I have some questions. Should Amnesty have a neutral stance on China's one-child policy and forced abortions in China, India and elsewhere it is found out women will give birth to girls?

Should Amnesty simply have a policy of recognising reproductive rights as a fundamental human right (which I do) rather than focusing on abortion per se?

Doesn't Amnesty regard persecution on the basis of one's sexuality a human rights violation? And doesn't this offend Catholics and other religious people opposed to homosexuality?

And why are policies upheld by the Catholic Church, such as its position on abortion, not regarded as "divisive" but "traditional" or "principled"?

From the Article:

"Amnesty International's board has just called for abortion to be decriminalised globally."

1/ No.. what they have just called for is the MURDER of unborn human beings.

2/ What they have shown, is that all of we 'prophets of doom' who claim that all humanist/secular organizations which speak of 'rights' do so with
a) Presuppositions ABOUT what 'rights' are...
b) Are vulnerable to infiltration by political interests who hold their own political agenda irrespective of peoples choice.

Thus, the true reality of Leftist politics is clearly manifest ...

They talk about CHOICE..... but steamroll the will of the masses.

They talk about 'DEMOCRACY'... but deny it to the proletariat.

This is the same sort of spin we get from Omar Merhi "Islam is a religion of peace" while his brother is in Jail awating trial on charges of Islamic terrorism against Australia.

Denial can only be taken so far before it becomes a circus.

Amnesty always was/is a circus, it was just waiting for the strong willed CLOWNS to take over the show.

There is no such thing as 'rights' in a godless, secular world.
The most people without power can expect is 'privilege' graciously granted by those with the power of life and death over them. (economic, legal and in some cases physical)

TRUE "RIGHTS" are those granted by the Almighty. They cannot be disputed, they are absolute. (note..I said 'rights' not 'laws')

"If anyone leads one of these who has faith in me into sin, it would be better for him to have a millstone around his neck and be cast into the sea" Said Jesus about 'childrens rights' to be free from adult molestation.

I have never viewed Amnesty as as a circus or a potential one. The article appears to overstate the position. The vote was to decriminalise abortion not support it. As the father of a large family by todays standards, I have had one experience of the decisions a woman may make in the interest of her family and their future. Our third child was conceived too close to our second and my wife sought and obtained an abortion in the days before a doctor could take any legal action. We had our third and subsequent children at sensible spacing and I do not think that my wife or I ever regretted her earlier decision. I accept that humans are just a lucky ape with no soul and no future after death except what we leave behind in those we have nutured or assisted during our lifetime. My wife and I nurtured one child other than our own natural children and have played a significant role in the lives of numerous grandchildren and many other local children.
We need to call a halt to the explosive growth of the world population as the collapse which which will eventually overtake the human race will be our own fault and will be cataclysmic.

Re “for those who in conscience hold a view that abortion is an attack on the human rights of the most vulnerable members of the human family.”

As one of conscience, I recognise the right of the individual to determine how their body will be used, regardless of the religious values held by third parties.

The “attack” on what is claimed as the most vulnerable members of the human family is a nonsense and the basis of the lie perpetrated by pro-life advocates.

An embryo is an extension of the woman in whose uterus it is developing. It is not a separate entity until the moment of birth, hence a “birth certificate” but no “conception certificate”

It is a simple matter of priorities: an embryo has no rights which could subordinate the rights of a woman to the resources of her own body.

It is not for third parties to decide how that woman should treat her body, it is only up to her and if she decides to abort a pregnancy, regardless of the quality of her reason, it is her absolute right to do so.

She will bear the consequences of her choice and may even regret it later but such feelings are part of the growth process of the human spirit. Only by supporting the individual’s right of decision will we ever attain individual growth versus a growth stunted by a religious dogma imposed by a religious minority for which the individual may not personally support or believe in.

As for “such a change in policy places me in the unwanted position of contemplating the closing down of Amnesty’s presence in the school.”

I would have thought the purpose of real and moral “education” was to instil into those being educated the ability to question and make decisions for themselves and not simply to follow the dictates of the “authorities”, like a herd of sheep.

Interesting development, and enjoyed reading your piece on it Chris. Some observations:

It strikes me as potentially wrong-headed to argue that AI should only adopt policy positions when it accords with the Catholic church's position. If it did this on all matters then it would be nothing more than a branch of the Catholic church. Clearly it is not, and clearly, while many catholics broadly support AI, they don't necessarily agree with all of the positions taken by AI.

It is possible that up until now the majority of the directions and ethical stances taken by AI have been broadly acceptable within the context of Catholic belief, and that this recent development is simply one that is not (and a prominent issue, importantly). This piece appears to argue that "AI aren't keeping up with the Church", but it is also possible that the Church is not keeping up with AI on this moral issue. I can see that from a political perspective there is a great incentive for AI to maintain support from its large institutional supporters. However, from a moral standpoint, surely censuring themselves to stay within the boundaries of Catholic belief would do as much to cast them in a partisan light as Chris is suggesting might occur by distancing themselves from the Church. If not “playing into hands of…Islamic radicals looking to discredit human rights activism as a Western driven agenda”, then instead “playing into hands of…Islamic radicals looking to discredit human rights activism as a Church driven agenda”.

