Since the Gulf War, I have been a contributor to Amnesty International. A woman of conscience could not reasonably contribute to an entity that advocates violence, in any form, against the unborn, which also inevitably degrades women, oftentimes at the manipulation of a man, and in 3rd world countries, has historically meant the termination of female pre-born babies (India and China).
I am a member of Amnesty International. I am a secular feminist consistent life person. I did not join Amnesty to further my pro-preborn life agenda; I joined to help prisoners of conscience and work against capital punishment of born people. Abortion is a violation of the right to life. Amnesty should remain neutral allowing everyone to work harmoniously on its remit. If it goes pro-abortion, it will change beyond recognition, to the point where even Peter Benenson, its founder, might not feel welcome should be be alive today.
Many, many supporters of Amnesty International believe abortion is unethical. Please don't force me to cease my support for AI by adopting a pro-abortion position.
I have been involved with Amnesty International since 2000 as a member, student group leader, and an intern. Please do not do this. Abortion is inconsistent with human rights.
AI, I have been involved in your efforts in college to advocate to those seeking help throughout the world for basic human rights. Please reconsider your position on abortion as a human right and acknowledge the scientific evidence proving the humanity of a an pre-born baby growing and living in the womb.
Thank you!
I've written countless letters for AI over the years in opposition to the death penalty, torture and other human rights violations. I find it horribly inconsistent for AI to oppose the death penalty for one class of humans (prisoners) and then to advocate it for another class i.e. unborn humans. Decriminalizing abortion will not - and has not - lead to improved social and economic conditions for women in either the developed or developing world. It has only resulted in the death of unborn innocents in addition to contributing to the ever increasing rates of women in poverty. AI knows all too well that violence toward any group of humans solves nothing. If AI chooses not to defend unborn humans very right to be then a reasonable compromise would be to remain neutral on the issue of abortion.
I've been a member of AI since 1989, and haven given beyond the annual membership fee. I've been a member of the Urgent Action group and have written many letters beyond that. I strongly urge AI to protect ALL humans, especially the weakest and most invisible: the unborn.
Why would AI look to embrace an act of violence, and marginalize its supporters who oppose that violence? Ultimately, this will be an embarrassment for AI.
I have donated money to Amnesty International and have been part of AI Letter Writing and Urgent Action campaigns in the past. I respect AI as an advocate for human rights. To abandon a neutral stance on this issue in favor of support for decriminalizing abortion comes as a bitter disappointment to me. It helps transform AI into a far more one-sided, partisan organization than it once was.
As one who has worked diligently with Amnesty International in Portland, Oregon to oppose the death penalty, I strongly urge Amnesty International to maintain its long-standing position of neutrality on abortion.
The unborn child is a human too, with RIGHTS. They are defenseless and innocent, all the more in need of protection. Humans do not have the right to kill innocent human beings. How is abortion a right? It is a "convenience" at the expense of life.
In supporting the work of Amnesty since the 1980s, I have meant to embrace the idea that to destroy a single life is to destroy a whole world, even as to save a single life is to save a whole world. (Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:5)
It would be very unfortunate for Amnesty International to make Abortion Rights one of its rights. It has the grave potential of alienating the faith community, and their long support for AI's international work. The loss would be AI's and the many imprisoned people AI supports around the world.
I have been a member and supporter of Amnesty International for many years. I greatly value the important work of AI, especially during this time when many of our leaders fail to condemn the practice of torture. However, if AI endorses abortion I will no longer support AI as an organization. Abortion is simply another form of torture and killing.
I have been a support of Amnesty International for quite a while, and have responded to alerts on torture and human rights violations. However, if A.I. decides to adopt a stand that abortion is a right, then I will no longer be able to support Amnesty's efforts. I can't support a position that goes against my faith and reason. Life is sacred at all stages--from the womb to the tomb. It's much more important to get at the root causes that lead women to think that abortion is their only option, or that a man can force a woman to get an abortion. Abortion is not peaceful process, but a violent one--which has also brought much suffering and regret to women physically and emotionally who have had abortions. I agree with Consistent Life Supporters of A.I. that the long-standing neutrality position of A.I. on abortion is the reasonable compromise.
As a member of Amnesty International Urgent Appeals network I am quite disturbed at this foray into this decisive issue. The departure in this case from a focus on prisoners jeapordizes Amnesty's effectiveness. neutrality has woeked in the past and should continue to do so
Please know that I have been an active supporter of AI since high school - more than 20 years - and could not in good conscience continue to support an organization that advocates for legal abortion.
I believe that NO person has the "right" to commit violence against another person. We must work together to protect all people from the violence of abortion, war, euthanasia, racism, poverty and capital punishment! Choose life. Help create a more just and humance society!
I applaud Amnesty's opposition to forced abortion as practiced in China. Not acceptable would be AI's move to deny the right to life to unborn children by declaring that the act of the willful execution of an unborn human being is the exercise of a woman's "right."
I have written letters through AI urging the government not to legalize torture, and I believe AI does vital work. I want to keep working together with AI and encourage AI to maintain its stance of neutrality on abortion so as not to divide its supporters. We need to be a unified voice to be effective. Thank you.
respect for life is the common ground that brings supporters of amnesty international together. Why would an organization so committed to preserving life want to lose so many supporters of good faith who cannot violate their conscience by supporting an organization that accepts and perhaps encourages a lack of respect for life at its most vulnerable stage in the womb. Violence is violence and dealing in death as a social measure is dehumanizing to us all.
There is no way that killing the unborn can be established as a human right! Amnesty is respected by many. This would lessen its credibility and narrow its base of supporters. We certainly could not continue to support Amnesty here at Xavier University.
I have participated in numerous AI letter-writing appeals, particularly with regard to Latin America, where I have worked for many years. I do not want to have to scrape the AI sticker off my university office door!
I am not an AI member, but I have written to government officials on behalf of political prisoners supported by AI. Amnesty International will lose all credibility if it opposes execution for adults but supports the right to kill innocent unborn children. For that reason I strongly urge you to re-think the change in AI policy to consider abortion a human right. Indeed, abortion is an absolute abnegation of the most basic of all human rights.
Over 3,500 terminations per day, 1.3 MILLION per year in the United States alone.
50 or 60 MILLION per year World Wide.
I am a pro-lifer who has no religious convictions at all . I didn't need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just a good sence of what is right and wrong.
You see we were all once a fetus. Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?
You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories. In this day and age with terminations being so readily available and so many being carried out, if you make it to full term
you can consider yourself lucky. Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you. Don't you think they all deserve the same basic human right, LIFE?
I'm all for contraception, prevention is certainly better than termination.
Did you know you can get an implant that is safe, 99.9% effective, and lasts for three years? Just think girls not even a show for three years, wouldn't that be great? I think too many people rely too heavily on the last option (abortion), I think if abortions weren't so readily available people would manage their reproductive system far better resulting in a fraction of the number of unwanted pregnancies.
World wide there are over 50 MILLION aborted pregnancies each year. In America 3,500 terminations carried out every day, that's over 1.3 million every year, 50% of all cases claimed that birth control had been used, 48% admitted they took no precaution, and 2% had a medical reason. That's a stagering 98% that may have been prevented had an effective birth control been used. Don't get me wrong, I suspect the percentages i
