Choosing a Side
Oct 13th, 2007 by Amanda
Amnesty International has decided to change its stance on abortion. Their formerly neutral stance on the issue has changed to pro-choice. The new policy states “women and men must exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination, and violence.” According to Christianity Today:
AI’s nine-member international executive committee quietly decided in April to change the human-rights group’s stance, partly in response to mass rapes in Darfur, Sudan. On August 17, at AI’s international meeting in Mexico City, 400-plus delegates from 75 countries voted publicly to adopt the committee’s recommendation. The new policy supports the “decriminalization of abortion” and “access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when [women’s] health or human rights are in danger.”
To be perfectly honest, I don’t blame them. There’s some really shitty stuff going on around the world. It’s easy to be pro-life from the comforts of the good ol’ U S of A. However I still vehemently disagree with them because of the last line up there. The new policy supports “access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when [women’s health] or human rights are in danger.”
Pardon me, but I’m fairly certain a child is a human. I know we’ve had this debate here before, and I’m not really interested in going down that road again (though it did get me some great traffic).
I love what Mark Earley, CEO of Prison Fellowship Ministries, had to say:
The value of a child’s life is not determined by the circumstances of that child’s conception.
I still have to agree with that. The UN’s Declaration of the Rights of the Child states:
Whereas 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…
A child is a child is a child, regardless of whether or not they’re in the womb or out of it.
I do understand why women who are pregnant as a result of rape want abortions. Take these stories, for example:
In April 2003, “Josephine” (29) and her friend Miriam were raped at gunpoint by three RCD-Goma soldiers as they walked to their fields near Walungu, in South-Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. In October 2003, “Josephine” was raped again, this time in her home, by another RCD-Goma soldier who gagged her to prevent her from screaming. In March 2004, pregnant, she told her story to AI:
“In the community, they made such fun of me that I had to leave the village and live in the forest. Today, the only thing that I can think about is that I want an abortion. I am hungry; I have no clothes and no soap. I don’t have any money to pay for medical care. It would be better if I died with the baby in my womb.”
In the Darfur region of Sudan, rape is considered a taboo and a shame for the victim. The child who is a result of rape is considered the child of the “enemy”, a “Janjawid child”. Survivors of rape are likely to be ostracized by their community; married women are likely to be rejected by their husbands. Women and men interviewed by AI said that while they would accept raped women back into the community, the child conceived as a result of rape would not be accepted. One refugee from Kenyu explained:
“Some women were raped. We heard about this. But only those who are not married can talk about it. We believe that nobody can become pregnant when raped, because this is unwanted sex and you cannot have a child from unwanted sex. For those who are in the camps in Darfur, those whom they rape day and night, they might become pregnant. Then only Allah can help the child to look like the mother. If an Arab child is born, this cannot be accepted.”
Or:
In a 2005 report (”The Second Assault – Obstructing Access to Legal Abortion after Rape in Mexico“), Human Rights Watch documents the case of “Graciela Hernández” in Guanajuato: “Graciela Hernández” (then age 16) reported being systematically raped by her father in 2002. Hernández became pregnant and declared unequivocally that she wished to terminate her pregnancy. According to representatives from nongovernmental organizations who provided emotional and legal support for “Hernández”, the public prosecutor later persuaded the adolescent girl to change her accusation against her father from rape to incest—in order for the father to get a shorter jail sentence, as incest is considered a less serious crime than rape. Since abortion in Guanajuato is legal only after rape and not after incest the abortion was not authorized, and “Hernández” was forced to carry the pregnancy to term. The official record describes her distress:
“Then my father took me to a hostel. … And there my father said to me that I should take all my clothes off … and my father took all his clothes off … And my father started to caress my legs and all of my body. And he penetrated me, and it hurt a lot when he penetrated me. I cried and I said to my father that it hurt a lot. … And I asked him if I was no longer a virgin, and my father said that before he penetrated me, yes, but no longer. … After that time, it was every week that my father took me to different hotels outside the city of [name withheld]. And we had sex. … And with regard to my pregnancy, I want to declare that I am certain that the child that I am expecting is my father’s … because I never had [sex] with anyone else. … And I want to declare that I don’t want to have the child that I am expecting, because I will not be able to love it. Because it is my father’s, I will not be able to love it. And I also don’t know how it will come about, if [the pregnancy] will go wrong. And I also don’t want it because I didn’t want to be pregnant, and that’s why I want you to help me to have an abortion, because as I already said, I don’t want to have this child, because it is my father’s and I don’t want it.”
These are horrifying circumstances, I can’t deny that. But the child is not at fault, and it’s the child who gets punished in abortion. There are other options. You can’t love the child you’re going to have because of rape or incest? Okay. Give it up for adoption.
Then, if we could stop focusing so much on abortion, then maybe we could start focusing on how to stop the rapes. That’s the real problem here.
“These are horrifying circumstances, I can’t deny that. But the child is not at fault, and it’s the child who gets punished in abortion. There are other options. You can’t love the child you’re going to have because of rape or incest? Okay. Give it up for adoption.”
Amamda, I think it’s very easy for all of us to make assumptions and provide advice for a situation we really know nothing about. It’s almost like telling deaf people how to hear: we’re not in the situation, so we have no idea what emotional turmoil they experience. we only think we know as outsiders looking in.
Whoopi recently gave Hasselbeck a polite smack down because of this very issue. You can watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxuJ5LNBPUI
The abortion discussion begins at about 1:45
I don’t have a dogmatic response—I don’t claim to know ‘THE Truth’ on this topic—but I do have a lot of uncomfortable questions, based on what I know about the state of biology at present.
At what point is a child not a child? We don’t actually know, Amanda. But we know this: all gametes are potentially zygotes, and at some point in the very near future, it will be possible to clone a person from any cell, not just a gamete, so any cell will potentially become a zygote. The same thing can be said for any mammalian species.
Since that’s the case, shouldn’t our deliberations about what is sacred and worthy of legal protection focus on that which is uniquely human, rather than the biology we happen to share with all mammals? The scientific community can’t make that determination at present, of course, but unless there is a systematic worldwide campaign to eliminate research in reproductive biology, that data will eventually emerge, I think. What will happen to the entire notion of the sacred if we have committed ourselves, in advance, to an absolutist position on the sanctity of human life?
Then, if we could stop focusing so much on abortion, then maybe we could start focusing on how to stop the rapes. That’s the real problem here.
Amen! I am pro-life, but I think the best way to stop abortion is to address the reasons *why* women are getting them in the first place.
Do you differentiate between a woman who has been raped being given the morning after pill and receiving an abortion once the baby is advanced (let’s say, 6 months)?
For some reason WP didn’t email me these comments. ARGH!
Musicguy - It’s rare that I disagree with Hasselbeck, but this is an instance when I do. When she said that one of the benefits of Hilary’s policy would be less abortions I went What the hell are you thinking? And I really do love Whoopi. She made some great and valid points. (BTW - was this your way of giving me a “polite smack down”?
)
I am against abortion. That’s my personal opinion on the matter. But, as I said in the post, it’s easy to be pro-life in the comforts of America. I’m not in dire circumstances where abortion is something I have to consider. That makes it easy for me to be pro-life.
But that’s also why I concluded the post by saying that we need to focus on the actual problem–stopping the rapes–than on abortion.
Scott -
Isn’t it true that to clone a person, it would still have to be done from a human cell? Although, I know where the discussion will go from there, because it’s already been done here. You’re alluding to the fact that when we get to the place of cloning from any cell, then if we continue this “sanctity of human life” from the perspectives that we have now, then all cells would have to be sacred, is that it?
Like you, I don’t have an answer. I don’t want to claim that my perspective is the right one. I just know that I’m against abortion.
Buffy - I do. I have no problems with birth control, and the morning after pill is just a high dosage of birth control. It prevents pregnancy, not terminates it. At least, that’s my understanding of how it works.
the morning after pill can prevent a fertilaized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, so by your definition, it’s an abortion. From Plan B’s website:
Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.
I’m just curious - what’s my definition? (I’m asking because to be perfectly honest, I don’t really know what my definition is anymore).
I had thought that you considered the fetus a baby from the moment when sperm hits egg. Any attempt to remove or destroy that zygote is an abortion and not allowable.
I think that at this point I consider it abortion after the zygote (is that the right term?) has attached itself to the uterine wall.
I’ve kind of had to adjust what I’ve thought because I really am okay with birth control - and sometimes birth control simply prevents it from attaching to the uterine wall.
In all frankness, the definition of abortion is really not up for debate, and it’s really not something that’s only defined by something an unnatural process. If a woman has a miscarriage, that’s considered an abortion. It’s a natural one, but it’s still an abortion.
That’s why I spent so much time the last time around defining the terms and underscoring how doctors and scientists state that human life begins at conception and does not cease until death.
The child is alive when it is conceived– which it is so important to examine what we believe based on the facts.
Oh boy. Here we go again. Min, if we want it to be up for debate, it’s up for debate. Definitions change, whether you want them to or not. People then interpret those definitions differently, which might result in further changes. There may also be multiple definitions of the same word, which also changes intent and purpose. I could go on and on, but I have a class coming in momentarily.
You can dig your heals in and shout NO NO NO at the top of your lungs, but the end result is the same: evolution and refinement of what we already know. You certainly don’t have to believe in my processes or my definitions, but please don’t be so arrogant as to tell we what I can and cannot debate.
Well technically Min is correct that an abortion is a defined term meaning the expulsion of an embryo from the uterus. And an embryo exists from the moment of conception. However, just because ‘life exists’ in some form doesn’t ergo make it sacred.
The trouble is that the majority of (fertilised) zygotes never implant in the uterus lining anyway, they just pass through. So why make a fuss about making sure that one in particular doesn’t implant? I cannot see how this can compare with aborting an embryo that is so advanced it could feasibly survive outside the uterus. And this is the trouble with abortion, there are so many ways of defining when it becomes wrong. You could start with:
- every sperm and egg is sacred (aren’t they alive too??)
- a fertilised egg is sacred
- once the fertilised egg is attached to the uterus it’s sacred
- once the zygote looks like a baby rather than a cluster of cells it’s sacred
- once the embryo has a nervous system, it’s sacred
-once the embryo starts to move it’s sacred (used to be the measure in the old days)
- once the baby could feasibly surivive outside the uterus it’s sacred
- once the baby is born it’s sacred
- once the baby doesn’t need the mother anymore in order to surivive it’s sacred
We all agree (I assume) that it’s wrong to kill another human, we just don’t agree on the point at which a potential human earns the right to have the same rights as those of us that can reason about this very matter.
Dear Amanda:
Amnesty International’s position on abortion cannot be interpreted as “pro-choice.” That truly misrepresents the new policy. The policy has the following aims and goals:
* Opposition to imprisonment and other criminal penalties for abortion, both for women seeking or having abortions and for those providing information about or performing abortions.
• Support for comprehensive medical care, including safe termination of pregnancy, for women who become pregnant as a result of rape, sexual assault or incest — or whose lives or health are at grave risk due to pregnancy.
• Urge governments to ensure access to medical treatment and other services to women who have complications from unsafe abortions, regardless of the legal status of abortion in the country.
The organization does not take a position on whether abortion should be legal or whether it is right or wrong. Nor will AI counsel women about the choices they should make or advocate on abortion, per se. AI advocates for a woman’s right to be free from any form of inhuman treatment, cruelty, coercion, discrimination or violence as she makes decisions regarding her own reproductive health.
The policy discussions took place in the context of the disturbing magnitude of deaths and irreversible health consequences suffered by women worldwide:
• An estimated 70,000 women die each year from unsafe, illegal abortions, according to the UN Millennium Project. A recent New York Times article reported that whether abortion is legal or illegal in a particular country the number of abortions performed remains the same.
• Five million women a year are hospitalized as a result of complications from unsafe abortions, which can cause serious disability, infection and lifelong pain and infertility.
• The overwhelming burden of these deaths and injuries falls on poor women living in the developing world.
Violence against women is pervasive throughout the world. In conflict zones from Bosnia to Darfur, Sudan to Guatemala, rape has been used as a weapon of war. The World Health Organization estimates that one woman in five will be the victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime. In Africa, the number rises to one in three women. Women who are raped often suffer abuse and isolation from their communities. In some countries abortion carries severe criminal punishment. In Nigeria, a woman who actually had a miscarriage was accused of aborting the fetus and threatened with the death penalty.
If Amnesty International is to be true to its mission to address grave abuses of human rights of physical and mental integrity without discrimination and if Amnesty is to be a credible voice on women’s human rights then it cannot remain silent in the face of such suffering.
Suzanne Trimel
Media Relations Director
Amnesty International USA
Everyone seems to have missed the point here - including the great folks from Amnesty.
Here’s the point of the article:
My beef isn’t with the new policy in itself. It’s that they support access to abortion (which is nearly the same thing as supporting abortion) in an effort to advocate human rights. Human rights that I believe should also belong to the child being aborted.
AI is supposed to be about human rights - but they’re not. At least not in this instance. They’re completely valuing one group of humans over another.
I don’t claim to have a solution, so don’t ask me what it is. All I’m doing is pointing out what I see. And I see a great organization making a change in policy that isn’t a good one.
I understand why the change was made…particularly when it comes to the decriminalization of abortion. I just don’t agree with it. I still think focusing more on the actual problem (rape) would be far more productive than focusing on abortion.