With due respect to the political nuance and reality of AI achieving good, I still wonder how AI could be seen as an independent monitor and research institution on human rights if their processes were governed by the relative political force of one or another of their supporters.

Well answered Foyle and Col Rouge. Can't add anything else to those two posts.

Thanks Aime for your kind comment.

FOYLE.. you are the one who put it here for our consumption and reflection, so I feel its ok to respond.

You basically said it was an issue of 'convenience' that you terminated a growing life.
If it was a result of rape, or some medical complication, I could 'more' understand such a step, but for simple 'convenience'?
That is something I simply raise the question about, you can reflect yourself. At least, in terms of your presuppositions about life, you have acted in line with them.
But what perhaps you don't tweak to mate, are the philosophical implications of your action, or the mentality behind it.

It's as simple as 2+2=4 that once we 'make it up' ourselves there is no limit to 'what' we can make up.

EXAMPLE. "It is my considered opinion that Jewish people are sub human, and that they should be exterminated from the planet"

Now.. we know where THAT kind of thinking took Germany right?

"Christians and Jews are cursed by Allah, may he destroy them" surah 9:30 in the Quran. (which to me is 'made_up'by its author, Mohammad)
Apparently that was the thinking behind the massacre of Christians at Castrogiovanni..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam_in_southern_Italy

"Abbas ibn-Fadhl, the ferocious victor of Butera. he started a campaign of ravages against the lands still in Byzantine hands, capturing Butera, Gagliano, Cefalù and, most of all, Castrogiovanni (winter 859). All the Christian survivors from that fortress were executed, children and women sold as slaves at Palermo."

OR..I can make this up.....

"It is not convenient for me to have to wait for promotion, I'll undermine all those ahead of me with innuendo and gossip, skillfully crafted to destroy their lives"

Is it inherrently morally wrong to do this? (answer.."yes" but only if GOD has provided moral code)

or.. Let NAMBLA speak "Sexual experiences between adult men and consenting male children can be quite positive"

Or.. Mohammad again "Ayesha, Allah has shown me you are to be my wife"
(she was 6, consumated at 9)

I think you should by now have enough ammo to reflect on 'make it up'

BD, sensible spacing may mean convenience and it may indicate health issues. It is not advisable to fall pregnant within 12 months of giving birth, as the body does not have sufficient time to recover. It can indeed be dangerous if the pregnancies are very close together. If a caesarean is performed, then the recommended spacing is 18+ months. Again, to give the body time to heal and recover - better for woman and better for baby.

I cant speak for Foyle, but perhaps you should consider the options before racing in with accusations.

BOAZ_David, I don't want to get into a useless circular argument, but it could be argued that "It is Your considered opinion that the Bible has the truth on such moral issues as abortion". So you are open to the same problem - that your arguments can be seen as grounded on the fact that you've "made up" that the Bible is the arbiter of these issues. I don't mean that in a judgemental way - simply, you're contending that pro-abortion ideas are "made up, albeit on the basis of considered reflection", but one could equally argue that you've "made up, on the basis of your considered reflection" that the Bible is correct about this matter. From a rational perspective you are more at risk of facing this argument, since considered adherence to the Bible's version of morality is less strictly evidence-based than considered non-religious morality.

At the risk of answering my own questions...I'm going to answer my own questions. First up:

Amnesty should commit to reproductive autonomy as a human right rather than decriminalisation of abortion. This would mean campaigning against China's one child policy and against countries where women are cajoled into having abortions - as well as countries where abortion is illegal. Both situations I regard as human rights violations. It would also cover situations where men have been virtually forced to have vasectomies - such as in India under Indira Gandhi.

Secondly, Amnesty now campaigns on behalf of gay people who are persecuted. That was divisive but Amnesty has survived that controversy. Amnesty should have the freedom to change its policies without threats from Catholics, Islamists et al.

Finally, although I find all religions offensive I support Amnesty and others in their efforts to free religious dissidents. Why? Because human rights is the main issue not the individual's belief or lifestyle. If we start cherry-picking on human rights on the basis that someone has been a 'good' person (not a lesbian, not someone who's had an abortion, not etc, etc) Amnesty and similar groups would have to wind up.

If Amnesty International had any integrity it would have changed it's name when it changed it's raison d'etre. Now Amnesty International is nothing more than a shill for leftist politic. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. A.I. have lost all credibility and can no longer be trusted to act as a mediator or transmit information that is to be trusted and free of bias. Good bye Amnesty International. You no longer count except as a sell out.

DavidJS has summed up the key issues very nicely.

Individuals have the right to make their own choices about fertility. That makes imprisoning people for having abortions and the enforced abortions under China’s one-child policy both repugnant, and both legitimate targets for a human rights group. Similarly, people persecuted for their sexuality or religion or ideology (shame you find religion repugnant though, David!).

