International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies

Religions > Atheism > International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	01 Jul 2006 03:50:18 PM
Object:	International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063006.html
GENEVA, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In Geneva on Wednesday night John
Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (SPUC), launched a UN declaration on unborn babies' rights.
"We appeal to all UN member states to put protection in place for the most
vulnerable members of our society; the genuinely voiceless ones; the child
before birth. The declaration on the right to life of the child before birth
is the first initiative in this campaign and is central to the reason SPUC
was founded," said Smeaton.
The Holy See's permanent observer at the UN in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano
Maria Tomasi, attended the launch of the international campaign-called The
Amnesty for Babies Before Birth Campaign-which aims to declare and uphold
the right to life of unborn children. The campaign, which was announced by
Ms Kathy Sinnott, independent MEP for Ireland south, asks nations to sign
the declaration. It is also seeking the signatures of pro-life legislators
from national and regional parliaments, as well as the endorsement of
pro-life, pro-family non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
"The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has attended all major
conferences and events at the UN since 1994," said Smeaton, "and during that
time has promoted and fought for the right to life of the child before
birth. We have opposed all attempts to make abortion a human right and
sought at all times to have language included in UN conventions and other
documents that upholds the right to life at all stages and phases of life,
from conception to natural death.
"One of the problems we have perceived from our lobbying experience is that
so called politically-correct ideologies have been adopted by many
governments and powerful NGOs. These are ideologies which are hostile to the
life of the child before birth. These ideologies must be confronted and
shown to be inadequate and, in fact, detrimental to the future population of
all nations and, thereby, their economic viability.
"This is not the first time a declaration on the rights of the child has
been made, but it is the first time that anyone has prepared a declaration
dealing exclusively with the rights of the child before birth.
"The drawing up of this declaration for consideration of member states is a
response to the failure of those charged with the implementation of the UN's
1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to properly implement that
convention in respect of all children without discrimination.
"We therefore not only encourage all states to sign the new declaration but
also to go beyond that and to put in place legislation which will provide
the much-needed special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal
protection, for the baby before birth, as envisaged by the founding fathers
of the UN in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and which was
understood by all to be the correct interpretation of the original
declaration on the rights of the child at the time that it was made, a full
decade after the Universal Declaration had been made."
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	01 Jul 2006 04:18:18 PM

<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

Except for Muslims and Gays and non-Catholics and women, all of which
you're more than happy to see die.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	01 Jul 2006 06:39:16 PM

<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

In my view the rights ideology is an inherent part of the problem, and
cannot be co-opted to our side.
It is not diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in fact grew out of it.
But "rights" is usually a code wortd for collective self-interest. That is
why children, who cannot effectively act in their collective self interest,
have few rights. Of course we pay a lot of lip-service to the "rights of the
child", and make a few gestures, like banning children from paid employment,
that cost adults very little. Nothing is done on the serious issues, like
making divorce harder, or restraining the car culture that so limits
children's lives, or stopping mothers from working, or providing decent
schools that do more than train children for qualifications realted to work.
That's because all of these things demand sacrifices from adults, and that
is what adults are not prepared to give.
So what chance has the unborn baby? None. Because rights ethics are largely
hypocritical. Of course when organisations like Amnesty International attack
"human rights abuses" in some far-flung African nation they are right to do
so. But beyond that level, the whole concept has a self-serving air. Some of
the rights are even asserted against reality, such as the right to have a
baby, or the right to die with dignity. Others are very contingent, for
instance twenty years ago the "right to strike" was held as the cornerstone
of the socialist movement. No one really believes that any longer; strikes
don't make much sense in a 21st century economy where jobs can be shipped to
China. The right to abortion is also very contingent; some people think that
cheap and effective surgery is a permanent and necessary state of affairs
which they deserve by virtue of being modern people. It is not. Technologies
can go backwards as well as forwards, and civilisations can collapse.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	02 Jul 2006 12:23:08 PM

Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

In my view the rights ideology is an inherent part of the problem, and
cannot be co-opted to our side.

It is not diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in fact grew out of it.

Arguable. Religions, as a rule, have no regard whatever for rights
and are concerned only with duties and obligations.

But "rights" is usually a code wortd for collective self-interest. That is
why children, who cannot effectively act in their collective self interest,
have few rights. Of course we pay a lot of lip-service to the "rights of the
child", and make a few gestures, like banning children from paid employment,
that cost adults very little. Nothing is done on the serious issues, like
making divorce harder, or restraining the car culture that so limits
children's lives, or stopping mothers from working, or providing decent
schools that do more than train children for qualifications realted to work.
That's because all of these things demand sacrifices from adults, and that
is what adults are not prepared to give.

So what chance has the unborn baby? None.

"Woman? What woman?"

