[DEBATE] : The real Amnesty-abortion scandal

[Vanessa Banton]

Thanks for that

On 9/21/07, Shannon Walsh <shannondawnwalsh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3874/
> Spiked-online
> by Brendan O'neill
>
> On 9/21/07, Vanessa Banton <vanessa.banton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What is the source of this article?
> >
> > On 9/21/07, Russell Grinker <grinker at mweb.co.za> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thursday 20 September 2007
> > >
> > > The real Amnesty-abortion scandal
> > >
> > > Forget the Catholic Church's predictable stance on abortion. Why is a
> > > human
> > > rights group so cavalier about a woman's right to choose?
> > >
> > > What is more shocking? The fact that the Catholic Church, well known
> for
> > > its
> > > obsessive opposition to abortion and contraception, should threaten to
> cut
> > > its links with organisations that support a woman's right to choose?
> Or
> > > the
> > > fact that Amnesty International, a Western, liberal, progressive
> outfit
> > > whose slogan is 'Protect the Human', remained, until recently, neutral
> on
> > > the question of abortion, and now only supports a woman's right to
> choose
> > > if
> > > she has been raped or made pregnant as a result of incest?
> > > Yes, Amnesty's stance is far more disturbing. We all know where the
> > > Catholic
> > > Church stands on reproductive matters. It is an obscurantist
> institution,
> > > which argues that rape victims who become pregnant should consider
> their
> > > babies 'a blessing' from God, and tells 13-year-old boys not to
> masturbate
> > > because a spilled sperm is a wasted sperm (that's like telling
> 13-year-old
> > > boys not to breathe).
> > > Amnesty, however, professes to be a modern rights organisation. It was
> > > founded to support prisoners of conscience around the world, and more
> > > recently it has chastised governments that abuse human rights and
> become a
> > > leading critic of America's prisoner-of-war camp at Guantanamo Bay.
> Yet on
> > > a
> > > woman's right to choose - a basic, fundamental right that allows women
> to
> > > be
> > > autonomous and to take part in society on an equal footing with men -
> > > Amnesty says it does not support 'abortion as a right' (1).
> > > The Catholic Church's position is predictably pious and authoritarian.
> > > Amnesty's position, its support for abortion only in extremely limited
> > > circumstances, is craven. And given the organisation's clout in
> > > international debate, it could potentially deliver a far graver
> bodyblow
> > > to
> > > people in the developing world who want equality than anything the
> > > men-in-frocks might say or do. Yet in the big Amnesty-abortion debate
> of
> > > the
> > > past week, the Catholic Church has been chastised for threatening to
> > > dissociate itself from Amnesty, while Amnesty has been awarded a
> 'mountain
> > > of admiration' (2) for effectively saying: 'Okay, maybe women who have
> > > been
> > > sexually assaulted should have access to abortion..'
> > > This gets the debate completely the wrong way round - and it captures
> the
> > > disturbingly low horizons many in the West have for people 'over
> there'.
> > > Amnesty was traditionally neutral on abortion. This was partly because
> it
> > > has close links with the Catholic Church and carries out much of its
> work
> > > in
> > > Catholic countries, and it did not want to upset the bishops by
> mentioning
> > > the A-word. And it was partly because Amnesty describes itself as a
> 'human
> > > rights organisation', and 'there is no generally accepted right to
> > > abortion
> > > in international human rights law' (3). This meant that Amnesty could
> > > largely ignore the question of abortion, despite the fact that women
> in
> > > the
> > > developing world need legal abortion services every bit as much as
> women
> > > in
> > > the West do. In countries where abortion is legal, the maternal
> mortality
> > > rate is 0.2 per 100,000 - in countries where abortion is illegal, the
> rate
> > > is 330 per 100,000. There are an estimated 20million abortions around
> the
> > > world every year, and according to the World Health Organisation many
> of
> > > them are 'carried out by unskilled staff in unsafe conditions' (4).
> Yet in
> > > order to keep sweet with the Catholics, and in the name of sticking to
> the
> > > letter of international human rights legislation, Amnesty trotted the
> > > globe
> > > for years criticising prison conditions and rights violations without
> > > uttering a word of public support for a woman's right to choose.
> > > Now, Amnesty has ditched its neutrality on abortion. Last month it
> > > announced
> > > that it will start campaigning for women to have access to abortion in
> > > strictly limited situations: that is, if their pregnancy is the result
> of
> > > rape or incest, or if the pregnancy jeopardises the woman's life. This
> has
> > > caused a clash of comments between Amnesty and the Catholic Church.