Far from weakening AI’s authority, this decision will strengthen it. Groups like Amnesty weaken and compromise their moral authority if they are silent on some forms of persecution and discrimination but not others.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, I think it is counterproductive to argue that the de-criminalisation of abortion. It does nobody any service for a woman in the developing world to be imprisoned because she has attempted to terminate a pregnancy. It does nobody any service for her to seek the services of a "back-ally butcher" and terminate her pregancy in an unsafe manner. I think Amnesty is being completely sensible.

A group with a diverse membership like AI will always have internal differences. Members (of which I am one) should seek to remember their shared ideals over their disagreements. Certainly there should be internal debate, and this adds to the strength of the organisation. But there also needs to be unity on the issues we agree on.

Foyle, If you really think killing the unborn is a legitimate response to the world’s human population crisis, why stop at the unborn? Why not take out mature people who are already consuming far more resources than your average foetus is?

Col Rouge, I don’t know why you rely on the law (birth certificates) to support your argument. The law is an ass. It is a compromise. It is fickle. We can do better here on OLO, where we are thinking freely.

The “human spirit”. What’s that Col? Does it arrive at birth? When the head is out? Before or after the umbilical cord is cut?

Jordan147, I don’t think the writer is suggesting AI should adopt Christian, or more specifically Roman Catholic, beliefs. There just happen to be a lot of Christians in AI, that’s all, and many of them now have a problem.

DavidJS, Interesting that there are so many “offensive” Christians in AI, don’t you think? If you were running AI, would you expel them because they are offensive or make use of them because they are so highly motivated to help the oppressed?

Pax,

The rights of women to make their own decisions about abortion or any other issue, is once again being challenged predominately by men.
Amnesty is attempting to take this issue away from the Law, churches, and politicians. I personally support Amnesty.
The rights of women world wide are struggling to have equality with men, men still want to dominate and have power over women.
Within the catholic church this stance continues ad infinitum, the clergy have no personal life experiences in male female relationships, resulting in offspring, apart from their manipulation of people by the use of a god, they are unqualified to comment about women's business.
There are hypocritical men who call abortion murder, these men are mostly ignorant and unqualified medically, to make any serious comment. These same men have no concern about the killing by military action of pregnant women, in the killing fields of Iraq.
Members of the catholic church in many countries have committed crimes against children under their care. The catholic church has to clean itself up, not denigrate women, who are the most undervalued people in any society.

Goodthief “Col Rouge, I don’t know why you rely on the law (birth certificates) to support your argument. The law is an ass. It is a compromise. It is fickle. We can do better here on OLO, where we are thinking freely.”

I will rely on a birth certificate simply because it is there and I would note you have no “conception certificate” to support any social recognition of “existence”.

We are free thinking, here we talk and can disagree but in life we “compromise” all the time, on matters which effect “all”.

I have no desire or need for an abortion, never have done.

My absence of need does not diminish my faithfulness to one of my primary moral value: the right of people to decide for themselves and live with the consequences of their decisions.

I am “libertarian” by nature, vehemently anti-socialist as well as vehemently against the attempts by a minority to dictate to the rest of society how that society will dis-respect a woman’s right to choose how her body will be used.

“The “human spirit”. What’s that Col? Does it arrive at birth? When the head is out? Before or after the umbilical cord is cut?”

My human spirit grows with me, it develops over time, hopefully when I reach some distant point it will have equipped me to deal with the reality of (inevitable) death of the body. My spirit is “me”, my essence, the reason for being. Its growth is why I am here.

It embodies my ethical and social values as well as my individuality, my inventiveness and creativity,

My spirit is not crippled by, say, the Catholic Church, a particularly vindictive denomination lead by a bunch of control freaks who demand “serf” like obedience from their congregants and the sublimation of freewill to a dictatorial dogma and authority, instead of God.

I find it strange that as supposedly a “religious” person (Pax on the end of your posts), you do not understand more about the “spirit”, why it and what it is.

In response to goodthief, here is the last part of my previous post:

"Finally, although I find all religions offensive I support Amnesty and others in their efforts to free religious dissidents. Why? Because human rights is the main issue not the individual's belief or lifestyle. If we start cherry-picking on human rights on the basis that someone has been a 'good' person (not a lesbian, not someone who's had an abortion, not etc, etc) Amnesty and similar groups would have to wind up."

Please read my posts carefully so as to avoid inaccurate assumptions.

goodthief, from the text: "Whatever the range of views of Amnesty members on abortion, moving from its neutral stance may well serve to undermine its effectiveness in its key areas of expertise and influence. Its ability to work with the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies would be impaired. It would come to be seen as a partisan body, especially in places like the United States, and thus lose its ability to build consensus around issues like the death penalty."
The implied antidote to this undermining of the AI's effectiveness is clearly that they should not have moved against the Church's view on this matter. I don't believe the writer is contending AI should adopt the Church's beliefs on all matters, but on the matter of abortion this is the writer's underlying contention here. You might say that this is about action more than belief - that the AI membership will have various beliefs, and that noone would deny them this right, but that the enaction of this new stance on abortion is imprudent – and that the clear thinking pro-choice membership should accept this as a fair compromise. However, I would argue that however valuable the right to believe something, it can't compete with the right to act on that belief. I would contend that the enaction of belief does far more to steer people and society than does simply having a belief. Hence, if, around the world, existing reproductive health policies, including abortion policies, create serious harm in the lives of many women (and men), would not AI's enaction of a pro-choice orientation do more to steer society on this issue than them simply letting it boil away in the minds of its pro-choice members?
(note, I use the pro-choice term lightly since, as discussed above, it would appear AI's position is more about effecting a pro-choice change in legal practice than about trying to preach pro-choice morality to the masses)