Because rights ethics are largely
hypocritical.

Yours, maybe.

Of course when organisations like Amnesty International attack
"human rights abuses" in some far-flung African nation they are right to do
so. But beyond that level, the whole concept has a self-serving air.

"Collective self-interest", remember?

Some of
the rights are even asserted against reality, such as the right to have a
baby, or the right to die with dignity. Others are very contingent, for
instance twenty years ago the "right to strike" was held as the cornerstone
of the socialist movement. No one really believes that any longer; strikes
don't make much sense in a 21st century economy where jobs can be shipped to
China. The right to abortion is also very contingent; some people think that
cheap and effective surgery is a permanent and necessary state of affairs
which they deserve by virtue of being modern people. It is not. Technologies
can go backwards as well as forwards, and civilisations can collapse.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "thomas p"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	03 Jul 2006 02:11:17 PM

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:39:16 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

In my view the rights ideology is an inherent part of the problem, and
cannot be co-opted to our side.

It is not diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in fact grew out of it.

It grew out of the Enlightenment. Christianity was opposed to it, and
you make it quite clear in your post that you are against it.

But "rights" is usually a code wortd for collective self-interest.

Exactly so. Collective self-interest provides a very good basis for
morality but a very bad foundation for your ideology of control and
submission.
That is

why children, who cannot effectively act in their collective self interest,
have few rights. Of course we pay a lot of lip-service to the "rights of the
child", and make a few gestures, like banning children from paid employment,
that cost adults very little. Nothing is done on the serious issues, like
making divorce harder,

Which would force children to live in unhappy and often violent
environments.

or restraining the car culture that so limits
children's lives,

Meaningless.

or stopping mothers from working,

I am not surprised that you do not support the rights of women.

or providing decent
schools that do more than train children for qualifications realted to work.

It would be wonderful if they did that much, but I have a feeling you
are thinking about religion - your religion of course, being forced on
them.

That's because all of these things demand sacrifices from adults, and that
is what adults are not prepared to give.

Much of what you mention requires the denial of rights and a great
deal of pain and deprivation to both children and adults. It has to
do with your need for control especially over women.

So what chance has the unborn baby? None. Because rights ethics are largely
hypocritical.

Your advocacy of rights is certainly hypocritical, since it is
actually control you are talking about.
Of course when organisations like Amnesty International attack

"human rights abuses" in some far-flung African nation they are right to do
so. But beyond that level, the whole concept has a self-serving air.

Yes of course, that is the point.

Some of
the rights are even asserted against reality, such as the right to have a
baby,

Make up your mind.

or the right to die with dignity.

You feel there is something wrong with that?

Others are very contingent, for
instance twenty years ago the "right to strike" was held as the cornerstone
of the socialist movement. No one really believes that any longer;

What utter nonsense. Strikes are not the only weapon a union has,
but, in civilized countries, the right to strike still exists and is
still used.
strikes

don't make much sense in a 21st century economy where jobs can be shipped to
China.

How odd then that strikes still take place and that objectives are
still achieved through strikes.

The right to abortion is also very contingent; some people think that
cheap and effective surgery is a permanent and necessary state of affairs
which they deserve by virtue of being modern people. It is not. Technologies
can go backwards as well as forwards, and civilisations can collapse.

Which really has nothing to do with the modern concept of rights.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	03 Jul 2006 06:04:40 PM

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:39:16 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

In my view the rights ideology is an inherent part of the problem, and
cannot be co-opted to our side.

It is not diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in fact grew out of
it.

It grew out of the Enlightenment. Christianity was opposed to it, and
you make it quite clear in your post that you are against it.

John Paul II believed in human rights. I don't, but obviously it depends
exactly on how the idea is formulated how seriously wrong it is. I also
oppose tyrants.

But "rights" is usually a code wortd for collective self-interest.

Exactly so. Collective self-interest provides a very good basis for
morality but a very bad foundation for your ideology of control and
submission.

No. It is a bad basis for morality, and we are seeing the consequences.

That is

why children, who cannot effectively act in their collective self
interest,
have few rights. Of course we pay a lot of lip-service to the "rights of
the
child", and make a few gestures, like banning children from paid
employment,
that cost adults very little. Nothing is done on the serious issues, like
making divorce harder,

Which would force children to live in unhappy and often violent
environments.

Occasionally yes. That is then used as justification for divorce in the vast
majority of cases when children are the ones to suffer most.

or restraining the car culture that so limits
children's lives,

Meaningless.

Not meaningless if you are child who is not allowed to play out because of
traffic. Meaningless to you as a self-centered adult.

or stopping mothers from working,

I am not surprised that you do not support the rights of women.

What rihgt? To work in a bisuit factory? Do you think that career jobs will
ever be for any except the few?

or providing decent
schools that do more than train children for qualifications realted to
work.

