Abortion is a "symptom" of poverty? So I would guess this truth would require that only poor women have abortions. Since we know this is absurd at best; why not address the real issues at hand. An embryo cannot survive outside of the womb. A fetus cannot, prior to 23 to 24 weeks gestation, survive outside of the womb. So unless you have developed means to transfer a pregnancy to your own body from another person, leave her, and my, body alone.Also, I have not heard of one right-to-life'er who has financially sponsored a woman and her unborn child as a means to convince a woman to continue a pregnancy. Also, religion and state do not mix. Ever. Almost every act of historical horror: the crusades, the inquisition, the holocause; these were committed as a direct result of fanatical religious conviction. And yes, it would be an atrocity to force a woman to give birth against her will. Period.

Michele Roys, Vienna, Austria

Amnesty have made a very carefully worded statement about this and in my opinion it does not undermine what Amnesty stand for, in terms of human rights. It is no carte blanche support for abortion. They still have my full support.

Rona, Glasgow, Scotland

It is really sad -- and very revealing -- that pro-abortionists have to resort to name calling like "[B]ible thumpers" when describing Christians and other religious persons.

Haven, USA,

Its pro-CHOICE not pro-abortion. As fas I am aware Amnesty International supports human rights. Isn't one of our basic rights as human beings the freedom of choice?
Why should it matter to anyone what side the charity stands on, they are raising money and awareness for Dafur, not funding abortion clinics! Their stance on abortion should be completely irrelavant to anyone who truely wants to make a difference to the actual cause in question. Why pull out of an organisation that has done so much good, over such a small part of their belief system?

Charlotte, london,

Just what makes people think that someone else has the right to decide over a woman's body?
Amnesty International is a worldwide highly reputable organization which strives to help people who need help.
Meanwhile the bible thumpers insist that they have the right to oblige some poor raped girl to give birth to a baby that will be a continuous reminder to the mother of her hideous rape.
The Catholic church can decide for their believers but NOT for non believers.
The same applies for Pro Lifers--if they don't want to use abortion facilities that's fine with me but DON'T oblige others to obey their ideas.

robin bather, Metepec, Mexico

From a purely humanistic standpoint, we must give all humans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the right to life. Many atrocities have as their underpinning the belief that some other class of humans has fewer or no rights than the perpetrator.

The means to keeping this power is to silence your critics and deny your enemies their voice - unborn humans have no voice so it's up to adults, Christian, Atheist, whatever - to speak in their defense.

To preserve humanity, it must be held as self-evident that life begins at conception and all human lives are worth living. Abortion is murder and cannot be a right. Abortion is always fatal.

Stephen, Washington Crossing, PA, USA

In reply to John Wilson, Basington.

When did your life begin, John?

Vincent Ruane, New York, America

John Wilson, Basingstoke, Hampshire needs to take an Intro to Biology course. We determine if an organism is homo sapiens sapiens by examining its DNA. We determine if an organism is alive by examining its metabolism.

Biologically speaking, a zygote is indeed a human life. The confusion of objective scientific terms like "human" and "life" with subjective philosophical constructs like "personhood" only demonstrates the appalling ignorance of the author.

Franklin, Atlanta, GA, USA

Are you people really this close minded and unempathetic? Seriously try and imagine a 13 year old who has been raped in a refuge camp who gets pregnant. Do you really think that she should be forced to bear that child, when it's birth is really far too much for her already bruised and beaten body to cope with, let alone the mental strain or the financial of raising the child in a warzone. Unless you pesonally would actually go and help her, hold her hand whilst she screams in pain and comfort her through endless sleepless nights then get off your high horse and realis that she needs help. If your not going to give it to her (how many of you have actually been to Darfur to help out recently?) then let her help herself.
I would just ask all "pro-lifers" out there to take a moment, not just parrot what the good minister said, and think how much damage not allowing abortion actually does, then ask if Amnesty is Protecting the Human?

Georgina Gosney, Oxford, England

I hope you all realise that AI was founded by a Roman Catholic in the first place.

