How does that go again?

Amnesty International is tip-toeing around the issue of abortion. It seems they may be the only ones listening to the double-talk coming out of their mouths. The Vatican has denounced their recent flip-flop on abortion, or abortion rights, or reproductive rights, or human rights or whatever the heck they want to call killing babies, without actually saying that.

It's like a discussion I had once with a relative of my husband's. She argued that other women haven't been given the same "opportunities" that I have (Margaret Sanger would be so proud), so that rationale, in her mind, justifies abortion. Sounds like she's implying babies are an "inconvenience." Hmmmm. Let's see. I come from a great BIG CATHOLIC family, on every side, for generations. I went to college and had a good job. Try to imagine me coming home (hypothetically!) and telling my parents that I was pregnant. I can't fathom many other things that would've wounded my parents more. Would I have been justified to have an abortion in that case knowing the devastation it would've caused to my family and my future? A baby certainly would've been "inconvenient" at that time of my life and severely limited my "opportunities."

According to Catholic World News,

The Holy See has broken off an alliance with Amnesty International "after its pro-abortion about-turn," the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has indicated.

In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Cardinal Renato Martino, said that the Holy See is ceasing donations to Amnesty International as a result of the group's public advocacy for abortion. He urged Catholic donors to reconsider gifts to the organization.

The Italian cardinal said that the Vatican's decision was an "inevitable consequence" of the new policy Amnesty has adopted. He said that policy is a betrayal of the original mission of the human-rights organization.

In London, the executive secretary of Amnesty International, Kate Gilmore, insisted that the group "has never promoted abortion." She said that Amnesty favors "states respecting women's reproductive rights, allowing women in certain circumstances to reach their own decisions." She said that Cardinal Martino has misunderstood the purpose of Amnesty's new "Stop Violence Against Women" campaign.

Gilmore also told reporters that Amnesty International has not received “funding from the Catholic Church or from organizations that depend on the Catholic Church.” The organization does, however, receive many donations from individual Catholics.

In his interview with the National Catholic Register, Cardinal Martino recalled that during the Cairo conference on population, the UN member-states reached an agreement that abortion should not be accepted as a means of family planning. He rejected the idea that legal abortion should be included under the heading of "reproductive rights."

However, the cardinal-- who served for years as the Vatican's representative at the UN-- observed that proponents of legal abortion have waged an aggressive campaign for legal acceptance. "The abortion lobby is continuing its propaganda," he noted.

Isn't "allowing women (or men) in certain circumstances to reach their own decisions" pretty much like giving a rubber stamp on "anything goes" morality? Isn't this moral relativism? Come to think of it, I'm probably related to some poster children of Moral Relativism. (Yes, they know who they are. We've been having this discussion for nearly 20 years now. Goodness, I must be old!)