Abortion is against Human Rights
Claws off my Pre-Born, Bitch.! Not quite the words of Space-Officer Ripley to the slavering female Alien, but fitting nonetheless.
We are quite used to discussing the dreadful state of Father’s non-Rights concerning even their own offspring and the total control women, putative mothers, have over the progress and termination of gestation. We talk all too often about our being separated from our children, dragged away in the Jaws of the Family Court. We can see the maniacal intent of Feminists to murder babies in their millions. Actually, 50 million so far just in America since Roe vs Wade.
There is a curious contradiction in Public discourse about unborn babies. A few weeks ago on the evening news in Australia a headline gasped that the swine flu epidemic had “claimed its youngest victim”. A mother on Palm Island in North Queensland had been struck down with the virus. Her “unborn child” of thirty-six weeks gestation had died.
One cannot help wondering why the very same purveyors of news headlines had not thought to call Baby Jessica a “victim”. She is probably better known in Oz as the “dwarf baby” of thirty-two weeks gestation whose mother claimed she would commit suicide without an abortion.
Baby Jessica’s death was remarkable for two reasons. First, the doctor who killed her by injecting potassium chloride into her heart was ‘exposed’. But instead of being accused as the killer of an unborn child – who was surely a victim if ever there was one – the doctor was turned into “the victim” who was trying to “help” the woman, the other victim whose distress was the other focus of emotion. No sympathy for the baby at all. No ‘victim’ status accorded to the only innocent involved.
This is the language the Age (Melbourne) Newspaper used: “But (the doctor) is conscious of the fact that, in speaking out, he risks adding to the distress of the woman, the biggest victim of all.”The distress of the baby was never touched on. She was a non-person.
Jessica herself was consistently referred to in the headlines as simply “a foetus” of thirty-two weeks gestation–or at best “the dwarf baby”. There were never any references to an unborn child called Jessica.
So where do the unborn stand in the public mind?
The feminist push to have abortion on demand even for ‘lifestyle’ reasons completely obliterates any thought of the rights — the HUMAN rights — of the yet-to-be-born. But what are they?
In a letter written to the Age Newspaper by a lecturer in the law faculty at the University of Melbourne, John Tobin, he denied that there was any foundation in international law to prohibit abortion because “international law is silent on abortion and provides no rights to the unborn child”.
Rita Joseph, a veteran of the UN conference circuit (no, don’t hiss and boo. She is one of the good’uns), faced with a blatant mendacity in print went to war.
“I was at once intrigued and appalled. I knew that legal protection for unborn children is one of the founding principles of modern international law, that as one of the Nuremberg judgments, this principle was mandated to be codified in the International Bill of Rights.”
Angela Shanaghan writes about it in the Quadrant (Link below). In it is one of the clearest linkages of ‘Feminism’ and Nazi’ that you are likely to find.
She quotes Joseph: “Context shines a powerful light on what the authors of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognized as definitive and universal when they framed that crucial first modern statement of human rights. This is particularly important when we come to examine later human rights documents that derive from and codify the rights expounded in the UDHR, especially as relating to the rights of the child before birth. ”
Joseph makes it quite clear that if you examine the historical context from 1924, and then particularly discussion after the Nuremberg trials, the term “human being” applies to all who are human, before and after birth, and that is implicit:
“Research on the historical context reveals that the concept of “the child” as understood at the time of the International Bill of Rights included the child before as well as after birth–from 1924, unbroken conceptual continuity can be established on this issue of inclusion. ”
That human rights apply to the child before as well as after birth was also made explicit.
Abortion was explicitly and specifically condemned as a tool of Nazi eugenics and genocide.
Then in the preamble to the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child we read the well-known paragraph of significance to the unborn child:
“Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth “.
Shanaghan asks: If there is indeed a right to life before as well as after birth–and Joseph’s treatise clearly establishes that there is–then why does this universal right to life not override national legislation, particularly in states that have enacted their own human rights acts, bills or charters?
The answer, she says, is simple: it is precisely in order to subvert the right to life that they have established their own bills and charters. What is more, they have replaced what would seem to be the foundation of all natural rights, the right to life of all humans, with a plethora of phony non-rights, like the “right” to abortion, or the “right” to homosexual marriage or the “right” to a child, the latter two of which have been cobbled on to real rights, like the right to marry and found a family.
Shanaghan goes on: More and more the pro-abortion lobby at the UN is pushing a bold agenda which the original framers of the UDHR would have recognised as part of the Nazi agenda.
With the collusion of the feminists, abortion crept into maternal health and welfare programs via the infamous UNFPA. What was argued as legalising something used as a last resort for poor and powerless women has become in various women’s protocols the “right” to abortion.
These Western-oriented feminists are using “abortion rights” to support funding for abortion programs in countries where women do not have even basic obstetric care.
