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?