Mange diskuterer fortsatt Amnestys nye syn på abort. Man kan nok fortsatt være moralsk mot abort og fortsatt støtte Amnesty, men i praksis kan man vel ikke være abortmotstander – det amerikanerne kalle pro-life:
The big issue about abortion in the public square is not the moral quality of abortion; it is whether we should have laws prohibiting abortions. Hence, when AI announces that it opposes laws criminalizing abortion, it has for virtually all practical purposes joined with the pro-abortion side in the bitter political controversy surrounding abortion. If you are with AI, you can be pro-choice and think that abortion is morally permissible, or you can be pro-choice and think, a la Mario Cuomo, that abortion is morally impermissible. But you can’t be with AI and be pro-life.
That AI expresses no opinion on the moral quality of abortion itself is, from a practical point of view, of almost no importance; it amounts to taking no sides between Patricia Ireland and Mario Cuomo. If AI points to this aspect of its position to deflect attention from the only practically important issue—whether we should have laws against abortion—then it is being disingenuous, and Anderson was right to call AI on this.
Her er først én og så en annen artikkel i First Things som tar opp temaet; de er litt uenige om hvordan man skal argumentere mot Amnestys nye vedtak, men enige om det hovedpoenget jeg nevnte tidligere i denne posten.