HUMAN RIGHTS versus “ABORTION RIGHTS”
In a globalized and interconnected world, the needs of some adjust to the duties of others. It is evident that dignity of a Human Being needs recognition and it must be tried eagerly that everyone of us is able to make use of moral and economic security, necessary for a healthy and plenty life.
One of the gravest problems in the contemporary world is exclusion. In a society, said globalized, and in a world which has become a witness of a never before imagined technical progress; materiel development contrasts dramatically against the moral blemish of marginalization and exclusion.
Contemporary history is the witness of grave and unjust inequalities among human beings.
The XX century leaves us a memory of the most lethal wars, of the most rigid frontiers and, overall, leaves us the sad legacy of a persecution never realized before against any human group: the one realized against unborn children by means of abortion.
Abortion is the emblematic manifestation of exclusion. If present times enlarge the difference among those who possess and those who do not, abortion establishes an unattainable wall among those who are and those to whom it is not permitted to be.
The imposition upon our populations by means of the criterion “reproductive health” definitely results insulting, sheltering the exclusion of our children throughout the apology of abortion and the oblivion by international organisms of… life defence and included alternative criterions.
We defend the necessity, global politics and campaigns must have a democratic approval, sheltering dignity of all inhabitants of our regions and the entire world.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in consonance with the basic principle that “freedom, justice and peace in the world” owns as a basis, the recognition of intrinsic dignity and equal and inalienable rights to all members of the human family.
Family is the proper environment of what is human. We are human because we are familiar and, as more familiar we are, as more human we will be. Thus, the improvement of a family’s living situation and living conditions must be the priority of any parliamentary action.
The best family is the one where children are best raised; the same which must be safeguarded and legitimized by public powers. We are talking about that family where parents, man and woman, form matrimony within a permanent union of life, love and service to their offspring and the whole society. Family is, previous to the state, our principal identity sign as humans.
During the last decades, women health rights, including sexual and reproductive health, were coming to constitute an essential component of human rights; revealed by recognitions throughout different international conferences.
During the First World Conference about Human Rights (Teheran, 1968), for the first time the fundamental right for parents to determinate freely the number of children and the intervals among child deliveries became recognized. Likewise, during the Population Conference in Bucharest (1974), the right for couples and individuals to determinate the number of children and intervals became recognized. Function the States must employ to guarantee these rights became established as well.
Likely, we want to mention the World Conference of the International Year of Women (Mexico, 1975), where the right for physical integrity of a woman became recognized as well as the right to decide upon her proper body, including optional maternity.
Nevertheless, starting from the international conferences, happening during the years 1992-1996; real notability was given to women’s reproductive rights.
The International Conference about Population and Development (El Cairo, 1994) and the 4th World Conference about Women (Beijing, 1995) established: health as well as sexual and reproductive rights are fundamentals for human rights and development. During these United Nations world conferences, the international community recognized the necessity to deal with the topic “women’s reproductive health”, including the topic “insecure abortion”.
Established compromises in El Cairo and Beijing recognize that insecure abortion constitutes a grave problem for public health as well as it threatens lives of countless women; recommending that women who came up to such a practice must be treated on a rapid and humanitarian way.
The Beijing Action Platform recommended to governments to consider the possibility to revise laws, establishing punitive measures against women who had illegal abortions. Likely, on a specific way, the Beijing Action Platform and the CIPD Action Program established:
“It urges, all governments, intergovernmental and no-governmental organizations must increase their compromise regarding women’s health; and control the effects, produced by abortions realized in no adequate conditions; and treat them as an important public health problem… In all cases, women should have access to quality services to treat complications resulted from abortions.”
There is tendency rising from Institutions and NGO’s which propagate the so called “reproductive health” ideology, realizing innovations within their language to reinforce the concept: abortion…; as a “human right” for women. A single word or a single sentence could turn this significance more or less heavier. An existing document, coming from the ONU, is absolutely directed to strengthen the universal juristic recognition of the supposed “right” for abortion.
It is true that any initiative eliminating violence against women is justified and welcome; nevertheless, never a language can be accepted, indicating support for abortion services. The term “services for health care” should never be translated or interpreted so as to include “services” for abortion or for the distribution of abortive drugs.
The mentioned resolution makes a special reference to the signature and ratification of the Convention about Elimination of all Discrimination Forms against Women (CEDAW) as well to its Optional Protocol, and the elimination of reserves against these and other instruments.
Considering the “ins and outs” and the traps of the pro-choice language, the Agreement of Rome (International Penal Court) is particularly alarming; pressure continues to include any opposition against abortion among crimes offending human rights, punishable by this International Court.
Today, UNESCO is particularly compromised fomenting efforts, directed towards the elimination of all forms of discrimination by means of the promotion of “gender equality”, as well as the promotion of woman and girl education.
The actual labour has risen from the objectives presented during the already mentioned Peking Action Platform (1995); ONU’s Development Goal for the Millennium to promote the gender equality and the promotion of women, as well as the Convention about Elimination of all the Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its optional Protocol.
At first view, the aims of UNESCO seem to be very praiseworthy. In fact, who could be against, women not being discriminated; especially regarding the education field? But, buried deep inside this seductive language, a whole agenda promoting abortion, lesbianism, homo-sexuality and other evils is hidden.
