Pro-life is a political movement that started when abortion began being decriminalized in the West. It has grown to refer to opposition to various other issues such as euthanasia, human cloning and embryonic human stem-cell research, but most commonly abortion. Pro-life campaigners argue that these issues concern the "right to life" of human beings. The most common pro-life view is that life begins at conception and that any intentional killing of that life after its conception, other than in self-defense, is wrong.
"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" individuals use language to convey their perspective on the issues, and to sideline the views of the other side. So whereas "pro-life" people use medical terms such as "unborn child", "unborn baby", or "prenatal" ("postnatal" refers to infant after birth), "pro-choice" people use medical terminology such as zygote, embryo, or fetus. Each side accuses the other of using a preferred set of loaded terms.
Disagreement among pro-life individuals
A major goal of the pro-life movement is to promote the option of life for those who don't have a choice or voice, such as the unborn human in the uterus or adults in a vegetative state (e.g., Terri Schiavo).
Some pro-lifers, such as those subscribing to the philosophy of a Consistent Life Ethic, oppose all acts that end human life. They would argue that the death penalty, unjust war, or economic injustice 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 just 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 ideal that includes outlawing the death penalty. 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 [1].
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 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 passive 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".
Two foundations for being pro-life
Two strands of thought can be distinguished within the pro-life movement: religous and secular. These are not seen as being at odds with one another - in fact each is often used to complement the other. Just as murder is considered wrong by virtually all religions, it is also widely condemned by those with a secular outlook.
Religious
- Main article: Religion and abortion
The first appeals to "revealed truth," or the shared religious values of a society. By this account, every human individual, from conception to natural death, is held to possess an equal value, accorded to him or her by their god.
Christian opposition to abortion is based on a number of sources. The earliest example, the Didache, makes specific mention that abortion is not to be committed, although this is seldom referred to by lay Christians, who generally refer to passages from scripture instead to defend their viewpoint.
The Bible, unlike the Didache, makes no specific mention of abortion, and scripture is generally taken in context with the supposition that the fetus is a living being and that termination of the fetus is thus considered to be murder. For Christians this supposition extends from their view on Jesus Christ as God from conception.
The Catholic Church teaches that doctors who perform direct abortions, a woman who received a direct abortion, and anyone who directly aids a woman in receiving a direct abortion shall be excommunicated. Excommunication is not necessarily a permanent action as anyone who is in a state of excommunication can be reconciled with the Catholic Church, often for abortion the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession) is the necessary form. Direct abortion is considered by the Catholic Church to be a different action than indirect abortion, this is a rarely used form of abortion that can be justified to save the life of the pregnant woman if performed in a very specific manner (i.e. eptopic pregnancy requires removal of entire fallopian tube or cancer of the uterus requires removal of entire uterus). There is no exception in the Catholic Church for rape, incest, genetic abnormalities of the child, or health exceptions for the pregnant woman that require direct abortion as the means of healing the woman. The Catholic Church holds both a religious and natural law stance on why abortion is unacceptable, the Catholic Church also holds a Consistent Life Ethic. This means that euthanasia, the death penalty, unjust war, violence, and any action that ends life is seen as no longer an acceptable mean to achieve a more equitable end. However, this actually may differ in other branches of Christianity that allow for some exceptions in abortion and support some of other actions (i.e. death penalty).
Islamic opposition is based equally on the concept that abortion is considered murder. Unlike Christianity, however, Islam does provide for some exceptions where abortion is permissible, albeit as a "lesser evil", such as when the mother'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.
Views vary between adherents of a single religion. 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.
The Christian Alliance for Progress, most notably, has come out in opposition of abortion, but has advocated a programme 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 conservative Christians. The Quakers have declined to express an official view on abortion, on euthanasia, but as a pacifist organization, they oppose the death penalty.
Jews are also considerably divided in terms of ending life. Whereas 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 members of the Jewish faith.
Secular
Many pro-life individuals hold no religious beliefs or consider themselves agnostic or atheist; the pro-life movement is not limited to conservative religious groups or persons (See External Links list below).
Another strand of thought argues 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. Rights-oriented pro-life campaigners usually promote specific legal protection and rights for an unborn human, equal to that of the woman because both the woman and unborn human are living human beings. This argument is also rooted in the medical model which states that a unique human life (distinguishable by DNA) begins at conception and can never be replicated. Within this rights-oriented approach to being "pro-life", the unborn is held to be a human being endowed with personhood. (Personhood, on this account, is held to be not something separate from being human nor separate from the mere possession of life.) Therefore, the argument goes, the fetus is entitled to equal rights from the moment of conception because personhood is an innate aspect of simply being human. This contrasts with the beliefs of many pro-choice activists that personhood is not achieved until birth.
Finally, there are arguments based on the biological father's "parental rights", which posit rights of the man who impregnated the woman to some say in whether the pregnancy should be carried to term. Despite its popularity, this position enjoys very little support in recent case law in Western societies, where the woman's interests and rights are considered to take precedence. One article describes this as "the right of fathers to legally prevent the brutal abortion death of their own prenatal children". [2] While this line of reasoning is sometimes supported on explicitly religious grounds [3], it is often entirely secular. In either case, it is often associated with political conservatism in general and a rejection of classical feminist positions on reproductive decision-making in specific.
Term Controversy
The term "pro-life" is often used interchangeably with "anti-abortion," even though pro-lifers tend to hold positions on more than just abortion. Some people in the pro-choice movement argue that "pro-life" is a loaded term implying the unpalatable opposite "pro-death" or "anti-life" instead of their preferred designation, "pro-choice." The "pro-life" side argues in turn that the "pro-choice" designation implies the opposite is "anti-choice" and they would state they are not "anti-choice" but support any choice outside of abortion. Both "pro-life" and pro-choice are examples of political framing: terms which define a political position in the best possible light, while simultaneously defining the opposition in the worst possible light (being "anti-life" or "anti-choice").
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. Most press reports, such as those of the Associated Press, use the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice."
See also
References
External links
Pro-life sites
