A response to Amnesty International's abortion policy in light of Mulieris Dignitatem.

• Author: Adolphe, Jane F.

INTRODUCTION

It is an honor and a challenge to participate in a conference devoted to the interdisciplinary study of Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem. This Article focuses on chapter four, "Eve-Mary," and in particular, the effects of original sin on the relationship between man and woman. When considering the "disturbance of this original relationship," (1) two questions are raised: What is the original relationship? How is it disturbed? In response, Pope John Paul II argues that the original relationship between man and woman was one of "communion,.... unity of the two," existing "side by side" and "one for the other," founded on a fundamental equality that stems from their dignity as human persons made in the image and likeness of God. (2) The original relationship was later disrupted and marked by a break in this unity, with more tragic results for woman, because mutual sincere gift of self is replaced with man's domination of woman. (3) The disturbance reaches an insidious level when a man forces a mother into an unwanted abortion, or injures or kills her, along with her unborn child, when the woman resists. Professor Ernest Caparros, in his article devoted to the perspective of the "disordered man," studies these violent situations. (4) Such destructiveness impinges on the discipline of international law through the promotion of women's sexual and reproductive health rights, including abortion. In this regard, the abortion policy of Amnesty International ("AI"), (5) as developed in conjunction with its global campaign to eliminate violence against women, offers a point of departure and a case study.

At first glance, AI's "Campaign to Stop Violence Against Women" appears to be thoroughly laudable: a respected organization includes its voice among the chorus of those calling for the elimination of violence against women. But, couched in the language of "sexual and reproductive health rights," AI's newfound "remedy" for rape and incest is abortion--itself a form of brutality. Only by denying the personhood of the fetus and ignoring the well-documented post-abortion suffering of women can AI deflect accusations that its policy promotes further violence and human suffering.

As an alternative to AI's logic of violence, this Article offers the logic of love. Pregnancy is viewed as a relationship between two persons (the mother and her developing unborn child) (6)--an intimate bond that is ultimately destroyed by procured abortion. Abortion attacks the mother's internal system, which has been activated to sustain human life, and deliberately kills the developing human being. The bond between mother and child is thus broken, and both subjects of the relationship are harmed.

To flesh out this thesis, the Article is divided into two parts. Part I, "The Logic of Violence," offers a critique of Amnesty International's abortion policy. This section argues that AI's abortion policy is riddled with internal inconsistencies and obfuscations about the true breadth of the policy. It reviews the new abortion policy in the context of human rights language, commencing with underlying assumptions and then turning to various scenarios: health-risk abortions, sex-selective abortions, disability-selective abortions, and partial-birth abortions. This Article argues that AI's "rights approach"--a radically individualistic perspective that denies the relational dimension of pregnancy--joins sexual violence with the destructiveness of abortion, which in turn begets more suffering. On one hand, the mother, who has already been the victim of grievous bodily and psychological harm, must endure the intrusions of abortion on her person and its deleterious effects, while on the other hand, her unborn child is destroyed, the eventual realization of which greatly adds to her afflictions.

By pondering "The Logic of Love" in Part II, a person of good will can come to understand that the sine qua non to breaking the cycle of violence--AI's avowed aim--is healing love and forgiveness. When the relationship between the mother and the unborn child might be described as tense or fragile, as in the case of rape, states ought to ensure that good practices motivate an appropriate response. For example, the woman with child must be offered love, care, support, education, counseling, and assistance to meet her material and spiritual needs during and after her pregnancy. After all, are these not the preferred means to promote the cure of other strained relationships in the family--for example, between a mother and her rebellious teen? In this way, an alternative position born from the logic of love emerges. Pregnancy, acknowledged as a relationship, where the mother nurtures the unborn child to birth and well beyond, is ultimately understood as an act of love--an act of self-giving. The profundity of this perspective is illumined with the eyes of faith in the apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem.

