A sad farewell to AmnestyWhat do human rights mean if they do not include the most vulnerable humans of all, the unborn? The recent decision by Amnesty International to include in its mission a demand for access to abortion has meant the sad and bitter end of a wonderful relationship with the human rights organisation for many of its members.
For myself, the break is akin to a painful divorce. I am – or was – the convenor of an Amnesty group. Over the years my group and I met regularly, writing hundreds of letters on behalf of victims of human rights abuses and raising thousands of dollars through our fund-raising efforts. Twelve years ago I started and ran a student Amnesty group in the school where I work. It was a joy helping the students work hard for others while gaining an awareness of human rights issues. The group has now morphed under the leadership of another teacher into a World Vision group as well. (This teacher will be abandoning the Amnesty component of the group in response to what she sees as a hypocritical move on the part of Amnesty. "How many of the aborted around the world are girls?" she asked me.) Prior to making this decision, Amnesty approached the convenors of their groups to answer a survey on abortion issues. Convenors were presented with three options: that abortion be defined and demanded by Amnesty as a human right; that abortion be demanded under certain circumstances; that the issue of abortion be ignored by Amnesty. Each country took their results to the international conference held in April this year, where the decision was made to opt for the least controversial option – that abortion be demanded only in the cases of rape in war in places like the Sudan. For Amnesty this decision is regarded as something of a compromise. There are members who are angry that abortion is not being defined and demanded by Amnesty as a human "right". Some who do not agree with abortion are remaining with the group, reluctantly agreeing that in some cases abortion is a necessary evil. However for many of us this is not a compromise but a radical move which violates everything Amnesty stands for. As Chris Middleton recently pointed out in The Australian newspaper, Amnesty’s new policy "goes right to the core of Amnesty as a human rights organisation and as a body that gives primacy to conscience. It strikes against the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child which states that every child ‘needs special safeguards and care, including legal protection, before as well as after birth’". Let’s face it: if Amnesty’s mandate is to work to protect people from human rights violations, who is more voiceless, more vulnerable, more innocent and more in need of protection from the ultimate violation of their rights than the unborn child? Amazingly, Amnesty also sees this decision as somehow "neutral". When the Vatican criticised Amnesty’s decision and called for Catholics to abandon support for the organisation, the official response in Australia was that "AI takes no position on the rights and wrongs of abortion and does not counsel women as to whether they should continue or terminate a pregnancy." The contention that this decision is somehow beyond morality is absurd. The demand for any abortion carries with it the possibility of two possible assumptions, both of which are contrary to Amnesty’s mission. One is that abortion is acceptable since the unborn child is in some way less than human and therefore can be disposed of without any violation of his or her human rights. This position is difficult to defend and cannot be proven. In fact, all medical evidence points to the clear common sense conclusion that unborn children are human beings, since they possess from conception all the genetic information they will need for the rest of their lives, lacking only time to develop and grow. For Amnesty to take a position on this controversial issue is, therefore, offensive to many of its members who believe that the unborn child is such from the moment of conception. More to the point, it represents a move away from Amnesty’s area of expertise and in fact violates its mandate to protect human rights around the globe. There is also the possibility that this decision assumes that the unborn child is a human being, but that its human rights are superseded by those of the mother. While neither of these assumptions are directly addressed by Amnesty, the organisation argues that with so many women left traumatised and pregnant as a result of rape, what else can be done? Let’s look at the issue of the mother carefully. For a start, a stance against abortion does not rule out compassion for the woman so horribly violated. In fact it rests upon it. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that abortion causes the mother post-traumatic stress syndrome. For many it is an essentially violent act against a woman’s body. A woman who has been raped can only be further traumatised by the abortion of a baby, which is, despite the horror of the situation, partly her own. Nobody should ever down play the unspeakable grief and distress caused by rape. But the moment you say "kill the child to help the mother", you are placing one person’s human rights over another, and opening the doors for real horror. To date, Amnesty’s campaigns to stop violence against women have been truly inspiring and positive. Among other things, Amnesty has campaigned to stop the gender-selective abortions which see the termination of millions of girls in countries such as China. But one has to wonder who is pushing for this latest development – the victims of rape themselves, or Westerners who have a controlling interest in Amnesty? If the latter, are they misled do-gooders or radical so-called feminists with a vested interest in promoting abortion on demand? As Middleton argues, "(the policy) goes much further than purely advocating decriminalisation. Thus it commits Amnesty to working "to ensure access to abortion services" where there is danger to a woman’s life or health. It would apply as much to Australia as it would to Darfur." Perhaps we will never know who or what is behind the decision. Amnesty has tried hard to keep this issue out of the media, to the point of almost concealing the decision from members such as myself. After regular contact with Amnesty as I nervously awaited the verdict, I – and others like me – only heard about the final decision via the media. Acts of violence, such as the use of rape as a weapon in war in places like the Sudan must be stopped. The unwanted pregnancies which are the result must be prevented. But the difficulty we have in doing this should not lead us to opt for the solution so typical of our Western mentality - if it’s a problem, get rid of it. It was contact with innocent victims of torture – in some cases family men and women who just had the misfortune of knowing or working for people from the wrong side of the political fence – which prompted my original interest in Amnesty. It is my concern with the human rights of every person – including the unborn – which has forced me to leave. Ironically, the founder of Amnesty, British lawyer Peter Benenson, was a convert to Catholicism. As far as I am aware, there was no suggestion during his lifetime that Amnesty should support abortion for any reason. Had the decision been made before his death two years ago, it may have forced him to leave as well. Pam Field is a Sydney high school teacher. |
relatedarticlesmorebythisauthorPam Fieldfreeupdates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (39)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
Comments (39)
veronika said...You explained it simply & honestly when you said
“If you kill the child to help the mother”, you are placing one person’s human rights over another, and opening the doors for real horror.
