In the war-torn region of Darfur, rape is an instrument of war. Women are deliberately targeted to score psychological points over their opponents. Can there be any doubt that it will be the woman assaulted who will decide whether she wants the child engendered by the act of rape.
In Nigeria a woman seeking an abortion, even on very reasonable grounds, is meted out harsh punishment. In many South American countries, a pregnant woman is flatly denied permission for aborting the child even if her medical condition is such that delivery of the baby would certainly kill her.
Matters like these have apparently led the human rights body Amnesty International to fight for the right of a woman to abort her child. But it is not for a blanket freedom to abort. It is to be only under certain conditions -
1. The pregnancy resulted from rape
2. Delivery of the child would risk the mother’s life
3. Pregnancy from incest
All this sounds very fair and reasonable. It must have seemed so to the International committee of Amnesty International which voted unhesitatingly for the proposal in Mexico. It must have seemed right to the US chapter of the world body with 400,000 members when it gave it the green light.
But the traditional supporters and financiers of the respected human rights body– the Roman Catholic Church has criticized the move, saying it had strayed from its commitment for human life.
But rigid dogma of certain people should not impinge on a woman’s fundamental rights.
As Kate Gilmore, the human rights organization’s deputy secretary general says:
We have felt very keenly how passionately people feel on both sides of this debate. But we’re here to do what’s right, whether it’s unpopular or otherwise.
Via: Reuters
