Where We Stand
It's clear that the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion. But why? Do we oppose abortion under all circumstances? What about the other life issues?
Here we answer the questions we most commonly receive on where we stand on abortion and other life issues:
- Why are you opposed to abortion?
- What about abortion in the case of rape or incest?
- What about abortion to protect the mother's life or health?
- Do you take a position on the issue of birth control?
- Where do you stand on embryonic stem cell research?
- Where to you stand on assisted suicide and euthanasia?
- Where do you stand on the death penalty?
- Where do you stand on war?
Why are you opposed to abortion?
The Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion because abortion kills an innocent unborn child, a human person at one of those early stages of human development through which each one of us passes before birth.
We fully appreciate the many pressures and crises which may lead some parents to believe they have no choice but to abort their child. That is why we work to offer abortion-bound mothers and fathers the help they need to overcome their difficult situations and choose life when faced with an untimely pregnancy.
However, killing an unborn child is inherently wrong, and therefore can never be justified regardless of circumstances. It is no more just to kill an unborn child in order to avoid hardship than it would be to kill a child of two years in order to avoid hardship. Because the unborn child is unseen, it is easier for society to condone killing him or her, though this is morally indistinguishable from killing any child at any stage of development.
In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy—problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems.
Finally, a society which allows the killing of its most vulnerable members, in the very place in all the world ordained for them to be safest and most nurtured—their own mothers' wombs—is incapable of cherishing and nurturing human life or valuing childhood and motherhood.
Because abortion kills innocent children, wounds mother and fathers and dehumanizes our society, the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion under all circumstances.
[Back to Top]What about abortion in the case of rape or incest?
A child conceived through rape or incest does not deserve the death penalty for his or her father's crime.
Most people who believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest do so without considering the actual experiences of sexual assault victims who become pregnant. In the only large-scale study of pregnant rape victims ever conducted, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that approximately 80 percent chose against abortion [1].
Many sexual assault victims see giving birth as a selfless, loving decision that helps to heal themselves from the horrific experience of the rape itself. Women who abort children conceived through rape often say that they didn't feel that they had any real choice but to do so, since everyone around them assumed that they would not want to give birth to their rapist's baby.
The case against abortion for pregnant victims of incest is even stronger. Incest victims hardly ever voluntarily consent to an abortion [2].
Rather than view the pregnancy as unwanted, the victim of incest more likely will see the pregnancy as a way to get out of the incestuous relationship because it exposes the abusive sexual activity that family members are afraid or unwilling to acknowledge. The pregnancy also poses a threat to the perpetrator, who frequently attempts to coerce his incest victim to have an unwanted abortion.
The idea that the violent act of abortion is beneficial to victims of rape and incest is completely unfounded. On the contrary: evidence clearly shows that abortion in such cases compounds the unspeakable pain that such victims experience.
Notes
- 1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall and Watts (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69. [Back to Text]
- 2. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest: Giving and Taking Life" The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall and Watts (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 84-85. [Back to Text]
What about abortion to protect the mother's life or health?
The Pro-Life Action League rejects abortion for the alleged purpose of preserving the health of the mother. Courts have defined the "health of the mother" so broadly as to include any aspect of mental or emotional health—effectively rendering this "exception" into an absolute license to abort.
We similarly reject the "life of the mother" exception. Over four hundred physicians have declared that abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life; and even if it were, it is wrong to deliberately, directly kill one innocent person to save another.
[Back to Top]Do you take a position on the issue of birth control?
The Pro-Life Action League opposes artificial birth control (contraception), not only because it destroys the inherent meaning of the sexual act as a sign of permanent, life-giving love, but because of the disastrous consequences it has wrought on our society.
We are often told that in order to reduce the number of abortions, we ought to promote birth control, distribute condoms and demand so-called "comprehensive" sex-ed. At first glance, these proposals seem reasonable, but ultimately contraception actually increases abortion for four key reasons:
- Contraception increases risky sexual behavior among those who use it.
- Contraceptives often fail to work, especially among the young and unmarried.
- Using contraception predisposes a woman to abort her child when contraceptives fail.
- Contraception distorts the cultural sexual environment even for those who don't use it.
Contraception Increases Risky Sexual Behavior
More coming soon . . .
Contraceptives Often Fail To Work
More coming soon . . .
Using Contraception Predisposes a Woman To Abort
More coming soon . . .
Contraception Distorts the Cultural Sexual Environment
More coming soon . . .
Condoms Are Not the Answer
Because we are told so often that we ought to go out on the street and distribute condoms, it is appropriate to address the condom issue in some detail. It is widely believed that condoms help reduce unplanned pregnancies, but they don't. In fact, as the use of condoms has increased, so has the out-of-wedlock birthrate. (See CSRRC Study [PDF].)
Condoms fail. Even when used "correctly and consistently"—which is uncommon among those at greatest risk of unplanned pregnancy and sexually trasmitted diseases—the World Health Organization admits that a pregnancy will occur 3% of the time. For typical use, the WHO admits that the rate of pregnancy is much higher—anywhere from 10% to 14%. (See WHO Fact Sheet.)
Not only are condoms less effective for preventing pregnancy than commonly believed, but they are even less effective for preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Condoms have been repeatedly shown to be relatively ineffective in protecting against HIV/AIDS. A massive study co-sponsored by the NIH, CDC, FDA, and USAID issued findings in July 2001 that condoms, even when used "correctly and consistently," provided only 85% protection against the spread of AIDS. (See Government Study.)
