Amnesty International and Abortion

Brian Dray has beaten me to posting on this issue, and I appreciate him making this issue public. His comments are worth reading. However, for those of my readers who don't read Brian's blog (sorry, Brian, but there might be someone!), I wanted to write something about this myself.

Amnesty International is undergoing a consultation in order to decide whether to change their policy on sexual and reproductive rights. They are trying to decide whether 'a woman's right to phyiscal and mental integrity includes her right to terminate a pregnancy within reasonable limitations, and that therefore abortion should be legal, safe and accessible for women.'

To read more about Amnesty's reasons for undertaking this process, their arguments, the process so far and the procedure envisaged for the next few months, see their consultation page. On this page is also a questionnaire, to which I will return, which members can complete online or download and complete, to register their views. Regional conferences are currently going on and by the 22nd January 2007 the AGM resolutions for AIUK must be submitted. The deadline for returning the questionnaire is 2nd February 2007.

For those who want to know more about the pro-life arguments, a very good starting place is the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC), who have a page dedicated to this issue. This page includes arguments against a change in stance for Amnesty and a contact link that allows you to send your comments to AIUK.

Having completed the questionnaire myself, I have reflected on my own arguments against this change of stance and wanted to share them with my readers, in the hope that some may agree with me and make their voices heard.

The first premise from which I must depart is the sanctity of life of the unborn child. We all know that premature babies are able to survive earlier and earlier as we make progress with the science of medical care. Babies who fifty years ago would have been considered 'unviable' now have a good chance of survival. We cannot deny that these babies are human beings. As someone who has had two pregnancies and been filled with daily amazement at the development of the baby within me, I know that there is no single point at which we can draw a line in the development of the child in the womb to say, "Now this has become a human being." Any such line would be very arbitrary. Because we cannot, as things stand, be certain of at which point this baby can be classified as a human life, at which point a soul enters its body, the only way to be absolutely certain that we are not disregarding a human life, is to take the point of conception as the start of life. Anything else is open to error, quite literally fatal error.

This, and this alone, I believe, is the real point of debate. If someone does not agree with me on this point then the rest of my argument will not hold water for them. If they agree with this point then, I hope, they will agree with everything else.

If we believe that the unborn child is a human life, then we have every bit as much of a duty to protect that life as to protect the life of the mother. If Amnesty International is to be taken seriously as a universal defender of human rights, they cannot make any exceptions. To exclude the rights of the unborn child would be as terrible as excluding the rights of homosexuals, or Chinese, or women.

Amnesty's questionnaire raises some different arguments that people put forth for terminating a pregnancy. These include risk to mother's health, severe foetal impairment, sex–selective abortions, unwanted pregnancy in forced or early marriages. Regarding the first example, while the mother's health must be protected, the health of the baby must also be considered, if we consider it a valid human being also. When safeguarding the mother's well-being, every effort should also be made to safeguard the child - not at the expense of its mother's life, for we cannot kill the mother to protect the child, but equally, we cannot kill the child to protect the mother.

Regarding the second example, if we examine the debates surrounding Lord Joffe's recent bill in the House of Lords, it will become clear that there are plenty of people living with disabilities that might have been classified as having "severe foetal impairment" when in the womb, who defend their rights to life and maintain that they still live worthwhile lives. Furthermore, with the advances of science, we cannot know what help can be given to those children in the future and who are we to judge a life in terms of its value? Again, we should be defending the human rights of all, not just the healthy.

One of AI's current campaigns is Stop Violence Against Women. In all consciousness, if Amnesty is serious about this campaign, then they should not even consider violence against female unborn children.

At this point, I want to say that I cannot express enough my deep sympathy and support for women who have been subject to rape, forced or early marriages and have unwanted pregnancies as a result. I cannot even begin to imagine the physical and emotional trauma this involves. I can understand - partially at least - how awful it must be to have something growing inside one that is a constant reminder of the trauma and an irrevocable link with the perpetrator. Their position is untenable.

Having said that, if we believe the unborn child to be a human being in their own right then, however terrible the situation for the mother, we cannot justify killing the child as a consequence of the crimes of its father. AI in particular are campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty. Surely it would undermine this campaign if they were to sanction sentencing an unborn child to death for the crimes of its father. Perhaps a more suitable direction for Amnesty's energies would be to campaign for better support for women in these situations. Abortion itself can cause long-term trauma for the woman, that can sometimes surface years after. Surely it would be worthwhile exploring ways of offering these victims better support after their ordeals, help to endure their pregnancies and, if the baby is still unwanted, then better and smoother adoption procedures for the child, so that both the child and the mother are provided for.

