Amnesty International no longer neutral on abortion.

August 19, 2007 at 9:45 am (feminism, sexism, stupidity) (, , )

Amnesty International has declared support for women seeking abortions, recognizing that women are people and that all people deserve basic human rights.

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.

Yet another example of how “pro-lifers” care only for fetuses and not for those of us already living on the Earth, and believe that a developing embryo is more valuable than a grown, living, breathing woman.

But Amnesty’s international council – meeting in Mexico – has overwhelmingly supported the decision, insisting it was upholding the ability of women to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion and violence.

Amnesty has been working in countries where widespread rape has been used as a weapon of war, and others in which women seeking abortions can be severely punished.

Thanks, Amnesty International.

Via Feministe.

Advertisements

5 Comments

  1. thecrazypastor said,

    Yet another example of how “pro-lifers” care only for fetuses and not for those of us already living on the Earth, and believe that a developing embryo is more valuable than a grown, living, breathing woman.

    Not that anything I say will make a difference, but the problem is allowing abortion for “health” reasons has opened the door for abortion for any reason. Since abortion takes a human life, most of us would like to see some sort of balance. Saying Pro-lifers only care about the fetus is an untrue generalization, not any different than saying Pro-Choicers don’t care about murdering children.

  2. Daisy said,

    You’re right, crazypastor, that nothing you say will convince us that it makes sense to deny more than half the human population the right to decide who and what is allowed inside her body. Thanks for reading, though.

  3. thecrazypastor said,

    That’s the other side of the spectrum. If one side allegedly only cares about the unborn child, certainly sounds like other side cares nothing for the child. Seems to me there ought to be some balance, since both are human life. I can kill it if I want to because it’s inside my body is philosophically reasonable, but in the real world encourages selfishness with no responsibility. Sacrifice is not an honored trait for nothing.

  4. Daisy said,

    It’s one thing to respect the sacrifices someone has made (something I think we need to be doing more of when it comes to parenthood, especially motherhood). It’s another thing altogether to actively attempt to legislate those things. The legal system is a lumbering juggernaut — it doesn’t have room for nuanced balanced.

    One person’s most personal sacrifices are no one’s business but her own, and perhaps her immediate family’s.

  5. Daisy said,

    Also: the idea that carrying a pregnancy term is the only way to be considerate and responsible is an absurd fabrication of the fundamentalist worldview. I truly believe that, in the vast majority of abortions, women are make the responsible choice (and often even the sacrificing one — what about a woman who might love the opportunity to have another child but decides to abort because she knows she couldn’t provide for her born child(ren) with another mouth to feed?).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: