The Guardian reported today that a senior Vatican cardinal said that Catholics should not donate money to Amnesty International given Amnesty's new position on abortion. While Amnesty does not have a comprehensive policy on abortion, it supports it for victims of rape and forced impregnation. This goes against the Catholic doctrine that abortion is the equivalent of taking a human life and is not permissible under any circumstances. The Cardinal's stance seems a bit extreme, however, given that Amnesty is not actually conducting any abortions nor advocating them per se. It's also baffling why it comes at this stage, after a Papal visit to Latin America where he remained silent on the issue despite the propagation of abortion laws in the continent. It's also quite hypocritical given that the Vatican does not advocate that Catholic take similar positions against institutions that support the death penalty, or, for that matter, the commission of crimes against humanity.
The issue of abortion is a particular difficult one for human rights advocates. While most international conventions on human rights remain silent on the issue, the American Convention states clearly that "[e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." The "in general" gives supporters of abortion some wiggle room. One can argue that depriving a fetus of life to save the life or health of the mother is no arbitrary deprivation of life - just as killing in self defense is legally acceptable. Moreover law, including international law, has advanced sufficiently to accept that mental health is just as important as physical health - and no one can argue that being forced to carry the child of your rapist and torturer is not a form of torture in itself. In the balance of rights, it seems that Amnesty's position is the more legally and, I'd say, morally, sustainable.
But the American Convention, with its Catholic overtones, is troublesome for those who would advocate abortion on demand. While the Convention acknowledges a right to privacy: "[no] one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life...", it's easily arguable that such right would not protect the taking of another's life - if indeed, as the Convention says, life begins at conception. And for those of us who use Conventions as weapons in the fight for human rights and against impunity, the American Convention cannot be easily dismissed. After all, if we as human rights advocates are quickly to drop those clauses we don't like, there is nothing to stop governments from doing the same with the clauses they find troublesome. Consistency can be a very difficult stand to take.
I can't say that I have found a solution to this dilemma. Derechos' mandate includes the protection and promotion of human rights and humanitarian law, but also the promotion and protection of the right to privacy. One of the fundamental human rights we protect is that of physical integrity. Being obliged to carry on an unwanted pregnancy, with all the physical and mental health risks it carries, can be a violation of this right. In addition, we understand the right to privacy more broadly than the Convention to include the right of a woman to chose what to do with her own body, including getting an abortion if she so sees fit. This is not a right we work on - there are specific organizations that deal with this very issue - but one we acknowledge. We do, however, subscribe to a scientific view of when life begins rather than a religious one.
We are probably too small to get the Vatican to attack us for this position (wouldn't that be nice?), but we hope that those organizations that are attacked will stand up to the Vatican. The threat of losing financial support, and indeed, losing it, should never make you change your stand.