The accusation is often made that some pro-life organizations are too uncompromising – even “too pro-life”. It is claimed that if they would but soften their opposition to some abortions (e.g. for rape, incest, and physical imperfections), then more people would join pro-life groups and some babies could be saved.

However, apart from the moral and ethical issues, the history of abortion throughout the world has shown that legalizing some abortions leads almost inevitably to abortion on demand, and is disastrous for the pre-born child.

For those in the pro-life movement, who are accused of the “preventing the saving of some babies,” it is of value to look at other pro-life groups who refuse to “water-down” their commitment to every pro-born baby. One such organization is the Association of lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn (ALDU) in England.

The association was founded in May 1978, in the London home of one of the original eight lawyers. The founders had two basic principles: one scientific and one legal.

(a)    “The association (ALDU) accepts the undisputed finding of modern embryology that human life begins at conception;

(b)   “The association accordingly holds the natural justice requires that the unborn child, no matter how young, should enjoy the same protection of the law against being deliberately killed, as is enjoyed by any human being.”

From the very beginning it was decided that “every lawyer wishing to become a member of our association must be against each and every intended and deliberate killing of an unborn human being without a single exception,” and must put his or her signature to such a declaration on the application form for membership.

The founding members were well aware that this “no exception” position would lose them many members who in general rejection “the cruelty and injustice of abortion,” but would allow it in special cases such as rape.

In fact, however, when it was pointed out to them that there was an inconsistency in their position in that “in the instances where the support of the unborn is most needed (because the prospective victim of abortion in those instances is especially at risk and friendless) they are willing to condone and (for all we know) even support the great injustice of a deliberate and cold-blooded killing of him or her in the moment of especial need.”

At that point, many lawyers became totally pro-life. The lawyers state that it is a fact of life that some children are born with spina bifida or Down’s syndrome, and “it is the basest and most contemptible form of negativism for those who have escaped these problems to kill those who have not.”

It is true that the association’s unbending stand has lost some support; but, on the hand, it has ensured that all members are of one mind, on the subject of abortion. There is no way that the pro-abortionists can find cracks in the organization, and thus destroy it.

Today, there are more than 2,500 lawyers, totally pro-life who are members of the association. In additions there are a number of highly gifted and highly regarded lawyers, members of the House of Lords who are patrons of ALDU. Members believe anything less than absolute and unqualified opposition to the injustice of abortion is “intellectually untenable.”