Lisa, Weymouth,

A poor woman who has an abortion is still a poor woman. Abortion is not remedy for poverty, it's a symptom of it.

Eileen, Kilkenny,

Amnesty are 100% correct.
I hope they do not give in to vile religious thuggery.

Stuart, Coventry, UK


"Vile religious thuggery"?? Another brainwashed religion-hater. In no way is opposing the abortion of foetuses by withdrawing support of a charity which you feel has betrayed you 'thuggery'. How many more people will dismiss issues one way or another simply to oppose 'religion' and call it 'vile'?

Lewis, Loughborough,

We should all be aware that it was a very long and difficult process for Amnesty to come out and take a position on abortion position after years of being bedgered by pro-lifers (many of whom don't really understand the term at all if they can so easily skip over the real issue here- Darfur).

I can't do better than repeat the words of Mr. Edwards above: "if religious Amnesty members are leaving the organisation them i'm taking the opportunity to join and fill their place". Amnesty wouldn't exist at all without such people, and for those who aren't broad-minded enough to see the greater good Amnesty does- we don't need them!

Edward, London,

way to go Avril -good for you!

Merle Terlesky, Calgary, Alberta

What we need is a "Pro-Death" lobby. Then "pro-choice" would represent a compromise between two mutually exclusive totalitarian ideologies. As it is, a moderate voice cannot compete with zealotry. Tolerance is no match for bulldozing.

fred, Houston, TX

'adoption is always an option if a woman is unable to raise the child herself.

Conservative Catholic, London'.

I don't know an awful lot about Darfur, but I would imagine that in the current climate, adoption isn't much of an option?

charlotte, london,

The "carefully defined circumstances" include abortions for reason of health, which in turn include mental health, which of course includes any reason whatsoever. So much for "carefully defined circumstances."
Can anyone think of ONE circumstance where the pro-abortion forces would not allow an abortion?

Gualberto Garcia, Washington DC, USA

we have got to start treating the children in their mothers wombs as children. it is unacceptable to kill a child anywhere else, why should it be ok, under any circumstance, to kill it there? Of all places it the womb should be the safest place. Thank God for all people and organisations, Christian and Non-Christian, standing up for the right to life, the right upon whil all other rights are built. The right, without which we would have no rights. I for one thank the Roman Catholic Church profoundly for all the work it does promoting life, when a lot of the world promotes death. Thank you to Catholics, Christians, Non-Christians and everyone who cares enough for the unborn child and the mother and father of it enough to speak out against the horror of abortion!

Joe, Christchurch, New Zealand

Making the assertion that a zygote is a human being, because a zygote has the possibility of being a human being is simply that: an unwarranted assertion. Making the further assertion that therefore the zygote deserves the legal protection of a human being is a straight-forward fallacy of begging the question.

So, Vincent Ruane, aaron, et al; it is not the case that a human life begins at conception: a zygote does. A zygote may - if it is fortunate - become an embryo, and an embryo may - if it is fortunate - become a human life independent of its host. But a zygote is not a human life and an embryo is not a human life, and simply to assert that it is is just ignorant.

John Wilson, Basingstoke, Hampshire

Two points:
1) Killing a human is killing a human. Period. No human mother has ever given birth to something not human. That means that regardless of the development stage, there is a human growing inside the woman's womb. Killing it is killing a human.

2) Allowing the killing of the most innocent under even strict conditions will lead to a redefinition of "emergency" or "rape" to allow for more and more abortions. All it takes is a few supportive doctors to sign off, and a woman can get an abortion. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.

aaron, williamsport, USA

I have withdrawn my support for Amnesty International.

Jada, Greerton, New Zealand

Rachel,

This is not a Christian issue. It's a human rights issue. All human organisms have the right not to be killed by other human organisms except in self defense. The first principle of government has to be to protect the lives of the humans within it's borders. That's the bases for any argument on human rights.

If we start to say some humans can kill other humans for reasons of convenience, personal suffering, states of dependence, or location, we undo the basic Enlightenment concept of human rights.

Those who advocate taking away a human organism's life because it is in a state of dependence are those who are "deciding for others" about the most basic issue: do you have a right to live.

John, San Antonio, TX

The Catholic Church has never been known to support women in crisis pregnancy in the past- whether it was the result of rape or not. Have they forgotten the Magdelene laundries? The forced adoption of "illegitimate" children from mothers considered "unfit" to raise them? If a woman has been brutally raped, cast out from her community because of the child she carries and left in the middle of a war zone with no support, I doubt the sanctimonious and pious preachings of a patriarchal institution are much comfort to her. If the ability to choose for herself and the options available to make an informed decision help her, then it would be inhumane not to provide them.

C, Dublin, Ireland

Amnesty's policy is "to back the right of women to abortion in carefully defined circumstances — for example, when their health or life are in danger or when they have been victims of rape in areas of conflict such as Darfur. " I can't imagine strong supporters of Amnesty, except for avowed anti-abortion activists, would be opposed to that policy.

That's also not very different from the policy that international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have usually followed in similar cases in the past, like in the 90s in the Balkan conflict. Amnesty is trying to put that general policy that NGOs have followed into a position they might possibly advocate "to be decriminalised and for access to abortion to be permitted within its defined circumstances."

We'd expect that the artists on this album -- as well as Yoko Ono and John Lennon, by his statements when he was living -- would support access to abortion at least under those "defined circumstances".

southern students for choice, Athens, USA, Georgia

Who says you have to be a Christian to believe that abortion is the taking of innocent life? Abortion is the most fundamental human rights issue of our times. In generations to come, people will look back and say, 'how could we have let it happen?'. Abortion is wrong because is takes innocent human life. Women in crisis pregnancy need support and help not an invasive procedure that kills another human being. Amnesty has forgotten the basis on which it was founded. The fact that they now believe that abortion should be considered a human right over the right to life, the most fundamental of human rights is shocking. All the hours spent by Amnesty in discussing this issue could have been well used in dealing with other human rights abuses around the world. I certainly will never support amnesty again.

eilis, galway, ireland

excuse me - where is the "clash" with Amnesty? i note the article contains no comment from either of the big stars it mentions. instead there is extensive comment from an extremist US anti-abortion group (is that all you could find, for a quality british newspaper?). a policy which supports decriminalisation of abortion (in many countries women are still prosecuted and even imprisoned for trying to get an abortion), and which addresses the needs of women like those in Darfur who have been raped, sounds very reasonable to me.

paul, london,

Well I will now make a conscious decision to contribute only to secular charities. The next time a Christian Aid envelope comes through the letter box I will be telling the poster where to shove it. How can these overprivileged pop stars moralise to these women who may be in such desperate straits?

Martin, York,

pity the media does n't make clear these peoples opinions when making them hero's and stars, then the young would really know whether these people are worth worshiping or if the stars opinions could have an effect on your freedom and rights. But no the media makes them rich and powerful puts them in a postion of influence on the vungerable and then lets them run loose with their opinions without stating clearly the effect their opinions would have on people.

S Scott, berwick upon tweed, uk

well if religious Amnesty members are leaving the organisation them i'm taking the opportunity to join and fill their place. the right of a woman to determine her own life absolutely falls under the category of 'human rights'. these Rock for Life people are clowns to accuse Amnesty of hypocrisy. why aren't they campaigning to have their own President impeached for snuffing out human life in the Middle East? Amnesty is hardly a deserving target for their misplaced wrath.

Tony Edwards, Sydney, Australia

Although Christians are the largest organized group opposed to abortion, I have many agnostic and atheistic friends (not to mention other religions) who find abortion equally repulsive.

Once scoffed at as a lump of tissue ultrasound technology (especially 3D) has given a broad view of the humanity of the unborn. Any parent can related to elated joy when you go for your early pregnancy and the doctor detects the baby's heartbeat.

Using examples of poor treatment of unwed pregnant woman more then 50 years ago is a non-sequitor. It can be scary for an unwed young woman expecting and that is why these woman need all the support and counselling to help them. A supporting family is also very important.

The only people who support abortion tend to be either ideallogues far removed from childbirth or pregnancy and supporting choice rights or genuine psychopathics.

Polls also show most people are against abortion. Kudos to Avril and Christina to stand up after they were duped.

Loren, Edmonton, Canada

Amnesty's policy is "to back the right of women to abortion in carefully defined circumstances — for example, when their health or life are in danger or when they have been victims of rape in areas of conflict such as Darfur. " I can't imagine strong supporters of Amnesty, except for avowed anti-abortion activists, would be opposed to that policy.

That's also not very different from the policy that international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have usually followed in similar cases in the past, like in the 90s in the Balkan conflict. Amnesty is trying to put that general policy that NGOs have followed into a position they might possibly advocate "to be decriminalised and for access to abortion to be permitted within its defined circumstances."

We'd expect that the artists on this album -- as well as Yoko Ono and John Lennon, by his statements when he was living -- would support access to abortion at least under those "defined circumstances".

southern students for choice, Athens, USA, Georgia

The Catholic Church does not support pregnant women? The extensive network of pregnancy centers in the US that receive much financial support from Catholic churches (and are often staffed by Catholics) would belie that statement. These centers support pregnant women with money, clothing, food, places to stay, and medical care during their pregnancies. Do "family planning" (ie, abortion) clinics do the same? Not in the US--they refer to Pregnancy Centers for adoption (usually 1 adoption for every 40-ish abortions). No mention of food or $ from them.

Diane, Cville, USA

Martin, since when did one injustice in this world sanction another? Do you really think that killing poor women's unborn children will make their situation in life better? You, as a western male are clearly projecting. In the 3rd world the added cost of 1 extra child is minimal.....its existence or death is not going to make a substantial difference in anyone's quality of life. That is just common sense. What could Christina Aguilera know as a woman, rich but a woman all the same, that a pompous overthought western male doesnt? That WE, women, NEVER win when our society demand us choose between our children and the basics of life we should be provided by men in our society anyway. Ya, I guess if western men, rich, educated and "able" in many ways, wont stand up and be men, take responsibility for their actions and the new lives they create, how can we expect these poor men and women without our luxuries to do same. It may be they have more of a natural understanding of life.

Suzanne, Pittsburgh, PA

Abortion is murder. Good to know there are still some celebrities with principles. As a catholic, I woud never support an orgnization that approves of abortion. Every life is precious, and adoption is always an option if a woman is unable to raise the child herself.

Conservative Catholic, London,

Rachel from NZ: It's not only Christians who think abortion is wrong and who believe that getting rid of an unborn child is intolerant - to use your phraseology - towards the most vulnerable of human beings. Amnesty's "Protect the Human" campaign is risible given the new policy.

C. Lavis, London,

Amnesty are 100% correct.
I hope they do not give in to vile religious thuggery.

Stuart, Coventry, UK

Amnesty International has lost the conviction that ALL members of the human family are equally valuable. When their policy chooses some members of the human family over others, they lose their moral credibility. How and when human persons are conceived should not influence whether or not they are allowed to live.

Alice, Nashville, TN USA

Why is it that Secularists think that they have a right to decide about letting someone live? This is just intolerance of others right to live. I accept the rights of Secularists to decide not to let someone live, but thier choice shouldn't inpact that other person's right to be alive. Why can't they respect that other person's decision in turn?

Jennifer Olson, Lakeville, MN

Slipping down the slope.

Bill Dukas, Kerhonkson , NY

Why is that Christians think that they have a right to decide about abortion for everyone? This is just intolerance of others beliefs. I accept the rights of Christians to decide not to have an abortion but expect them to respect my decision in turn.

Rachel, Chch, NZ

Since it's an undeniable scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception, the evil reality of abortion is an act of murder. Amnesty international has no credibility as a human rigths organization any more. It is now an organization that supports a worldwide system of evil that has now killed over 800 million growing human beings. How can you claim to believe in human rights when you support such an evil reality. Shame, shame on the members of Amnesty, who started this support of this murder support programme.

Vincent Ruane, New York, America