Amnesty International, Abortion and the Catholic Church

Republican Politics, American Style
Published on July 12th 2007 in Metro Eireann By Charles Laffiteau

Today I would like to discuss what for many people is a very sensitive subject and that is a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Recently I noticed that a Vatican Cardinal, Renato Martino, was calling for Catholics to stop making donations to Amnesty International because of a change in that organization’s policy dealing with abortion. I was perplexed by this apparent change in the Church’s position towards a long time ally on issues involving respect for human rights around the world, including their mutual opposition to the use of the death penalty.
In 1995, Pope John Paul II wrote his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) in which he clarified the Catholic Church’s position on the death penalty, stating that execution is only appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” While this statement does not represent an absolute position against the use of the death penalty, notwithstanding the fact that the Church has taken an absolute position against the use of abortion, it clearly expresses the Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of the death penalty.
Many Catholics, particularly in the United States (US), support the use of the death penalty, so I was very heartened by the Pope’s clear opposition to it. I have long admired both Amnesty International and the Catholic Church for their mutual positions with respect to defending human rights and opposing the legalized use of the death penalty. While the Catholic Church has also been a long time opponent of legalized abortions, Amnesty International has never taken a position for or against the use of abortion or a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have one.
As I understand Amnesty International’s position on abortion, I can’t help but see its recent policy addition as anything more than simply a clarification of its position on this issue, just as Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical was an attempt to clarify the Catholic Church’s position on the legalized use of the death penalty. Amnesty International has clarified its position on abortion to bring it into accord with rulings by the United Nations Human Rights Court.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see what all the fuss is about and I definitely don’t understand why the Catholic Church is encouraging its members to stop supporting the work of Amnesty International. Just as Pope John Paul II recognized that the death penalty may be appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society,” so too does Amnesty International recognize that a woman should be allowed to have a medically safe abortion “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when the pregnancy is the result of the crimes of rape and incest or the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman’s health and life.”
I fail to see the difference between the Catholic Church’s exceptions regarding the use of the death penalty and Amnesty International’s exceptions regarding the use of abortion. Recognizing that there may be situations where circumstances warrant the use of the death penalty doesn’t make the Catholic Church anymore pro-death penalty than Amnesty International’s policy on abortion makes it pro-abortion. Why is the Church contending that it does?
Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to a child when doing so may mean she will die? What if she has other children that she has to care for? Who will be responsible for them and or the newborn child? Many countries in the developing world lack the healthcare or social services to care for motherless children and infants. In such countries the death of the mother leads to a slow death through disease or starvation of her children. I have to ask myself; “Is this what God would really want for them or their mother?”
Should a woman who has been the victim of criminal incest be forced to give birth to a child who has a fifty percent chance of being deformed or retarded? Will she be able to properly care for a child with special needs? What are those child’s chances if it is born in a country like Somalia or Zimbabwe? If that child is lucky enough to be born in a country with good social services for children who are given up for adoption what do you think the chances are that a family will adopt a child with special needs? Isn’t such a child more likely to grow up without a family as a ward of the state? Again I have to ask; “Is this what God would really want for a child or for a woman who has already been victimized once by the crime of incest?”
Should a woman be forced to bear a child that has been the result of the crime of rape? In many parts of the developing world women who have been raped have little or no chance of ever seeing their rapist punished for his crime. She is often considered unclean or not suitable as a future spouse within her village or community as well. Isn’t this adding further injury to her, by depriving her of any prospects of future happiness or companionship? Must she be forced to live her life caring for a child that is a constant reminder of the crime and injuries inflicted upon her? If that child is born in a poor village in Africa, what do you think the chances are that it will survive, much less thrive as it is growing up? I ask myself; “Is this really what God wants, for her to be persecuted for the rest of her life for being the victim of a crime?”
If any of you readers can answer these questions, I hope you will email or write and send them to me care of Metro Eireann. I will look forward to reading them.