Abortion, a Human Rights Violation
By Matt Wunderlin

Disclaimer:  Please note that the expressions, ideas, and opinions in these essays are not necessarily those of AbortionTV and No Fear Media, Inc,   and we do not accept responsibility in any way for the accuracy and/or the content of each essay.

The pro-choice movement is riddled with inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and scientific inaccuracies. After years of debate with members of this movement there has never been an instance where the pro-choice side has not had to concede that they believe a scientific inaccuracy or that their thought process consists of at least one major logical fallacy or inconsistency. There is no time to go into all of these inaccuracies and fallacies now, so I will recommend two resources that deal very well with these flaws in thinking. The first is Randy Alcorn’s “ProLife answers to ProChoice Arguments”. The second is the website "http://www.abortiontv.com/". Both are very well documented and are as exhaustive as anything else I have ever come across.

To hurry things further, I am going to assume that those who are reading this will accept the simple scientific fact, yes, fact, that an individual Homo sapiens’ life begins at conception. That is to say that an embryo/fetus is a human being by definition – I won’t claim the vague term “person” yet – and a fetus is certainly not, as the un/improperly informed argue, just “a part of the woman’s body.”

What I hope to show today is that whether or not you have fallen victim to these faults, the international community has already established that the vile act of abortion is a human rights violation and thus if you care at all about human rights, you can not side with the so called pro-choice movement.

In this piece I will go through parts of the two most authoritive pieces of international legislature ever ratified that speaks to human rights and children’s rights – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child – and you will see that abortion is no less than barbaric.

From “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Note that Article 3 does not state that these rights are afforded to adults or children after birth. Rather, “everyone” refers to members of our species. Abortion clearly violates an unborn child’s right to life. Note too, that human rights groups are also anti death penalty, which truly means that EVERYONE, guilty or innocent, has a right to life. Without life there can be no liberty or security of person.

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Again, “everyone” regardless of anything - race, social status, country of origin, sex, handicaps, age, etc. must be recognized as a person. Period. End of discussion. Every single member of the Homo sapiens species must be recognized as a person before the law. Abortion clearly violates this by claiming that something magical happens at some point after life begins (whether it is birth or a certain chronological age or further development of faculties) that somehow transforms a mere human being into a person. The time when this miracle occurs is completely arbitrary and no one can seem to agree on when exactly it is. Well, now it is spelled out clearly for those who care about human rights – every Homo sapiens is a person.

I will now freely admit that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has subject to some poor interpretation by anti life groups and those they lobby, as Article one specifies that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Some try to make this mean that birth is the starting place of these rights. But then it is followed with “They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” What article one is attempting to do is not define when rights begin, rather it is trying to clarify the preamble and say that because we are born with equal dignity and rights, and have reasoning abilities and a conscience, that we should treat each other with compassion. There is no excuse to violate human rights. Especially given that it was ratified in 1948 when most of the population still saw abortion as an abomination and it was an obvious given that a fetus has rights. And considering this and what is said in Article 3 and 6, one can not honestly attempt to say that the intention of the authors and those who ratified this (shortly after the holocaust, mind you) was to exclude the unborn.

But that was 1948, you might argue. Times have changed, people have become wiser. We can’t expect everyone to live by the standards of 1948, after all women and minorities were still being oppressed. True, but if countries were following their own edicts this wouldn’t have been the case. Add to this that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was extremely instrumental in portions of the world to bringing about the end of these types of oppression. Remember too that this declaration is what we still use to define human rights violations when they occur today. But if you are still not satisfied, let us look at another document that was ratified and entered into force in 1990 to expand upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights of children.

From: The “Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989)”

Preamble

…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…

…everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status…

… that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance…

… the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding…

… the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society…

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"…

There is a lot of good stuff in the preamble. If you note the underlined piece first you’ll see that a child is entitled to care and protection by the law both before and after birth. Case closed. A fetus is included specifically in this declaration. A fetus has rights. They refer to the document which this one expands upon as an authority. Human rights advocates want to protect our unborn children. By virtue of this we can look to earlier quotation in the preamble to see some why it is important to protect the rights of an unborn child and it tells us of the rights and privileges afforded to the fetus which will be expanded upon later. No one can take these away. Not even a mother who is worried about her lifestyle or who has been raped (you can’t kill someone innocent just because someone else hurt you) or who may suffer minor health issues (Death is an exception because to be consistent with being pro life, you can’t expect someone to die in exchange for a child unless they agree to. Also you can’t expect two people to die if one may be allowed to live – many anti life folks don’t understand that this has always been a part of the pro life mentality). Legalized abortion clearly violates human rights by not affording our unborn children appropriate legal protection – in fact it does the opposite, it reinforces human rights violations. It allows, and in some sense encourages the abuse of unborn children (and many argue that it encourages the abuse of those already born by reinforcing the idea that children are somehow below us, or not human…kind of like in cases of slavery or anti Semitism).

The remaining quotes all come from Part One of the doctrine. Parts two and three deal with such issues as enforcement and ratification and thus are not necessarily pertinent to the point we are driving at.