These women don’t particularly want abortion, just the chance to see their children grow up.
What is more, abortion was explicitly rejected as a form of family planning by the international law-makers from the earliest days–and it still is.
It was explicitly condemned as a form of family planning in Cairo in 1994, in Beijing in 1996, right up to the present.
Some small nations are getting fed up with the cultural diktat of a few feminists–East Timor, for example, which wants a Catholic health service.
In July this year, after contentious and prolonged negotiations, the UN Economic and Social Council finally agreed to implement internationally agreed goals and commitments in regard to global public health. It rejected a push by the USA and most European countries to include language which would have been interpreted to mean abortion.
In a statement, Malta’s ambassador Victor Camilleri stressed that: “the right to life extended to the unborn child from the moment of conception and that the use of abortion as a means of resolving health or social problems was a denial of that right. And therefore Malta consistently disassociated itself from, and considered invalid, all statements or decisions that used references to sexual and reproductive health, directly or indirectly, to impose obligations on anyone to accept abortion as a right, a service or a commodity that could exist outside the ambit of national legislation. ”
Angela Shanahan is a Canberra journalist. Her article in Quadrant, is a good read. Amfortas Recommends it.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/9/human-rights-and-the-unborn
Human Rights and the Unborn . Angela Shanahan
Rita Joseph’s presentation to the National Human Rights Consultation Committee at Parliament House, Canberra, in July, can be found by following the Quadrant link.
Her book, Human Rights and the Unborn Child is published by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, US$148.
Yes you’re quite right. The typically selfish female chauvinist slogan has always been ‘woman’s body, woman’s choice’, disregarding the baby and father as well. Unlike the swine flu (that people should be very suspicious of) where there may be forced inoculations. Whatever happened to ‘person’s body, person’s choice’ or does that only apply to women who want to kill babies?
Comment by Larry — Thu 1st October 2009 @ 9:02 am
Well, what da ya know? Christmas came early this year. 🙂 Awesome to see you post here Amfortas.
Good article.
Comment by julie — Thu 1st October 2009 @ 8:55 pm
It is sad. Many women play russian roullette about getting pregnant. they are either so up tight, or desparate, that they do not prepare by taking contraceptive action, or it fails, and they fall pregnant.
This is a sign of how important getting pregnant is in most modern culture and community morals. It’s about the same as getting a speeding ticket.
Go to the doctor, get it fixed, an accident, a mistake. Don’t tell the father.
No wonder the mothers end up having multiple fatal relationships after this.
There is a guy in palmerston north studying the effects of this on men –
Gerald White 06 3275000
Comment by BG Smith — Sun 4th October 2009 @ 1:18 am
Hello everyone, long time no post.
It all depends…. on and on and on. But the sad fact here is that many things that are happening in society are glossed over. Men get beaten by women. Women comitt peadophillia.
There is an article somewhere writen 4 months ago stating that abortion is an act of femism against what can be paraphrased as “nasty males”
Please open our eyes, and include everyone foe help. Not just people who were oppressed, or what social services think is right.
Comment by Benjamin — Sun 4th October 2009 @ 8:59 am
Not that social services are cold and narrow beings, I just don’t see how they are all- inclusive if they are just focussing on face-issues. hmmm?
Comment by Benjamin — Sun 4th October 2009 @ 9:03 am
Thanks Jools @#2. That piece was written for MND but Paul Elam refused to publish it. He objected to four phrases:
Claws off my Pre-Born, Bitch.!
Feminists to murder babies
no, don’t hiss and boo. She is one of the good’uns
UDHR would have recognised as part of the Nazi agenda.
The first three were mine. The forth was written by a respected Journalist – Angela – and published in the Quadrant.
But Paul refused the whole article.
Amazing. Its called cutting off a nose to spite a face. Mine!
Comment by amfortas — Mon 5th October 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Life sometimes throws very difficult – often dangerous – choices for us to deal with. I can see the need for abortion in some very narrowly defined circumstances but the wholesale murder of the unborn is a curse brought about by people who are anti-life and societies that are anti-life.
Australia murders, willy-nilly, more home grown babies than are needed for us to grow our population, and we ‘import’ immigrants to take their place. Our nation is ‘getting old’ because we do not produce new people. The immigrants simply speed the national aging process by getting to be old, faster. It is ludicrous.
The complete disregard for an unborn baby’s life, simply because it is unwanted by the mother (the father doesn’t get a say in the matter) is completely at odds with the pre-natal care we give to the wanted ones. The former are ‘foetuses’ or ‘a bunch of cells’, the latter are given names and spoken to, have music played to them and plans made for them. The latter often have their names put on school waiting lists !
“Hello. Is this the Bog Street Primary? I am expecting and I would like to put my child the waiting list, please”.
“Child? It’s a bunch of cells. Anyway there is a ten year waiting list, so you’d better make other arrangements”.