Goodgrief - Aborting a feotus that has no concept of self is very different to killing a self aware adult. The abortion decision that I wrote about was reached by a thoughtful mother as being in the best interests of existing young family members and desired possible future family children.
Every woman fails to utilise about 330 eggs over her childbearing years and millions of her partners sperm. If, as I do, you do not believe in the hypothesis re the soul or the concept of homo sapiens as a special creation does it matter which two or three or so of a woman's eggs proceed to a live birth. Hopefully the fruit of such planned births will be more succesful than that of an unplanned child who is likely to start out as being seen as a burden on the mother and other family members.
I prefer my philosophy to that of the Pope and that professed Christian George W and his religious ilk. Such Christian thinking led to the persecutions and deaths of thousands of innocent women accused as witches not too many generations back and the persecution of early scientific thinkers who were attempting to push back the darkness. Clear unindoctrinated thinking is still vital to the future of our species and its inheritors.

Choice simply means the individual has sovereignty over their own body. This is the basis of the oxymoronic termed cult the pro-lifers. Pro-lifers simply wish to gain power over everybody and destroy all human rights , freedom and liberties.

Before taking oxymoronic termed pro-lifers with more than a pinch of salt : Points to consider-

* Where the so called pro-lifers leadership base is - the United States, the pro-life movement is associated with the pro-gun lobby (guns are tools designed to kill humans).

* Pro -Lifers say they believe in god , since the large majority of pregnancies naturally terminate , it makes god the largest abortionist who aborts fetuses at a rate greater than the adult human death rate. Pro-lifers demonstrate they have no true concern with abortion as they do not lobby god the greatest abortionist by far to stop his massive abortion program.

* In the U.S several pro-lifers have murdered medical staff which also demonstrates the cult is not truthful in their alleged concern over human life.

*In Nicaragua which adopted the Vaticans recomendations in banning abortion has become one of the most horrific human rights abusers in the 21st century, because of the way it treats women with dangeous as well as rape product pregnancies alone.

Jordan147

Yes, I realize the dangers of circular arguments. I'll simply offer a view, and you can consider that.

While it is true that people 'choose' to believe the Bible on various matters, including this one, can I suggest that of all we have to choose from, a foundation in the 10 commandments and sermon on the mount (properly understood) is not a bad place to be ?

The central point of the Christian faith is that we are saved and live by 'Grace' not by 'law'... so there is no room for any Christian Theocracy which mandates 'thus and so' in every area of life based on rigid biblical prinicples.

There is a very appropriate verse in the New Testament, which underlines this.

"You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. Galatians 5:13

It seems to me that once we cut the anchor rope, we just drift in the direction of the loudest and most articulate voices.

All I can do is encourage reflection, and good choices. Yes, I will also use my 'vote' :) and in that, you would have to live with the legal implications of the party I choose, just as I have to live with the outcomes of your choice.

Sarah101 Life is not about 'womens choices' when it comes to unborn infants. "Men" speak about the issue because an unborn child also contains/represents THEIR lives and genes.

Col Rouge, your “primary moral value: the right of people to decide for themselves and live with the consequences of their decisions”. I don’t quite agree with this (because of the God business!), but I think this approach is probably the way to go when making laws. While I fancy I have all my heaven-sent morals, I’m not permitted to impose them, so we may agree about your principle for legal purposes. (I don’t think the Christians, including the Vatican, should rule the world.)

But, how to apply your principle to abortion? If I could see that there was only one person involved, the woman, I would agree. However, I believe there are two people involved (the woman and the foetus) and so far no-one has offered me any reason I find persuasive to believe otherwise.

I think the pro-life lobby has long neglected the woman, but that this is changing. I think both people have to be taken excellent care of, that the solution has to be the one that best promotes the life and happiness of both.

Given the disagreement about the status of the foetus, I think we face a choice between the following risks:

i) If the pro-lifers are right, and abortion occurs, the risk of killing a human; or

ii) If the pro-choicers are right, and abortion doesn't occur, the risk of allowing to live something/someone who is not a human at the time but who indisputably becomes a human later.

I respect what you say about spirit. The reason I raised it is that it is usually spoken about by people on my side of the debate. For instance, the word “soul” would be used by Roman Catholics. My point is that this essence doesn’t simply arrive at birth. Naturally, I believe you were you from the moment of conception. I hate to trouble you with scripture, but people like me believe God knew you and loved you even before that.

Pax,

Goodthief so good of you to specify that terminating a pregnancy affects 2 people , the mother and the fetus. I note you don't mention the father and that's the point, that in our society educated married women can hardly afford to rear children and single women can only rear children in grinding poverty. Do you really think that children raised in poverty get the best start in life?