1. THE LOGIC OF VIOLENCE

   1. Introduction

      This section presents a critique of AI's abortion policy. It begins with an overview of AI's new abortion policy and then studies abortion as a "remedy" in cases of sexual violence. This issue raises two additional questions: Is abortion the only option? Is abortion ever safe? The discussion then turns to AI's policy in regard to health-risk abortions, sex-selective abortions, disability-selective abortions, and partial-birth abortions. The section ends by addressing whether AI, contrary to its own claims, promotes abortion as a human right.

   2. The New Abortion Policy

      AI had long been opposed to forced abortion, forced sterilization, and forced contraception in all cases, but had not taken a position on access to abortion per se. (7) Its policy changed in 2003 when abortion emerged as a point of contention during policy discussions surrounding the launch of AI's global "Stop Violence Against Women" campaign. (8) As a part of this effort, AI's International Council, a small group within the organization, "adopt[ed] a policy on sexual and reproductive rights." (9) It subsequently consulted the organization at large "to clarify its position on selected aspects of abortion." (10) Three years later, in July 2006, AI adopted a "broad-based policy" couched in terms of "the rights of women and men to make informed decisions about sex and reproduction free from coercion, discrimination and violence." (11)

      Then, in 2007, AI described the new policy on abortion in four bullet points. It called upon states to (1) furnish "full information on sexual and reproductive health," including abortion services; (2) repeal laws that criminalize abortion; (3) provide abortion in cases of pregnancy resulting from "rape, sexual assault, or incest, or when a pregnancy poses a risk to a woman's life or a grave risk to her health"; and (4) ensure medical services for each woman who "suffers complications from an [illegal or legal] abortion." (12)

      In response to many questions and complaints surrounding its policy change, AI added several qualifying statements. One, it conceded that some state regulation of abortion access is justifiable, including "reasonable gestational limits." (13) Two, it did not take a position on "whether abortion should be legal" or "whether [abortion] is right or wrong." (14) Three, it did not "counsel individuals as to whether they should continue or terminate a pregnancy," nor did it "campaign generally for abortion." (15)

      One might summarize AI's policy in the following manner. While AI claims to be opposed to acts of violence against women and still expresses concern about forced abortion, forced contraception, and forced sterilization, it is simultaneously (1) soliciting a comprehensive range of ambiguous "rights" related to sex and reproduction, including access to abortion; (2) claiming that it remains neutral on the question of abortion. (16) From this perspective, AI has attempted to explain and justify this policy, but with little success.

   3. Abortion for Victims of Sexual Violence

      AI argues that its abortion policy is necessary because female victims of rape and incest are doubly stigmatized: first, as victims of sexual violence; second, for being inconveniently pregnant. (17) AI reports that women in some parts of the world are "desperately seeking to terminate their unwanted pregnancies in order to end the cruel treatment that such pregnancy entails," including trauma, stigma, abandonment, and death threats. (18) Such vicious treatment of pregnant women is certainly vile, but AI implies that the only remedy for such women is abortion, and preferably legal or "safe" abortion. (19)

      AI's policy is based on two false assumptions: (1) abortion is the only option in cases of pregnancy resulting from acts of sexual violence; and (2) legal abortions are safe--that is, they do not cause further damage to the woman or to others.

      1. Is Abortion the Only Option?

         Abortion is not a woman's only option. There are many religious organizations operating around the world that support women in bringing their children to term under difficult and often traumatic circumstances. (20) In addition, many crisis pregnancy centers and nonprofit organizations have been established to assist pregnant women and encourage the continuation of a pregnancy. (21) Such initiatives could be characterized as "good" or "best" practices, reflecting the idea that successful initiatives in one country should be recognized by the international community in an effort to encourage their adoption in other countries. If such resources do not exist in a given country, then certainly AI could promote their development. But as their policy stands, AI has simply become a collaborator or perpetuator of the view that pregnancy itself is the problem. AI, instead of resisting those who would marginalize pregnant women, joins them and facilitates elimination of the so-called "stigma" through abortion.

      2. Is a Legal Abortion a Safe...