Last week expert Austin Ruse President/C-Fam, Editor & Publisher/Friday Fax (https://c-fam.org/) raised the alert that the UN is negotiating a new hard-law treaty that will make Church teachings crimes against humanity.
How could this possibly be?
Here’s how he explained it.
" UN Member States are now negotiating a new hard-law treaty on “crimes against humanity.” These are generally regarded as those crimes that offend all of humanity, such as the genocide of the Jews by the Germans during World War II.
The new treaty very well may include the following:
“Sexual orientation and gender identity”
And
“Forced pregnancy”
Please knew we oppose all unjust discrimination against those with same-sex attraction. However, we cannot support the idea that opposing “sexual orientation and gender identity” as a new “crime against humanity.” This would criminalize the teachings of the Church.
We faced the notion of “forced pregnancy” when the International Criminal Court was negotiated twenty years ago. In the hands of the left, “forced pregnancy” means that a woman cannot get an abortion.
Working with UN Member States twenty years ago, we got it defined as the repeated rape of a woman for the purposes of changing the demographic profile of a country, literally holding a woman prisoner until she gives birth.
But, the left is back again and they want to insert “forced pregnancy” into the new treaty but without a definition so they can define it later against the unborn child.
This is how the new treaty will criminalize the teachings of the Church. And this is why we oppose this new language, and why we need your help."
I think that it is a problem for all humanity, it is not only a problem for catholics like myself. It seeks to force pro-abort legislation in all countries that have some protection for the unborn. If this UN treaty is approved, besides multiplying the number of aborts, many more women would be dangeroulsy wounded in their feminity because the post-abort syndrom, and beside the problems of an aging population would increase without limit. This is really irresponsably encouraging an inhumane behavior. For what use is the UN today?
Breaking News! Major Transgender, Abortion, and Sexual Rights Controversies Erupt at the United Nations
https://familywatch.org/resources/newsletters/17282-2/#.XJlEC6SvGUk
Dear Mariano
Yes it is incomprensible for any well thinking person that presuppose that the UN was buildt to spread good governance practices, to defend the weakest and to improve the well-being of the world population. Indeed many of the members of the UN may be inocent of their last bad actions and policies. But almost every day UN is pushing for politics that look for destroying the family life formed in the natural marriage, to reduce the human population by mean of abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, it press for a radical enviromentalism that never consider the human ecology, and promotes a global and anti-democratic government in the hands of an unscrupulous elite that has a lot of money and an almost unlimited power.
Hello Guillermo,
I am not surprised in the least at what the monstrous international body has in the offing for member states.
However, am confident my Country will resist any attempt in this regard and will veto EVERY RESOLUTION AND WITHHOLD RATIFICATION from any dubious policy that is in direct contrast to our cherished values for free speech and religious expression.
The UN is racing ahead of the EU to becoming a full blown Communist organization. As rightly pointed out, denying abortion legalization is being termed forced pregnancy; championing radical LGBTQ educational policy for kindergartens, preschool kids, Total Crackdown on Net neutrality and Online Free speech from Conservative and alternative media, embracing Privacy diminishing Big Brother Omnipresent Surveillance technology, Acute Antisemitism, Normalization of Pedophilia, Depopulation techniques via Agenda 21 and a host of other globalist pet projects.
Surely, the UN has lost its focus, credibility and moral standing. Their End is Coming!
Dear Victor
I hope that you were right that these nefarious policies based on the ideology of gender and on Marxism fail and will not make a dent in your country. I'm afraid that in my own, Argentina, they have been quite successful so far. We have only managed to stop the full liberalization of abortion for the moment and by a very little margin. But many of us will continue to fight against these evils because in the long run they destroy any society and the roots of the peace of the peoples.
Dear Victor
Congratulations for the work of the nigerian Dr Oluyinka Olutoye https://wiredbugs.com/oluyinka-olutoye-fast-nigerian-surgery/
Dear Guillermo,
As activists and conscientious objectors, we will continue to be on the guard and hold the reins of sanity, prosperity and the peace of our society. May I urge you and other voices of reason and conscience to Press on in delivering and wrestling Argentina from a complete Marxist takeover. God bless your efforts.
Thank you for acknowledging Olutoye Oluyinka's giant strides. He is a Gift to our Nation and our society.