The same study revealed that while condoms provide some increased protection against the transmission of gonorrhea from women to men—which almost never happens anyway—there is "insufficient evidence" that condoms do anything to prevent the spread of any other STD.
HIV/AIDS and gonorrhea account for 2% of STD cases in the U. S. It is tremendously irresponsible—and dishonest—to encourage condom use considering that there is "insufficient" evidence regarding their effectiveness in preventing against the vast majority of STDs.
What's Wrong with "Comprehensive" Sex-Ed
So-called "comprehensive sex education" programs condone various practices such as premarital sex, oral sex, solitary and mutual masturbation and contraception—all under the guise of providing personal health information. Such programs are pose serious dangers to impressionable young people. The decision to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage is extremely risky for many reasons, and it can never be condoned.
Parents have a duty to talk to their children honestly about sex, the cornerstone of which is explaining why it belongs only within marriage and can never be deprived of the fruitfulness that is proper to it. Parents should teach their children about the negative consequences associated with sexual activity outside of marriage—as well as the serious physical side effects associated with the pill and numerous other contraceptives—in much the same way that the negative consequences of drug use are taught.
[Back to Top]Where do you stand on embryonic stem cell research?
Answer coming soon . . .
[Back to Top]Where to you stand on assisted suicide and euthanasia?
Answer coming soon . . .
[Back to Top]Where do you stand on the death penalty?
The Pro-Life Action League regrets the loss of any human life, especially innocent lives, whether through legal abortion or euthanasia or through faulty or unjust court proceedings. We applaud the efforts of those who seek to ensure that the ultimate plenalty of capital punishment is not imposed on the innocent, and to minister to those who have been condemned to death; even the guilty deserve our compassion and our prayers.
We question whether a society that allows the legal killing of more than a million unborn babies can retain the moral authority to impose a penalty of death. However, we do not consider the death penalty to be morally equivalent to abortion.
No Moral Equivalence
Abortion is a far more serious threat to human life than the death penalty, and not only because exponentially more human beings are aborted than are executed in the U.S. [1]. The basic principles behind these two forms of legal killing are fundamentally different.
Behind legal abortion is the principle that the life of the unborn child does not have intrinsic value, and therefore the state may withdraw protection from that life. Behind the death penalty is the principle that the life of the accused has so much value that to take that life constitutes the ultimate penalty.
Therefore, there is no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty in principle. However, there is a clear contradiction between opposing the execution of those guilty of heinous crimes and supporting the abortion of innocent unborn babies.
Notes
- 1. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in 2005 there were 60 executions in the U.S., compared with at least 1.3 million abortions [Back to Text].
Where do you stand on war?
The Pro-Life Action League laments the loss of any innocent human life. However, we do not have a general position opposing war, nor have we taken a position in opposition to any particular armed conflict.
Killing is always a tragedy, but not all killings are equally wrong. A simple example would be a police officer shooting and killing an attacker to prevent him killing someone else. In such a case, the killing is a tragedy, but the police officer has not done wrong. On the contrary, it was his duty to shoot, and if necessary kill, the attacker.
Likewise, war is sometimes necessary—as when the Allies defended themselves against the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. So it is not a question of taking a position "against war" in the way that one can take a position against abortion.
Innocent people inevitably die during wartime. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic, but the fact that innocents die is not, on its own, enough reason to say that a war is unjust. Some wars are just and some are not, and reasonable, decent people can and often do disagree about the justice of any particular war.
Crucial Moral Distinctions
A just war is waged in order to preserve life, even if that means some people die (our own soldiers, enemy soldiers, civilians killed unavoidably). Abortion, on the contrary, attacks the very notion that life has value. No abortion is ever just—there is never a good enough reason for aborting an unborn baby.
We are not commenting here on whether any particular use of armed force is just or not. We are simply arguing that a far more basic principle is at stake in the case of abortion.
Those who support U.S. involvement in any particular armed conflict believe it to be just (even if they're wrong), and thus believe that the lives the war defends have value. Those who support abortion have, whether they know if or not, abandoned the more fundamental principle that life has value and that innocent life cannot ever be deliberately taken.
Killing on a Massive Scale
But even if one were to say that killings from abortion and killings resulting from war are morally identical, it does not follow that pro-life organizations like the Pro-Life Action League should devote time and resources to both issues equally.
Let us take the example of the Iraq War as an example. At the time of this writing, the U.S. has lost 2000 soldiers in two and a half years of hostilities in Iraq. The largest estimates of civilian deaths put them at between 26,000 and 30,000. So that's a maximum of 32,000 deaths in 2.5 years.
It takes only nine days for 32,000 unborn babies to be killed in the U.S. During the 2.5-year period of armed conflict in Iraq, at least 3 million unborn babies were killed here. Even without drawing any moral distinctions between different types of killing, abortion is killing people on a scale many orders beyond what has been going on in Iraq.
So to be perfectly proportional about it, we would spend something less than nine days a year protesting the Iraq war, assuming (only assuming) that this particular war is unjust.
However, it seems to us that if it's okay for some people to devote all their efforts to protesting the Iraq War, then we're justified in devoting all our efforts to protesting abortion. We believe that the 32,000 babies being aborted every nine days in our country deserve some full-time advocates.
[Back to Top]![[Jesus Christ, Teacher]](teacher.gif)