ National Right to Life Mission Statement
  6. ^ The Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
  7. ^ Pew Research Centre "Public Opinion Supports Alito on Spousal Notification Even as It Favors Roe v. Wade"
  8. ^ CDC data
  9. ^ Alan Guttmacher Institute
  10. ^ South Dakota reins in abortion rights, Restrictions among toughest in country set to get harder
  11. ^ Declaration on Procured Abortion, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
  12. ^ EWTN Expert Answers explanation of automatic excommunication penalty for procuring an abortion.
  13. ^ indianest.com
  14. ^ hinduism-today.com
  15. ^ chennaionline.com
  16. ^ SearchTruth.com - Hadith Books - site visited on 2006-08-01
  17. ^ Mishnah, Oholot 7:7
  18. ^ "U.S. President Ronald W. Reagan on abortion". Priests for Life. Retrieved 2007-01-04.
  19. ^ "U.S. President George W. Bush on abortion". Columbia Commonwealth University. Retrieved 2007-01-04.
  20. ^ "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, Revisited" (PDF). The Human Life Review. Retrieved 2007-01-11.
  21. ^ In liberal democracies, a right is seen as something the state and civil society must defend, whether human rights, victims' rights, children's rights, etc. Many states use the word rights in fundamental laws and constitutions to define basic civil principles; both the United Kingdom and the United States possess a Bill of Rights.
  22. ^ New York Times. November 5, 2006
  23. ^ Single Issue Terrorism
  24. ^ Violence at US Abortion Clinics
  25. ^ USAToday: Feds probe fire at Fla. abortion clinc
  26. ^ Man rams car into women's clinic in Davenport
  27. ^ Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International (HLI), 2006: "For one thing, no one who is pro-life kills anyone. So those who have killed abortionists or bombed abortion clinics may be anti-abortion, but they are certainly not pro-life. No pro-life organization that I know of, and certainly not Human Life International, condones or advocates violence against any person. To do so would go against our pro-life beliefs. All human life is precious... without exception."
  28. ^ Pro-life proclamation against violence
  29. ^ a b "NAF Violence and Disruption Statistics" (PDF). National Abortion Federation. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  30. ^ a b "Picketing and Harassment". Center for Reproductive Rights. Retrieved 2006-11-09.

For a list of groups opposed to the pro-life position, see Pro-choice.

Pro-life political organizations and issues

Pro-life religious organizations

Pro-life secular organizations

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_anti-abortion_movement&oldid=115262708"