It is such a shame about the decision of amnesty intl regarding their excuses for abortion.
Australia | Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 4:47 pm
Gill Duval said...I have two questions-: 1) How many women have actually been made pregnant by rape, say per year? (with medical references please) and 2) Do Amnesty do DNA testing before an abortion to make sure that the baby is not the son or daughter of her husband, i.e. the woman was pregnant already? If these things are not known it means that Amnesty are being cavalier with human rights even under their own criteria.
Gill Duval
-- | Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 9:21 pm
Desmond said...I supported Amnesty in all its anti-war endeavours. Indeed I was consultant military adviser to its study group who went to Lebanon to report on the Israeli-Hisbollah war there in July of 2006.
I must now review my position with Amnesty.
Ireland | Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 10:18 pm
Prof. Earnest Thornberry said...‘Radical ‘so-called’ feminists’ is right. Abortion hurts women and >a href="http://wigglebrick.com/no-amnesty-for-the-aborted/">discriminates</a> against girls.
This is the first place I’ve read of AI’s decision from the rank of convenors. Fascinating. AI’s decision is blatant functionalism where people are valued for what the do, not for who they are. It’s completely contrary to their stated mission.
United States | Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 11:41 pm
Sue Corey said...In the western world, rape is a different matter, the result of criminal activity where medical technology can afford the assaulted a “morning after pill” to ensure that pregnancy does not happen.
The plight of women raped in worn torn countries is very different. (Just one exapmle, by the way.) In places light Africa, medical attention is not often immediately available. Rape is the “right” of the conqueror to intimidate the defeated. It is a way to ensure future generations will be part of the victor’s line. It is a never ending violence perpetuated upon women in wartime. Both mother and child are at risk of psychological harm and all its ramifications. That is the sort of thing that Amnesty has worked so hard to prevent...never ending torture.
To imply a woman would LIE about the paternity of her child to obtain an abortion is an unconscionable utterance. Women are vulnerable members of most societies at war and to expose themselves to the frequent social retribution such allegations create would be unthinkable in all but the most extreme cases, i.e., pregnancy by the rapist.
Women are not lying about this. They seek peace of mind. They seek peace of mind in a world where adoption is not a readily available option. It is a world where they would be required to look, every day, into the face of child, a face that belonged to their rapist. That is a truth so cold and real and undeniable that it tortures the soul evermore.
Let us not victimize the victims any further. Let us do what we can to humanely relieve their burden.
United States | Monday, 1 October 2007 at 3:41 am
MTM said...What is the old saying? Dead wood burns…
This was a long time in coming, and frankly, I am surprised that it took this long for AI to go in this direction. Your article helps explain why it DID take so long. Thanks.
-- | Monday, 1 October 2007 at 5:23 am
charles nixon said...tsk! tsk, AI. People will be crying more - all over the world- when your funding dries up somewhat because of this action. Charles+
-- | Monday, 1 October 2007 at 9:16 am
JonathanR. said...“Women are not lying about this. They seek peace of mind. They seek peace of mind in a world where adoption is not a readily available option. It is a world where they would be required to look, every day, into the face of child, a face that belonged to their rapist. That is a truth so cold and real and undeniable that it tortures the soul evermore.”
So? The child is guilty and sentenced to death fro having the face of his father? What if the child looks like his/her mother? Will that be enough grounds for “amnesty”?
This is naked, absurd emotionalism. How do women seek peace of mind through the wholesale slaughter of the unborn? Heaven forbid women seek “peace of mind” with regards to other less innocent members of the human race.
