If you really want to mad about reproductive rights...

[LonelyPilgrim]

ATHENS, Greece (July 24) - Famed for its human rights work, Amnesty International is under siege from religious groups outraged by a proposal that would expand Amnesty's mandate to include supporting access to abortion in cases such as sexual violence.

A small but growing band of anti-abortion campaigners and Roman Catholic clerics - including some who have backed Amnesty's activities in the past - claim the Nobel Prize-winning group is drifting away from its principles of unbiased advocacy.

They have threatened to pull away members and donations, and have called for a flood of protest letters to Amnesty offices - the same strategy Amnesty uses to pressure for the release of political prisoners and others.

Amnesty officials note that any decision is still more than a year away at the earliest, and defend their right to debate abortion and birth control within the context of women's rights.

Top Amnesty officials were unavailable for interviews, but the group released a statement from its London headquarters saying the group "does not make policy according to the ebbs and flows of external pressure."

It's unclear how deeply the anti-abortion factions could punish Amnesty. But religious groups have long been a pillar of the organization, which was founded in 1961 by a Catholic lawyer in Britain and now has more than 1.8 million members and many other supporters around the world. Its work to free people held by repressive regimes led to Amnesty winning the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize.

"This is completely inconsistent with what Amnesty has been about," said John-Henry Westen, a board member of the Campaign Life Coalition, a Toronto-based group representing about 110,000 families. "We consider this an attack on the rights of the unborn."

Westen said some members - including several "significant" financial contributors to Amnesty - already have stopped supporting the group.

"This is forcing people to make a choice," he said.

Amnesty's various regional offices are being asked to study whether to end the group's official "neutral" stance on abortion. In its place, the group could declare access to abortion a human right in specific cases including rape and life-threatening pregnancy complications. The proposals - growing out of Amnesty's campaign to stop violence against women - also include whether to support legal access to contraception.

Few places, including the United States, appear ready for an up or down vote on the matter. Instead, the discussions so far have been general, noncommittal and passionate. In New Zealand, Amnesty's local director, Ced Simpson, said there have been "strongly held views on both sides of the debate."

A final decision could come at Amnesty's next international gathering - in Mexico in August 2007. But the Amnesty statement said "much depends on the outcomes" of the current debates in various countries. If there's agreement that the abortion rights proposal has support, it could either be adopted by consensus or put to a formal vote. Otherwise, it could be dropped or sent back for more discussions.

In the meantime, opponents are trying to ignite a global movement that would draw in conservative Muslims and evangelical churches. Their long-range worry is that Amnesty's move could encourage other rights and aid agencies to take similar views on abortion and birth control. Last year, a statement from Medecines Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders, said its field workers can consider all measures, including abortion, when treating victims of sexual violence.

"We are deeply disappointed by the path taken by Amnesty. For those of us who champion real human rights, these trends makes us a bit queasy," said Austin Ruse, the Washington-based president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a nonprofit research group that has called its 100,000 members to mobilize against the proposal.

In Britain, one of the largest anti-abortion groups, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, has urged its members to turn their backs on Amnesty if the proposal is passed.

"You can't just support a group because they do some good things," said Janet Thomas, a society member in Wales. "You have to weigh your decision against the bad things they do."

Pope Benedict XVI has not spoken on the issue. But some high-ranking clerics have denounced the proposal, including Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's office for peace and justice.

An open letter by Bishop Michael Evans of East Anglia, England - a 30-year member of Amnesty - said it would be "very difficult for Catholics and many others" to continue supporting Amnesty if the proposal is passed. In Canada, Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary called the proposal "a gross betrayal" of Amnesty's mission and policies, which including opposition to the death penalty.

Amnesty says the discussions under way include broader issues such as the health risks of illegal abortions and forced marriages of young girls.

Amnesty's policy positions, the group said in its statement, "are rooted in human rights values, principles and standards and not in public and popular opinion."

-----

Courtesy of AOL news.


