Amnesty International, Amnesty Institutional

            Forcing Abortion to Guarantee Abuse

            Nobody looks at abortion as a victory. It is always, no matter what side you are on – pro-life or pro-infanticide – a failure. What the press at large can’t say is that behind every procured abortion is sin. Very often, at root is the sin of many a man… for example, the immature lover, the irresponsible father, the wealthy abortionist, the husband who abandoned his wife.

            I was amazed when I had heard that Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao of Brazil had announced that, in this Catholic nation where hundreds of millions of condoms are passed out on the street and where birth control pills are given out at drug stores, these same drug stores will have stock piles of the “morning after” pill. You know, take a pill and kill that little baby growing in your womb… why visit the abortionist?

            But new news showed how the War Against the Child is ratcheting up. And in this war, more persons have been murdered, and more brutally, than in ten thousand Iraqi Wars. I refer to Amnesty International’s new policy.

Amnesty International’s board has outdone themselves in evil this time around. Ryan T. Anderson, a contributor for First Things, published an article in the Weekly Standard in which he states,

Hidden on the members-only section of its website was the announcement of a new policy that condemns as a human-rights violator any country that does not allow broad access to abortion or punishes abortion providers.

“This policy will not be made public at this time,” the website instructed its visitors. “There is to be no proactive external publication of the policy position or of the fact of its adoption issued.” Amnesty International officials had good reason to want to keep this new policy quiet: It undermines their voice as global human-rights advocates, and they know it.[1]

            Oh, wait. They say they are neutral on abortion. They say they have no say about whether it is good or evil. But attempting to force it into legislation is actually asserting it is good; such is the nature of law. Honestly, I tire with so many people who say one thing and do the other. They say the love Jesus, but live in sin. Amnesty International has joined the club, for it says it is neutral, but then takes sides.

            Does anyone see a problem with, well, mental sanity here? Is there a difference between schizophrenics and the board of Amnesty International? If they do one thing and say the opposite, they are either crazy or liars. I’ll be kind in my judgment, and say they need to be locked up in an institution.

            It’s not just the madness of wanting to abort their own babies in private. They march to a militant drum roll, and they demand the blood of babies from every nation. Every nation has to approve of abortion. Can that possibly be seen as a neutral position as well? The Vatican (Card. Martino) speedily came out with a strong condemnation of this, thanks be to God.[2]

            Abortion is one of the most important social, political and religious issues of our day. It is the beating heart of the attack on the family. Where there is abortion, there is a failsafe for every selfish and sinful sexual act. Fornication can be hidden. Couples can keep their expensive life style, free time and status-addresses. Irresponsible persons have the leisure to never grow up and take on the responsibility of relations. And without babies, heck, we can all watch more TV. And on one of those super-expensive screens, too. The second-to-last failsafe for having sex and stomping out life is, of course, contraception (which at times is abortive, too).

            So the real question is this: who benefits from the abortion? And who benefits from Amnesty International’s activism? The answer is (dare I say it out loud?): men. But not all men; more specifically: perverse men. Selfish boyfriends. Bad husbands. Manipulative lovers. Men who are slaves to their own passions. The dirty secret about both contraception and abortion is that they are both means for men to sexually abuse women – perhaps even with women’s consent – to gratify themselves.

            So let’s re-write Amnesty International’s position to say what really hides behind it: “Amnesty International condemns as a human-rights violator any country that does not allow men to sexually abuse women, an abuse guaranteed by abortion on demand.” That’s amnesty? If we institutionalize AI’s board, let’s make sure no men work at the institution.