Amnesty International - Don't Forget That Reproductive Rights Are Human Rights
Amnesty International is currently consulting its membership on a new policy on sexual and reproductive rights. Their plan is to decide by August 2007 on a position that would address these three aspects of abortion:
* Decriminalization of abortion - this means that individuals will not be jailed for seeking an abortion or performing an abortion
* Access to quality health care services. This is to ensure that mothers will not die from complications that arise as a result of an abortion, be it legal or illegal
* Access to abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest and when the continuation of the pregnancy will risk the life of a woman.
I'm very happy that Amnesty International wants to address these three particular aspects. However, I'm still hesitant to think that they are leaving out some other important aspects, particularly in the last one. How about access to abortion for women to exercise their human rights to space the number of pregnancies they want to have? How about universal access to birth control and comprehensive sex education? I think these are much larger human rights concerns, than simply not punishing women for having abortions for uncontrollable circumstances.
Of course the pro-life groups are up in arms about this policy, thinking that Amnesty International is violating their mission of protecting human rights by denying the unborn the right to life. They invoke Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which it states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." I do not deny that human rights is based upon this principle of life, liberty, and security - principles that are what the U.S. were founded on (with the exception being the pursuit of happiness, which could also mean security to pursue happiness in this respect).
And of course by invoking human rights, we always engage in the same moral argument about whether fetuses are considered persons or not. In this article*, the author has very clearly stated that science proves that persons are formed from concept. However, he never says person - he says human beings. This is the tricky part about this moral argument. When we say human being, do we mean biologically human or socially human? Of course the fetus is human - as he mentions the genetic material is clearly there so that the fetus will not develop into any other creature other than human. However, because humans have a unique genetic code from the time of conception, does that mean that humans develop personhood as soon as their genetic code is formed? Personhood is not always bestowed as soon as you're conceived or even when you're born. In some cultures, it may take up to two years before you are given a name. You may not live to the age of two and it may be painful to give a child a name when it may die. In Ecuador, for religious reasons they do not assign personhood until the child is about two years old and then it is baptized by the community. We all engage in community rites in which we welcome new humans - whether they be religious such as baptisms, social such as baby showers, medical as seen with "baby's first photos" when ultrasounds are taken, institutional when the government assigns a social security number or other nation ID, etc.
Perhaps we should be thinking of persons in terms of ourselves and think about what makes us human beings and not just simply a species that shares the same genetic material (the same material that is only 1% different from chimpanzees). Amnesty International - think about what women's lives are like in terms of sexuality and reproductive health. Abortion is but one choice made by women in these very broad areas. It's also a medical procedure that every person should have the right to have, and not simply one that we feel guilty about and grant that out of guilt. We should grant abortions to women who want them out of love - love of knowing that they know what's best for their bodies, their lives, their family's lives, their community's lives, etc. Trust women to make the decision to know what is best for themselves and don't dictate human rights to exclude this important decision of any woman's life: controlling whether and when she wants to have children.
*Article link: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Henry_Bishop_Fred/2006/09/17/1852877.html
* Decriminalization of abortion - this means that individuals will not be jailed for seeking an abortion or performing an abortion
* Access to quality health care services. This is to ensure that mothers will not die from complications that arise as a result of an abortion, be it legal or illegal
* Access to abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest and when the continuation of the pregnancy will risk the life of a woman.
I'm very happy that Amnesty International wants to address these three particular aspects. However, I'm still hesitant to think that they are leaving out some other important aspects, particularly in the last one. How about access to abortion for women to exercise their human rights to space the number of pregnancies they want to have? How about universal access to birth control and comprehensive sex education? I think these are much larger human rights concerns, than simply not punishing women for having abortions for uncontrollable circumstances.
Of course the pro-life groups are up in arms about this policy, thinking that Amnesty International is violating their mission of protecting human rights by denying the unborn the right to life. They invoke Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which it states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." I do not deny that human rights is based upon this principle of life, liberty, and security - principles that are what the U.S. were founded on (with the exception being the pursuit of happiness, which could also mean security to pursue happiness in this respect).
And of course by invoking human rights, we always engage in the same moral argument about whether fetuses are considered persons or not. In this article*, the author has very clearly stated that science proves that persons are formed from concept. However, he never says person - he says human beings. This is the tricky part about this moral argument. When we say human being, do we mean biologically human or socially human? Of course the fetus is human - as he mentions the genetic material is clearly there so that the fetus will not develop into any other creature other than human. However, because humans have a unique genetic code from the time of conception, does that mean that humans develop personhood as soon as their genetic code is formed? Personhood is not always bestowed as soon as you're conceived or even when you're born. In some cultures, it may take up to two years before you are given a name. You may not live to the age of two and it may be painful to give a child a name when it may die. In Ecuador, for religious reasons they do not assign personhood until the child is about two years old and then it is baptized by the community. We all engage in community rites in which we welcome new humans - whether they be religious such as baptisms, social such as baby showers, medical as seen with "baby's first photos" when ultrasounds are taken, institutional when the government assigns a social security number or other nation ID, etc.
Perhaps we should be thinking of persons in terms of ourselves and think about what makes us human beings and not just simply a species that shares the same genetic material (the same material that is only 1% different from chimpanzees). Amnesty International - think about what women's lives are like in terms of sexuality and reproductive health. Abortion is but one choice made by women in these very broad areas. It's also a medical procedure that every person should have the right to have, and not simply one that we feel guilty about and grant that out of guilt. We should grant abortions to women who want them out of love - love of knowing that they know what's best for their bodies, their lives, their family's lives, their community's lives, etc. Trust women to make the decision to know what is best for themselves and don't dictate human rights to exclude this important decision of any woman's life: controlling whether and when she wants to have children.
*Article link: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Henry_Bishop_Fred/2006/09/17/1852877.html