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.
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.