” Oh, bugger. I’d better get an abortion then”.
“OK, Just hold the line and I’ll put you through to our abortions department”.
Our societal attitude is psychotic.
Comment by amfortas — Thu 8th October 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Oh my gosh. Why do people think like this???
Firstly, do any of you have any idea the physical and emotional cost of being pregnant and then finally the physical pain of having a baby? Would you like to walk around the size of a small blimp for nine months, experience terrible discomfort and then to top it all off the horrible, horrible sensation of…well, I think you get the picture.
Secondly, while I agree that contraception is first and foremost THE most important thing any woman can do – and forgetting it is a really, really stupid thing to do – if a woman is unable to take care of a child it is the best thing for everyone to get rid of it. That’s just the way it is. Imagine a P-addicted couple on the dole discovering they are pregnant with their eighth child! How can anyone think this is a good idea to have it???
If you’ve read the book ‘Freakonomics’ there’s a really interesting example in there showing the correlation between decreasing crime rates and the legalisation of abortion – basically, babies that would have been born to parents from a low socio-economic or troubled background, and who would have likely gone on to become criminals, were not born thanks to abortion.
And I’ll say this right now – no unborn child will EVER be as important as the woman who is carrying that child (and the man, for that matter, who fathered it). Look, I’m sorry, this is a horrible thing to say – but unborn foetuses don’t have personalities, they don’t think and feel in any meaningful way, and they don’t contribute to society. Wait until you have a baby that you DO want and then you can nurture THAT baby to be a healthy member of society.
And a final note: yes – this is very harsh for men who wish to keep the child. I recognise that. But – that’s just the way it is. Not everything in life is equal. Sometimes you have to get over it. Find a woman who does actually want your baby. …and actually, while we’re on that subject, maybe you should be spending more time considering why it is that the woman doesn’t want your spawn?
Comment by Sympathiser — Sun 11th October 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Sympathiser – The name is a good start: women feel sympathy much more than empathy. Maybe that’s where you’re going wrong as you don’t understand or value the life that has no voice, or the rights of the father (currently unrecognised by feminist bigots). Instead its all about your own selfish cares and whether your pregnant stomach balances out properly with your fat arse. You say “if a woman is unable to take care of a child it is the best thing for everyone to get rid of it.” What do you mean by ‘unable’? Do you mean unwilling? You also wrongly assume that she is the only person who can take care of that child. You then make an absurd leap that those who seek abortions are a “P-addicted couple on the dole discovering they are pregnant with their eighth child”. If you aren’t making that assertion, why don’t you give the much more common example, that overwhelmingly, those who get abortions are just selfish, uncaring women? Then you say “no unborn child will EVER be as important as the woman who is carrying that child”. Once again, its all about you. It gets even worse after that and I won’t bother with it as it’s all crap. I will however give you an A+ for an argument as good as any put forward in any university Women’s Studies course.
Comment by Larry — Tue 13th October 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Sympathiser,
I have to agree with Larry here. Although I don’t feel any sympathy emanating from your words. Indeed I’m alarmed and disgusted at the total disregard for L I F E which you reduce to thinking of as ‘just a bunch of cells’.
Yours is the kind of emotive reasoning I’m all to familiar with from many women these days. First off you attempt to induce guilt by asking how would you like it if ……etc,
Then you produce a worst case scenario as if to excuse the MILLIONS OF LIVES KILLED BY WOMEN who are in no way, shape or form in such a worst case scenario. Indeed I have met several women now who have to live with the ongoing pain and grief of knowing they all too readily opted to kill their unborn children for the sake of personal fulfillment.
As a social worker for many years I can also tell you you’re way off target asserting that abortions are related to a drop in rates of criminality. indeed the arogance of such an assumption is quite breathtaking. To play God (and that is what women who abort do) and make out it’s possible to tell that an unborn child will become a criminal later in life is just dangerous la-la thinking – a distortion of the truth that NO-ONE can predict with certainty the development of the child and later adult. It certainly does provide a convenient and chilling excuse to KILL THE UNBORN.
Your parting comment displays a cruel dismissive anti-male invective which I loathe and find disturbing in equal parts –
“maybe you should be spending more time considering why it is that the woman doesn’t want your spawn?”
Now I feel the desire for a soothing shower and a quiet coffee and cigarette to resettle after reading your views.
Thankyou Mom for not murdering me by abortion.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 13th October 2009 @ 4:04 pm
I reckon that is true. The sexes don’t have empathy for each other but they do have sympathy for each other. (neither in the gender war zone, lol)
Maybe another way to put it is: Men and women who have been through the same or similar things can empathise with each other the same way women who have been through or can imagine themselves going through the same or similar can empathise with other women. And the same way men who have been through or can imagine themselves going through the same or similar can empathise with other men.
