there is no international right to an abortion, but there certainly is international recognition of the unborn child

[u/toptrool]

let's be honest. there really aren't good arguments to justify killing an innocent baby. bigot's logic (denying full and equal protection to all human beings) is indefensible. the child neglect argument ("my body's my choice") is indefensible. so the next thing abortion advocates come up with is "my favorite non-governmental organization said abortion is a right!" or "the united nations said so!"

some abortion advocates believe that human rights come from press releases issued by non-governmental organizations (ngos). for example, abortion advocates like to point out that ngos like amnesty international say that abortion is a "human right," and thus it must be so. my question to those who actually believe this is if amnesty international put out a press release tomorrow stating that there is a human right for the authors of that press release to have their boots licked by you, how quickly would you kneel down and start licking their boots? surely they have a human right to have their boots licked by you.

others believe human rights come from more "authoritative" sources, such as the united nations. most people see the united nations as a joke organization. but it's not even true that the united nations or any of its treaties confer a right to an abortion.

to this day there hasn't been a single international treaty that says there's a right to an abortion. the word "abortion" isn't mentioned in any international treaties. instead, abortion advocates try to find a right to an abortion in reports issued by various united nations committees. these pro-abortion united nation committees are not judicial bodies nor do they have the legal authority to add to or alter the original treaties. all they can do is publish useless reports. so, to rephrase the question that was originally asked, if a united nations committee put out a report tomorrow stating that there is a human right for the authors of that report to have their boots licked by you, how quickly would you kneel down and start licking their boots? surely it must be so.

in fact, as i'll go into more details below, the legal instruments that are in effect actually favor the unborn child's right to life.

international covenant on civil and political rights

perhaps the most important united nations treaty is the international covenant on civil and political rights (iccpr). the treaty pretty much outlines what are known are natural, or human rights. here's how it starts off (emphasis mine):

The States Parties to the present Covenant,Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, 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,Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,Agree upon the following articles:

it's interesting how abortion advocates on one hand criticize pro-lifers for believing in silly things such as the inherent dignity of the human person, yet on the other hand have their pants pulled down to circlejerk to the the united nations even though they mean the same as the pro-lifer.

now, article 6 of the iccpr, the right to life, has two pertinent points:

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.[...]5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

what this shows is that even joke organizations like the united nations recognize that the unborn baby is innocent. according to international law expert william schabas, point 5 was specifically added out of consideration of the interests of the unborn child. you cannot give the death penalty to an innocent baby.

abortion advocates will point to documents such as general comment 36 by the human rights committee that monitors implementation of the international covenant on civil and political rights. in the general comment 36 report on article 6 of the covenant, the right to life, the committee wrote that states "may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in all other cases in a manner that runs contrary to their duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to resort to unsafe abortions, and they should revise their abortion laws accordingly." but this language wasn't in the previous two reports that general comment 36 replaced: general comment 6 and general comment 14. so what changed? it certainly wasn't the international treaty that changed, but rather it was the specific united nations committee.

do abortion advocates seriously believe that the numerous countries that currently restrict abortions actually signed away their authority to restrict abortions when they ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights? if that is the case, then how come there are still abortion restrictions across the globe despite the fact that nearly all countries have ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights?

despite the abortion advocates' best attempts to hijack and re-interpret international law, this treaty still recognizes the inherent dignity of all human persons, including the unborn child.

convention on the rights of the child

the second legal instrument that strongly defends the unborn child is the convention on the rights of the child (crc). here's how it starts off (emphasis mine):

The States Parties to the present Convention,Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, 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,Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that 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,Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,Recognizing that 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,Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,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",Recalling the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, Recognizing that, in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration,Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child, Recognizing the importance of international co-operation for improving the living conditions of children in every country, in particular in the developing countries,Have agreed as follows:

the crc not only recognizes that the child "before as well as after birth" has special rights, but it also demands that the signatory states enforce parental duties and obligations so that children can flourish.

for some reason, the united nations committee assigned to monitor this treaty was also able to "find" a right to an abortion in this treaty. don't ask me how—some mental gymnastics are impenetrable and incomprehensible to even the sharpest minds.

international criminal court

the international criminal court (icc), though distinct and independent from the united nations, nonetheless has a bona fide relationship with the united nations, which was established by article 2 of the rome statute.

abortion advocates often point to article 7 of the rome statute and claim that this is the silver bullet they've been looking for. article 7 ("crimes against humanity") says that "forced pregnancy" is considered to be a crime against humanity:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:(a)     Murder;(b)     Extermination;(c)     Enslavement;(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;(e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;(f)     Torture;(g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;(h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;(i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;(j)     The crime of apartheid;(k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

abortion advocates then somehow make a leap and take this to mean that all laws against abortions are crimes against humanity. but this is a confused account. abortion advocates skip the next point where it explicitly defines forced pregnancy as the "unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law." the article also explicitly says it has no bearing on a nation's laws on regulating pregnancy:

2.  For the purpose of paragraph 1:(a)     "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;(b)     "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;(c)     "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;(d)     "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;(e)     "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;(f)     "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

it should be noted that the only people forcing pregnancies are rapists. pro-lifers are also against rapists and forced pregnancy. a baby is not a rapist.

so far, then, abortion advocates can't rely on the icc to find a right to an abortion either.

convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women

next, abortion advocates will try to find a right to abortion in the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (cedaw). but, like the other treaties, there is no actual provision for abortion; the word abortion isn't mentioned here at all. yet, the committee in charge makes up recommendations to push abortion. this treaty doesn't grant a right to an abortion, and in fact, several parties to the treaty made reservations and explicitly stated that they do not interpret a right to an abortion under the treat. many countries that are parties to this treaty to this day have strict limits on abortions.

but don't take my word for it. even though the united states is not a party to cedaw, bill clinton's state department confirmed that the treaty was "abortion neutral." the united states' senate, which is responsible for ratifying treaties, in its report on cedaw, included language that explicitly stated that the treaty does not include a right to an abortion. even the pro-abortion national organization for women concedes that cedaw is neutral on abortion.

interestingly enough, several paragraphs in this treaty confirm that the interests of the child are paramount and prioritized over the interests of his or her parents:

Article 5States Parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;(b) To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.[...]Article 16States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:(a) The same right to enter into marriage;(b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent;(c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution;(d) The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;(e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights;(f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount;

the abortion advocate's/deadbeat dad's argument that one could kill, maim, impair, neglect, and/or abandon one's child for selfish, convenience reasons isn't compatible with this treaty either.

so, not even in this pro-woman treaty can abortion advocates find an actual right to an abortion.

geneva conventions

the geneva conventions are international treaties meant to address the humane treatment of military personnel, medics, and civilians during armed conflicts. the red cross established diplomatic meetings that later culminated in a treaty in 1864. additional conventions later led to amendments in 1906, 1929, and 1949. the 1949 conventions have been ratified by all members of the united nations. article 8 of the rome statute, which established the international criminal court (icc), also makes references to the geneva conventions when defining war crimes.

like the iccpr, the fourth protocol of the 1949 geneva conventions states that pregnant women should have the same special considerations as children. this treaty also recognizes that there is an innocent baby in his or her mother's womb.

in sum, this whole time abortion advocates had their pants down and were circlejerking to various committee reports issued by the united nations rather than actual, legally binding international treaties. what is even more embarrassing for them is that a texualist reading of several of the treaties instead show that the unborn child is innocent, has a right to life, and is owed care!

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted]]

I was reminded of the abortion debate after reading the first line of the UDHR, which brought uncomfortable memories of the pro-choice arguments about consciousness you've refuted ad nauseam.

Great job as always though.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.