Dear Victor
You are very welcome! I hope that Dr Olutoye Oluyinka's giant strides reach the widest possible dissemination, and that we will soon become accustomed to surgical interventions, for the health of the unborn child, like the one he achieved.
Today it has been reported that UN was heavely involved in the grotesque change for worst of the New York abortion laws.
https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/un-intervened-change-new-york-abortion-law/
Some laws are made for human beings, but difficult to digest especially when humanity is not captured. I believe the church promotes virtue which ensures co-existence but when laws are made against the body that promotes virtue, one wonders how else it can be done.
Any injust law should be resisted and abrocated because it is destroying the natural order that is required for peace
what is wrong or unjust with women having a choice to abort fetus? why should they be prevented from making decision about their reproduction, and body? An unborn child is not a separate person or entity from its own mother until birth. If miscarriage is not wrong or unjust then why abortion is thorny? I do not grasp your point of contention.
Dear George.
Never, Never, Never, it is licit to kill an innocent person. The fetus is only one of us before birth but that he/she is completely innocent of any wrong doing.
Dear Guillermo
I agree fully that "it is licit to kill an innocent person." However, as point of departure I argue that unborn child is part of a woman's body. As the woman feeds herself during conception period, she simultaneously feeding the unborn child. The only time where the unborn child becomes a person is through birth provided she or he can breath independent from the mother. Put differently, it is until birth that the issue of being a person arise. Therefore abortion does not amount to killing a person. instead it is removing part of one's body which has a potential of becoming a person.
Dear George
All men have a biological father (even though some men gave their semen and never knew or loved the women that would be the biological mother of their children). Mine father, thank God, is one of those parents who gave their lives to their children (5) and accompany them throughout their lives in the bosom of a family that he and my mother formed fundamented in a christian marriage. My parents conceived me in a loving relationship, and my father was protecting me from the first moment although he could not see me, because he protected to his wife and to all their childrens (visibles or not). I did the same thing with each of our six childrens. But at what moment a biological father, become a father? Well, the only plausible moment for it is at the moment or conception of his chlidrens, because then there is a child resulting from your seminal donation. This amazing conception normally occurs within the biological mother's body. Each children has different DNA, from that of his/her mother, because his/hers is a combination of the genes of both biological parents with many characteristics different from that of both. Also in that conception moment each children receives a soul (or vital principle), that is also present in any biological being, but in the case of human beings the soul is spiritual and personaly created by God for each men. From its conception a human being begins to develop with cellerity and without pause, and from the very beginning he/she begans to interact with his/her mother. From being a very small being, he/her begins to receive impressions of the environment in which he/her lives. At a certain age the children begins to think and the doctors can record their brain waves and can see the children overflowing with life, playing, moving, sucking the finger, etc. They listen to the voice of his mother and also of the father and other siblings that there are there. Good and bad long-lasting influences can already be received in the mother's womb both from the mother herself and from other close people that could later origin traumas or incremente their confidence for the rest of their lives. He/her is not a part of the mother although it depends wonderfully on her in such a close bond that if it is cut before reaching enough development it causes his/her immediate death. If a human person just began to be, at birth, then he would not have a biological father, because the biological father may be completely absent at birth for different reasons. However, the society always recognizes the rights of any child to the assistance, education, nutriton and every necessary care from both parents.
Dear Guillermo
First of all I wish to let you know that I respect your religious and spiritual convictions. Although I must say with due respect that I did not anticipate that the argument will get so personal as it has turned out to be. I sincerely wish I could put my self in your shoes. Unfortunately, I do not fit for two reasons. One, I do not think is right in any manner for one person to impose his or her metaphysical beliefs on another person unless the latter shares similar belief( which will not amount to imposition). Two, the world will live in is diverse, and there no universal religion which appeals to everyone. Thus something more than religious convictions is required to persuade people.
I have taken a conscious decision to desist from making further arguments on this topic.
I wish you all the best.
kindly regards
M G Thanyane
Dear George
I am certainly a person of profound religious convictions but I did not use an argument based on them.
The point is that the unborn creature is different in DNA from his mother and never could be considered a part of her, because any part of a body has the same DNA that it. If there’s one thing scientists universally agree on, it’s that the fetus is a distinct, living organism, different from that of its mother’s.