Here, there are to factors indicating the very wrong path which has been taken. One of them is the term “gender”… what they intent to promote comes along, hidden under ambiguous words or distorted significances. Here, the word “gender” does not refer to male or female gender, but to a whole ideology, designed to subvert natural order. In fact, this term which became rocked during the ONU Conference about Women in Peking (1995) −where abortion and lesbianism was planned to be promoted− is referring to the theory that differences between genders are not based on natural differences, but on social constructions. Therefore, the proposers have elaborated up to five (or more) genders: man, woman, bisexual, homosexual, lesbian, etc. The logical implication of this aberrant proposal is that a person can do what ever he wants with his sexuality. Here, not only all types of sexual deviations enter, but also abortion, contraceptives (including abortive contraceptives) and, in this case, a hedonistic sexual “education” particularly directed towards girls and teenagers.
Another outstanding and alarming aspect in the mentioned and self-revealing paragraph of the UNESCO is the promotion of CEDAW. Again, at first view, this document seems to be very praiseworthy, thus pretending to defend women rights. In fact, in the original text, not one single word is said about abortion. The problem is −how it happens with other documents of the ONU−, the Comity in charge of its interpretation and implementation is being integrated exclusively by pro-choice persons. The conclusions we may extract are evident. The CEDAW may be used, and in fact is being used to pressure developing countries and in particular Latin America; those who have committed the grave error to sign the document, to change their laws in order to permit abortion.
UNESCO has turned girls and teenagers into a particular target of its malevolent ideology. The prestigious news agency ACE Digital has recently informed that during the end of 2003, UNESCO presented a document with the title: Not desired pregnancy and insecure abortion, where a reform had been proposed to make abortion available to all women and teenagers without any restriction, suggesting even that governments should subvention abortions and offer an indemnity to women, to whom access to abortion had been denied, because: –“abortion must be available”–.
The document reveals as well ONU’s intention offering access to abortion to teenagers of any age and without the consent of parents. This document tells further: “Anywhere where law is permitting it, governments should guarantee privacy to those women who search for abortion services, especially teenagers”.
The fact that in most countries, reproductive rights are not constitutionalized under a specific form signifies a great difficulty. Consequently, it is precise to have recourses to other values, principles or fundamental rights in order to serve the maximization of licentiousness and the interpretation of “freedom”. It is here where the principal nucleus of the problematic, established by “reproductive rights”, is rooted: definition and delimitation of its content is finally putting into game the way, integration is conceived –or harmonious or despotic–, between freedom and human nature; between human dignity and inherent rights, and… free development of personality.
The legal positivization of freedom is not sufficient to be converted into a right, even less into a human right; a prius is needed to justify it. Freedom arrives to be a human right when universal or moral values, recognized by the international community, are unified into rightful interest; only then, we are in front of a Human Right in the proper sense.
Any family planning, if it is coherent with human rights, must respect universal values. The first of all values… life of every human being demands clarifying previously if abortive or microabortives are involved. Second: health of persons involved in a sexual relationship as well as health of the potentially conceived child. Protection of this right includes the most possible knowledge of any possible injurious effects of employed methods and the reversibility or irreversibility of caused harm, so family planning methods are being used with an informed consent. At last, human dignity must be respected: dignity becomes damaged when methods, reducing the unitive dimension of the sexual act are used.
Today, more than ever a pondered reflection is necessary, regarding human procreative behaviour which assumes until the last consequences a responsibility, entailing free exercise: human dignity of parents and children stands in game. Starting from these optics, there is no point talking about an all-embracing procreation liberty of a husband and wife; except responsibility.
“The right for life of each person is protected by law. Death cannot be intentionally infringed to anybody, except by execution of a capital sentence, pronounced by a court in case a crime is punished by this penalty according to law” (Title I, Art. 2.1), European Convention Safeguarding the rights of Man and Fundamental Freedom (Rome, 4th of November 1950), signed by Spain on November 24th 1977, ratified by courts on 19th June 1979.
It must be underlined that science has confirmed the complete personality of a child to become born. In this sense, Dr. Jerôme Lejeune (Doctor in Medicine and Science, University of Sorbonne; founder of human chromosomal pathology and Professor in Fundamental Genetics) has said: “Each one of us has a very precise beginning, the moment of conception”.
Thus, Human Rights are elemental exigencies, every human being must claim due to the single fact of being human; these exigencies must be satisfied because they apply to basic needs whose fulfilment is indispensable in order to be able to develop themselves as human beings. These rights are so basic, that without them it is impossible to lead a dignified life. Because they are so elementary and necessary for any person, they are called:
UNIVERSAL RIGHTS: they must be recognized to all human beings, without excluding anyone. It is about minimal exigencies which must be guaranteed in recognition of their human condition.
HIGH PRIORITY RIGHTS: within the sense of coming into a conflict, they are rights which must be protected on a priority way.
INNEGOCIABLE RIGHTS: no society must deny protection of these rights to its members. If, for example, someone lacks of the necessary resources to satisfy at a certain moment, what we may call “economic, social and cultural rights” of all its citizens; society must not conform, pleading it is resulting impossible. An effort must be done in order to obtain the necessary resources and to distribute them on such a way that everybody’s right becomes satisfied.
Moreover, all societies must contribute within a worldwide context to achieve; rights of every person become respected, no matter which society they belong to. In short, human rights are A MORAL MINIMUM FOR JUSTICE which must be satisfied, because without them, no righteous society and no world of peace and harmony can be constructed.
The aim of the present work is to introduce a new line of reflection defending nascent human life. We present a further tool of thought for a strategy which permits to promote and defend life and family in the whole world. Our aim is, Birthright becomes recognized as what it is and as what it should be: the first of all Human Rights; in opposition of reproductive-health politics’ legislations, considering abortion.
Translated from Spanish
by BirthLife Universal