I participated in a previous consultation for Amnesty during which their stance on warfare was debated. The group conference I attended reached the majority decision that for Amnesty to rule that a particular war was or wasn't right would be outside of their remit. We felt also that if Amnesty were seen to be taking sides, it would undermine their neutrality in human rights matters and they would have a less important voice as a result. (We did, of course, stress that Amnesty should continue to monitor wars and highlight any human rights issues that arose as a result of warfare. We felt that in situations such as genocide, Amnesty's role was to bring the issue to the notice of the international community, although not necessarily to rule how the international community should proceed.) If Amnesty is to maintain its reputation as a neutral organisation that campaigns on behalf of the human rights of all, especially the voiceless, defenceless, and vulnerable, then they/we cannot exclude the rights of the unborn child, which is the most voiceless, defenceless, and vulnerable member of our society.

Two last thoughts - quotations in fact, before I end this post. The first is a quotations from Amnesty International's website explaining their remit:

Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.

AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

The second is a note that SPUC have highlighted:

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1959). This is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world.

If, as I dearly hope, what I have written has touched you and you find yourselves agreeing with me on this issue, then please can you:

• If you are a member of AI - please go to the consultation page and fill in the questionnaire registering your opinions and arguments against this change in policy. Feel free to use my comments if required.


• Non-members - firstly, if you feel strongly enough, please consider becoming a member so that your voice has more impact on this issue. On all other issues, I believe that Amnesty International is a very worthwhile organization and, if they don't make this policy change, very worthy of your support. Alternatively, please get in touch with Amnesty anyway directly through AI's website (SPUC's page also provides a link to the contact page for the International Secretariat of AI).

Finally, this has been a long post, so thank you for bearing with me and reading it all.

1027 | [ 2 ]

Canon Frank Duane

Many thanks to those who joined me in prayer for the priest who married us recently in his last days. I am sorry to report now that he died yesterday morning at 5:20am. Sorry for myself and those who knew him, but of course not sorry for Canon Frank, who will be rejoicing in the arms of Christ right now.

Canon Frank was a wonderful man who could bridge the differences between people, and who lived his Ministry as a visible example of God's love. He made our wedding day a very special moment and I'll also remember him for the years as my parish priest before I left for university. I consider myself blessed to have known him.

1629 | [ 0 ]

Prayer Request

Those of my readers who were at my wedding may recall the priest who married us. He is a very thoughtful and spiritual man who made an impact, in his quiet way, on many of our guests that day.

For some time now, this priest has been seriously ill with cancer and I was very sad to read, last night, that his condition has worsened considerably. He'd been housebound for some time but now he is in hospital and has been referred to the Palliative Care team. The bishop has retired him from active duty and is talking about a nursing home for him. The one blessing, as the bishop puts it, is that he does not seem to be suffering any pain.

I can see why God would want to call the Canon home: he's such a loving gentle man whose love of Our Father is evident, and I'm glad that he's not distressed but it's still a little sad to think that I am unlikely to see him again in this life.

Can I please ask my readers to join me in praying for Canon Frank in the time he has left on this earth, that he might not suffer but be at peace in whatever time God has given him, and be strong and comforted in his Faith and the love of those around him. Thank you.

0814 | [ 0 ]

World Youth Day 2005

As the 20th World Youth Day kicks off, His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, gave his first interview to Vatican Radio this week. Read the text in English here.

0814 | [ 0 ]

Hiatus

I've been doing some re-reading of this blog and some serious reflection and it seems to me that despite my efforts to the contrary, some of my entries have a strong flavour of self-righteousness and judgement. Because I try to have clear in my mind what is right and wrong for myself, I find myself noting when other people meet or fail to meet this criteria. This is wrong of me, I feel.

I think that, when I'm trying to explain something on this blog, it often comes across as too critical of people who don't live their lives as I do. I follow the path I believe to be right but that is the path for me. I cannot and should not pass judgement on other people's paths. That is between them and God.

So I'm going to stop posting here for a while, unless something happens to change my mind.

I've also been reflecting about Medjugorje. My spiritual life has been, and continues to be enriched by what I have- read about this place but I am also aware that, by necessity, the Catholic Church has not yet authenticated these visions. I have personally found the ideas coming from Medjugorje to be inspiring but as I wanted this blog to be in strict accordance with the teachings of the Church, I feel it might be wrong for me to continue posting the messages of Medjugorje here. I will continue to read them myself and if others wish to do so, they can be found here.

1422 | [ 0 ]

Project

I am currently undertaking a research project concerning church attendance among young people in their 20s and 30s. I would be very interested in hearing from anyone in this age group regarding their feelings about church going.

For those who do attend church, regularly or otherwise, I would be interested to know why you attend, what attracts you about the service or the church (I'm not only interested in Catholics). For those who don't, I'd be grateful if you could give me an idea why - is it because you just can't reconcile yourself with the idea of God's existence, or is it because something about the church institution repells you?

