Amnesty International has dropped its neutral stance on abortion and has taken the position that women are people, too — and that they deserve the basic right to decide when and if they have children.
Christian organisations, including the Roman Catholic Church, have threatened to withdraw support from the group.
The decision in April by Amnesty’s executive committee to support access to abortion for women in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardises a mother’s life or health was greeted with an outcry by churches.
Nothing says “pro-life” like legally compelling a woman to give birth even if it’ll kill her.
Good on Amnesty. If you’re ever looking for an organization to donate to, they’re a good one. Just make sure you pass on the United Way.
Similar Posts:
- Shocker: Sam Brownback supports forced pregnancy for rape and incest survivors by Jill June 11, 2007
- The forced pregnancy brigade targets rape and incest survivors and women with health complications in Colombia by Jill May 30, 2007
- Legal Abortion Saves Lives by Jill September 24, 2007
- 11-year-old Romanian rape survivor permitted abortion by Jill June 27, 2008
- College Republicans Diaper Drive at NYU Today by Jill September 26, 2007
“The decision in April by Amnesty’s executive committee to support access to abortion for women in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardises a mother’s life or health was greeted with an outcry by churches.”
Is it really “support for human rights” to, by implication, not support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy for any fucking reason she chooses?
That needs to become T-shirt material. Although it might take some altering, due to the existence of pregnancies that’ll kill women before the fetus has any chance of surviving . . . it’s not really birth (or life of any kind) if she dies at three months in over an ectopic pregnancy, or of cancer whose treatment was suspended due to potential fetal risk. I wonder if pointing out that letting a pregnant woman die is for all intents and purposes an abortion, would do anything to shut the fundies up in those cases.
Pro-life: because it doesn’t count when women die.
[...] Via Feministe. [...]
If you’re thinking about donating to the United Way, it’s worth checking out the policies of your local chapter. For example, the United Way of New York City does fund Planned Parenthood.
In the interest of full disclosure, I work for a non-profit serving women that depends very heavily on United Way funding.
Oh goody. Now progressive people who don’t contribute to United Way, because they don’t fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, can join hands with reactionary people who don’t contribute to United Way, because they don’t fund anti-gay bigots like the Boy Scouts.
Realize that United Way still funds a broad spectrum of human services in your community even if their choice of who deserves funds doesn’t quite match yours. Get the list of fund recipients from your local United Way, then decide. The best solution would be to write two checks, one to UW and one to PP.
“Is it really “support for human rights” to, by implication, not support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy for any fucking reason she chooses?”
Maybe.
Traditionally Amnesty hasn’t gone about making up human rights to support. It’s purpose was to support particular human rights: those enshrined in the Universal Declaration. The right to an abortion isn’t one of these. That’s why conservative groups are shocked.
Amnesty has recently switched from supporting the UDHR, to inventing other rights to support as well – like the right to an abortion. So they’re no longer supporting ‘human rights’ as are understood in international law, they’re supporting their own personal conception of whatever they think are rights. The UDHR is no longer material.
I have no general quarrel with people who want to make access to abortion easy. But abortion isn’t so important that the only organisation which existed to support the UDHR had to give up that job and take up your agenda for you.
Amnesty was useful when its purpose was defending international human rights law against violations. It’s no longer doing that. It’s campaigning for people to do what it thinks they should do. Everybody does this. And extending Anmesty’s conception of ‘human rights’ to include whatever it thinks should be rights has really damaged the organisation. When you got a letter from Amnesty you used to know you were violating an important pillar of international law, now you’re just doing something they don’t like.
“Traditionally Amnesty hasn’t gone about making up human rights to support. It’s purpose was to support particular human rights: those enshrined in the Universal Declaration. The right to an abortion isn’t one of these.”
What a total crock. That’s like saying, “The right to blog is not in the UDHR. Therefore if a government passes a law banning blogging, and Amnesty objects, Amnesty is making up human rights.”
The UDHR enumerates a number of broad rights that can be fairly interpreted as encompassing the specific activity of freely procuring abortion. These include the right to life, liberty, and security of person. The fact that some people might disagree with that interpretation does not mean that Amnesty would be “making up human rights” if it were to adopt it.
All this “making up rights” crapola is truly absurd, whether in this context, or as a matter of constitutional law. Documents like ADHR or national constitutions must be interpreted to be used. There is no way to tell what rights are “enshrined”, and what human activities are encompassed by those rights, other than to interpret the document. In idle moments, I sometimes wonder whether people like you–who pretend that genuine arguments about interpretation boil down to bogus arguments about what’s “in” the document–really believe their own odious nonsense.
You clearly don’t understand what is happening. Amnesty aren’t trying to found a right to abortion in the UDHR. This is not an argument over interpretation. There’s been a deliberate policy change, from a narrow focus of hard rights founded in international law to ‘moving ahead of the law’ and campaigning for rights which aren’t currently founded in it.
There’s a difference between campaigning for a particular interpretation of existing documents and campaigning in order to change their wording. Amnesty is doing the second. That is ‘making up rights’ by any standard.
“There’s been a deliberate policy change, from a narrow focus of hard rights founded in international law to ‘moving ahead of the law’ and campaigning for rights which aren’t currently founded in it.”
You’re begging the question, assuming that the act of terminating a pregnancy is not currently encompassed by rights protected by UDHR. What evidence is there that the UDHR does not encompass this act? You use dramatic language like “hard rights” and “moving ahead of the law”. How about some facts?
“There’s a difference between campaigning for a particular interpretation of existing documents and campaigning in order to change their wording. Amnesty is doing the second.”
You’re saying that Amnesty International is campaigning to amend the UDHR? If so, what is the evidence for this?
i forgot how much i LOVE this blog. thanks for posting this.
Well, let’s look at the UDHR:
So, I have a right to life, liberty, and security of person. Well, a life-threatening pregnancy would …threaten my life, wouldn’t it? Being forced to carry a child to term and give birth to it would negatively affect both my liberty and security of person.
Then there is slavery/servitude. Being forced by the state to remain pregnant is a form of servitude, wouldn’t you say?
And then we’ve got cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I’d say it was pretty damned cruel, inhuman and degrading to force a woman to continue a pregnancy that is the result of rape or incest, or that would endager her life or health. But perhaps others would think it’s simply just punishment for being a dirty slut who went out and had sex, or got herself raped?
I like how Amnesty’s big move to support abortions in very specific situations–quote, “in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardises a mother’s life or health”–is “controversial” and “greeted with an outcry by churches.” But there’s the RCC for you–the abortion issue is a fucking idol in the RCC ranks right now, and so long as you do right by the abortion issue, opposing it at every turn, you have a special place in heaven. Sure must be nice to have morality so black and white.