While it’s true that, during pregnancy, the fetus is attached to the mother and depends on the mother for its development, it’s definitely not part of her body. It’s a different body within her body. In other words, abortion doesn’t involve one body—it involves two bodies, the mother’s body and the body of the unborn child. To say that the fetus was part of the mother is the same that to say that she has two heads (or more), four arms, four legs, etc. So while we can agree that, in most cases, a woman can decide what she does with her body, we just can’t agree she can do whatever she wants with sombody else’s body, namely the fetus’ body. It’s always wrong to use your body to harm or destroy an innocent person’s body.
Beside, He/she has a biological father from the begining, that is legaly obliged to care his children although he do not want do it.
Dear Guillermo
Now that you have raised factual scientific evidence then I am inclined to participate again.
Anyway lets examine this scientifical evidence with regard to DNA, and determine whether it necessitates the conclusion that women should not have a volition to perform abortion .
It is undeniable fact that a fetus has a distinctive DNA that is different from a pregnant woman. However, this fact does not mean that a fetus is not part of the body of the woman. This so because the fetus is connected to the woman through umbilical cord. In short a unique DNA between the two does not mean there are separate entities.
Again even if I were to accept that the fetus is not part of the woman's body by virtue of a unique DNA, still it is in her body. Any person has hegemony in respect of what is inside of her body. Beside, scientifically speaking a fetus is not the only organism that has a unique DNA in our body. ( See, microbiota). Therefore to assert that one should not have authority over organism inside one's body it is implausible and absurd.
In conclusion either way there is nothing which can reasonably justify that women should not have a choice to abort fetus.
Dear George
I see that you are not a from this field of the science but when I said before that: "If there’s one thing scientists universally agree on, it’s that the fetus is a distinct, living organism, different from that of its mother’s." It is a fact!. If you have any biolog or scientific related to health that say other thing you may have an argument but I doubt that you may indicate anyone. The fetus is not a microbia, he/she has human DNA and then is a human organism different from his/her mother and father. He/she is a person innocent of any wrong doing.
Save human beings cannot be a crime, and it is what makes the Church: save humanity.
As an example of the unoperation of the UN as an institution that procures the common good, let me share with you a litle documental about what is happening in Africa on women by action of Marie Stopes Int., several UN agencies, several nations of the First World and several multibillonaries: https://www.spuc.org.uk/news/news-stories/2019/february/strings-attached-online-now?utm_source=SPUC+News+List&utm_campaign=ef1e0349d0-news190215_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_826f492851-ef1e0349d0-138711525&mc_cid=ef1e0349d0&mc_eid=03e3135569
Here is a similar action of UN against Trump Administration because they recently have impede several left resolutions against the life of the more weak persons, as the elders, the sick and the unborn.
https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/secretary-general-launches-attack-trump-administration/
Breaking News! Major Transgender, Abortion, and Sexual Rights Controversies Erupt at the United Nations
https://familywatch.org/resources/newsletters/17282-2/#.XJlEC6SvGUk
According to George Thanyane, a foetus or unborn child is NOT A PERSON and CANNOT THEREFORE LAY ANY CLAIM OR RIGHT TO LIFE WHATSOEVER and by virtue of which the unborn has no right to protest any action or conduct that could end its uterine existence. Simply Put, Unborns can be killed or murdered or aborted, being unqualified to be regarded as PERSONS.
That's very interesting George, don't you think?
I believe, you wouldn't feel perturbed at all, if pregnant mothers are allowed to terminate their FULL TERM BABIES even though yet unborn or about to be born, because they are NOT YET SEPARATED FROM THEIR UMBILICAL CORD, and therefore, not persons.
Guillermo, God Bless You. Your responses were very insightful. And to think George has charged you for unconsented religious proselytism and validating and anchoring your arguments on religious grounds.
I will say this: the Abortion subject has widened its terms of reference to include the right to abort foetus while the pregnant mother is DILATING. You can find this in the US State of Virginia Law recently passed. This new understanding is being perpetuated by Radical Liberals and hateful group of intelligentsia connected in prominent places of government.
I'll say this George, you don't need to be a person of faith to believe or accept or align with values that promote or underscore our humanity (Respect, Love and Care for the life and Dignity of the humans whether in the womb or out of it).