[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[LonelyPilgrim]

I would hope that despite our myriad differences of opinion on the Israeli-Lebanese Conflict, Stem Cell Research, or what to do on a hot day... most of us can agree that in cases of rape or a threat to the life of the mother, access to the option of abortion should be considered a human right.

If you feel like doing something constructive for the world rather than just complaining about US policy, write a letter of support to Amnesty and/or make a donation.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[LonelyPilgrim]

What? Are there no opinions on this? No outrage? Come on people...

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Mehmsy]

Anti-abortion is one of the most ridiculous movements in the world.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37106593

[Manic23]

I was wondering when the biannual "Abortion is a fundamental right/Shut up you evil baby killing monster" thread would reappear. Fair enough, it's a (fairly) interesting story, but come on - can anyone really cover any new ground when it comes to this frankly tedious subject?

And yes I know I should get off my arse and search for something worthwhile to put to the resident armchair pundits of the sinner, but quite honestly I just cannae be hooped.

N.B. This isn't a personal attack or anything, I'm just a bit grumpy at the minute

EDITED FOR DUMBASS SPELLING MISTAKES

[David Bean]

I think Amnesty should focus on preventing torture and spreading democracy, and trust to the goodness of human nature that such secondary/positive rights as the right to abortion under (insert circumstances here) would naturally follow from these.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[fran]

There was this story in the paper here the other day. Middle-aged pregnant (and happily so- happily married etc) woman in the Midwest. Then... The fetus died. It was dead in her body in I think the sixth or seventh month. She could feel the dead body floating around inside her. Can you imagine the psychological torture?! She asked for an abortion. Unfortunately she couldn't find a doctor who had still learned to perform this type of abortion as most of the hospitals in her area were affiliated to a church. She started bleeding profundly and was in agonising pain for several days. She almost died- just cause in a huge radius all doctors refused to treat her and send her home. YUP- the anti-abortion movement seriously is ridiculous and very dangerous.
KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES!!!

[Senethro]

Quoting fran from 19:12, 25th Jul 2006
KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES!!!

This thread has already paid off.

I don't feel the need to add anything to the reproductive rights debate. I wonder if this was a smart move on Amnestys part though. It would be bad if their good works were harmed by this decision. Mind you, if some idiots jump ship just because its being considered, they'll be better off without them.

[fran]

"This thread has already paid off."

Do I have to get that?

Quoting Senethro from 19:53, 25th Jul 2006

Quoting fran from 19:12, 25th Jul 2006
KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES!!!

This thread has already paid off.

I don't feel the need to add anything to the reproductive rights debate. I wonder if this was a smart move on Amnestys part though. It would be bad if their good works were harmed by this decision. Mind you, if some idiots jump ship just because its being considered, they'll be better off without them.

[BeccaLydia]

Quoting Mehmsy from 01:15, 25th Jul 2006
Anti-abortion is one of the most ridiculous movements in the world.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37106593

I would have thought that in the context of all the other movements in the world, for example ethnic cleansing, that anti-abortion could definitely not be considered 'ridiculous'. I am anti-abortion, as far as I think it should not be used socially. As long as the mother and child are both healthy and the pregnancy was not as a result of rape, then abortion is murder, in my opinion. If the dates for legal abortion were changed, then there might be a better argument for abortion for social reasons, but with the dates as they are I think it's horrifying. At the date for final legal terminations many babies have features, which you can see from images, and you can count their fingers - how could you kill that child?

I am also a member of Amnesty International, am in fact on the committee of the St A branch/chapter, and have mixed feelings about what I've read above. I don't approve of making abortion for social reasons very accessible, on the other hand, I do believe that women should have the right to abort a child conceived against their will (this is harmful for both mother and child, psychologically). So, I guess I think that as long as the option is given in the right circumstances, then what Amnesty are doing is right. But, as they say, it will take a while yet to sort it all out.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100244

[Senethro]

Quoting fran from 13:51, 26th Jul 2006
"This thread has already paid off."