> The
> > > Vatican called on Catholic groups and individuals to stop giving money
> to
> > > Amnesty. 'The inevitable consequence [of Amnesty's decision] will be
> the
> > > end
> > > of all financing from Catholic organisations', said Cardinal Renato
> > > Martino,
> > > head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Cardinal Keith
> > > O'Brien, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, resigned from
> > > Amnesty in protest at its new position. This week, the Catholic Church
> in
> > > Northern Ireland called on all Catholic schools to disband their
> Amnesty
> > > student groups; so far, one grammar school in Belfast has followed
> this
> > > advice (5).
> > > Over the past two weeks, commentators and human rights activists have
> > > taken
> > > fire at the Catholic Church over its response to Amnesty's new policy
> on
> > > abortion. One columnist said she had a 'mountain of admiration' for
> > > Amnesty
> > > and accused the Church of supporting the 'holocaust of teenage girls'
> who
> > > die from botched backstreet abortions every year (6). A feminist
> writer
> > > congratulated Amnesty for taking a 'brave and principled decision' in
> the
> > > face of 'an outpouring of condemnation from religious bodies' (7). On
> one
> > > level, these criticisms of the Church are understandable: it is a
> disgrace
> > > for leading Catholics effectively to use financial blackmail against
> > > organisations that do things they disagree with. Yet the backslapping
> of
> > > 'brave' Amnesty misses the real story here, which is that Amnesty's
> new
> > > stance on abortion is actually not that much better than the Church's,
> and
> > > indeed it exposes some very big problems with Western human rights
> > > activism
> > > in the developing world.
> > > Both its traditional neutrality on abortion and its recently announced
> > > support for post-rape abortion highlight the limitations to Amnesty's
> > > style
> > > of do-gooding in the developing world. The main reason why Amnesty was
> > > neutral on abortion for so long is because a woman's right to choose
> is
> > > not
> > > enshrined in United Nations human rights legislation. In short, if it
> was
> > > not a 'human right', as defined in a dry document drawn up by a
> > > supranational body, then Amnesty wasn't really interested.
> > > This captures a striking divide between abstract human rights
> constructed
> > > by
> > > governments around a table, and real, urgent, lived rights in our
> everyday
> > > lives. The postwar human rights agenda has warped our traditional
> > > understanding of rights and liberty. Once, liberty meant being free
> from
> > > state interference, having the right to choose and speak and assemble
> > > without a tyrannical government breathing down our necks. Human
> rights, in
> > > a
> > > complete flip-reversal, encourage state interference in our lives:
> they
> > > call
> > > on governments to provide people with certain very basic 'rights', and
> to
> > > ensure that we also live up to our 'responsibilities'. Consider the
> way
> > > that
> > > the American Constitution laid down what governments should not do
> > > (restrict
> > > free speech, pass laws limiting gun ownership, etc), while human
> rights
> > > legislation lays down, in great detail, what governments should do
> > > (provide
> > > protection, security, food and so on).
> > > In many ways, a woman's right to choose - a real, meaningful right
> which,
> > > if
> > > enjoyed, can have an immensely positive impact on a woman's life and
> > > status
> > > - is the very opposite of a human right. Where human rights are
> written
> > > from
> > > on high and passed down like a list of instructions to national
> > > governments,
> > > the right to choose is about a woman having control over her own body
> and
> > > personhood. It gives her power over her destiny and increases the
> choices
> > > she can make about work, family life and social life. Where human
> rights
> > > emphasise governments' responsibilities to protect people from harm,
> the
> > > right to choose frees a woman from official prying into the decisions
> she
> > > makes about her body and her life; it increases her humanity, it makes
> her
> > > a
> > > fuller, more independent human being. The human rights agenda gives
> rise
> > > to
> > > Western advocacy on behalf of at-risk individuals, as groups like
> Amnesty
> > > and officials at the UN adopt victimised individuals in the developing
> > > world
> > > and campaign for their human rights to be reinstated; by contrast,
> real
> > > rights emphasise a person's ability to be a self-advocate, if you
> like, to
> > > make decisions and take actions according to his or her own interests
> and
> > > desires.
> > > In short, where human rights infantilise us, treating us as beings
> with
> > > very
> > > basic needs who need our governments, the UN and groups like Amnesty
> to
> > > guard us from others, real rights such as the right to choose, as well
> as
> > > the right to vote and the rights to free speech and free assembly,
> allow
> > > us
> > > to live as autonomous adults. Amnesty's neutrality on abortion was
> about
> > > more than keeping on side with Catholics. It also reflected the human
> > > rights
> > > lobby's lack of interest in, possibly even innate hostility towards,
> > > traditional rights. After all, a developing world in which people were
> > > demanding the right to choose and organise and speak as they saw fit
> would
> > > not need powerful human rights organisations to come and fight its
> corner.
