Since Amnesty considered embracing abortion, Catholic bishops, lay organizations and Vatican representative Cardinal Renato Martino have all strongly urged the organization to change its abortion stance or else Catholics would have to withdraw their support. Cardinal Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, warned earlier in June, "I believe that, if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support, because, in deciding to promote abortion rights, AI has betrayed its mission."Looks like AI leadership, just like Canadian politicians, believed that "there's no political cost to ignoring pro-lifers". They were wrong. Even some of their long term members, like the Catholic Bishop Michael Evans, who's been a member of Amnesty for 31 years, are already resigning. With many more to follow.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Amnesty International: Now An Abortion Lobby Group
Amnesty International officially reaffirmed its pro-abortion policy last weekend. Its press release dated August 17 states that the organization is now committed to support "sexual and reproductive rights", rather than maintaining their neutrality on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
After the Catholic Church's campaign of misinformation about condoms in AIDS-riddled regions of Africa, I think Amnesty International may do more good for human rights without their support. This policy alone has killed countless African Catholics.
Besides, early-stage abortions is a basic right that should be guaranteed, particularly for rape victims. Human rights should not be dined on a la carte.
It's not the Catholic Church but all those "AIDS awareness" organizations that run the campaign of misinformation about condoms. It's them who promote the myth that by putting on a piece of rubber one is 100% protected, so he can do whatever he wants without thinking about the consequences.
Catholic Church denounces those lies, suggesting self-discipline, rather than false protection to prevent the spread of AIDS and other diseases. If you believe that an organization could fight AIDS using nothing but a faulty "safe sex" theory - you're in fact perpetuating the cause you're fighting against.
As for early-stage abortions - what exactly makes an early stage different than a later stage? Life begins at conception. An early-stage abortion too stops a beating heart. Therefore there's no way it could be a "basic right".
What is a basic right that must be guaranteed is the right to life. If AI fails to support the right to life for unborn babies, for the most defenseless group of people who have no voice even to plead for mercy - everything else they do makes no sense. Because if it's ok to put a baby to death for the sake of personal convenience - then what's wrong with mistreating a stranger for the very same reason?
Well, the question of the soul of 1 or 2 cells in a woman or a test tube is one that everyone has an opinion on and nobody can offer any evidence for one way or the other. We differ on that opinion, and it's probably best to leave it at that.
But do you honestly believe that more people have died as a result of condom use than have been saved by it? What is the success rate of abstinence programs? Have you ever seen a sizable population willingly stop having sex?
Catholic church representatives have outrighted lied to people who lack the information to know better in order to perpetuate their viewpoint. They have kept people from access to condoms without regard for whether those people have shown any indication that they may give up sex.
The lies that condoms don't work have killed thousands if not millions of people unwilling to change their habits. Do you think an abstinence program is going to make a sex worker stop? If not, what is the use of telling them that there's no reason to use a condom?
Like everything else, condoms do have a failure rate. When used correctly, that rate is quite low (a couple percent, I think, generally when a condom breaks). I would only submit that abstinence programs successfully affect the decision not to have sex somewhat less than 98% of the time - the success rate for condoms.
What do you think is more secure: staying away from promiscuous sex or relying on a piece of rubber to make it "safe"?
The problem with condoms and with the "safe sex" myth as whole is that they create a sense of false security. A myth that by following certain safety rules, one can do whatever he or she wants without any consequences, downplays the risk of having multiple sexual partners. As result, the number of sexually interconnected people grows exponentially which greatly outweighs the reduced risk per individual.
When a husband and a wife are each other's only sexual partners - there's no way they can get infected. But if it's common for each person to have an average of 10 partners during his lifetime - that gets more than 1000 people secually interconnected. Assuming a 2% failure rate - that means 20 infections (despite practicing "safe" sex) at the very least, since most of those relationships aren't "one night stands".
You've mentioned prostitution (there's no such thing as sex trade or sex worker). It wouldn't be there if there would be no demand for it. So what do you think is more likely to reduce the demand - a suggestion not to go there, cause you never no what you'll get out with or a suggestion that if you put on a piece of rubber - you're can have a good time without worrying about possible infections?
The stats show that countries which adhere to the moral traditions and promote abstinence, rather than "safe sex" have much lower infection rates than countries which try to exploit the "safe sex" myth. And, believe it or not, but abstinence-only education works best to reduce sexual activity in teens and therefore the rate of sexually transmitted disease. (Source)
P.S. <<Well, the question of the soul of 1 or 2 cells in a woman or a test tube is one that everyone has an opinion on and nobody can offer any evidence for one way or the other. We differ on that opinion, and it's probably best to leave it at that.>>
I didn't say anything about soul. I talked about life. A single cell is also a form of life. Moreover - since that cell, after having split 30 or 40 times, develops into an organism clearly identified as human being - then it's a form of a human life. And that's not an opinion - that's a scientific fact.
Yes, like it or not, but human life starts from just one cell. There are no other cells that get added at birth to complete one's transformation from a "fetus" to a full-scale human being. A human being is a human from the moment of conception.
Post a Comment