The Moral Incoherence Of Amnesty International

One after another of Amnesty International’s national sections are falling under the spell of the abortion demon. Here’s the most recent report I’ve seen and it describes the scenario which took place in the British section just last week.

LONDON (CNS) -- The British section of Amnesty International has endorsed a policy in support of legalizing abortion which could change the human rights group's global neutral policy on abortion.

The Amnesty International UK move, which formally adopted the legalization of abortion in cases of rape, incest, sexual assault and when the mother's life is at risk, came despite the results of a yearlong consultation which showed that the majority of regular members did not want to abandon the neutral position. The board pushed through the motion at a March 23-25 meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The International Executive Committee of Amnesty International will decide as early as next month whether or not to change the current position.

If the committee decides there isn't sufficient support from its branch members for a revision, the British section's stance would be moot.

Christine Usher, the board member who proposed the pro-abortion resolutions, told the UK Amnesty International meeting that there was sufficient support among the 72 national sections for a policy to be implemented soon.

However, Debby Wakeham of Luton, England, said the policy clearly was being "imposed from top down."

She told Catholic News Service March 26 that the pro-abortion motion was passed because the delegates at the meeting did not represent the views of the members. Wakeham said the abortion push "has not come from the membership, and it has not come from the countries in which Amnesty works."

"I'm extremely angry," she added. "I think it is outrageous that the views of the membership are being disregarded in this way."

Michael Hill, a Catholic member from Rotherham, England, said: "I feel very disappointed and let down. They (the board) have manipulated the decision-making process until they got what they wanted."

Sarah Green, Amnesty International spokeswoman, said in a March 26 statement the aim of any policy on abortion would be to help address human rights abuses such as rape and sexual violence in Africa.

"Amnesty International would continue to take no position on the rights and wrongs of abortion, which it sees as a matter of personal choice," she said.

In 2005 Amnesty International decided to set a policy on abortion, pending the 2006 global consultation results, on the questions of "decriminalization of abortion, access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion, and legal, safe and accessible abortion in the cases of rape, sexual assault, incest and risk to a woman's life."

The further question of whether a woman's "right to physical and mental integrity includes her right to terminate her pregnancy" will be decided at the next International Council Meeting in Mexico in August 2007.

LifeSiteNews.com reported on May 26 that the reason Amnesty is entering the world of abortion advocacy stems from its support for women’s and homosexual rights.

Note that the Amnesty International spokeswoman was quoted as saying "Amnesty International would continue to take no position on the rights and wrongs of abortion, which it sees as a matter of personal choice.” Doesn’t that sound very tolerant and neutral? AI doesn’t want to moralize on the issue—and they don’t want to infringe on a woman’s personal choice.

But isn’t that a very strange statement to hear from an organization which constantly moralizes and in fact highly specializes in identifying and protesting the ill treatment of individuals and a host of other human rights abuses?

The article notes that:

Amnesty was founded in 1961 by English lawyer Peter Benenson, a Catholic, to fight for the release of prisoners of conscience, for fair trials for political prisoners, and for an end to torture, ill-treatment, political killings, disappearances and the death penalty.

Clearly AI is choosing, in the midst of this powerful move by international agencies to establish abortion rights worldwide, to ignore the question of the human rights of the unborn. The Canadian section of AI also voted in favour of this new position.

If any agency ought to have clear and uncompromising guidelines on this matter, it would be AI. If they plugged the unborn into their formulae, they would immediately see that this is an entire class of human beings being subjected to radical discrimination and capital punishment. And these are not prisoners suspected or convicted of crimes. These are the most innocent of all human beings.

In fact, the moral incoherence of the AI spokesperson is quite incredible, for in her preceding statement in the article above, she noted, “the aim of any policy on abortion would be to help address human rights abuses such as rape and sexual violence in Africa.” In other words, AI feels they are quite justified in moralizing in regard to actions of rape and sexual violence, but when it comes to the matter of taking the lives of innocent unborn children, suddenly it wishes to remain neutral.

Once again, the unborn seem destined to pay for the crimes of those who have been born. They are our scapegoats, like those of old sent away into the wilderness to perish after the sin of the multitude was heaped upon them. They scream for their lives but in vain, for they are the most defenseless of all those created in God’s image, and they scream silently.

Perhaps their screams can be heard only by those who first know the power of their own sin.