> > > Everything you need to know about today's problematic human rights
> agenda
> > > is
> > > contained in the idea that, according to the Amnesty worldview, it is
> > > acceptable for countries to adopt human rights without granting women
> the
> > > right to choose. That is, there can be a 'human rights culture' even
> if
> > > there is no free and safe access to abortion; a woman can be said to
> enjoy
> > > human rights even if she does not have basic control over her own
> > > reproductive system. Such is the narrow focus of the human rights
> agenda
> > > that you can 'have human rights' and yet still be enslaved.
> > > Now, Amnesty's new support for limited forms of abortion reveals much
> > > about
> > > how Western activists view the Third World: as a hotbed of war, rape
> and
> > > incest, where too many people are being born. Amnesty has not suddenly
> > > decided that a woman's right to choose is something worth fighting
> for.
> > > Instead, it says it has altered its policy on abortion in response to
> what
> > > is happening in the warzones of the Congo and Darfur. An Amnesty
> > > spokesperson said the organisation is still not campaigning for
> 'abortion
> > > as
> > > a right'; rather it was so shocked by the use of rape as a weapon of
> war
> > > in
> > > the Congo and Darfur that it now believes raped women should be
> allowed to
> > > abort. One supportive reporter summed up Amnesty's policy as follows:
> 'To
> > > allow the victims of mass rape to give birth is arguably tantamount to
> > > complicity in genocide. Because the most horrible conclusion of rape
> as a
> > > weapon of war is that it can change the ethnic make-up of a country.
> In
> > > the
> > > case of Darfur, it could mean the steady Arabisation of the next
> > > generation.' (8)
> > > In other words, Amnesty supports abortion as a means of keeping in
> check
> > > African barbarism rather than as a right that African women should
> enjoy
> > > in
> > > the name of liberty and equality. This is not about calling for the
> right
> > > to
> > > choose as a common good, a right that might help elevate women's
> status;
> > > rather it is about allowing abortion in certain circumstances as a
> > > corrective to rape and destruction. When supporters of Amnesty say
> that
> > > abortion is a necessity to prevent, for example, 'Arabisation' in
> Darfur,
> > > they are effectively calling for a eugenic form of abortion: the use
> of
> > > abortion to control violent 'cross-breeding' and to keep down the
> numbers
> > > of
> > > the 'wrong' sorts of people.
> > > Here, Amnesty's policy shift fits in with much Western campaigning in
> the
> > > developing world today. Even those organisations that do support
> people's
> > > right to use contraception or access abortion tend to argue that the
> Third
> > > World needs these things because it is so terribly overpopulated.
> Their
> > > central argument against the Catholic Church is that, in demonising
> > > condoms
> > > and abortion, it is giving the green light to rising birth rates in
> > > Africa.
> > > And according to one commentator on African affairs, it is 'sheer
> > > irresponsibility to reject population control on a continent stalked
> by
> > > famine and stunted by malnutrition, where each year brings another
> > > 10million
> > > mouths to feed' (9). The Catholic Church may spread backward ideas in
> > > Africa
> > > and elsewhere, but at least it does not subscribe to the poisonous
> idea
> > > that
> > > there are 'too many black babies' being born. Such is the miserabilism
> and
> > > misanthropy of today's human rights and population-control lobbies
> that
> > > the
> > > Catholic Church looks almost progressive in comparison.
> > >
> > > The recent attacks on the Catholic Church miss the point. The really
> > > shocking story behind the Amnesty-abortion debate is the way in which
> > > human
> > > rights groups seem to care little for extending real rights to women
> in
> > > the
> > > Third World, and seem to view abortion as a corrective to Africans'
> > > rapacious behaviour and continual breeding. Such policies are about as
> far
> > > away from increasing women's independence as you can possibly get.
> Instead
> > > they reduce women to the pathetic victims of wicked men who need
> > > Westerners
> > > to help them remove their ethnically-warped fetuses. Anyone who
> supports
> > > real development, equality and choice at home and overseas would do
> well
> > > to
> > > challenge human rights groups and development NGOs as much as the
> Catholic
> > > Church.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > DEBATE mailing list
> > > DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> > > http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DEBATE mailing list
> > DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> > http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> >
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>