It would be wonderful if they did that much, but I have a feeling you
are thinking about religion - your religion of course, being forced on
them.

That's one thing parent queue up for. Catholic schooling. Unfortunately it
cannot be provided without a functioning Catholic community, and that
demands time and effort from adults.

Much of what you mention requires the denial of rights and a great
deal of pain and deprivation to both children and adults. It has to
do with your need for control especially over women.

Exactly. If we act in another's interests, often that requires some
curtailment of our own.

So what chance has the unborn baby? None. Because rights ethics are
largely
hypocritical.

Your advocacy of rights is certainly hypocritical, since it is
actually control you are talking about.

I am not advocating rights. I am opposing the idea.
Vocabulary is not, yet, divided into boo words and hurrah words, though in
the end God and the devil will say "mine" to everything that exists.

Of course when organisations like Amnesty International attack
"human rights abuses" in some far-flung African nation they are right to
do
so. But beyond that level, the whole concept has a self-serving air.

Yes of course, that is the point.

I oppose tyrants. Amnesty International also oppose them, but on grounds
which I don't entirely agree with. However the difference is more
theoretical than real, as long as they continue to oppose torture. When they
try to formulate a policy on Iraq, Bosnia and Rwanda, with different
attitudes to military intervention in all three cases, the cracks in their
ideology begin to show. However I don't deny that they do a lot of good.

Some of
the rights are even asserted against reality, such as the right to have a
baby,

Make up your mind.

or the right to die with dignity.

You feel there is something wrong with that?

Unrealistic. I cannot control how I will die, except in a few cases it might
be possible to commit suicide. We can talk about a right to commit suicide
if you want, but not a right to die with dignity.

Others are very contingent, for
instance twenty years ago the "right to strike" was held as the
cornerstone
of the socialist movement. No one really believes that any longer;

What utter nonsense. Strikes are not the only weapon a union has,
but, in civilized countries, the right to strike still exists and is
still used.

The right to strike has steadily been eroded. No one any longer believes
that it is the cornerstone of a socialist political movement that will lead
to equality and dignity for all. Some favoured workers do still retain the
ability to strike.

strikes

don't make much sense in a 21st century economy where jobs can be shipped
to
China.

How odd then that strikes still take place and that objectives are
still achieved through strikes.

We are talking about generalitites. The big strikes of the past belong to a
bygone era. The Trades Union movement is losing members, and is no longer
consulted on economic policy. A few favoured workers retain the ability to
strike.

The right to abortion is also very contingent; some people think that
cheap and effective surgery is a permanent and necessary state of affairs
which they deserve by virtue of being modern people. It is not.
Technologies
can go backwards as well as forwards, and civilisations can collapse.

Which really has nothing to do with the modern concept of rights.

The point is the right to an abortion is contingent on a high standard of
medicine. read "The Marching Morons".

--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
.

User: "BOB"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	03 Jul 2006 11:56:37 PM

"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:LsKdnT00ztUcPzTZRVny2Q@bt.com:

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:39:16 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a
worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve
of.

In my view the rights ideology is an inherent part of the problem,
and cannot be co-opted to our side.

It is not diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in fact grew out
of it.

It grew out of the Enlightenment. Christianity was opposed to it,
and you make it quite clear in your post that you are against it.

John Paul II believed in human rights.

Except for the human rights for children not to be sexually molested by
the catholic priests and the catholic church hierarchy.

I don't, but obviously it
depends exactly on how the idea is formulated how seriously wrong it
is.

Do you think it is "seriously wrong" for adults to molest young children?

I also oppose tyrants.

How do you feel about pedophile priests?

But "rights" is usually a code wortd for collective self-interest.

Exactly so. Collective self-interest provides a very good basis for
morality but a very bad foundation for your ideology of control and
submission.

No. It is a bad basis for morality, and we are seeing the
consequences.

Yes, we seem to be exposing the lack of morality in the catholic church
and it's hierarchy more and more each day.

That is

why children, who cannot effectively act in their collective self
interest,
have few rights. Of course we pay a lot of lip-service to the "rights
of the
child", and make a few gestures, like banning children from paid
employment,
that cost adults very little. Nothing is done on the serious issues,
like making divorce harder,

Which would force children to live in unhappy and often violent
environments.

Occasionally yes. That is then used as justification for divorce in
the vast majority of cases when children are the ones to suffer most.

If you compare their parents' divorces with sexual molestation by the
cathlic priests and the church leaders, which one do you think causes the
children to suffer most?

or restraining the car culture that so limits
children's lives,

Meaningless.

Not meaningless if you are child who is not allowed to play out
because of traffic. Meaningless to you as a self-centered adult.

