I’ve always found abortion to be one of those areas where i am unable to make a judgment, or support one side over another. For one thing, i dont know what it’s like to conceive and bear a child. While fascinating, perhaps even magical, it seems like altogether way too much trouble. More importantly, i dont think i (or anyone, if you ask me) knows enough about life (and the soul) to decide when a few post-zygotic cells become a human. In any case, it’s one of those areas (like choosing between the life of the laboring mother or the almost-born child) where even if you were to assign values to one side or the other, it would have to be on a case-by-case basis.
Well, Amnesty Int’l has just taken a rather controversial position in its recent International Council Meeting in Mexico [press release].
With the prevention of violence against women as its major campaigning focus, Amnesty International’s leaders committed themselves anew to work for universal respect for sexual and reproductive rights. Amnesty International committed itself to strengthening the organization’s work on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and other factors contributing to women’s recourse to abortion and affirmed the organization’s policy on selected aspects on abortion (to support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to health care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women’s access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger), emphasizing that women and men must exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence. [emphasis added]
Naturally, they have been denounced by pro-life mostly Christian groups including, obviously, the catholic church. According to this Independent article which seems to take particular glee in pitting Amnesty against the Vatican, prior to the meeting, threats were thrown out that the Vatican would call on catholics to boycott the organization. Religious Extremists!
As i see it, Amnesty’s position retains their organization’s commitment to neutrality, human right and humane-ness. Their position is not unqualified. It is based on their experiences in conflict-torn regions where rape is used as a mass war weapon. Sure the victors have always killed men, raped women and indoctrinated children, but that doesnt make it ok for women who have just suffered the most painful and humiliating experiences of their lives to have no other choice but to bear the pain and shame for the rest of their and their rapechild’s lives. All Amnesty is supporting, ultimately, is the right of each woman to chose how to deal with her pain. And i think that’s fair enough. Maybe someone should rape a few of clerics.
Your advocating of rape upon another human being clearly discredits any attempt you might claim of being a supporter of human rights. Your claim to neutrality is also quite a farce as your article was overflowing with bigotry.
Actually, at no point did i claim neutrality. I said that i find it difficult to make a judgment on this and similar issues. What i find disagreeable is people taking black and white positions, especially with such a traumatizing experience. And I support amnesty in seeking to allow victims of violence the liberty to make their own choices.
I would, however, agree that i do have a certain bias against groups of people with a tendency towards extremist positions, be they mullahs, bishops, politicians or pundits.