Amnesty’s new position wants to give women access to abortion when their health or human rights are in danger.
"The Catholic Church, through a misrepresented account of our position on selective aspects of abortion, is placing in peril work on human rights," Kate Gilmore, Amnesty’s deputy secretary-general, said.
She was responding to comments by Cardinal Renato Martino, the Vatican’s justice minister, who accused Amnesty of "betraying its mission" and said "individuals and Catholic organisations must withdraw their support" from the group.
Ms Gilmore said Amnesty was not promoting abortion as a universal right but stressing that women have a right to choose abortion when their human rights have been violated, particularly in cases of rape and incest.
A distinction without a difference.
"We are saying broadly that to criminalise women’s management of their sexual reproductive rights is the wrong answer," she said, speaking by telephone from London.
Of course they never mention that where they criminalize abortions it is the doctors performing the abortions that are liable to criminal prosecution and not the women themselves.
"We live alongside people’s life experiences. We don’t run a theocracy. We have to deal with the rape survivor in Darfur who, because she is left with a pregnancy as a result of the enemy, is further ostracised by her community," Ms Gilmore said.
When you don’t have any good arguments use the word theocracy and then fall back to emotionalism by referencing hard cases. They also don’t mention that the pro-life position is not just a religious view, but is held also by a groups of atheists. When I was an atheist I was mostly a pro-life atheist. I accepted the rape/incest exemptions since that seemed like common sense on the outside. But when you start to evaluate why there is such an exception in these cases you start to find how weak the argument is. Those who rape and commit incest don’t get the death penalty, but somehow the death penalty for a innocent person conceived during an objectively evil act do. We can easily feel much sympathy for women in these circumstance, but difficult circumstances don’t give you a moral blank check. Fr. Pravone has said that rape is a violent act upon an innocent person and that abortion is also a violent act on an innocent person. These exemptions have become so commonplace that otherwise pro-life politicians that hold to them are rarely criticized in the pro-life community for them.
This is another thing I love about the Catholic faith. I use to think I was pro-life before I became Catholic and actually found out what it really meant to be pro-life.
I find the argument about abortion because somebody will be "ostracised" especially evil. What about people who have handicapped children that are sometime ostracised? Should they be allowed to kill their children because of a community feeling? What Amnesty International should be doing is helping to provide education to destroy such attitudes, instead of providing cover for them.
It reminds me about the "Every child a wanted child" slogan used to justify abortion/contraception. That instead of working to reduce such a selfish attitude and calling for an openness to children, we use the selfish attitude to justify evil.
11 comments
Whatever makes a pregnancy a “crisis” can be resolved without killing the child. Killing the child is never a solution; how could it be?
Sometimes the only solution is to support the mother in her grief, just as we do for a widow or widower. If we can only convey that killing doesn’t undo rape or incest,(which at least in our country is a tiny percentage of the 1.3 million abortions), just as taking someone else’s life can’t bring back a deceased love one, maybe we’d get somewhere.
I hate the idea that people feel coerced or are deceived into cooperation with evil in order to feed people etc, via charitable organizations. Then those orgs accuse US of holding the hungry and sick hostage to ideology when in fact THEY are using a particularly nasty tactic by insisting they must support the slaughter of the unborn, or the sick and hungry will die. Ugh. Another one of those “Sophie’s Choice” situations, I think.
“We are saying broadly that to criminalise women’s management of their sexual reproductive rights is the wrong answer,” she said, speaking by telephone from London.
That sentence belies the assertion that it is only hard cases we’re talking about. Amnesty’s gone pro-abort; a pro-abortion human rights group is a contradiction in terms.
…to criminalise women’s management of their sexual reproductive rights…
Now who’s misrepresenting whose position?
I’m following–and may eventually post about–an abortion debate elsewhere on the Tubes. It’s interesting to watch the pro-abortion people there assign religious motivations to the agnostics and atheists who find abortion distasteful enough to oppose. Even the more thoughtful abortion advocates tend to treat non-Christian opponents like exceptions to What Everybody Just Knows About Pro-Lifers.
“Every child a wanted child”
I’d like to see a poll on how many parents have kids they love and are glad they have but weren’t to keen on the idea when the pregnancy was confirmed. Assuming a child will be wanted–will be lovable–because it’s convenient for the parents is kind of like assuming a spouse will be loved not because God provided the right person, but because the wedding is well coordinated.
It makes me sad to know that I can no longer consider supporting AI in good conscience. We pray God break down the diving wall and yet we keep putting it back up again, brick by ungodly brick. Yet, I cannot give to AI knowing some portion of my dollar, no matter how small, is being used to kill life.
I answer the “Every child a wanted child” argument with what should be obvious: Every child IS a wanted child, by God and always by others, even if we need to work at locating parents. If the child is conceived, he/she IS wanted.
I love the Orwellian dodge by the AI spokeswoman. Managing reproductive choices? Right, nobody dyin’ in there!
Well, they are promoting abortion as an option only when a woman’s rights have been violated… which leads me to the question, why are children conceived during consensual sex considered human, but children of rape are not human enough to warrant protection? Why restrict abortion based on the circumstances of conception?
Either it is a human being, endowed with rights; or it is not. If it is, abortion should NEVER be okay. If the baby is ‘not a human’, then it should not be restricted at all.
The very argument belies the hypocrisy of “There’s nothing wrong with abortion but it should be rare”.
I posted about Amnesty International meddling with governments last month – http://milehimama.blogspot.com/2007/05/working-to-protect-human-rights.html
It’s an issue that’s not going to go away – they’ll just clothe the old ideas with new language and hope nobody notices.
Side note: the article states that 68,000 women die from unsafe abortions; and WHO reports that 45 million abortions – oops, sorry, “Pregnancy terminations” – occur each year. That’s a mortality rate of one tenth of one percentage point. Not exactly the world wide health crisis it’s portrayed… (although every life is precious and shouldn’t be treated cavalierly, let’s put this problem in perspective as a global health threat.)
It’s an old, old problem. St. Augustine had to deal with it when he was challenged because Catholic rape victims were not suiciding like proper Roman ladies oughta. The heroic solution to the current use of mass rape and forced pregnancy in the various genocidal conflicts of this decade and last is to bear the children, who didn’t choose to have genocidal rapists for fathers, and to raise them, despite their Serbian/Sudanese/X fathers, as good Bosnian/Darfurian/Y like their mothers and their slaughtered brothers, uncles, mother’s husband, and grandfathers.
“If there is a God, would He want you to have a RAPE baby?”
(Dr House to the pregnant patient he convinced to abort on “House”.)
The child is guilty and therefore to be executed for the circumstances of his birth? Sounds crazy, but isn’t it implied by current laws?
Amnesty shouldn’t complain about Catholics not supporting them.
It’s like shooting yourself in the foot & then whining that it hurts.
I have read the above statements and would like to add to these stories. I was watching a newsreal of the women being taken to camps and raped in some parts of Africa. This special young lady told her story, and was so full of hate and anger after her raw deal.
She did not want to give birth to the child inside her but as time went on, she did give birth and now after 2 years, she said the little boy had brought her joy and happiness like never before.
She loves him with all her heart and he was her lifesaver. I believe God healed her through this child, perhaps he may heal others some day, who knows what God’s plans are for us and our children. Praise God, someone should interview other raped victims and publish their stories.