Nowdays, it is more dangerous for children to be unattended at church
functions than playing outside.

or stopping mothers from working,

I am not surprised that you do not support the rights of women.

What rihgt? To work in a bisuit factory? Do you think that career jobs
will ever be for any except the few?

The right to make their own reproductive choices.

or providing decent
schools that do more than train children for qualifications realted
to work.

It would be wonderful if they did that much, but I have a feeling you
are thinking about religion - your religion of course, being forced
on them.

That's one thing parent queue up for. Catholic schooling.

Bad idea. Lots of pedophiles lurking about.

Unfortunately it cannot be provided without a functioning Catholic
community, and that demands time and effort from adults.

Yeah, adults to keep an eye on the kids to prevent the pedophile priests
from sexually molesting them.

Much of what you mention requires the denial of rights and a great
deal of pain and deprivation to both children and adults. It has to
do with your need for control especially over women.

Exactly. If we act in another's interests, often that requires some
curtailment of our own.

So what chance has the unborn baby? None. Because rights ethics are
largely
hypocritical.

Your advocacy of rights is certainly hypocritical, since it is
actually control you are talking about.

I am not advocating rights.

Obviously.

I am opposing the idea.

You oppose personal liberty for women.

Vocabulary is not, yet, divided into boo words and hurrah words,
though in the end God and the devil will say "mine" to everything that
exists.

Prove any "god" or "devil" exists.

Of course when organisations like Amnesty International attack
"human rights abuses" in some far-flung African nation they are right
to do
so. But beyond that level, the whole concept has a self-serving air.

Yes of course, that is the point.

I oppose tyrants.

Then you oppose the catholic church hierarchy, right?

Amnesty International also oppose them, but on
grounds which I don't entirely agree with. However the difference is
more theoretical than real, as long as they continue to oppose
torture. When they try to formulate a policy on Iraq, Bosnia and
Rwanda, with different attitudes to military intervention in all three
cases, the cracks in their ideology begin to show. However I don't
deny that they do a lot of good.

Some of
the rights are even asserted against reality, such as the right to
have a baby,

Make up your mind.

or the right to die with dignity.

You feel there is something wrong with that?

Unrealistic. I cannot control how I will die, except in a few cases it
might be possible to commit suicide. We can talk about a right to
commit suicide if you want, but not a right to die with dignity.

Others are very contingent, for
instance twenty years ago the "right to strike" was held as the
cornerstone
of the socialist movement. No one really believes that any longer;

What utter nonsense. Strikes are not the only weapon a union has,
but, in civilized countries, the right to strike still exists and is
still used.

The right to strike has steadily been eroded. No one any longer
believes that it is the cornerstone of a socialist political movement
that will lead to equality and dignity for all. Some favoured workers
do still retain the ability to strike.

strikes

don't make much sense in a 21st century economy where jobs can be
shipped to
China.

How odd then that strikes still take place and that objectives are
still achieved through strikes.

We are talking about generalitites. The big strikes of the past belong
to a bygone era. The Trades Union movement is losing members, and is
no longer consulted on economic policy. A few favoured workers retain
the ability to strike.

The right to abortion is also very contingent; some people think that
cheap and effective surgery is a permanent and necessary state of
affairs which they deserve by virtue of being modern people. It is
not. Technologies
can go backwards as well as forwards, and civilisations can collapse.

Which really has nothing to do with the modern concept of rights.

The point is the right to an abortion is contingent on a high standard
of medicine. read "The Marching Morons".

Women have the right to choose what happens within their own bodies,
period.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	03 Jul 2006 10:26:56 PM

Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:39:16 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

In my view the rights ideology is an inherent part of the problem, and
cannot be co-opted to our side.

It is not diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in fact grew out of
it.

It grew out of the Enlightenment. Christianity was opposed to it, and
you make it quite clear in your post that you are against it.

John Paul II believed in human rights.

The only human rights John Paul II believed in was the right to be
Catholic.

But "rights" is usually a code wortd for collective self-interest.

Exactly so. Collective self-interest provides a very good basis for
morality but a very bad foundation for your ideology of control and
submission.

No. It is a bad basis for morality, and we are seeing the consequences.

As opposed to your morality of forced obedience to a dictator?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "thomas p"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	05 Jul 2006 06:05:14 AM

On 04 Jul 2006 03:26:56 GMT,

(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:39:16 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

In my view the rights ideology is an inherent part of the problem, and
cannot be co-opted to our side.

It is not diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in fact grew out of
it.

It grew out of the Enlightenment. Christianity was opposed to it, and
you make it quite clear in your post that you are against it.

John Paul II believed in human rights.

The only human rights John Paul II believed in was the right to be
Catholic.

To do what John Paul approved of.

But "rights" is usually a code wortd for collective self-interest.