For anyone who is able to answer, I would be very interested to hear ideas about things that would make church-going more attractive to you personally, or more relevant to you. You can comment here or e-mail me on dragonbabies@hotmail.com

1419 | [ 0 ]

Prayer for the New Pope

God our Father, shepherd and guide,
look with love on Pope Benedict XVI, your servant,
the pastor of your Church.

May his word and example
inspire and guide the Church,
and may he, and all those entrusted to his care,
come to the joy of everlasting life.

Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God for ever and ever.

Amen.

1705 | [ 0 ]

White smoke and bells

Habemus Papam!

1624 | [ 0 ]

Who should be the new Pope?

... asked the BBC. Read my response here.

1754 | [ 0 ]

Sainthood

There has been some speculation already in the media (and other circles) as to whether the late John Paul II will be declared a saint. Whether or not this pronouncement is official, he is certainly a good example of why Catholics honour saints.

Being married to a non-Catholic, I know that the issue of honouring the saints is one that is frequently misunderstood by those outside of the Catholic Church, and the recent public suffering and death of Pope John Paul II seem to me to be a good chance to illustrate and explain our thinking in this matter.

First and foremost: no Catholic places a saint above God, nor do we imagine that they are on an equal footing to God. Prayer to God is the most important prayer and this is the relationship to be cultivated among all others. Nobody says we must pray to the saints. But it is offered as a path to God.

The first reason for this is that, although Jesus is the ultimate and most perfect example of how we should move towards God, Jesus was, at once human and divine, a nature we only partially share. True, He was fully human, but His divine aspect probably makes most people realise that His perfection is hard to achieve for frail humanity. This is where the saints come in. The suffering of Jesus was many years ago in a culture that we may find hard to envisage. The suffering of John Paul II was clearly seen by all and understood. Saints such as Mother Teresa show us that it is possible to renounce worldly goods, even in this day and age. Saints such as Maximilian Kolbe show us how to truly love our neighbour. These saints, by their examples, show us that it is possible for us to live the teachings of Jesus.

Those who have been to Mass and listened to the homily on All Saints Day, will be aware that the Church teaches that all those who have achieved Heaven are saints. There are many unrecognised saints in Heaven and also on Earth. The reason for naming certain people as saints, therefore, corresponds to this need for examples that can be held up. These are people whose lives we know about, who we can study and whose example we can follow. They offer diverse paths to God. Diverse as we humans are, these many different paths offer, hopefully, something for everyone.

The second aspect of saints that is often misunderstood is the idea of praying to them. At the Transfiguration, Old Testament figures apppeared and spoke with Jesus. We are told that he is the God of Moses and Elijah, but these people are dead. Yet in God they are still alive: we believe that we all go on to eternal life after this existence. The Church believes that we are a continuous community of living and dead - the dead are still part of the family, but they are now in Heaven. Bearing that in mind, now think of a time when we are in need: perhaps we are sick or troubled. If we are able to do so, we recognise that the best course of action is to turn to others for help: doctors and nurses for palliative care in sickness, others for financial or physical assistance in our time of need. If we believe in God, then we believe that He can achieve anything and therefore asking Him for help is the most effective thing of all. Because few of us are able to pray constantly, we often ask others - members of our family and friends or church community to pray for us. We probably wouldn't ask somebody we believed to be thoroughly anti-religion to do so, or somebody we believed to be wicked. When we ask the saints to intercede, this is exactly the same. They are members of our Church community and, knowing their lives, we know them as we know family or friends. Therefore, to ask their intercessions is just the same as asking family or friends. Furthermore, knowing their lives and believing them to be now with God, we believe that their prayer is going to be very effective because of their holiness.

There are many hundreds of saints and holy people honoured by the Church, and those who honour them often identify with one or more who they feel are relevant to them in some way. Saints who share their name, or whose lives are particularly attractive to that person for some reason. These saints are like friends to whom we can turn for inspiration in our hour of difficulty.

The third misconception about saints from outside the Church is that Catholics believe that these saints have divine powers. Perhaps this is not well articulated because, within the Church, it is assumed to be well-enough understood. We do believe that saints have worked and do work miracles, however, this power is the power of God working through them, in the same way that the Apostles were able to heal the lame and cast out demons. They are vessels for God's power and He manifests Himself through them. In many cases, they also serve as teachers about God's message, expounding upon Christ's teachings in different ways to bring His message to more people in ways that they can understand.

Thus, the importance of the saints within the Catholic Church is two-fold: as an example to show us different paths to God and to show us that Jesus's message is still relevant to us and possible for us to live; and also as friends to help us through their prayers. Furthermore, they are vessels for the manifestation of God's divine power and teachers about God's message.

0748 | [ 6 ]