Why does the Roman Catholic Church claim to uphold Human Rights?

Question

but when Amnesty International voted democratically to approve of abortion in very limited circumstances (victims of rape, incest, danger to mother, ie not "on demand"), the leader of this totalitarian organisation ordered his cohorts to crush Amnesty by withdrawing support.

Mike K: You went off on a complete tangent there which turned into a rave.

I'm A Catho: Upholding Catholic beliefs and protecting vulnerable women's human rights are not the same thing.

Answer 1

The Roman Catholic Church does uphold human rights.

It upholds Human Rights on a big pike with nails through its limbs where it watches as Human Rights slowly bleed to death because of it.

Answer 2

The definition of Human Rights do not change on the whim of a vote of a few people in one organization.

The Catholic Church believes that God believes that abortion is gravely wrong at all times. The eternal moral law of God cannot be changed by a vote.

Rape: The conception of human live in the midst of the violent and horrifying crime of rape is one good thing that can come of something evil. The killing of the innocent unborn human being would be a second wrong unsuccessfully trying to make a right.

Risk: Unfortunately "danger to mother" is a very vague term. Some people will say that any pregnancy is a risk to the mother's life (a few women do die during childbirth) and justify an abortion.

The one exception is when a pregnant woman must undergo a medical procedure to save her life and as a regrettable but unavoidable circumstance the unborn baby dies. This is not an abortion.

Birth defects: Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all humans have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

All human life is a sacred gift from God. No human life is useless or worthless.

Impacts to society:
+ The tragic death of an innocent defenseless human being
+ The physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual harm to the mother
+ The psychological, emotional, and spiritual harm to the medical practitioners involved in the abortion
+ The cheapening of human life in the eyes of society and the acceptance of a culture of death

For more information, see Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1934 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt2art3.htm#1934

With love in Christ.

Answer 3

Because opposing abortion ***IS*** upholding Human Rights!!!!!

We human beings have the Right to Life, right from the very moment of our conceptions.

Answer 4

I don't see how it could be wrong to do it, for example as a form of bc yet somehow it's alright to do it in those limited circumstances, that just seems like a double standard to me. Anyways, a fetus has a right to live as much as the mother in their opinion, so your argument goes out the window.

Answer 5

It does to a hihg degree when it comes to most people, but when it comes to the rights of homosexuals it believes that they have less and that certain forms of discrimination against them is just, as in housing and certain jobs and that any acts of voilent intent and malspeech directed towards them (Homosexuals) is their fault.

Answer 6

Uh, because no religion supports abortion no matter what the reason? I don't know of any church that would support abortion.

Being anti-abortion IS supporting Human Rights.

Answer 7

Like every religion they only pay lip service to the notion of caring about people.

Try getting anything from a so called christian charity without converting and they're likely to snatch the food out of the mouth of a starving child.

Answer 8

Hi,

I can't say I blame them. Unfortunately Amnesty has tunnel vision on many issues. There are many others, including myself who would like to see this organization heavily scrutinized and run off in some occasions:

GERALD STEINBERG

Hi,

No I am not in a rave . I question their credibility and agendas as I have for years and am showing that there are cases where they deserve having their support withdrawn and not also claim to be the great upholder of human rights.The church believes as many do that life begins at conception even if the mothers are victims as noted, so why would they not withdraw support if A I orders to approve abortion in limited circumstances.

May 23, 2007

For many journalists, diplomats, and political activists, Amnesty International is considered to be a highly reliable and objective source of information and analysis on human rights around the world. But the halo that surrounds its reports and campaigns is beginning to fray, as the evidence of political bias and inaccuracy mounts.

Recently, the Economist, published in Britain, noted that "an organisation which devotes more pages in its annual report to human-rights abuses in Britain and America than those in Belarus and Saudi Arabia cannot expect to escape doubters' scrutiny." Other critics, including law professor at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz, and the U.S.-based Capital Research Center, have been more pointed, providing evidence of Amnesty's systematic bias and reports based largely on claims by carefully selected "eyewitnesses" in Colombia, Gaza, and Lebanon.

As Amnesty releases its annual report on human rights for 2006, amid highly choreographed public relations events, and repeating the familiar condemnations of Israel and America, NGO Monitor has also published a report on Amnesty's activities in the Middle East. The result is not a pretty picture for those clinging to the "halo effect."

Using a detailed and sophisticated qualitative model for comparing relative resources devoted to the different countries, this report clearly shows that in 2006, Amnesty singled out Israel for condemnation of human rights to a far greater extent than Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other chronic abusers of human rights.

During the year, Amnesty issued 48 publications critical of Israel, compared to 35 for Iran, 2 for Saudi Arabia, and only 7 for Syria. Many of the attacks directed at Israel took place during the war with Hezbollah, but this terror group and state-within-a-state also got relatively little attention from Amnesty.

Furthermore, as Amnesty has almost no professional researchers, many of the "factual" claims in these reports were provided by "eyewitnesses," whose political affiliations and credibility can be only guessed. And the language used in these reports also reflects an obsessive and unjustified singling out of Israel, with frequent use of terms such "disproportionate attacks," "war crimes," and "violations of international humanitarian law."

And while Amnesty International was founded to fight for the freedom of political prisoners, the officials in charge of this organization failed to issue a single statement calling for the release of the Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped by Hezbollah and Hamas, and who have not been heard from since their illegal capture.

These and many other details published in NGO Monitor's report on Amnesty provide further evidence that this powerful NGO has lost its way, and is no longer a "respectable" or credible human rights organization.

These fundamental defects extend beyond the Middle East. Researchers from a Bogota-based conflict think tank, the University of London and the Conflict Analysis Resource Center, reached similar conclusions about reports on the conflict in Colombia.


In their report, "The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia," the authors state that both groups follow a "non-systematic approach that includes opaque sourcing and frequent changes in the objects they measure." In other words, these reports are biased and lack credibility.

Moreover, they note the "failure to specify sources, unclear definitions, an erratic reporting template and a distorted portrayal of conflict dynamics" among the methodological problems with Amnesty International's publications, adding to evidence of "bias against the government relative to the guerrillas."

These problems are compounded by the absence of transparency and any system of checks and balances among these powerful political actors. In contrast to the democratic governments that Amnesty officials frequently denounce and condemn, including Israel, NGOs are not subject to independent accountability.

No one outside the inner circle knows how or why they choose their particular "targets," or how they assess the "evidence," or write their reports. And officials such as Amnesty's Irene Khan are often in power and in control of massive budgets for many years, without significant challenges or competition.

Given this situation, the time is long past due for ending the "halo effect" that surrounds powerful groups such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. Their reports should not be given automatic credibility by journalists, diplomats, academics, and individuals genuinely committed to the universality of human rights principles.

Rather than publicizing their reports and endorsing their campaigns, the publications of Amnesty and similar groups need to be subjected to the same type of independent questioning as is done for reports issued by governments and other political organizations.