Article 1 For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

This article reinforces the definition of what a child is. We already know that they intend to include the fetus, but they remind us that it is every human being (which a fetus by virtue of scientific fact is) under a certain age is a child. It mentions nothing of he or she having to be over a certain age or about the term starting after birth.

Article 3

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

Note that this section specifically spells out that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration. They are paramount. It mentions nothing of the welfare of the father or mother. Rather it is the child, the most defenseless, who should be afforded the greatest defense by everyone. Abortion clearly violates this by stating that a mother has more rights than her innocent child.

2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Here it says that not only should children have their best interests looked after first, but the State parties, i.e. those in government, should ensure that this right is granted. They then specify that a parent or guardian has the right to their child and thus the duty to raise them in a proper manner so the state cannot simply take children away at birth and raise them in a special nursery. A parent has the right to their child, but not the right to kill their child. Another strike against abortion.

3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision

This reinforces the idea that the State must protect children, even from their parents or child rearing organizations, such as day care or schools. That is if a parent violates standards in health or safety – which abortion clearly does – the state must step in and protect the child.

Article 6 1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

I do not even know how I could make this clearer or how I could further emphasize just how opposite the abortion mindset is to human rights, given Article 6 and all else we have spoken of. Legalized abortion is again doing the direct opposite of what article 6 states. Legalized abortion claims that not every child has the right to life and that the State should not ensure the survival and development of all children.

Article 18

1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.

2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

Section 1 clearly is in direct contrast to the abortion mindset. Human rights are contingent upon parents making the best interests of their child a primary concern. That means don’t kill it. Duh. That also means don’t do drugs while pregnant or take up kick boxing during gestation.

Section 2 is claiming that states should do what many pro choice individuals claim they do not do (which is a complete fallacy, if you live in the U.S. anyway). They should assist parents in bringing up the children when needed. Not only should they support such agencies as adoption or WIC, but they should cover pre natal vitamins to ensure the fetus is getting the best care possible (which is covered in Article 24, incidentally). One of the major inconsistencies of so called women’s rights groups who preach abortion is that certain fetus’ are entitled to life, health, and protection whereas others are not. Human rights advocates disagree. All they have to do is ask, “What is in the best interest of this child?” and they certainly will realize that letting it live is a step in the right direction.

Article 19 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

For anyone who still thinks that parents have more rights than their unborn child, this should clear things up. A mother and father have to care for their unborn child – they can’t kill it. To protect human rights the State must also protect the child from ALL FORMS of: Violence – like abortion. Injury or abuse – which causes death in the case of abortion. Maltreatment – how could abortion not fit the bill. And exploitation – such as what so called women’s rights groups do when they advocate abortion as a way to advance women (Note, history has shown us time and time again that it is fallacy to advance one group of people at the expense of another). Remember that this article specifically refers to the parents. The State must protect the children, born or unborn, from their parents. If the parents want to kill the child, the State must step in and stop it just as they do with older children.

Article 29

States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

The abortion industry tries and has been somewhat successful in lobbying the State to educate youth that abortion is a part of women’s rights and is thus a wonderful thing – look at women’s studies in most high schools and colleges. This is in direct contrast to what advocates of human rights proclaim. Children should be taught from early on that their life and the life of all children matter. Abortion is in stark opposition to this and should be taught as a disgrace from early on, much in the same way other forms of violence and murder are taught as atrocities.

Article 32

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

There are two parts to Article 32, protection from economic exploitation and protection from unfitting work. We shall deal with the first part. If one seriously considers the amount of money made by the abortion industry at the expense of our unborn children, there is absolutely no way it can be said the industry is not exploiting children. It is no different than the somewhat recent problem of child pornography where a child is killed on video and this video is sold on the black market for profit – both acts are utterly despicable. The abortion industry pours millions and millions of dollars into protecting their “investment,” their economic well being if you will. They attempt to fill our heads with the lie that abortion is “progressive”, “safe”, “will advance women”, and that it is simple a “procedure” that removes a “lump of tissue, not a baby.” This is why they lobby to prevent women from receiving accurate information from their doctors about the procedure – not allowing ultrasounds and giving extremely little information about the major risks and side effects of the surgery. Then they lobby to prevent others from distributing this information peaceably to the women who are victims of the abortion industry. They have enough money to significantly suppress their own flaws to the mainstream population while exaggerating the actions and motivations of a mere minority of alleged pro life extremists (whom pro life advocates would not call pro life). The two references I referred to in the introduction deal well with the issue of economic exploitation of women and children by the abortion industry.

Article 37

States Parties shall ensure that:

(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily.

Does abortion deprive a child of his or her liberty? Absolutely. Is it unlawful? In many countries it is, by the standards of most religions it is, and by those who care about human rights it is certainly unlawful. Are the reasons for someone having an abortion arbitrary? It certainly can be argued that unless it is for the protection of the mother’s life, not lifestyle, in most cases it can be classified as arbitrary. Many of the exact same reasons blacks were enslaved and Hitler and Stalin committed mass genocide are why millions of innocent babies are being deprived of their life and thus their liberty.