The U.S. has reluctantly given up trying to stop a U.N. declaration that enshrines abortion as a human right:
After withdrawing an unpopular anti-abortion amendment from a key U.N. document, the United States joined in approving the declaration that reaffirmed a 150-page platform agreed 10 years ago at a landmark U.N. women's conference in Beijing.However, the behavior of abortion supporters was a bit less sophisticated than one might have expected:
Jeers and catcalls greeted the top U.S. delegate to a global women's conference on Friday as she stressed Washington's opposition to abortion and support for sexual abstinence and fidelity.Other delegates laid out the rationale for the pro-abortion position:
...U.S. delegate Ellen Sauerbrey drew boos from the audience, which included some of the 6,000 activists who came from around the world, when she commented on Washington's interpretation of the document.
...The loudest catcalls, unusual at the world body, came when she articulated U.S. policy on AIDS prevention for adolescents...
...Mary Ann Dantuono, the Vatican delegate, was interrupted by shouts when she said the Catholic Church "would have preferred a clearer statement emphasizing that the Beijing documents cannot be interpreted as creating new human rights including the right to abortion."
"The text of Beijing is unequivocally clear. We should not spend hours splitting hairs over phrases that mean the same thing," said New Zealand's U.N. Ambassador Don Mackay, speaking for his country, Canada and Australia. He said the Beijing document included a woman's right to control her sexuality.I can see why the U.N. would be in favor of abortion. After all, it's a convenient way to get rid of all the unwanted pregnancies caused by its shameful worldwide rape scandal.
But saying abortion is a way to control your sexuality is like saying liposuction is a way to control your eating habits.
4 comments:
I like your final analogy a lot.
Abortion is a troubling issue to me, because I cannot believe that taking a breath magically transforms a baby from a parasite to a person.
On the other hand, I can't accept that a sperm and an egg cell once combined are entitled to all the rights of an individual.
Finding a place in between the two extermes to draw the line is tough.
Posted by Dave Justus
Where does contraception fall into this issue, as the U.N. has framed it? Shouldn't they be discussing ensuring availbility of safe, inexpensive, widely-available birth control instead of putting the cart before the horse? Alas, common sense continues to evade this august authority.
After all, is there really any such thing as "safe" abortion? And is there to be a limit on when such a procedure becomes unsafe for the woman in question?
This last question concerns me a great deal. Justice Warren, writing the opinion of the majority in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down capital punishment sentences for minors, cited international law and convention as its' primary compelling authority in the Court's decision to outlaw death sentences for juvenile offenders. Such a reference is unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Court, and most newscasts in the U.S. failed to note this heretofore unreferenced authority.
If we now look to France and the "international community" as having sway over our courts, when will the time come that the U.N. might become an arbiter of United States laws and conventions? Could we find U.S. women being able to get late-term abortions by way of the U.N. guaranteeing "safe, reliable abortion"?
Posted by Langtry
Sharon, if you're concerned about the U.S. Supreme Court being influenced by foreign jurisprudence, I think you'll like this post by Iowahawk.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Great Iowahawk column! I've actually met the Iowahawk at a Chicago LGF get-together last summer. He's freakin' brilliant!
Posted by Langtry
Post a Comment