United States anti-abortion movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benkenobi18 (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 7 September 2007 (→‎Types of activism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is about the social movement. For other uses, see United States anti-abortion movement (disambiguation).
File:Prolife-DC.JPG
Pro-life protesters make a silent demonstration in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

The term Pro-life represents the adherants to the philosophy that all human beings ought to be considered persons from conception onwards, and that they are thus entitled to the same legal protections granted other persons, including the right to life. Prolifers apply this philosophy to many issues contained within bioethics, including, but not limited to: abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and the death penalty.

Overview

Pro-life individuals generally believe that human beings should be considered persons from conception until natural death. While many within the Prolife movement are Christians, there is no limitation or requirement that those who are prolifers be Christian. The philosophy directly challenges other bioethical theories, particularly utilitarianism. [1]

From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an unborn child kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or 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 or dangerous pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly be unviable, such as anencephalitic fetuses.

The prolife opposition to Euthanasia and assisted suicide stems from the second half of this principle. If human beings are persons until they die, then it is wrong to help people kill themselves, irrespective of their desire to die, or in the case where they are incompetent, to allow a proxy to kill another person.

One other aspect of pro-life philosophy is their opposition to abortifacients such as the Emergency Contraceptive pill, which, according to prolifers, acts as an abortifacient, in procuring an early term abortion through the hardening of the endometrium. Rather then preventing conception, the pill expels the embryo before implantation. [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)

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). Exclusively secular-humanist positions against abortion tend to be a minority viewpoint among pro-life advocates.[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, euthanasia 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]

In contrast, there are yet others who find that the pro-life movement's focus on legislative means is heading down the wrong track, believing that working through means of sex education, birth control, and aid to single mothers will more realistically reduce abortions while also drawing others into the movement. Rather than causing a political divide by arguing what can and cannot legally be done and what laws should be passed about it, such non-legislative pro-life goals are sought in order to bridge the gap with those who may consider themselves against abortion but pro-choice, because they cannot agree with passing restrictive laws--whether concerning gestation or anything else. Two prominent groups holding this ideology are Anarchists for Life--a pro-life anarchists group--which objects to legislative solutions to any problem by definition (since anarchists in general are anti-government)[7] and Feminists for Life[8].

The debate

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 broad spectrum of positions exists on this issue, from those who advocate abortion-on-demand on the one end (100% pro-choice), to those who oppose every form of abortion on the other (100% pro-life). 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 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 also some who support legal abortion within the first two trimesters but oppose late-term abortions. 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 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.[9] In many states, such restrictions are mandated by law, though often with the right of judicial oversight.

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. Two polls were released in May of 2007 asking Americans "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" May 4th through 6th, a CNN poll found 45% said pro-choice and 50% said pro-life.[10] Within the following week, a Gallup poll found 49% responding pro-choice and 45% pro-life. [11]


Legal and political aspects

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 abortion failed to pass by one vote. The state's Legislature passed five laws restricting abortion in 2005.[12] 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.

The U.S. Republican Party platform advocates a pro-life position,[13] though some Republicans are not pro-life. 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.

In many nations, such as Canada, the nations of Europe, Australia, the nations of Asia and Africa, and 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

Two people holding a pro-life sign at a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI at the Estádio do Pacaembu in São Paulo, Brazil in 2007. Translation: "No to abortion".

Opposition to abortion by some Christians 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". Such passages have been interpreted to reveal the personhood of an embyro/fetus.[14]

The Catholic Church teaches that "abortion is a grave sin against the natural law."[15] 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)[16] 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, and groups within the Catholic church hold varying positions on abortion. Conservative, evangelical, or fundamentalist Christian groups are more likely to oppose abortion, whereas liberal or mainstream 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]

Hinduism

Hinduism is vague on abortion. While Hinduism teaches that murder is a great crime and one of the worst sins, it does not define the stage at which the embryo is considered a living being. It speaks only of the murder of unborn children. Because of population control measures undertaken by the government, a large number of traditional Hindus do undergo abortion and there is no widespread religious objection to it.[citation needed] Hinduism teaches that a fetus is a living, conscious person deserving of protection. However, according to Hindu Mythology, there are 16 Samskaarams or Sanskaars during the life cycle of an individual (Soul) which starts pre-birth at Garbhadhaan (Conception). This gives us an insight that life is considered to begin at conception itself. 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 attacking a pregnant woman so she would miscarry her 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.[17][18][19]

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.[20]

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.[21]

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 (as they believe secular pro-life arguments are more effective) when making public policy arguments, including some prominent pro-life politicians (for example, U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan[22] and George W. Bush,[23] and U.S. Senator Sam Brownback[24]). 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[25] 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.[26] 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.

Activism

Pro-life activism 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, committing acts of civil disobedience, and in extreme cases committing acts of violence.

