There is a battle between Life and Death going on in the UN. A group of experts in international law, international relations and public health has reported that some UN-related institutions are falsely presenting abortion as an “internationally recognized human right”, over and above the "right to life".
Today Lord Alton and Lord Nicholas Windsor, with the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group and Right to Life, will launch the San Jose articles
article by Lord Nicholas hereSan Jose Articles
Article 1. As a matter of scientific fact a new human life begins at conception.
Article 2. Each human life is a continuum that begins at conception and advances in stages until death. Science gives different names to these stages, including zygote, blastocyst, embryo, foetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult. This does not change the scientific consensus that at all points of development each individual is a living member of the human species.
Article 3. From conception each unborn child is by nature a human being.
Article 4. All human beings, as members of the human family, are entitled to recognition of their inherent dignity and to protection of their inalienable human rights. This is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international instruments.
Article 5. There exists no right to abortion under international law, either by way of treaty obligation or under customary international law. No United Nations treaty can accurately be cited as establishing or recognising a right to abortion.
Article 6. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other treaty monitoring bodies have directed governments to change their laws on abortion. These bodies have explicitly or implicitly interpreted the treaties to which they are subject as including a right to abortion.
Treaty monitoring bodies have no authority, either under the treaties that created them or under general international law, to interpret these treaties in ways that create new state obligations or that alter the substance of the treaties.
Accordingly, any such body that interprets a treaty to include a right to abortion acts beyond its authority and contrary to its mandate. Such ultra vires acts do not create any legal obligations for states parties to the treaty, nor should states accept them as contributing to the formation of new customary international law.
Article 7. Assertions by international agencies or non-governmental actors that abortion is a human right are false and should be rejected.
There is no international legal obligation to provide access to abortion based on any ground, including but not limited to health, privacy or sexual autonomy, or non-discrimination.
Article 8. Under basic principles of treaty interpretation in international law, consistent with the obligations of good faith and pacta sunt servanda, and in the exercise of their responsibility to defend the lives of their people, states may and should invoke treaty provisions guaranteeing the right to life as encompassing a state responsibility to protect the unborn child from abortion.
Article 9. Governments and members of society should ensure that national laws and policies protect the human right to life from conception. They should also reject and condemn pressure to adopt laws that legalise or de-penalise abortion.
Treaty monitoring bodies, United Nations agencies and officers, regional and national courts, and others should desist from implicit or explicit assertions of a right to abortion based upon international law.
When such false assertions are made, or pressures exerted, member states should demand accountability from the United Nations system.
Providers of development aid should not promote or fund abortions. They should not make aid conditional on a recipient’s acceptance of abortion.
International maternal and child health care funding and programmes should ensure a healthy outcome of pregnancy for both mother and child and should help mothers welcome new life in all circumstances.
4 comments:
Back in the 50's some genius dreamt up the idea of sending unwanted and orphaned children to Australia.
It turned out to have been a disaster,they were by and large treated like transported convicts and abused in all manner possible.
Many of them would have wished that they had never been born.
We have become more "civilised" now and just MURDER them in the first year of their lives.
They say that the "Human Rights" of women is paramount in making the decision of carrying out this procedure.
Thousands of men have given their lives to protect women and children in desperate situations by means such as the "Birkenhead Drill" for example where it is women and children first into the lifeboats.Civilisation has always meant that the future of the family can only be guaranteed by preserving the future generations and that means the children.
Human Rights,what I can see of it is the RIGHT to preserve the Wealth of the Wealthy and get rid of anybody who might want a share of it
Well our Lord told us himself.
"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. "
Pray for these people, that they may be succesful in their fight against further advances in the abortion business.
For the past few days the "Human Rights" institutions of the UN have been assessing Ireland's "human rights" standard and the main focus has been Ireland's recognition of the right to life of persons not yet born. The UN's ideologically-riven bureaucracy has been targeting Ireland's protection of unborn persons for decades by arbitrarily interpreting certain Conventions, admittedly with increasingly positivistic rather than inherent rights - to seek to force its aberrant view of humanity and human rights on Ireland. The whole basis of the Universal Periodic Review of Ireland in respect of abortion was flagrantly false (as was the ECHR's recent judgment against Ireland in the ABC case organised by abortion promoters IFPA with the backing of IPPF, the world's largest abortion operators). The so-called public consultation part of the UPR was a choreographed farce, with the overwhelming majority's defence of the illegality of abortion, and the right to life of the innocent unborn, effectively ignored. The UN got 6 European countries to upbraid Ireland for not permitting abortion, purportedly in the interests of the mother, whose "life" is egregiously posited in opposition to the life of her child. The fact that Ireland has had the lowest maternal death rate in the world for about 30 years, making it the safest country for a woman to be pregnant and give birth, is ignored without objection from the deeply biased Media and even worse, by the Minister for Justice, Mr Shatter, who happily conceded the false premise of the ABC case to which he referred at the UN hearing, i.e. that "abortion" is sometimes medically necessary to save the life of the mother. This of course is the notorious ploy of abortion promoters, to call real medical procedures, such as those employed in an ectopic pregnancy, "abortion" so as to confuse the actual issue which is the killing of the unborn child with the aim of doing so. The six countries who admonished Ireland to introduce abortion could improve their maternal death rates and approach Ireland's low levels of same if they once again protected the right to life and medical care of the baby. Statistics also show that in countries where abortion is legal the rates of death of preterm babies are high (which makes perfect sense). Could you please direct people to the reports of the Ireland UPR by the Life Institute, Family and Life and the Prolife Campaign (on their respective websites), as it has not been truthfully reported by the pro-abortion Media? Thank you. Lynda
Post a Comment