Exactly so. Collective self-interest provides a very good basis for
morality but a very bad foundation for your ideology of control and
submission.

No. It is a bad basis for morality, and we are seeing the consequences.

As opposed to your morality of forced obedience to a dictator?

Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: "thomas p"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	05 Jul 2006 06:05:11 AM

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 00:04:40 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:39:16 +0100, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

In my view the rights ideology is an inherent part of the problem, and
cannot be co-opted to our side.

It is not diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in fact grew out of
it.

It grew out of the Enlightenment. Christianity was opposed to it, and
you make it quite clear in your post that you are against it.

John Paul II believed in human rights. I don't, but obviously it depends
exactly on how the idea is formulated how seriously wrong it is. I also
oppose tyrants.

John Paul believed in human rights as defined by John Paul. You
advocate tyranny - forcing women not to work for example.

But "rights" is usually a code wortd for collective self-interest.

Exactly so. Collective self-interest provides a very good basis for
morality but a very bad foundation for your ideology of control and
submission.

No. It is a bad basis for morality, and we are seeing the consequences.

Not at all. There is a lot going on that is destructive to
individuals and to societies; most of it (the part that is the result
of human behavior) is the result of collective self-interest being
ignored.

That is

why children, who cannot effectively act in their collective self
interest,
have few rights. Of course we pay a lot of lip-service to the "rights of
the
child", and make a few gestures, like banning children from paid
employment,
that cost adults very little. Nothing is done on the serious issues, like
making divorce harder,

Which would force children to live in unhappy and often violent
environments.

Occasionally yes. That is then used as justification for divorce in the vast
majority of cases when children are the ones to suffer most.

A claim for which you have no data.

or restraining the car culture that so limits
children's lives,

Meaningless.

Not meaningless if you are child who is not allowed to play out because of
traffic. Meaningless to you as a self-centered adult.

Utter nonsense.

or stopping mothers from working,

I am not surprised that you do not support the rights of women.

What rihgt? To work in a bisuit factory? Do you think that career jobs will
ever be for any except the few?

Your above statement has nothing to do with women's right to work or
their right to run their own lives.

or providing decent
schools that do more than train children for qualifications realted to
work.

It would be wonderful if they did that much, but I have a feeling you
are thinking about religion - your religion of course, being forced on
them.

That's one thing parent queue up for. Catholic schooling. Unfortunately it
cannot be provided without a functioning Catholic community, and that
demands time and effort from adults.

Thank you for confirming my point. You are all about control.

Much of what you mention requires the denial of rights and a great
deal of pain and deprivation to both children and adults. It has to
do with your need for control especially over women.

Exactly. If we act in another's interests, often that requires some
curtailment of our own.

It is good to hear that you now support collective self-interest.

So what chance has the unborn baby? None. Because rights ethics are
largely
hypocritical.

Your advocacy of rights is certainly hypocritical, since it is
actually control you are talking about.

I am not advocating rights. I am opposing the idea.
Vocabulary is not, yet, divided into boo words and hurrah words, though in
the end God and the devil will say "mine" to everything that exists.

Thank you for admitting that you advocate tyranny.

Of course when organisations like Amnesty International attack
"human rights abuses" in some far-flung African nation they are right to
do
so. But beyond that level, the whole concept has a self-serving air.

Yes of course, that is the point.

I oppose tyrants.

Unless you are the tyrant of course.

Amnesty International also oppose them, but on grounds
which I don't entirely agree with. However the difference is more
theoretical than real, as long as they continue to oppose torture. When they
try to formulate a policy on Iraq, Bosnia and Rwanda, with different
attitudes to military intervention in all three cases, the cracks in their
ideology begin to show. However I don't deny that they do a lot of good.

You distort Amnesty International's work and you avoid my point - what
a surprise.

Some of
the rights are even asserted against reality, such as the right to have a
baby,

Make up your mind.

or the right to die with dignity.

You feel there is something wrong with that?

There are no absolute rights; that does not mean that there are no
rights.

Others are very contingent, for
instance twenty years ago the "right to strike" was held as the
cornerstone
of the socialist movement. No one really believes that any longer;

What utter nonsense. Strikes are not the only weapon a union has,
but, in civilized countries, the right to strike still exists and is
still used.

The right to strike has steadily been eroded.

Someplaces.
No one any longer believes

that it is the cornerstone of a socialist political movement that will lead
to equality and dignity for all.

Introduction of strawman.

Some favoured workers do still retain the
ability to strike.

In other words the right to strike still exists, and it is still used
with positive results.

strikes

don't make much sense in a 21st century economy where jobs can be shipped
to
China.

How odd then that strikes still take place and that objectives are
still achieved through strikes.

Sounds of goal posts being moved. Your original claim was wrong.

