Global Tyranny: That’s Their Game
Bill Quick

UN Urged to Tell Catholic Church it Has No Right to Oppose Abortion | CNS News

The Center for Reproductive Rights, a non-governmental organization that advocates for legalized abortion, is urging the United Nations Committee Against Torture to tell the Catholic Church that “the freedom of speech and of religion” do not give the church the right to advocate against abortion.

When the committee met in Geneva on Monday for a hearing on the Vatican’s compliance with the Convention Against Torture, Vice Chairperson Felice Gaer, an American, said in her opening statement that laws that ban all abortion—which is the position of the Catholic Church–may violate the convention. She also repeated verbatim some language that had been in a letter the CRR had sent to the committee on April 11.

Gaer, however, did not quote the section in CRR’s letter that urged the committee to tell the church that the freedoms of religion and speech did not give the church a right to advocate against abortion.

It’s the United Nations.  The operating assumption there is that nobody should have, or does have, any rights not granted to them by the United Nations.

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

Check out my new bestseller, Lightning Fall: A Novel of Disaster. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com says: “Bill Quick has authored a terrific thriller that is also an all too plausible warning. Highly recommended!” Available in Kindle e-book or trade paperback formats.

Posted in Tyranny permalink
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

Global Tyranny: That’s Their Game — 8 Comments

  1. There is no right to infringe another’s right (for the same reason that it is never moral to act immorally).

    Anyone has a right to oppose abortion – I do – but no one has the right to infringe another’s right to have an abortion.

  2. “… but no one has the right to infringe another’s right to have an abortion.”

    Do we have a right to stop a woman from killing her one minute old child? If yes, then why not one minute before birth?

  3. I agree with Barry. Killing a human is murder. The whole debate about abortion as each side currently argues it is irrelevant. The debate should be over when do we become human. The Catholic Church posits at conception. Rarely do I ever hear arguments addressing any other point in the development of the fetus.

  4. Not saying it’s the final word on the matter, but I remember Ayn Rand, in one of her essays, mention that human life essentially begins when the brain stem forms and links the brain with the parts of the body it regulates (oversees). Again, if memory serves, that’s at around five months after conception. Surely medicos should have the basic nuts and bolts regarding this down pat. Not saying it answers the moral question, but I’ve never heard or read that any place else.

  5. Thanks Henry. That’s certainly a more thoughtful answer than “the first trimester” or the “second trimester” , which is essentially an arbitrary delineation. Given Rand’s emphasis on the human brain and human logic and reason as the attributes separating us from other mammal, her reasoning fits in well with her philosophy.

    The interesting thing is that scientific progress has advanced to such a degree that we are much better able to actually define the point where the “brain stem forms and links the brain with the parts of the body it regulates (oversees).” I am not sure how close we could actually come today (days, hours, minutes?) but certainly we don’t need to define the crossover point nowadays in terms of months.

    The point about conception that can be argued is that once the egg and sperm combine the result is a new DNA combination that is unique and, allowed to proceed to fruition, will result in a human. The so called “potential” human. Some people on DP have addressed that idea before and I don’t want to paraphrase. However, I can see how that argument falls short. Without a “brain” are we human yet, even if we have the potential to become one?

    The major problem with the Catholic Church is that they define that “life” begins at conception without defining whether that life is “human”. We take non-human life all the time without moral dilemmas.

    • Thanks Henry. That’s certainly a more thoughtful answer than “the first trimester” or the “second trimester” , which is essentially an arbitrary delineation. Given Rand’s emphasis on the human brain and human logic and reason as the attributes separating us from other mammal, her reasoning fits in well with her philosophy.

      Well, for purposes of law, you need something fairly bright in the way of lines – and up until quite recently, “When the brain stem forms and links the brain…” was impossible to determine with any real accuracy.

      In fact, a lot of the hard-line rules – “never,” (in the case of the Catholic church and others), first or second trimester (which can be determined fairly closely with a calendar), and other dating methods are mostly a response to a lack of technology.

      You won’t, by the way, find any support from Rand for anything except unlimited abortion rights: “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

      Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

      This is one of the areas where I part company with Rand.

      As for the “potential” argument, very shortly we will be able to take just about any cell that contains DNA and grow it into a human. At which point do we then make biting your cuticles a moral crime?

  6. The issue, as I see it, shouldn’t be when life begins or when potential life begins but when actual human life begins, whence flows all rights inherent in a human being. Cells: what about molecules, atoms that can be eventually formed into cells? As someone wiser than than me once said: “We are stardust.”