Posted on 07/18/2006 3:29:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
WELLINGTON, July 18, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week Brian Murphy, the International Religion Writer for the Associated Press, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about the Amnesty International (AI) move to consider advocating for abortion as a human right. Murphy told LifeSiteNews.com that the leadership at AI in London, England are nervous about the issue as it is causing internal unrest.
The matter of greatest concern to AI is the fact that donors will reconsider their support for the organization as it enters abortion advocacy. Statements by Christian church leaders, including a recent statement from the Vatican, expressing dismay at AI's proposed direction, warn that support for AI will suffer.
The internal division over the matter is also exemplified by AI New Zealand. LifeSiteNews.com reported in May that the New Zealand branch of AI had approved the measure to enter abortion advocacy. That report was based on the outcome of voting on the proposal at the regional AI chapter in New Zealand and a resulting press release decrying the vote by Right to Life New Zealand.
AI New Zealand has clarified however that while the organization did vote with a slight majority in favour of abortion advocacy, the governing council has not approved it.
Ced Simpson, Executive Director of Amnesty International Aotearoa New Zealand explained to LifeSiteNews.com that "It is not the practice of AINZ to adopt policy on very internally-contentious issues on the basis of a narrow 'vote'."
Simpson said that a vote revealed that "A small majority thought AI should take a position calling for legal, safe and accessible abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest and risk to a woman's life." Another vote showed that "A large majority thought AI should take a position calling for access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion."
Simpson explained, "The Governance Team considered that only the second issue had clear support."
Simpson added, "AINZ members have explicitly recognised the strongly held belief of many AI members that the human right to life begins at conception, and that the most-ratified human rights treaty - the Convention on the Rights of the Child - asserts that 'the child...needs special safeguards and care...before as well as after birth'".
They should be concerned. These leftists deserve what they get.
Pro-Life Ping
Next on their list: Cannibalism.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Although I have supported AI in the past I had always been concerned with their selective outrage about human rights abuses. Advocating abortion "rights" would be the final nail in the coffin IMO.
BTW I'm pro-life but don't support criminalizing abortion because that would create more problems than it solves. Like drug abuse, abortion is one of those problems that is a symptom of greater social ills and the criminal justice system is ill-equipped to deal with it.
Same thing with murder. Do you have any idea how much money it is costing us to hunt down these guys, try them and then lock them up for years and years??? I say, let's just ask them why they did it, and then we can all work together to solve the "underlying" problems.
A small majority considers this to be a human right? What's a small majority? 51%?
Here are some other things AI considers to be violations of human rights:
1) Lack of gun control in the US
2) Hillary for President
3) Gay Rights
4) Pedophile rights
Except that with murders we already have a handle on the underlying causes. As it stands, an abortion ban will just lead to more infanticide and a lot of botched abortions underground "doctors". Just as the prohibition of drugs has no effect on the demand side and is a blank cheque for the criminal element, so too would a ban on abortion create serious health problems. If you really want to see abortion end, you have to start long before the teenager gets knocked up- by the time she's looking for a clinic it's far too late.
Oh, I get it! You're a libertarian! Are the drugs especially good today?
What does any of this have to do with the supposed purpose for the organization's existence?
The Left is once again trying to use democracy to end democracy.
Oh I get it! You go for the ad hominem whenever you are presented with facts that don't conform to your narrow worldview!
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a user. Yet more evidence that you're clueless.
Libertarians confuse Talking Points (leftist talking points, almost invariably) with "facts." It's a tired old list:
We still have "back alley abortions" (which then, as now, do NOT occur in alleys). And we still have abortion related deaths (both from licensed and unlicensed abortions).
We also have "back alley dentistry" but that doesn't generate as many headlines.
First, abortion is murder making your statement self-contradictory.
Second, you seem to be implying that we don't have a "handle" on the causes of abortion. I'd say it's a lot easier to grasp the causes of abortion than murder when 95% of women getting abortions say it's for convenience.
an abortion ban will just lead to more infanticide and a lot of botched abortions underground "doctors".
Hmmm, where to begin. Abortions are infanticide. How will making them illegal result in more? Are you suggesting that a ban will result in MORE abortions? That's equivalent to saying that laws against burglary result in more burglaries. It's silly on its face and its not factually supportable.
Next, "a lot of botched abortions". How many abortions are botched today when it is legal? Are doctors' competencies effected by the legality of what they do? This statement is FUD and was one of the original arguments in favor of legalizing abortion. From my reading, more abortions are sought now because it is legal and more abortions are botched (total numbers) because doctors' competencies aren't effected by law (either way).
Just as the prohibition of drugs has no effect on the demand side and is a blank cheque for the criminal element, so too would a ban on abortion create serious health problems.
First, this is not a valid comparison. Abortion is not addictive (well, perhaps to some liberals it is). So you cannot claim the same demand forces. You're comparing apples to jellyfish. Abortion was illegal for decades and there was no massive underground infrastructure to supply abortions to needy users. That's not to say there wasn't/won't be illegal abortions, but the murder-mills will shut down, and the few unscrupulous doctors that remain won't even come close to the number of abortions being performed daily in this country.
Second, drug use generally only harms the user (ignoring the "elephant in the room" of collateral issues here). Abortion is one person taking the life of another. There is no equivalence here. If you think so then the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that murder generally should not be outlawed because criminals ignore the law anyway.
None of your argument constitutes a valid reason for NOT enacting a ban. Abortion, as with other types of murder is a moral issue. We enact the law not because it is convenient or medically beneficial to some minority. We enact the law because the practice is WRONG and harmful to society.
Sadly, your arguments hinge on a subtle and specious premise. You assume that all those who get abortions now are naturally inclined to break the law and will automatically seek out illegal means when the practice is outlawed. This kind of assumption is basic to liberalism; the assumption that your fellow man is intellectually, morally, or ethically inferior, and we can not hold them to a high standard, lest they fail.
My belief that the taking of a life is wrong and a sin. And that is exactly what abortion is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.