The right to abortion is also very contingent; some people think that
cheap and effective surgery is a permanent and necessary state of affairs
which they deserve by virtue of being modern people. It is not.
Technologies
can go backwards as well as forwards, and civilisations can collapse.

Which really has nothing to do with the modern concept of rights.

The point is the right to an abortion is contingent on a high standard of
medicine. read "The Marching Morons".

The point is the right to abortion exists. All rights in practice
depend on a society that is able to either deliver them or to allow
them.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: "leo"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	02 Jul 2006 05:48:04 AM

ha escrito:

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.
GENEVA, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In Geneva on Wednesday night J=

ohn

Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (SPUC), launched a UN declaration on unborn babies' rights.
"We appeal to all UN member states to put protection in place for the most
vulnerable members of our society; the genuinely voiceless ones; the child
before birth. The declaration on the right to life of the child before bi=

rth

is the first initiative in this campaign and is central to the reason SPUC
was founded," said Smeaton.

The Holy See's permanent observer at the UN in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano
Maria Tomasi, attended the launch of the international campaign-called The
Amnesty for Babies Before Birth Campaign-which aims to declare and uphold
the right to life of unborn children. The campaign, which was announced by
Ms Kathy Sinnott, independent MEP for Ireland south, asks nations to sign
the declaration. It is also seeking the signatures of pro-life legislators
from national and regional parliaments, as well as the endorsement of
pro-life, pro-family non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

"The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has attended all major
conferences and events at the UN since 1994," said Smeaton, "and during t=

hat

time has promoted and fought for the right to life of the child before
birth. We have opposed all attempts to make abortion a human right and
sought at all times to have language included in UN conventions and other
documents that upholds the right to life at all stages and phases of life,
from conception to natural death.

"One of the problems we have perceived from our lobbying experience is th=

so called politically-correct ideologies have been adopted by many
governments and powerful NGOs. These are ideologies which are hostile to =

the

life of the child before birth. These ideologies must be confronted and
shown to be inadequate and, in fact, detrimental to the future population=

all nations and, thereby, their economic viability.

"This is not the first time a declaration on the rights of the child has
been made, but it is the first time that anyone has prepared a declaration
dealing exclusively with the rights of the child before birth.

"The drawing up of this declaration for consideration of member states is=

response to the failure of those charged with the implementation of the U=

N's

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to properly implement th=

convention in respect of all children without discrimination.

"We therefore not only encourage all states to sign the new declaration b=

also to go beyond that and to put in place legislation which will provide
the much-needed special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal
protection, for the baby before birth, as envisaged by the founding fathe=

of the UN in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and which was
understood by all to be the correct interpretation of the original
declaration on the rights of the child at the time that it was made, a fu=

decade after the Universal Declaration had been made."

--
----------

J Y=F6ung

Pinni, You are a moron but are not aware of it.
First of all, you are trying to protect the unborn babies. Well, what
about the after being born babies? Are you going also to protect them?
or you ready to make their life miserable?
Let's us see. At the present growing population rate of 1,7 % a
year... that is very modest comparing with very poor countries of
Africa, Asia and Sud America...
Lets now consider that
the solid surface of the Earth is 4pi*(R^2) =3D 4.5 (10^14) sq.meters
that is (450 trillions sq meters.)
that is 4,5 (10^11) sq. Km. or 175 billion sq miles.
Actual population: 6(10^9) inhabitants-
Actual growing rate in the world: =3D Gp =3D 1,63% a year.
with a little math you can see that in just 609 years will be in this
planet
as many as
6(10^9) * (1,0163)^609 =3D 18.895*6(10^9) =3D 1,13 (10^14) inhabitants
That is one person per sq. meter in the suface solid of the planet,
that includes dry deserts, gelid tundras, and the Antartic continent.
Of course we can keep growing the Universe is too big.
Look with this rate of growing, in just 9,000 thousand years...
6(10^9) * (1,0163)^9.014) =3D 1,19 (10^73) people
that is a person for each cubic square meter in the Universe.
The Universe has a volume of
Vu=3D 4/3 pi * (Ru^3) =3D 1,15 (10^73) sq. m.
Ru means Universe Radius and is at 15 billion light years,
RU =3D 1,4 (10^24) meters
You can check it.
Of course, there would be a very murderous in a few decades if we do
not stop that stupid rate of growing population.
So what is all this trouble of proposing contradictory demands on the
people, such as prohibiting gay freedom? The best thing for the health
of population in let free the gays to their own inclinations, and let
the normal people reproduce and to control their population at the the
same time.
Even this obsesion with the abortion is a distorsion of morals, for
most of this aborted fetus would be dangerous and desperate poors in a
matter of 15 or 20 years.
We have excess of criminals and desperate already to posit for more.
So all the poor people women in desperate conditions should have the
right to abortion if they feel the need of having one.
On the other hand, if you check on the population statistics of the
some countries of the world you can see the following,
IN THE LAST 179 YEARS IN THE LAS 98 YEARS
Africa's population has multiplied by 10.2 .......... 6.1
Latin America................................ 23,9 ..........
6=2E3
USA............................................... 27.0
..=2E........ 2.8
Western Europe............................. 2,9 ..........
1=2E5
Japan ............................................ 4.1
..=2E......... 2.4
China............................................. 3.2
..=2E........ 2.9
Other Asian countries.................... 13.2 .......... 6.3
The world...................................... 5.7 ..........
3.3
Data obtained from Angus Maddison, table B10,
in The World Economy, A Millennial Perspective. (2001)
Published by the OECD
So the main troubles ahead is how to stop the growing populations on
some countries or this world, for this demential growing rate will
surely cost a very murderous war.
Leopoldo
.