DavidJS: You’re right. Very sloppy on my part. I apologise.

Foyle, I imagine we could find a way of making the “self aware adult” less self aware before killing them. When sleeping, say. Leave a family behind? Then, kill single people. Lose a good worker, then kill the unemployed. Gruesome and perverse, I know, but that’s where you go if you decide to kill humans to save the planet.

I accept that some abortions are the result of hard thinking and hard circumstances, and that people on my side of the debate should show respect for women who do not terminate on a whim, but that doesn’t stop abortion from being a homicide.

West, Your “sovereignty over their own body” point is question-begging. If there's only one body, you're right. If there are two bodies, then you're not.

Your post contains a lot of very unsavoury food for thought and terrible irony for people like me, but it doesn’t mean abortion is not homicide. The Church has done wrong, but that's a whole separate topic. The moral issue pro-lifers speak of (whatever their political pedigree and ulterior motives) is simply “Thou shalt not murder”.

Even if your point about God is reasonable, that doesn’t get us off the moral hook. If and when we humans get our moral act together, we can take God on. Meanwhile, we should accept responsibility for our decisions and actions.

Jordan147, the whole AI dilemma, and how it affects this topic, is unfamiliar to me and so I have to think about it more before I can respond. But thank you for your post.

Pax,

Goodthief you are right and there are many bodies. A family tragedy evoked a woman in town to approach my family. She as a teenager had been gang raped to the point of mutilation and fell pregnant, she carried the unwanted child as abortion was both socially unacceptable and unaccessible. The child died in the womb and was still born. Needless to say her life was over , as was any other children , grandchildren, great grandchilren she may have had. The "Number" of bodies is not the point. The point is I am not her , you are not her and nobody has the right to Judge her if she was able to have an abortion or the medical staff who may have helped her.

I find pro-lifers shallow and callous. An example is the fine particles from a single petrol run motor vehicle will cause the termination of as many pregnacies as abortions in this country. I know a pro-lifer who drives a four wheel drive , she would be responsible for countless of resulting abortions from the pollution she creates.Multiply that by the electricity she consumes from coal burning , she sends her kids to school on the other side of town just to impress her neighbours. I dont see her so bothered by abortion that she is willing to change her life style.

Its more fulfilling for pro-lifers to vilify victims and live as a hypocrites. It is preposterous to claim pro-lifers are sincere in their care for life , clearly they are not. So lets get past this nonesense and cut to the real chase. Pro-lifers believe they should have authority to dictate to people on the basis of the madness of superstition. The link between the pro-life movement and the occult superstition of the bible is well established. This is a group of people who are morally panicked , who cannot manage life so turn to superstition , have hit bottom and feel the need to vilify the vulnerable in order to make themselves feel superior to others.

West, very well said.

Goodthief “I believe there are two people involved (the woman and the foetus)”

If you were to suggest two “people” are involved, I think you need to consider that, actually, three were involved, the father too.

Here we come to am important point. I do not believe the father has any right to make the final decision of to abort of not.

The fathers body is not “at risk” during the time of gestation. It is only the woman’s body which is “used” in that part of the reproduction cycle. Only she should be recognized as the authority of choice. Not the father, not the foetus and not those who claim to represent the foetus or who think they are exercising some moral imperative.

“My point is that this essence doesn’t simply arrive at birth. Naturally, I believe you were you from the moment of conception.”

I am not sure when I started, at conception or possibly before conception or at birth or maybe when I became conscious of who I am, around age two from memory. All I do know is I am a “work in process” which will (hopefully) continue after death.

Yes I do believe in God, I talk to him sometimes and seek his guidance (although he has never responds, in any physical sense and I dont expect him to).

I choose not to follow a religious creed but respect peoples right to choose their own. Only through exercising choices do we grow as individuals. Only by challenging authority do we prevent it from pretending to become "God" and the best way of challenging Authority is by consistently putting the individual at the top of the "social organisation chart" and not at the bottom of it.

Col explains the god perception finely but as an individualist rubs against the Christianist agenda. Covered by Col is when a person begins to be a person. Essentially physical feeling and self awareness and personality only exists in a mature formed brain. This is the reason abortion is regulated. To say we are a person upon conception is philosophically Buddhist, the being attracted to a copulating couple becomes a person. To say we are 'us' from the point of early cells do not draw distinction from our physical past. Col is actually suggesting we as persons are billions of years old. If we are 'us' at conception then we have been 'us people' since the atoms that we are made of formed. The dust in our homes, a lot of which is our dead skin is also then us people, we should then treat everything with a neurotic level of respect because to dust the top of a fridge is by the cell cluster is human argument , a form of abortion.

Col illustrates the Christian view nicely , that everything is fetishised , like a child who sees personality in a teddy bear.
The Pro-Life cult takes that a further step and as Christianists as their cousins the Islamists seek to punish those who do not submit to the authority of the fetishised world a god of their own invention. Women in dire straights are not the only people Pro-lifers persecute.

Col Rouge, That's a very fine post and I agree with a lot of it. I wonder if we have stumbled into agreement. You say, “I think you need to consider that, actually, three were involved, the father too”.