Why do we even have the RIGHT TO LIFE engraved in all the Constitution of the Worlds? Do you think, it is so engraved on account of Faith grounds? Absolutely Not! It is simply engraved on the principle of the SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE , a value which humanity collectively and completely places a vigorous Premium on. In other words, ALL LIFE IS EQUAL meaning that ALL LIFE are imbued with the Right to Live. From here on, criminologists qualify the statement by adding that human life cannot be arbitrarily terminated without consequences, and that, instances where the right to life will be interfered with must anchor on balanced moral standards that vindicate the principle of sanctity of life and affirm legitimate exceptions to it.
Guillermo, I noticed I didn't give George a Scientific perspective for disagreeing with the view that a foetus is biologically and physiologically the same as the pregnant mother carrier. First of all, George's scientific test for Person hood is downright Absurd. I will not bother myself trying to make sense out of scientific, medical and biological impossibilities.
The Person hood debate has been so cheapened and reduced to scientific jargons to the extent that we can see the motivation and the inspiration behind the First to Third Trimester Rules for interfering with life inside the womb.
I agree with the view that the foetus has a predetermined term for its uterine carriage which is 9 months and that babies born not accomplishing full term could face certain risks. And that is so, because, the womb of the pregnant mother carries the baby long enough NOT strictly to support the baby's existence but to also ensure that the pregnant mother does not over carry the baby enough to undermine her health and life.
What has happened, is that abortionist have seized the scientific fact of the babies partial dependency on the pregnant mother to say that the foetus is not a person, and therefore, every pregnant mother who is not interested In carrying the unborn to its full term in essentially seeking abortion because they believe the foetus is no a person. That conclusion is flawed and absurd. For no pregnant mother gets pregnant in order to carry out an experimental that terminates the developing life inside her. Women who get pregnant and wish not to carry fill term, either opt for an abortion on financial grounds: lack of resources to nurture the foetus if allowed to be born; on grounds of lack of spousal support from partner who may not be willing to accepted responsibility for the foetus if allowed to be born; on social grounds, if the carrier believes that carrying to full term may interference with her social plans; or on grounds that the pregnant mother was raped and that carrying full term may have superior psychological trauma on the pregnant mother; or on grounds of incests, where culture may deem such foetus as anathema.
In all, I can authoritatively tell you, no pregnant carrier consciously enables her conception with a view to undergoing an experimental termination of the foetus,Not even the careless or promiscuous pregnant mothers are guilty of this. But Yet, we find that the abortion industry have manufactured a reason for the termination of life in the womb that do not accord with that intended by the pregnant mother-carriers.
I'll say this too that the politically correct reason sanctioned by abortionists for abortion has been served on ignorant pregnant mothers as some form of human right and by extension attracted legitimization, even though, the procedure does not remedy the difficult situation in which unwilling pregnant mother-carriers who do not wish to carry full term, find themselves in.
In South Africa, the government acknowledging that the abortion debate is twofold: the privacy right of pregnant mother carriers and the State's Interest in protecting the Right of Unborn babies to Life, has drawn up a welfare program after it found out that most unwilling pregnant mother-carriers do not wish to carry full term on financial grounds. It then set up a welfare system where these unwilling folks can apply to enjoy financial incentives from government in exchange for carrying the pregnancy full term. Needless to say this policy has spiked the number of unmarried women with children in South Africa who would have gone under the knife of Abortion doctors.
"Respect others and do peace with all ones". This could be a slogan of UN.
Dear Colleagues
UN officials are getting very frustrated with the fact that pro-life activists have been able to make reproductive health controversial again!
The frustration of proaborto UN-officials is degenerating in verbal and physical agresion:
https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/un-official-says-f-trump-pro-life-delegations/
https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/african-pro-lifer-threatened-abortion-groups-fears-safety/
Dear Colleagues
You may find interesting this articles where the role of ideology in sensible health issues, are shown in all its danger to the persons involved.
https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/scholars-accuse-uk-government-censoring-research-findings/
Article When ethics and politics collide in donor-funded global heal...
The authors,
- Katerini T Storeng, PhD
- Jennifer Palmer, PhD
are here in RG.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching