Forums | MacLife

robco wrote:

There are many who feel that reproductive freedom is in fact, a basic human right...

and they are upsetting them because their statement doesn't go that far, but rather, confines it to limited conditions - "for women in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardizes a mother’s life or health."

Bingo. Even among the pro-choice crowd, I doubt that you'll find many folks who support abortion in all cases. Most folks fall somewhere in the middle, rather than the extremes. The criteria laid out by AI is a popular opinion, even among some social conservatives.

Odd thing...you might think that if there had been a such drastic change on their stance on abortion that something on the subject might be posted on the Amnesty International site. Or perhaps on the Amnesty International, USA, site. A search on the Amnesty International site using "abortion 2007" yields no such hits noting a substantial change in AI's policy on abortion.

There is this posting dated June 14, 2007, which has a reply to Cardinal Renato Martino:

Yesterday Cardinal Martino, through an interview, encouraged Catholics to withdraw support for Amnesty International, claimed that Amnesty International is "promoting abortion rights". Amnesty International's actual policy, however, standing alongside its long-standing opposition to forced abortion, is to support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to health care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women's access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger.

Lawmakers From Mexico's Green Party Introduce Bill That Would Increase Prison Sentences For Illegal Abortions

Lawmakers from Mexico's Green Party on Thursday introduced a bill that would increase prison sentences for illegal abortions performed in the country, the AP/International Herald Tribune reports (AP/International Herald Tribune, 3/30). The bill, sponsored by Green Party Sen. Arturo Escobar, would increase prison sentences -- currently between six months and one year -- to one to three years for women who have an illegal abortion, the AP/Houston Chronicle reports.

Last edited by jerwin (2007-08-21 7:59 pm)

Well, it's quite immoral to force women to have children...

So, if you can't ban abortion... yup, Amnesty International is actually capable of either drawing a Venn Diagram, or they know enough math to remember that NOT NO Abortion = SOME Abortion.

resedit wrote:

By taking this stand, I think they are going to hurt themselves by losing supporters of their cause, which currently come from both sides of the abortion debate.

Presumably from their point of view the stand is worth. Similar to how they lost the beating-the-smurf-out-of-prisoners constituent of their support base.

I still think their taking a weak stance on promoting this right. But, yes, that is based on my belief in the disparity between the importance of rights as regards the conscious-woman and the foetus. I generally agree with writes like Irmtraud Morgner that blanket anti-abortion laws are another statement of ownership over citizen's bodies.

A "small number" have left. Fine.

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2007-08-21 9:50 pm)

Al: "Gulag of our times."
Right-wing shriek machine: "That's smurfing stupid."
The Rest: "Yah, that's a pretty smurfing stupid comparison. It's smurfy but c'mon…"

Two words: rape camps.

I'm partial to the "Pregnancy as disease" model.

Last edited by jerwin (2007-08-21 11:27 pm)

Gatchaman wrote:

I was unaware that Amnesty International was held in any high regard by the "pro-life" community.  In fact, I imagine that most of them see AI as a left wing fringe group, and lump them in with the ACLU and Greenpeace.

Actually - amnesty international has helped imprisoned missionaries, and imprisoned locals who are imprisoned for religious belief.

Many christians (including pro life ones) respect their work.

Last edited by resedit (2007-08-22 12:00 am)

Gatchaman wrote:

I was unaware that Amnesty International was held in any high regard by the "pro-life" community.  In fact, I imagine that most of them see AI as a left wing fringe group, and lump them in with the ACLU and Greenpeace.

Not all pro-life people are shameless right-wing partisan hacks.

I doubt Pat Robertson was ever fawning over Amnesty's work, but they've had support from the Catholic church.

charon wrote:

matt wrote:

Rasising children costs a lot of money.

I believe that abortion prevents some number of people from falling into poverty, and although I see abortion as the least-desirable form of birth control, I see it as immoral to deny those people the opportunity to stay out of poverty.

Well, by that logic, plain old infanticide should be permitted.

I'm guessing you'd respond that that's different, because newborns have rights whereas fetuses don't.  And I'd agree.  But my point is that that's the issue, and pretty much the only issue, in the abortion debate.  Not fighting poverty.

I'm surprised that you would think that my opinion comes from legal rights, as I've argued only for what I believe is right, and often argued against existing laws for that purpose.

I never advocated murder, and infanticide is murder. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that studies have shown that a fetus probably can't feel pain until after about 6 months of a pregnancy, at which point most doctors wouldn't usually perform an abortion anyway. I weigh that against a lifetime of being raised either with parents who didn't want you, in foster homes, or in poverty, and it seems probable that abortion is frequently the option that inflicts less suffering.

As for the assertion to the rights of the fetus are the only issue in the abortion debate, that's just not right. As far as I can tell, most of the time, the only issues that are presented are "The fetus is a child, and has a right to live," and "Women should have a right to control their own bodies." I just happen to believe that both of those arguments are poorly thought-out, in that one only considers the woman and one only considers the belief that the fetus suffers at this point in time, and not the environment in which a child may grow up.

That's not to mention that I don't think that abortion bans are feasible. Abortion happened before it was legal, and when it was done illegally, it was much less safe, which can put the mother's life at risk.