Comment by julie — Tue 13th October 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Larry –
I think our difference probably lies in that what you see as “selfish” I see as “sensible”. By “unable to take care of a child” I did not mean “unwilling” at all (a woman may be completely willing to take care of a child and yet not be able to). By “unable” I meant financially unable to (maybe she doesn’t have a job, or is currently studying, or has only a part-time job…are you advocating she go on the dole? Hardly a reasonable solution); emotionally unable to (mentally ill, perhaps); or perhaps she doesn’t have any kind of support network around her (e.g. a stable home or any kind of family). That is what I meant by “unable”. Surely you can see the problems that arise with bringing a child into a world where these factors are present.
You classify my “leap” to the “P-addicted couple” as “absurd” but I think if you read my post you’ll understand that I’m not saying that’s a common example – but that the fact that that example exists in the first place is reason enough to allow abortions. The same goes for the example of rape. My premise is that abortion can be a good idea in cases such as these.
I don’t think it’s helpful to classify all women – or the majority, at least, of women – who have abortions as “selfish”. This view shows very little insight into the complexities of human beings. I mean, are you saying that ALL 17,940 abortions performed in New Zealand last year were by selfish women? …I’m wondering, if this is your view, then what kind of women do you surround yourself with? I’m not making a judgment because of course I don’t know you, but your experience with women to date does not seem to have been very positive.
And to Skeptik –
I’m not sure it’s wise to call me up on “the arogance (sic) of such an assumption” (that is, the Freakonomics research into the correlation between abortion rates and crime) when you present no evidence of your own. Perhaps you should read the book and then disagree with it, instead of just saying that I’m “way off target”. Or perhaps conduct your own research?
Um, also guys – for the record, I’m not anti-men…I have a beautiful boyfriend…it is possible to have different views to your own without being a man-hater, you know.
…although I do hate bigots and bible bashers so maybe your comments are justified…
Feedback welcome 🙂
Comment by Sympathiser — Thu 15th October 2009 @ 3:50 pm
another one with control issues methinks.
what you see as “selfish” I see as “sensible”.
blah blah blah
major issues, makes me wonder if someone might be feeling guilty about something and trying to justify themselves
issues! always with the issues
pah
Comment by mits — Thu 15th October 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Hi Mits!
Comment by Sympathiser — Thu 15th October 2009 @ 5:50 pm
***10
‘Sympathiser’ (sic),
I have the evidence of 20+ years as a social worker in NZ, including in prisons, running community based anger management programs, working with homeless, addicts, mentally unwell and disabled. I’ve also studied (social science degree and years of ongoing research.
As for academic research…how on earth could there be any research which shows that if a child that was aborted was instead allowed to come to full term, then grew up to adolescence/adulthood they’d become a criminal…….duh….illogical twaddle!
Rather than challenging me about such a balloney idea, I reckon you need to rethink things.
It takes my breath away to hear the drivel some folks will use to justify killing in utero LIFE!!! Talk about doing mental gymnastics to feel OK about abortion!
Have you (like millions of other western women) had an abortion by chance?
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 15th October 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Some of you might enjoy or or enjoy hating this book. Treat yourself with one for Christmas!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10603397
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 15th October 2009 @ 10:50 pm
Gosh, 17,940 is a high number. Are we increasing each year or decreasing? And are we having problems with contraception being used?
Comment by julie — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 9:17 am
Fortunately I’ve not had to go through the experience of having an abortion – I prefer to be smart and use protection. If I ever did get pregnant…well, I’m not sure what I would do, it depends on a lot of factors I suppose. But if I’m in a secure position with a good support network then I think I would have it.
I’m sure it does sound like “illogical twaddle” to you, but why not read it and check it out for yourself? It’s a really interesting book (abortion is just one chapter, the rest has got nothing to do with that).
Comment by Sympathiser — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 10:11 am
Hi Julie. Yes it is a very high number! The number has decreased since 2007 and I expect it will continue to decrease as we better educate our kids on safe sex. The age group that had the most abortions was the 20-24 range which suggests to me that it’s a matter of one-night stands going wrong, or contraception not working for some reason (I think this because most 20-24 year olds would be well-educated about safe sex but are also the age group that are going out clubbing every weekend).
You can find the statistics here: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/health/abortion/AbortionStatistics_HOTPDec08.aspx
Comment by Sympathiser — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 10:14 am
I’ve got much better things to do with my time than read the inglorious memoirs of a tramp who kills 17 kids then cashes up by writing a book about it. There are MUCH worthier causes for me to spend my money on.
Forget Irene Vilar, try reading Esther Vilar.
Now there’s a woman I respect and admire.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 1:33 pm
Quote from the Vilar I admire (Esther, not Irene)….
“Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman’s vagina.”
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 16th October 2009 @ 1:37 pm