Yes, I know, there are those who insist that access to abortion is a human right. There are those such as myself who don’t agree. Rather than getting bogged down on whether it is or not, just a thought about Amnesty having decided to add the first view to its wish list:
Amnesty International risks alienating some of its high-profile rock star
backers in the row over its decision to support women’s access to abortion.
The group has been accused of “duping” the singers Christina Aguilera and
Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion and are among
contributors to an Amnesty CD released to raise money for survivors of the
atrocities in Darfur.
Two weeks ago, just two months after the album’s release, Amnesty adopted a
worldwide policy to back the right of women to abortion in carefully defined
circumstances — for example, when their health or life are in danger or
when they have been victims of rape in areas of conflict such as Darfur.
The album, which has already sold more than 400,000 copies, features cover
versions of hits by John Lennon such as Imagine, and Give Peace a Chance. It
was made possible by Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono, who gave the rights to all his
solo works to Amnesty in 2003.
The policy on abortion has brought Amnesty into conflict with the Roman
Catholic Church, and has shown how new divides have displaced the old
left-right geopolitics that gave rise to Amnesty. The group was founded in
Britain in 1961 by Peter Benenson, a radical socialist lawyer and a Catholic
convert, to campaign for the release of prisoners of conscience.
As a private organisation of course Amnesty is entirely at liberty to believe in and campaign for whatever its members want. But I do think they’re rather missing a trick here. As a single issue organisation, campaigning for fair trials, against capital punishment and torture, they can speak with an almost unique moral voice: there aren’t that many who are going to argue in favour of unfair trials, after all, at least none that we won’t immediately label as the baddies.
Keep adding to this list of "rights" to be fought for though and that voice becomes diluted. It’s not just that the Catholic Church (which has been a heavy supporter) is now going to withdraw: it’s a lot easier for people to ignore your views on killing people at one end of life if you’re supporting such killing at the other. No, that doesn’t have to make precise logical sense, perceptions are all in such matters.
On the other hand, this is indeed the way that all organisations go in the end. Mission creep happens and what started out as an excellent idea becomes diluted, attempts to incorporate all sorts of other good things (in the views of those inside) and then, eventually, the organisation fails. Happens to companies, governments, don’t see why it shouldn’t happen to charities.
Leave a Reply to Philip HuntCancel reply