Types of activism

  • Free ultrasound: One type of pro-life activism is giving free ultrasound scans to pregnant women who are considering an abortion. These usually take place at a crisis pregnancy center. The theory behind this practice is the belief that the pregnant woman will decide to carry to term once she views images of the fetus. Federal funding is provided for crisis pregnancy centers, many of which provide free ultrasounds.[27][28]
  • The life chain: The "Life Chain" is a public demonstration technique that involves simply standing in a row on sidewalks holding signs with pro-life messages. Historically, the most often used message has been "Abortion Kills Children" but other signs have been produced for use by Life Chainers that include, "Abortion Hurts Women," "God Heal Our Land," "God Bless America," "Jesus Forgives and Heals," "Jesus Loves the Little Children" and "Jesus Loves You." Life Chainers, as an official policy, do not yell or chant slogans and do not block pedestrians or roadways. This type of demonstration is extremely common, but some pro-life demonstrators question the effectiveness of this tactic. Many Right to Life chapters hold Life Chain events yearly.[citation needed]
  • The rescue: A "rescue operation" involves pro-life activists standing in front of 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 former president Bill Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act into law, the rescue has rarely been attempted. Some consider it "peaceful civil disobedience" but others fear that the openly confrontational nature of rescue operations may inflame an already touchy situation to violence.
  • The die-in: is a variation of a protest by the same name which was first done to protest the Vietnam War. In the pro-life die-in, protesters fall to the ground in the fetal position. Those on the ground do not move, hand out literature, or talk, but those standing hand out pamphlets. Very few groups use this tactic, however Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust frequently use this method. [citation needed]
  • The truth display: In a "truth display", protesters go to an area intending to display pictures of aborted fetuses. The members of one group based out of Riverside, California, known as 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. Pro-Life Action League's Face the Truth displays are another example a "truth display." The theory behind the truth display is that unless people realize the precise nature of abortion methods/procedures and their tangible results, the pro-life position can never succeed.
  • Sidewalk counseling: "Sidewalk counseling" is a form of pro-life activism 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. [29] They do so by trying to engage in conversation, displaying signs, distributing literature, or giving directions to a nearby crisis pregnancy center. [29]

    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.[30] 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.[31]

Violence as a form of activism

Main article: Abortion-related violence

Violent incidents directed against abortion providers 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".[32] Actual acts of violence against abortion providers and facilities in North America have largely subsided following a peak in the mid-1990s.[33] 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 Template:PDFlink figures), a figure lower than at any time since 1994.

In North America, the most recent act of violence against an abortion provider that resulted in bodily injury was on July 11, 2000, in Vancouver, British Columbia in 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 at an abortion clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia on May 9, 2007. [34]; 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).[35]

The vast majority of pro-life advocates, as well as virtually all mainstream pro-life organizations reject all such violence (thereby creating a subtle difference between someone who is pro-life vs. more generally anti-abortion), rejecting the use of homicide to oppose abortion,[36] 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."[37]

Statistics from the National Abortion Federation[38] 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.[39] Most clinics that perform abortions experience picketing at least 20 times a year[39]: in 2005, 13,415 incidents of disruptive picketing were reported.[38]

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. ^ Anarchists for Life
  8. ^ Feminists for Life
  9. ^ Pew Research Centre "Public Opinion Supports Alito on Spousal Notification Even as It Favors Roe v. Wade"
  10. ^ Template:PDFlink, (2007-05-09). Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  11. ^ "Abortion" The Gallup Poll (5/21/2007) Retrieved 2007-05-28.
  12. ^ South Dakota reins in abortion rights, Restrictions among toughest in country set to get harder
  13. ^ 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America p. 84
  14. ^ Alcorn, Randy (2002). "Abortion in the Bible and Church History". Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments. Eternal Perspective Ministries. Retrieved 2007-04-10.
  15. ^ Declaration on Procured Abortion, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
  16. ^ EWTN Expert Answers explanation of automatic excommunication penalty for procuring an abortion.
  17. ^ indianest.com
  18. ^ hinduism-today.com
  19. ^ chennaionline.com
  20. ^ SearchTruth.com - Hadith Books - site visited on 2006-08-01
  21. ^ Mishnah, Oholot 7:7
  22. ^ "U.S. President Ronald W. Reagan on abortion". Priests for Life. Retrieved 2007-01-04.
  23. ^ "U.S. President George W. Bush on abortion". Columbia Commonwealth University. Retrieved 2007-01-04.
  24. ^ "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, Revisited" (PDF). The Human Life Review. Retrieved 2007-01-11.
  25. ^ 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.
  26. ^ New York Times. November 5, 2006
  27. ^ Template:PDFlink
  28. ^ [1]
  29. ^ a b Hill v. Colorado (98-1856) 530 U.S. 703 (2000). Retrieved December 13, 2006.
  30. ^ "Controversy in the Activist Movement", Pro-Life Action News, August 2000
  31. ^ "The "Chicago Method": Sidewalk Counseling that appeals to the Mother's concerns for her own well-being," Priests for Life
  32. ^ Single Issue Terrorism
  33. ^ Violence at US Abortion Clinics
  34. ^ "Planned Parenthood Arson." (May 12, 2007). WKTR.com. Retrieved May 14, 2007.
  35. ^ Man rams car into women's clinic in Davenport
  36. ^ 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."
  37. ^ Pro-life proclamation against violence
  38. ^ a b "NAF Violence and Disruption Statistics" (PDF). National Abortion Federation. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  39. ^ a b "Picketing and Harassment". Center for Reproductive Rights. Retrieved 2006-11-09.

External links

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

Pro-life 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=156193370"