User: "Spartakus"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	01 Jul 2006 06:32:17 PM

types one-handed:
[...]

GENEVA, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In Geneva on Wednesday
night John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of
Unborn Children (SPUC), launched a UN declaration on unborn babies'
rights.

Shorter John Smeaton: "Woman? WHAT woman??"
.

User: "cor"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of UnbornBabies	02 Jul 2006 02:03:45 AM

wrote:

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

all life?
Do you support the ban of all war activities?
Do you support banning all capital punishment?
Do you support economic, prenatal and post partum medical services
for all pregnant woman?
Do you support socio economic support for all countries where children
and adults die from preventable causes?
How far do you go?
Is male sperm alive?
Are female eggs alive?
Are animals alive? Are you a vegetarian?
What about plants?
What about human cells under culture? Are those alive?
.

User: "Martin"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of UnbornBabies	01 Jul 2006 06:28:08 PM

wrote:

"This is not the first time a declaration on the rights of the child has
been made, but it is the first time that anyone has prepared a declaration
dealing exclusively with the rights of the child before birth.

What percentage of (so called) "pre born" deaths are you willing to accept?
.

User: "Conspiracy of Doves"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	01 Jul 2006 04:02:52 PM

wrote:

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063006.html

Why is it that the unborn seems to be the ONLY life that fundies give a
damn about? Once they leave the womb, you people don't care what
happens to them.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	01 Jul 2006 04:35:13 PM

In article <1151787772.536461.256700@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:

youngopinions@aol.com wrote:

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063006.html

Why is it that the unborn seems to be the ONLY life that fundies give a
damn about? Once they leave the womb, you people don't care what
happens to them.

don't you know why?? it is all about controlling women.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of UnbornBabies	01 Jul 2006 08:43:19 PM

wrote:
You can only recognize something that exists. And what is an unborn baby?
Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: "eddie"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	01 Jul 2006 09:04:59 PM

Gee Colin, I didn't know that you didn't exist...for a non-existent
person it must be difficult to type:)
All of us, including you Colin, were at that stage of life but it you
want to go believing in that go right ahead.
And when they come for you, because you are not perfect, what are you
going to say?
.

User: "eddie"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	01 Jul 2006 10:04:06 PM

I guess quite a few folks have a problem of understanding how to turn
off that power that we all have that some term the "Willing suspension
of disbelief". It's ok to use it when reading a novel or seeing a play
or watching a movie or tv but it really is bad when you use it in real
life.
Or perhaps, it is a lack of scientific knowledge or imperfect religious
training or a total lack of common sense.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of UnbornBabies	02 Jul 2006 01:25:42 PM

eddie wrote:

Gee Colin, I didn't know that you didn't exist...for a non-existent
person it must be difficult to type:)

The original was asking for a recognition of the rights of the unborn.
Do the unborn have rights to recognize? And while I know what a
fetus is, I don't know what an unborn baby is.
Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: "Malcolm"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	03 Jul 2006 11:25:43 PM

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GcUpg.7316$so3.926@southeast.rr.com...

eddie wrote:

Gee Colin, I didn't know that you didn't exist...for a non-existent
person it must be difficult to type:)

The original was asking for a recognition of the rights of the unborn.
Do the unborn have rights to recognize? And while I know what a
fetus is, I don't know what an unborn baby is.

You know what a baby is, right?
Now this may come as a shock, but it comes out of Mummy's tummy.
When it is in Mummy's tummy it is just the same, with little legs and little
ears and a little thumb it can suck. But it breathes though a tube instead
of through its mouth.
So we call it an unborn baby.
Hello Mrs Smith. Did you feel the fetus kick yet? Thats good, shows your
fetus is developing normally.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	04 Jul 2006 01:08:40 AM

Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GcUpg.7316$so3.926@southeast.rr.com...

eddie wrote:

Gee Colin, I didn't know that you didn't exist...for a non-existent
person it must be difficult to type:)

The original was asking for a recognition of the rights of the unborn.
Do the unborn have rights to recognize? And while I know what a
fetus is, I don't know what an unborn baby is.

