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.