I am happy to recognise three: the mother, the foetus and the father. Three people. How their roles differ is another matter, all I’m looking for is a more inclusive approach to identifying people.

I am happy to agree also that a human being is a “work in progress”. In support of your view, modern research points to enormous development still occurring in a person’s 20s.

You say, “I am not sure when I started, at conception or possibly before conception or at birth or maybe when I became conscious of who I am, around age two from memory.”

I will need assistance in understanding how you might have begun before conception, unless it was in the “mind of God” sense that I have suggested. Anyhow, as you seem to think it possible that you started as early as conception, doesn’t it follow that we might all have begun that early? And, if that’s true, then all I’m saying is that that is a relevant consideration in any discussion about abortion. In other words, if a foetus might be the beginning of a person, then that beginning should be recognised.

Further, wouldn’t it be a good idea to protect one year olds who happen to be on the same timeline as you – not yet self-aware? (I must say your memory is far superior to mine.)

West, I am happy to converse with you when and if it appears that you are prepared to converse rather than abuse. As soon as your post appears like another tantrum, I’m afraid I don’t really read the whole thing.

Pax,

goodthief , it is a sorry state of affairs if you see my posts as 'abuse'. I merely support the victim here. I am often attcked and abused for not subscribing to the myth that Christianists or Islamists are good people with the best possible motives just because they believe in god.

If it is the fact I am not superstitious and will be honest in my appraisal if Christianity I can not apologise. I am not superstitious and I* find it extremely disrespectful that it is assumed that I should take the belief in god seriously.

I could be swayed by gut feeling and assume you are Christian. If you are Christian then it is unlikely you are interested in conversation as most are not but to tell me what you expect of me based on your beliefs. I equally accuse you that what you are doing to me is passively aggressively abusing me for not believing in your deities.

A close Christian friend told me I can be shocking because as a Christian she just assumed that everybody must respect Christians because they are saved. She actually thanked me for opening her eyes to her own arrogance. In fact she is now a much more caring person than when she was a bible toting church goer. If you want a pat on the back for having faith in the occult I suggest see a priest, you wont get it from me. Can we get past that and think about the woman who is faced with the delema a pregnancy may present? Or does the 'Justification by Jesus' argument have to be defunct on a daily basis?

I accept I can be shocking , but its not about me , in this case its about women whos suffering is ampliphied by the persecution they recieve from Christianists. That the occult superstition of Pauls cult of Christ is associated with violence , horror and evil , is relevant because the Pro-life movement are certainly not inspired by love, infact they are inspired by the opposite.

West,

Thanks for writing. Just calling your posts as I see them.

Yes, I’m a Christian. I don’t know what you mean by “Christianist”, but you can tell me. What I mean by Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ in two senses – in the human Jesus as role model and in the divine Christ as saviour. A standard Christian. Politically , I straddle Right and Left, increasingly to the Left.

I would recommend Jesus as a role model to anyone. Most people agree, but of course they disagree about the Son of God business. I haven’t yet heard a better ethic than “Love your neighbour as yourself”.

My emotional response to being “saved” is relief and gratitude. For a short time, I was quite pleased with myself, but got over it.

I don’t “expect” you to believe in God. Because I believe God really exists, I of course think people should recognise it, as it is a very large fact. However, I know many Christians behave badly when evangelising – using fear, hard sell, manipulation, all sorts of techniques that do not recognise the freedom of their target audience to say Yes or No.

It may not help, but their motives are not always bad. Remember, they really believe this stuff. And many of them believe that non-believers will spend eternity in Hell if the believers don’t head them off. They believe God is really counting on them. I think they’re wrong, that God will find a way to make sure Hell is populated only by people who prefer to be there – very few, I suspect.

As for pro-lifers, I’ve said often that they have long abandoned the woman/girl. Too busy wagging their finger at her. To be so zealous for the child and merciless to the woman/girl is mad and wicked. I think that’s changing. I’d like to see all parties live, and live as happily as the world can arrange for them.

Pax,

"Because I believe God really exists, I of course think people should recognise it, as it is a very large fact." Goodthief you have to excuse people for not recognising that fact because the fact is god is myth.No baby is born a god believer , it takes a 'hell' load of child abuse before the child will hold the concept of god. Jesus as a moral figure? Thats just another Christian myth and nothing more , according to the character of Jesus only Jews went to heaven , thus he is exclusionary and thus immoral. I dont think plagerising the love they neighbour motto from the Hellenists and Zorastrians cancels out the bad values held by Jesus. Anti family too , Jesus abandoned his widowed mother to satisfy his ego in the self belief he was to be deified (Greek style). Little wonder concepts of freedom , justice , liberty and democracy are under attack by god believers. Christians improving? Evangilism is proof it is getting worst.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a doctor in an authoritarian regime could face imprisonment or even death for giving women access to abortion. How would Catholic members of Amnesty cope with that? What about countries where gay people face the death penalty? Are Catholic (or Muslim or Jewish etc) Amnesty members able to put anti-gay prejudices to one side in order to combat blatant human rights abuses of gay people?

