I am not a fan of the United Nations.
First there is the United Nations Population Fund, which tacitly supports China's one-child policy that includes forced abortions and sterilizations.
Then there is the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which encourages minor abortions while opposing parental notification laws worldwide, stating in 2003, "Legislatures should remove legal restrictions to access of abortion and family planning services to adolescents," and "[P]arental consent for abortion services... can dissuade an adolescent from seeking a proper medical procedure and leave them to seek alternative, illegal and unsafe abortions elsewhere."...
The UN is known for going against cultural and religious norms by pushing contraception and small family sizes, which also contributes to the acceptability of abortion worldwide.
Yet, inexplicably, while the UN pushes for parents to have fewer children, it meanwhile attempts to wrest the rights of parents over born children.
Currently being debated right now is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, one of the most insidious pieces of legislation to emerge from this self-anointed purveyor of "rights."
Among the guiding principles of the Convention are "non-discrimination; adherence to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development...." (emphasis added)
How hypocritical to promote the "right to life" for the world's children when the UN would prefer those children never be conceived or carried to term in the first place. But what's really frightening is the "participation" guideline of the Convention (again, emphasis added):
Children are entitled to the freedom to express opinions and to have a say in matters affecting their social, economic, religious, cultural and political life. Participation rights include the right to express opinions and be heard, the right to information and freedom of association....
... [P]arents in particular should tailor the issues they discuss, the way in which they answer questions and discipline methods to the age and maturity of the individual child.
Remember, we are talking about minors here. Children. According to the UN, parents are unqualified to make decisions regarding their own children - unless the parents are choosing to prevent their births.
According to Fox News, Boxer had this to say:
"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected."
The Fox article is worth reading in its entirety. When you hear a pro-abort attempting to sound pro-life, you know something's up.
Any governing body that urges citizens to contracept and abort and then seeks the right to dictate parenting techniques to those same citizens is not to be trusted.
JLS note: Kelli has a more detailed post on this topic at her blog, SoapboxFive.
[Photo attribution: un.org; eveolution2006.googlepages.com; FoxNews.com]
This is disturbing to no end. Only I! have the right to decide how MY children are raised. The UN has NO RIGHTS when it comes to my children, and I will fight tooth-and-nail to make DAMN sure (pardon my language, but I'm so pissed off at this I can't see straight) none of them EVER will.Posted by: xalisae at June 17, 2009 6:59 PM
Saudi Arabia has signed the treaty but still forces 8 year old girls to get married. It allows the murder or girls that "shame" their parents. The treaty does nothing to stop this.
Do we really want to be in a club that will have such countries as members?
We should be proud that the US has not signed thi piece of trash.
Naturally the lawyer lobby wants us to sign. It will be a huge windfall for them. And the courts will be clogged with nonsense law suits against parents leaving a trail of financial ruin all so liberal socialist can "feel good" about destroying the US even further.
The UN building in NYC is filled with spies, they should kick them out and turn the building into condos..Posted by: Jasper at June 17, 2009 8:35 PM
xalisae, I couldn't agree with you more.Posted by: Kel at June 17, 2009 8:57 PM
The US taxpayers fund 50% of the UN.
At this point, I'd say we should do two things. Stop the funding altogether and throw them out of NYC.
They are proving to be completely useless.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 17, 2009 9:13 PM
2 faces of the UN:
Evil and his evil twin!Posted by: Leslie Hanks at June 17, 2009 10:55 PM
More and more, I see the U.N. as the equivalent, in reverse, of the Jews' "chair of Moses."
Whereas it's actually God who speaks through whoever speaks from the chair of Moses, it's the devil who does everytime the U.N. opens its mouth.Posted by: Abraham V. Llera at June 18, 2009 2:20 AM
The US taxpayers fund 50% of the UN.
Where do you get your information? The US is a founding member of the UN and donated land to them. But the US is way behind on its UN dues (about $1.3 Billion and counting).Posted by: Dhalgren at June 18, 2009 6:28 AM
See...this is where I have problems. "Family planning"...that's great. I can support that. I've personally planned my family with my husband so that we only have 2 children and can adopt more later. We've used varying methods of birth control, and that, to me, is fine.
But if you include abortion under the blanket term of "family planning", I can't support it. That euphamism just doesn't apply, because if you're talking about abortion, the family is already there, you're just killing it. I can't support that just as I can't support someone smothering an infant and calling it "family planning". And if the UN supports abortion as family planning, I can't support them.Posted by: xalisae at June 18, 2009 9:27 AM
The US government knows very well that the UNFPA supports forced abortions in China: http://www.lifenews.com/int1219.html
It is a crime syndicate for sure. So much financial fraud in the U.N.Posted by: xppc at June 18, 2009 2:08 PM
Yes, I'm against the "right" to voluntary abortion. Or rather, I'm against people killing their offspring which should be protected by law and calling that murder a "right". I'm not against contraception, however. But you see, there's a big difference between making certain a baby is never conceived in the first place, and killing a baby which has already started growing.Posted by: xalisae at June 18, 2009 5:50 PM
Abortion is NOT family planning. Abortion is INFANTICIDE.
* * * *
"Children are entitled to the freedom to express opinions and to have a say in matters affecting their social, economic, religious, cultural and political life. Participation rights include the right to express opinions and be heard, the right to information and freedom of association...."
Must have been a bunch of six year olds who wrote this.Posted by: Janet at June 19, 2009 12:29 AM
Referencing the UNCRC issued document, from http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101371
let's see if we can read the subtext here:
'...children would be granted the authority by the state to choose their own religion, the "best interest of the child" would govern all decisions and give the government the authority to override any parental decision, children would have a legally enforceable "right to leisure" and parents would be required to have their children attend state-sponsored sex education courses.'
Maybe not enough people were buying the a-twelve-year-old-is-a-woman (& hence able to "choose" an abortion) argument. In a situation where parents ARE informed but DO NOT consent to their grandchild's dismemberment, there's the government override with the "in their child's best interest" clause!Posted by: klynn73 at June 19, 2009 4:39 PM