Recently the world’s most respected human rights organization, Amnesty International, took a stance on the issue of choice. It will now more actively pursue policy and legislation that can provide the innocent victims of violent rape a voice. Previously, it had remained on the fence, and this brave new decision has caused many liberals to rejoice. Its critics already claim it makes little sense to take a firm position on something so contentious, but it seems to have a tenable defense.

In a just society we must be conscientious of the tension that exists between competing rights. Amnesty International is being tendentious toward those who are suffering from the widespread fights that have been breaking out in many developing nations. Its position, which favors developed life, invites criticism because it abandons the obligations human rights organizations have to protect potential life.

In some recent conflicts there have been confirmed allegations of factions using rape tactics. Besides the unbearable strife these tactics have imposed on the innocent women who are being victimized by this unspeakable disrespect for human rights, as well as life, they have also created a generation of children whose culture will deny them equal standing in society because of their shameful conception.

In situations like this, it seems unreasonable for governments to imply that women are culpable, or that there is validity to the perception that raped women ought to bear a responsibility for another’s crime. Amnesty International is an organization that, since its inception, has opposed unnecessary and illegal suffering all of the time, regardless of any conditional circumstance or situation.

Therefore, it seems logically consistent with this espoused purpose that its prime concern is not with an inviable fetus, but the desperation the mother will be absorbed by, and that will eventually come to define the life of a child who is seen by his peers as an aberration.

The motivating force from the opposition is primarily religious, which means its belief in the sanctity of life finds its foundation in the divine spark, present from conception, which its find wholly prodigious. It would be abhorrent, therefore, to accept any explanation which equivocates, even from a source so traditionally prestigious. It seems that the two groups have begun to leaven on an issue that has become increasingly divisive and litigious. And we begin to see a match made in heaven completely unravel.

This is a tragic turn of events for a wide variety of reasons, and this is evident to persons on both sides of the debate. Any organization is stronger by an affiliation with groups that do not necessarily draw from the same demographic. This is because organizing forces, like religious belief, or common desire for human rights, overlap only occasionally. It is therefore a rare gift when two groups come together on like-minded issues and are made stronger by their cooperation.

For instance, it was widely publicized that Amnesty International made a firm stance against the horrifying advancement the U.S. government was making toward a more fuzzy definition of torture. What is less well known is that around the same time the National Association of Evangelicals (under Leith Anderson, not Ted Haggard) signed “An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror,” which is an 18-page document condemning the use of torture, including “tough tactics,” under all circumstances.

It is deeply saddening to me that religious organizations are considering withdrawal of support for Amnesty International because of one point of disagreement. Moreover, in light of facts just mentioned, it seems very hypocritical considering it continues to support the Bush administration, and its policies regarding black hoods and electrocution. I also emphatically suggest that instead of responding to this change in belief by a frequent ally with condemnation, it reconsider the effects its own policies have on the lives and livelihoods of the innocent faithful who are victims of rape.