Pro-Life Event at European Parliament
Oct 23rd
From Brussels to New York, life and family debates unpack at global forums — The European Parliament hosts its largest pro-life event and UN member states clash over how “the family” is defined.
The European Parliament Opens a Debate on Abortion
A recent event at the European Parliament highlighted the often-overlooked reality of abortion. The panel included several Members of Parliament and six women who shared their abortion experiences, discussing the deep psychological and emotional scars caused by their abortions. They explained that abortion access shouldn’t just be viewed as giving women a “choice”; their stories reveal that the intense pressure to abort their children, combined with a lack of support to carry pregnancies to term, made them victims rather than “empowered women.”
The event, held on October 15th, was co-hosted by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), the federation of Us, and the two largest conservative groups within the EU Parliament, EPP and ECR, in response to the European Citizens pro-abortion initiative, "My Voice My Choice.”
Dr. Nicolas Bauer, Senior Research Fellow at the ECLJ, said the slogan “My voice, my choice” is actually standing for “a denial of women and also a denial of being,” which “denies the psychological wound left by abortion.”
“How can we support motherhood, and how can we support the family since every child, a human being, also has a father who must be made responsible and supported in this mission?” Mr. Bauer continued.
Mr. Bauer insisted that the EU must do better. “The European Union has supporting and coordinating competences, and it can use them to promote maternity and the family,” Mr. Bauer explained and referenced the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, according to which “The family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection.” Mr. Bauer lamented that in recent years, “nothing has been done at the European level to support maternity and the family. Unfortunately, the European Union now chooses to invest more in other programs with ideological goals. This includes programs introducing gender theory into European families, and programs promoting abortion.”
🤲 Pro-Life Resources: Pro-Life Europe, a Germany-based nonprofit, has compiled a helpful directory of centers across Europe that provide compassionate support to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Explore the list here.
Takeaways:
Growing pro-life discussion: The debate over the sanctity of life from conception to natural death is gaining momentum in European and multilateral forums, challenging the simplified framing of abortion as “empowerment.”
Rethinking “choice”: True empowerment occurs when women receive the support, resources, and care they need to choose life, instead of feeling pressured toward abortion
A call for responsibility: Supporting women also involves engaging fathers and reinforcing the family unit as the foundation of society.
Reclaiming Europe’s values: The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is a key international instrument affirming that “the family shall enjoy legal, economic, and social protection,” a commitment that the EU should be held responsible for
There is a need for EU programs to support families: The EU should prioritize supporting initiatives that uphold life, maternity, and family
UN Language Battles - “The Family”
Source: PassBlue
The concept of “the family” has become so controversial at the UN that even a single mention of it can trigger heated debate. The disagreement, more intense than ever, centers on the very definition of the term. Western countries, along with progressive human rights advocates and the UN bureaucratic system, argue that the family, understood as the union between a man and a woman and their children, is a backward concept and an attack on LGBTQI+ people. They support using terms like “families” in the plural or mentioning “families in all their diversity” to reflect a progressive understanding of what a family is.
Leaving aside the ethics and profound social implications of large-scale adoption of such a definition, we will explore whether the UN should pressure countries to adopt social policy stances that conflict with their vision of a healthy and flourishing society.
UN & Consensus
Each sovereign nation has the prerogative to adopt national laws and policies that align with that country's laws, customs, and culture. The UN is a convening space where countries meet and work together on issues of mutual interest that best serve their respective cultures and communities. The UN is mandated to work from consensus, to serve member states, not pressure them to embrace lifestyles and norms that happen to be of “top priority” to Western countries.
2.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A foundation for Human Rights Advocacy
So what have countries agreed to by consensus? The UDHR, agreed to by all member states in 1948, should serve as the foundation for human rights promotion within the UN.
Article 16 mentions that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” Based on a textualist interpretation and considering the cultural and legal context in 1947 and 1948 when the Declaration was drafted, it is safe to say that all member states understood the family as referring to the union of a man and a woman and their children. Between 1947 and 1948, no country recognized same-sex marriage, nor was there any debate on the topic. Records from the drafting process also show that the UN delegates spoke of “the family” as the social unit based on the union of a man and a woman and their children. The Mural of Peace that presides over the UN Security Council and was gifted on behalf of Switzerland in 1952, depicts at its center the same understanding of the family.
The UDHR does not prevent member states from adopting an expansive understanding of marriage within their own jurisdiction, but it limits them from imposing that vision on other countries that never agreed to change the definition.
3. Feminism & the Family
The UN system is sometimes hesitant to speak on “the family” out of a commitment to “feminist” principles that seek to deconstruct the idea that family formation is a net positive for women. They may focus on the rights and freedoms of individual family members, but they rarely address the “family unit” as a rights-holder. This perspective paralyzes the UN system from meaningfully supporting families, in line with the UDHR provision that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Takeaways:
Affirm the consensus: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains a central UN document agreed upon by all nations, reinforcing the internationally agreed-upon definition of family.
Insist on the original UN mandate: The UN exists to build cooperation among sovereign states instead of imposing ideological social policies.
Resist ideological capture: Language such as “families in all their diversity” dilutes consensus and undermines the clarity of international commitments.
Engage constructively: Advocates should remind policymakers that supporting family formation helps to strengthen societies.
