Amnesty International fights for the rights of women violated by war
ByAmnesty International and the Roman Catholic church appear to be heading for a show down over the contentious matter of abortion. AI has enjoyed the backing of the Vatican since its inception in 1961. Founder Peter Benenson, a British lawyer, was a convert to Catholicism. The Catholic church could withdraw its support of AI which could impact on Amnesty’s ability to perform its mission.
Amnesty International has puzzled over the issue of supporting abortion for two years. One can see that the organisation has not taken this step lightly. However, the violation of women in Darfur where rape has become a weapon of war, has persuaded AI that abortion should be supported in the case where these abused women wish to have abortions or where the woman’s life could be in danger should the pregnancy continue.
Amnesty’s mission is to ‘stand alongside the victims and survivors of human rights violation’. Amnesty feels that women who are raped as part of a strategic weapon in a war, are having their human rights abused and therefore should be able to have the medical attention that could help them survive these ordeals.
I find it incredibly difficult to understand how the Roman Catholic church could not be concerned for the well being of victims of human rights abuses. I do get the concerns over the right to life. I am pro life myself. But I would weigh the life of the raped and abused woman higher than the life of an unborn, unplanned even unwanted fetus.
Iit is difficult to understand how women’s rights, as in those ravaged by acts of war, could be so irrelevant and unimportant, that their well being is put at risk. It is particularly astonishing to see that the Roman Catholic church could have this stance as none of the policy makers are women. How can men who have no idea, as to the assault these women have had to survive, decide over the well being of women abused by an act of war?
One would presume that the heads of the Catholic church believe that they represent God’s will and are therefore able to act as God would. One surely would find it difficult to believe in a God who would disregard a woman’s rights to some help after she has been totally violated.
But then these are members of the same church who in previous generations burnt people at the stake, all in the name and according to the command of the same God. It is presumable now frowned on by the Catholic church. Could they be wrong this time as well?
Let’s hope that Amnesty International stands strong and upholds its new mission. Amnesty International is not pro-abortion per se. According to the deputy general secretary of the international human rights group, Kate Gilmore who was quoted in the Independent, they are ‘ purely fighting for women’s human rights to be free of fear, threat and coercion as they manage all consequences of rape and other grave human rights violations’.
I have been supporting AI’s campaigns for years, I hope others who have done so as well, will continue to give their support, irrespective of the withdrawal of the endorsement by the Catholic church.
4 Comments
August 14th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Would be nice if they could fight for the rights of women violated by religious and cultural theocratic dogma which basically still enslaves hundreds of millions of women all over the world.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
That would be something if there could be equality.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Given that he basis of the Catholic Church is God’s Law, the well-being of all is a prescript of that Law. Injury, including rape, is by its nature also contrary to the Law.
The same is true for the killing of an unborn foetus, even if it is the result of a rape.
Abortion is thus considered by the Church as contrary to that Law.
Claiming that the Church that has for centuries performed charitable, humanitarian works is not concerned with these women’s plight, is simplistic and invalid.
Artificial contraception was rejected by all Christian denominations prior to the early twentieth century – after the Anglican Church conceded to public opinion, they allowed the practice. The Catholic Church however remained faithful to God’s Law.
The gender of the person representing the Church has no bearing on the intent of God’s law – the outcome would be the same.
Yes, many Catholics have committed many atrocities over the last two thousand years, and may will do so in the future,
Those that performed those evil deeds did so contrary to God’s Law and contrary to the Church’s guidance.
Christ insisted his disciples obey the Law proclaimed by the Pharisees, even he warned them not to follow their example.
Peter, the first bishop of Rome, denied knowing Christ three times – yet he was retained as an apostle and was appointed as the Rock of the Church, carrying out that duty until his martyrdom. Not many of us have that fortitude or faith!
The horror of Darfur is indeed a tragedy. Although a close friend was attacked and raped, ageing ten years in one, I cannot imagine how those women feel, but their unwanted pregnancies are only a part of the horror. Many other conditions in their environment must be corrected. I doubt that there is enough political determination to do so.
There are also many other areas in Africa where rape is like a plague – they all need help.
The Catholic Church is actively involved in caring for those in need in Africa.
Your comments are thus unjustified and incorrect.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Thank you for your comments which as always are welcome.
I respect your right to your opinion. I hope to be allowed mine.