Do I have to get that?

Quoting Senethro from 19:53, 25th Jul 2006

Quoting fran from 19:12, 25th Jul 2006
KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARIES!!!

This thread has already paid off.

I don't feel the need to add anything to the reproductive rights debate. I wonder if this was a smart move on Amnestys part though. It would be bad if their good works were harmed by this decision. Mind you, if some idiots jump ship just because its being considered, they'll be better off without them.

I was saying that all effort that has gone into the thread was worth it for that line.

Today the US Senate passed a bill forbidding people to cross state borders to dodge abortion laws. AT least I think thats what I read...

[Tweedle-Dum]

As long as the mother and child are both healthy and the pregnancy was not as a result of rape, then abortion is murder, in my opinion.

...

I do believe that women should have the right to abort a child conceived against their will (this is harmful for both mother and child, psychologically).

Not to pick holes, but surely you murder a child concieved through rape just as much as one concieved lovingly by aborting it. Also any child that a mother does not intend to have (broken condom, failed pill, spur of the moment taking a risk, etc.) is concieved against their will, and can be psycologically harmful.

I am of the opinion that if you are against abortion, you should be against all abortion, and if you are pro-choice then you are for it in all cases. This middle ground you, and others, occupy seems logically flawed to me.

[hr]

Tetragrammaton is a four letter word.

[Senethro]

Note: Children are killed through abortion; murder is specifically defined as unlawful killing.













































:V

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Senethro from 00:00, 27th Jul 2006
Note: Children are killed through abortion; murder is specifically defined as unlawful killing.
:V

What is this??? Senethro saying something I can agree with? Say it ain't so?

Ok, I have to nitpick a little bit. Are they really children, in a semantic sense, before they are born?

Oh, and murder is deliberate unlawful killing. It's not legal to accidentally kill someone either through negligence, but we call that manslaughter or accidental homicide.

[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[Senethro]

Damnit LP, was there any real need to show how my mock-pedantry completely fails >:(

[LeopardSkinQueen]

Last night in the depths of my insomnia I saw a news report on rape as a tool of war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Many of the stories told were shocking. Especially so was from one woman who was raped by militia on two seperate occassions. The first was by one man.

The second time, five men killed her husband and two children in front of her. Then, they gang-raped her, including forcing the barrels of rifles inside her vagina. She was then violently beaten.

She was so severerly injured in this attack that she can now barely walk. I think it is cases like this that the proposed policy changes would be mainly aimed at, and I believe that if women who become pregnant in such brutal circumstances should have the right to abortion. If that woman had become pregnant as a result of one of these attacks, I personally believe that a state which witheld the right to abortion from her and effectively forced her to carry and give birth to her attacker's baby would be breaching her rights to autonomy of her body, and I believe Amnesty International would be right to campaign in such cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/p ... html/1.stm

The above link has more information on rape as a tool of war in DRC.

Edited for spelling.

[hr]

Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew
Come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do
http://tweeasfuck.livejournal.com

[Anon.]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 00:15, 27th Jul 2006
Ok, I have to nitpick a little bit. Are they really children, in a semantic sense, before they are born?

Well, they're certainly another human being.

Whether or not you support abortion depends on whether or not you think it's acceptable to terminate the life of one human being in order to alleviate the inconvenience their existence causes to another human being.

Should the anti-social behaviour order be replaced by the death penalty?

[Manic23]

Yeah I saw that news report too. Absolutely horrific.

[Lodestone]

Whether or not you support abortion depends on whether or not you think it's acceptable to terminate the life of one human being in order to alleviate the inconvenience their existence causes to another human being.

No, it more deeply depends on what you regard as a human being.

[Anon.]

Quoting Lodestone from 12:50, 27th Jul 2006
No, it more deeply depends on what you regard as a human being.

How is an unborn child not a human being?