You know what a baby is, right?
Now this may come as a shock, but it comes out of Mummy's tummy.
When it is in Mummy's tummy it is just the same,

Try not to be such a stupid liar. It is not the same and everybody
here knows it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of UnbornBabies	04 Jul 2006 08:34:45 PM

Malcolm wrote:

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GcUpg.7316$so3.926@southeast.rr.com...

eddie wrote:

Gee Colin, I didn't know that you didn't exist...for a non-existent
person it must be difficult to type:)

The original was asking for a recognition of the rights of the unborn.
Do the unborn have rights to recognize? And while I know what a
fetus is, I don't know what an unborn baby is.

You know what a baby is, right?
Now this may come as a shock, but it comes out of Mummy's tummy.
When it is in Mummy's tummy it is just the same, with little legs and little
ears and a little thumb it can suck. But it breathes though a tube instead
of through its mouth.
So we call it an unborn baby.

Hello Mrs Smith. Did you feel the fetus kick yet? Thats good, shows your
fetus is developing normally.

You just said "feyus", not "baby". Thanks for playing.
Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: "Josef Balluch"
Title: Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	01 Jul 2006 08:40:27 PM

In a message sent 'round the world,

poured fuel on
the fire with the following:

Finally, this farce of an organization will stand for a worthwhile
cause. All life is sacred, not just the ones the liberals approve of.

So you want this "farce of an organization" to endorse your view of
things. What does this say about your principles?

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063006.html

http://www.biconews.com/article/view/4681
http://tinyurl.com/nkdtk
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n9_v23/ai_8082529
....
Regards,
Josef
The governors of the world believe, and have always believed, that
virtue can only be taught by teaching falsehood, and that any man who
knew the truth would be wicked. I disbelieve this, absolutely and
entirely. I believe that love of truth is the basis of all real virtue,
and that virtues based upon lies can only do harm.
-- Bertrand Russell
.

User: ""
Title: Unborn child or unwanted child Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	03 Jul 2006 06:24:30 PM

Life begins at conception.
Human life begins with human parents wanting the child or expecting the
child.
Although objectively every baby is more or less the same, two eyes, two
ears, one mouth, 2 arms with 10 fingers and etc. However, to the
parents who want and expect the baby, every baby is unique. It is no an
objective reality, but a subjective reality.
Protecting unwanted and unborn child and wanted but not yet born child
are different things.
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:

ohn

rth

hat

so called politically-correct ideologies have been adopted by many
governments and powerful NGOs. These are ideologies which are hostile to =

the

life of the child before birth. These ideologies must be confronted and
shown to be inadequate and, in fact, detrimental to the future population=

response to the failure of those charged with the implementation of the U=

N's

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to properly implement th=

convention in respect of all children without discrimination.

"We therefore not only encourage all states to sign the new declaration b=

decade after the Universal Declaration had been made."

=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
--=20
----------
=20
J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Unborn child or unwanted child Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	03 Jul 2006 10:29:43 PM

<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

Life begins at conception.

Obiously untrue since sperm and egg are alive BEFORE conception.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "ltlee1"
Title: Re: Unborn child or unwanted child Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	04 Jul 2006 07:33:42 AM

Ray Fischer wrote:

<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

Life begins at conception.

Obiously untrue since sperm and egg are alive BEFORE conception.

Sperm or egg by itself is neither new life and nor productive life.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Unborn child or unwanted child Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	04 Jul 2006 01:27:07 PM

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

Life begins at conception.

Obiously untrue since sperm and egg are alive BEFORE conception.

Sperm or egg by itself is neither new life and nor productive life.

Likewise an embryo or fetus.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "bam"
Title: Re: Unborn child or unwanted child Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	05 Jul 2006 12:50:26 AM

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44aab2fb$0$34514$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

Life begins at conception.

Obiously untrue since sperm and egg are alive BEFORE conception.

Sperm or egg by itself is neither new life and nor productive life.

Likewise an embryo or fetus.

Shutup you dumbell.
BAM
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Unborn child or unwanted child Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	05 Jul 2006 01:48:45 AM

bam <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

Life begins at conception.

Obiously untrue since sperm and egg are alive BEFORE conception.

Sperm or egg by itself is neither new life and nor productive life.

Likewise an embryo or fetus.

Shutup you dumbell.

Or what, halfwit?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "bam"
Title: Re: Unborn child or unwanted child Re: International Campaign Asks UN To Recognize The Rights of Unborn Babies	05 Jul 2006 10:02:56 AM