An open letter to Amnesty International

Amnesty pregnant lady

A few days ago, Colm O’Gorman, the Executive Director of the Irish branch of Amnesty International, blocked me on Twitter. Despite the fact that I have only ever tweeted him in a professional capacity (as a fellow spokesperson on the issue of abortion), and never in a rude or abusive manner, it’s his right to block whoever he wants and I respect that.

Before taking leave of the debate, he did suggest that future questions that I have should be sent directly to Amnesty Ireland. And so, in keeping with his wishes, here are my questions:

• Why does Amnesty support abortion for babies with “severe foetal impairment” or “fatal foetal impairment”? These terms refer to seriously ill or terminally ill babies. Why does Amnesty believe that ill babies don’t deserve the same protection as babies who don’t have health problems?

• Why isn’t Amnesty there to protect babies who have any disabilities? It’s just been revealed that the number of children aborted in the UK following a diagnosis of cleft palate has nearly tripled in the last 5 years – where is Amnesty’s comment on this horrific statistic of children whose lives are being ended due to a minor facial disfigurement that can be easily rectified? Why doesn’t Amnesty speak out for the children who are aborted following a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome?

Amnesty Downs girl

• When carrying out its research, why didn’t Amnesty engage with women and girls who had testimonies of real relevance to the debate – those, like Bernadette Goulding, who regret their abortions and run abortion recovery groups like Women Hurt; those, like Melissa Ohden, who survived abortions and who are only alive because medics took pity on them instead of leaving them in a corner to die; those, like the families in One Day More and Every Life Counts who continued with their pregnancy following a diagnosis of life-limiting condition, and who made precious memories with their baby as a result? Don’t their experiences matter to Amnesty and if not, why not?

• Why has Amnesty never addressed the central problem with its campaign to introduce abortion – the fact that it is pushing for the introduction of a procedure that ends human lives and which allows one group of human beings to decide that another group doesn’t have the right to be alive?

• Why does Amnesty downplay or ignore the fact that the Preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”? Since when did Amnesty use legal loopholes to allow the ending of human lives to continue?

• Why doesn’t Amnesty simply accept the fact that its current vision is one that creates two separate classes of human beings? Instead of working to protect all human beings throughout the world, the organisation now works to exclude legal protection from unborn children based on the decision of somebody else. No amount of spin or quoting international human rights treaties can change the fact that Amnesty no longer protects every human life and this is a source of great sadness and upset for many of its former members.

• In short, when will Amnesty start doing what it once did so well – act as a genuine watchdog for every human being, born or unborn, whose life is in danger?

Amnesty was once a great human rights defender. It still does great work in many areas. But when it comes to abortion, Amnesty ignores an entire group of humans, and they are the most vulnerable, voiceless among us.

Until Amnesty rectifies its approach to the unborn whose lives are in such peril, it cannot claim the title of “human rights organisation”. Its spokespeople can ignore this reality but they cannot change the truth – the world needs Amnesty to act as a genuine watchdog for every human being, born and unborn, not just those who are deemed acceptable on arbitrary grounds.

  • DubU2Fan

    Well done Cora, a brilliant open letter to ‘Amnesty’ Ireland, posing questions that they will not and cannot answer. Given that its pro-abortion campaign funding can be linked to the grotesque and hideous Mr. Soros, I deem ‘Amnesty’ Ireland’s claim to be a human rights organisation, defunct.

  • Damien Gavin

    Well done cora. Be surprised though if they reply. They’re disgusting.

  • Conchita

    Thanks, Cora.
    I admire your factual and logical approach to the debate. Keep to going. Well needed in an Ireland (and the rest of the “enlightenment” western world), where PC “beliefs”, (as unfounded irrational beliefs they are), masqueraded by lack of properly based arguments, are replacing common sense and argumentation.

    Your peaceful presence is a balm for the likes of me horrified by this huge nightmare. A sign of inner freedom and love. Praying for you.

  • mollysdad

    I went to a book signing on Monday. Ann Furedi was presenting “The Moral Case for Abortion”. She is the Chief Executive of BPAds, Britain’s leading provider of abortions.

    When she addressed the topic of decriminalising abortion I produced the Indictment from the case of United States v Greifelt & ors [1948], the precedent that establishes abortion as a crime against humanity of murder in international criminal law.

    Committing it, or advocating its decriminalisation of abortion is a crime in Ireland contrary to section 7 of the International Criminal Court Actb 2006.

    I told Ann Furedi to her face that, had she been on trial alongside the SS, the Tribunal would have sent her to the gallows.

    I had a conversation afterwards with her young followers, and I was able
    to get them to admit that, if they were right about abortion, then SS officers who stood before the Tribunal as defendants should not have been tried for it, nor two of them
    convicted.

    She said that enabling abortion is an exercise in celebrating humanity and
    that it is inhumane to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

    On a wide construction of “inhumane” I suppose she’s right; but she’d have an uphill struggle to convince me that compelling an unwilling woman to give birth is comparable in its inhumanity to the bestiality that international criminal law is designed to deal with.

    If there were a born alive rule that prevents abortion from being legally a crime against humanity of murder, then there’s no law against encouraging abortion and providing abortion services, even if done for the purpose of destroying national and ethnic groups.