Since when did we start placing heirarchies on human life? And since when is human life less valuable than “peace of mind”?
-- | Monday, 1 October 2007 at 10:03 am
RandomlySane said...I’ve studied this in the past. And I think that Amnesty is taking a such a far-reaching stand because the issue is so complex. Women, in developing countries at least, SHOULD be allowed the same health benefits of those in more developed countries. Instead, they and they’re children are dying. They don’t always have adoption centers available, and attempt to abort their children themselves, usually (if I remember the numbers correctly) resulting in death or serious harm to themselves and the unborn child.
Let’s not forget that many of these women already have had between 5 and 7 children, and live in extreme poverty. They are struggling to survive. I can’t imagine bringing a child into the world knowing that she or he will likely starve to death or die from an easily preventable disease.
The issue is not as simple as killing an unborn child. There are a host of other factors that are included. Obviously, abortion is not a positive solution, but since they can’t use contraceptives (Catholic countries, etc) it’s the only option they have available.
They should at least have the same freedom we do.
United States | Monday, 1 October 2007 at 1:51 pm
Gerald said...What a silly short sighted decision. AI should have sticked to their core mission. Lets hope they reverse their decision as their support wanes, and failing that they fold up due to political infighting.
AI should look at history and see what happened to the Australian Labour Party over the issue of communism, the formation of the DLP split the vote and labour didn’t govern Australia for more than 20 years.
Australia | Monday, 1 October 2007 at 2:22 pm
EdwardMartin Rwarinda said...Dear Pam Field,
A human being capable of taking a decision is also capable of changing it in this world. You made a decision to join AI and you have changed it based on your good and sound faith in God and his plan.
Consider the power of the same God and you will believe that
1. AI which took an absurd decision can, with God’s intervention and mercy, change it for the better
2. God will listen to your prayer and get satisfied with your sacrifices and penance to bring about a change in AI’s absurd decision
Take courage not all is lost. From now on Pray, offer sacrifices and keep on demonstrating against the actions of abortion
St. Terese of the Child Jesus, virgin and doctor of the Church pray for us
Edward Martin Rwarinda
-- | Monday, 1 October 2007 at 6:20 pm
Gill Duval said...Sue Corey said, presumably in response to my e-mail, “To imply a woman would LIE about the paternity of her child to obtain an abortion is an unconscionable utterance.” I was not in any way implying that a woman would lie about the paternity of her child. I was saying that she would not necessarily know if the baby had started its life very recently and presumably Amnesty will provide an abortion now even though the child may not be as the result of rape. It just seems to compound the injustice of visiting the crimes of rapists upon children. I am also not “implying” that rape is OK. It is horrible and, it seems to me, that the social retribution is even worse and even more unfair. But I understand that there is social retribution anyway, in some societies, even if the woman does have an abortion. So Amnesty is content even though the woman has been abused by rape, abused by the abortion and remains abused by her own society. These are the things we should be fighting to change.
United Kingdom | Monday, 1 October 2007 at 8:48 pm
Jen R said...Great post. It’s good to hear from somebody who actually *was* consulted on this issue. I know several members in the US who tried to have their voices heard and were either lied to outright or told that the decision had already been made, and the only question was how it would be implemented.
As near as I can tell, Amnesty never once gave any serious consideration to the question of whether the unborn child might have human rights. They say that no such rights are recognized in current international human rights treaties (which is not entirely true) but never engaged the question of whether they *should* be recognized. From AI’s press releases and the strongly patronizing tone of their FAQ, I gather that the people promoting the new abortion policy within Amnesty have nothing but contempt for the idea that the unborn might have human rights, and equal contempt for those who believe they do.
I would also point out that the new policy, despite the public spin, is not at all limited to cases of rape.
United States | Tuesday, 2 October 2007 at 3:42 am
Sebastian Szyszkowicz said...It is really a shame about AI, and many other charitable organizations.
However, on a brighter side, there are some good organizations out there too. I am quite confident about Development and Peace, and probably Heifer International. Does anybody know of any other charities that do solid work with practice in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church?
I think people would give more if they knew their money is doing real good.
Canada | Tuesday, 2 October 2007 at 10:33 am
Marcella Coelho said...Responding to some comments above, women are not given freedom by aborting.I once read an interesting perspective on discrimination and abortion. I can count on my fingers how many people realize that 70% of planned parenthood clinics are mostly in the low class neighborhoods around the USA. I wonder who wants to be free from what...maybe less immigrants?
Brazil | Tuesday, 2 October 2007 at 11:20 am
Page 1 of 3 : 1 2 3 >
New comment