Atheist members of Amnesty should be able to defend Christians being persecuted in places such as China. Likewise, Christian members of Amnesty should work on behalf of people whose rights are being violated even if they personally don't adhere to those people's beliefs - including their views on abortion.

Today I washed my hands after using the toilet. Am I going to hell for murdering a tiny group of non-self-aware cells?

What is the pope's position on bacteria? Should antibiotics be outlawed as instruments of murder?

The article was titled 'Prochoice Amnesty means no choice for members.'

No one in the above postings has assessed the critical issue - the process of how AI achieved a policy position that a substantial proportion of its membership were not happy with or even knew about.

The members of AI have a very clear choice - get in there and fix the problem of leadership /policy making teams not responding to the needs of the membership and focussing on issues such as the imprisonment of blind Chinese Nationals prepared to challenge the coersive behaviour of their government.

Of course, no AI members will be attending or watching the 2008 Olympics, nor supporting the commercial sponsors - just about to cancel my Visa card now...

And Col, re huge sledge of Catholic Church, see following links and note that the following quote was not found in the secular press:

While he is not religious, Wilson indicated a deep respect for the Catholic faith. "Let's face it," he told a reporter: "without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Western civilization."

Philanthropist To Donate $23M To Archdiocese

http://www.nysun.com/article/55056
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5331498

As for family planning choices, the only choices are "why am I having sex that will result in conception" and will we "loving accept children" and accept the imposition and subsequent 'sacrifices' or opportunity costs.

Of course this presumes a stable relationship. Economic adversity etc also plays a part, but, raising a family is no longer a sound economic decision. Mind you, I am banking on one of my 6.7 kids being against euthanasia, just as 0.7 is banking on my wife and I being prepared to let him remain alive, even though the trips to Bali would have been nice...

Goodthief “I will need assistance in understanding how you might have begun before conception, “

My view is that if you believe the human spirit continues after death, the notion that it might exist before conception is not insurmountable. I personally do not know but am open to the idea that my “spirit” might exist prior to conception.

As for protecting 1 year olds, the point I have always supported is separation and physical individuality. During gestation the embryo is not separate nor individual, it is part of the woman in whose womb it is developing. A one year old, despite lacking much self awareness is “separate”, “individual” and therefore “independent” of the woman in whose womb it developed.

Reality Check "And Col, re huge sledge of Catholic Church . . . .without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Western civilization."

We live in a world of free speech, the Pope does not dictate, here at least. His inquisitors hold no sway.

I am wondering how much of the unbridled lust for power and dominance over Europe did the Popes and their torturers of old contribute to the existence of “Western Civilisation”. It is no different to claiming the development of Britain was instrumentally influenced by Roman Colonialism (Although those “Romans” were “Heathens”).

Your quote might be literally accurate but its assertion is rubbish.

Without the Roman Catholic Church (or with a Roman Catholic Church had it managed not to invoke politically motivated inquisitions, systematic murder and sustained political, social and gender repression), Europe would have still developed and ended up, after suffering the ravages of invading armies from Byzantines to Napoleon and Hitler, to say nothing of the Black Death, the development of democratic government and industrial revolutions; not much different to how it is today.

Some aspects of "Western Civilisation" would have developed slower and others faster but ultimately the Roman Catholic Church is merely one tiny negative influence on a lot of non-Roman Catholics and the living example of a repressive anachronism embracing the worst aspects of paternalism, despotism and discrimination.

Part 1

Col, that was a much better bash than last. Suffice to say, there have been some very bad people who have become popes, just like there have been some very bad people who have been kings, emperors, presidents, dictators etc. Power corrupts...

The temporal activity of the Church is based on following JC and giving one's assent of faith and loyalty to your bishop, and the pope. Like the Rome of old, the ideal of citizenship (belonging) was a unifying force that led to great developments. In the absence of decent emperors, the Church fell into the breach. This didn't help the spiritual focus that is the prime reason the Church exists, however, like the founder of AI, the formation of its members means the Church continues to be active in matters political and secular and grows as part of the western tradition.

The Inquisition, as horrific as aspects of it were, was a response to the threat of Islam. Save for a French nobleman early on, the Spanish monarchs of the Inquisition and a polish king riding to Vienna, Eurabia would have been around a whole lot earlier if not for these Catholics. Napoleon wouldn't have been a general, but a Jihadi! The industrial revolution would not have transpired and we would have the economic, legal and political system of the middle east. And like early groups in the Church, crusaders - generally given bad press - set up hospitals etc that continue today.

Despite the work of Henry VIII, much of our legal system derives from the Roman Law preserved and developed in the Ecclesiastical Courts.

You final salvo needs to be assessed in how accurately it describes the enemies of the West - "but ultimately the Roman Catholic Church is merely one tiny negative influence on a lot of non-Roman Catholics and the living example of a repressive anachronism embracing the worst aspects of paternalism, despotism and discrimination.

"without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Western civilization."

That statement it utterly ridiculous.

