Human Rights Day: Abysmal failure of the United Nations to protect the rights of unborn babies

Today December 10th the United Nations celebrates Human Rights Day.

The UN, instead of clapping itself on the back at its own perceived success in promoting human rights, should hang its head in shame at its abysmal failure to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of our community, unborn babies. 

The UN, its agencies and organs appear to be more influenced by ideology than in upholding  truth and justice even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenents enacted under it are crystal clear.

It is now fifty years since the UN adopted the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitute the International Bill of Rights that recognize 'the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'. In addition to the foregoing the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in its preamble tells us that 'Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "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".'

Sound science recognizes that human embryos, from the moment of fertilisation, are new living human beings. To use the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we are all members of the 'human family'. From the moment of fertilisation we all share a common humanity. Human embryos are equal members of the species homo sapiens and each stage of development is equal in value to every other stage.

There is a connection between the self-interest of certain communities and the line to be drawn between recognition of persons and non-persons.  That self-interest may be driven by eugenic, economic, social or political factors such that those a society wishes to exclude are deemed to be non-persons.  History is replete with examples of this phenomenon.

However cleverly the arguments are presented, the taking of a human life, the killing of a human being is a heinous crime, it is called murder. The killing of the most vulnerable human beings, unborn babies, is the most heinous of crimes.

We call on the Secretary General and the United Nations General Assembly to redress this blatant injustice, to uphold its own declared values and to immediately reject the wholesale killing of the unborn.

Denying embryonic and foetal human beings their fundamental and inherent right to live, either by design or by omission, diminishes the whole of humanity, hinders the search for justice and truth and brings the UN, its organs and agencies, into disrepute.

Manipulation of Language

One of the issues that pro-life advocates need to be aware of is the manipulation of language by the media and by pro-abortion organizations and activists.

George Orwell in his famous novel 1984 wrote about a fictional language he called 'newspeak' supposedly designed to standardize thought to reflect an ideology that makes "all other modes of thought impossible". He may have been wrong about the date but it is abundantly clear that elements of newspeak have invaded our lexicon.

A widespread example of this strategy is political correctness, even that term has been shortened to become the letters PC.

What's the difference between ‘positive discrimination’ and ‘sexual discrimination’ ? The former is policy and the latter illegal. However, they both mean the same thing – favouring one sex over another! Have you noticed we don’t have firemen anymore, ? We have firefighters. Have you ever noticed that the non-gender specific word Homemaker has superseded the term Housewife ? We hear of ‘deadbeat’ dads – but not moms ? We also hear of ‘single’ rather than ‘unmarried’ mothers ? We have ‘family courts’ and not ‘divorce courts’

I came across a letter in the Irish examiner which expresses the issue clearly I am reprinting it below

One of the first strategies for success at any given subject is the manipulation of language. First of all, the issue is obscured, and then the other side uses your phraseology.

The pro-‘choice’ side is to be congratulated in winning this first phase of the battle. Take the word ‘abortion’.

The impression can be given that the whole procedure is innocuous, somewhat akin to the pulling of a tooth, giving immediate relief. The advocator will thus be seen as a ‘compassionate’ person, not a person bound by inflexible dogma. (Oddly, the responsibility of the man is never mentioned).

By using the word ‘abortion’, the pro-life side is actually helping the pro-‘choice’ side in covering up what, in reality, is the deliberate taking of a human (unborn) life. It is this reality that needs to be made plain, not obscured. Similarly, with the phrase, “repeal of the 8th amendment”.

Pro-lifers will be well aware of what is involved, and the consequences. Not necessarily so, in the case of others. These may be indifferent, or may be quite happy with the vagueness involved. They will be entitled to ask, “The 8th amendment of what?” Time for plain speaking.

Donal O’Driscoll

Dargle Road

Blackrock

Co Dublin