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:
Finally, this has been a long post, so thank you for bearing with me and reading it all.
Posted by dragonbabies at October 12, 2006 10:27 AMGreat website! I got here via a Mr. james Casey link.
The safest place for a new life should be in the womb of a mother. Sadly, it is too often the most violent place possible.
God Bless you,
--Dan L.
Posted by: Dan L. at November 24, 2006 06:16 PMWelcome to the blog, Dan, it's nice to have a new reader, especially one who's come via my brother. I appreciate your comments.
Posted by: Dragon Mama at November 26, 2006 12:19 PM