Celts ,Norse , Goths , Galic , Tuetons all had complex civilisations. We owe much of our egalitarianism and concepts of democracy to our non-Christian ancestors. Our legal system comes directly from the pagan Roman empire. The Roman Catholic Church was an adaption of the cult of Roma of Rome - Rome by then in post decline. The Roman Catholic Church plunged Europe into instability and the darkages as it set about Ethnically cleansing non-Christian Europe. It was only when the tyranny and influence of the Roman Catholic church was in retreat that the civilisation in Europe flourished. It may be that if the Roman Catholic Church had never existed civilisation would be hundreds of years more advanced today.

A point in case is this claim that "without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Western civilization." is the type of claim the Taliban would make. The Taliban as its Christian counterpart also are against choice.

The Roman Catholic Church is a Dungeons and Dragons orginisation , it is fine if its members wish to play their games in the privacy of their arenas and homes , but for them to try and dictate on how other people should live by the game rules of their cult is as ridiculous as having having LOTR roll players telling us how we must live because Gandelf doesnt like us not playing.

Part 2
Once the secular, humanist left is destroyed by itself or Islam, it will be too late to recall the liberating effect of Roman Christianity. But don't worry, our evangelical friends in the USA won't let that happen without a fight (aka WWII), however this is at odds with the ultimate goal … the message of the gospel is fullness of life for all, especially for those made poor, both materially and in Spirit.

West: re other cultures – I think HAD is the operative word. Why did these ‘barbarians’ succumb to the Roman Church? Gregory the Great had no army when Rome was besieged. Maybe there was something to the Church’s teachings? Did these people rationally adopt a faith response to their world view beyond element and animal worship?
As for “throwing Europe into instability and the dark ages as it set about ethnically cleansing non-Christian Europe” can you provide specific examples from that period? I am not too sure if the secular rulers and disease were more responsible for the chaos, rather than Church teachings.

The ‘Taliban’ reference: the Universalism of the Church’s teachings and its survival of the Enlightenment and every other post-Christian attempt to redefine mankind probably have more to do with rational thought than intimidation and fear. As far as I am aware, no one has to be Catholic, even in Rome, but try getting to Mecca with your baptism certificate in hand!

The Church has a unique role and acquired knowledge. If its pronouncements appear to be dictatorial, the reality is that it is merely a voice in the wilderness, ignored by some, appreciated by others, forced on none. If the Church has power, then like the D & D people, it is with assent. If its message is valid, then, 1.1 Billion of us should be able to express views on our history, imperfect as it is.

Anyhow, I would be more concerned about Islamic foundations than Christian ones. Finally, how was the West won? Was it Polish communists that brought down the last vestige of fascism?

back to the topic…
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/battle-amnesty-need-not-have-brought-on-itself/2007/05/28/1180205155581.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap

Reality Check , the Popes used the armies of kingdoms. The whole purpose of the Pope was to be Christs Vicar to justify the coronations of king and emporer.The Roman church weilded violence on a grand scale and was still doing so as it financially and spiritually supported facism in Europe.

By moral sensibilities alone the Catholic church is barbaric . As far as your Mecca analogy is concerned , go to Rome and see how Jews are treated in 2007. Compare what you find to the plight of Christians in Iraq or Lebanon. Islamists have nothing against Christianits both hold exactly the same values ,both want absolute control, both see themselves as a master race. Both are immoral yet claim moral monopoly.Christianity and Islam have the same idolatry, the same founding principles , that there is only their god, all must submit to their way and the majority of mankind over all time is wrong.

I dont care if its Bin Laden , the Pope or Mussolini, how I live my life or anybody elses life is none of the business of their devotees.

Reality Check “If its pronouncements appear to be dictatorial, the reality is that it is merely a voice in the wilderness, ignored by some, appreciated by others, forced on none”

I recall many years ago a faithful Catholic lady who I dated was told by her priest, if she continued to “sleep” with me (she was formally separated from her husband before we met) he would refuse her communion. Such coercion to the “will of the church” suggests your claim “forced on none “ is a lie.

The continued attempts by the Church of Rome to have abortion outlawed and criminalised would suggest a similar fallacy of reasoning regarding “forced on none”.

The history of the Church of Rome and its attempts to manipulate, from selective inclusion of only some of the gospels to rewriting the bible, the inquisitions to the coverup of paedophile priests, would suggest a word like “force“ (by any means) is in common use in the Roman Catholic lexicon.

Certainly, if it had its way, the Church of Rome would ensure abortion, contraception and divorce would all be illegal. The priesthood would have greater control over the everyday lives of people who are presently free to “heretically” challenge their authority. The Pope knew absolute powre and how to wield it, only the opportunity is lacking but I am sure the desire for such absolutes remains in a dictatorial organisation which demands absolute obedinece from those foolish enough to give it any recognition at all.

For me, I am happy to be considered a “heretic” by the Pope and face God and tell him why. I am equally sure he sees through the malevolent aspirations of the Papists and agrees my stand.

I respect women sufficiently to presume they know, on the matter of abortion, what is right for each of them. I acknowledge that some may regret their decisions (to both have and forego an abortion when the opportunity arrives) but we are all responsible for the outcomes of the decisions we make.

Nicely put West.