Posted on 11/15/2012 7:28:05 AM PST by marshmallow
The United Nation’s Population Fund has issued an annual report describing access to birth control and contraception as a “universal human right” for “women and adolescents.”
The is the first time the UN agency has labeled birth control a right, although the report is not legally binding on any nations and does not affect or alter the laws of any country in any way. Still, the declaration is a concern for pro-life advocates, who are worried it is the first step towards the United Nations attempting to make abortion an international right.
In its report, the UNFPA also indicated it would spent another $4.1 billion on promoting contraception throughout the world — even though many of the poorest nations in the world are battling a need for basic food and water, shelter, and medicine. According to the Associated Press, the U.S. pays for 22 percent of the $5.15 billion budget for the UN.
Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Director and Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, respond to the new report in comments to LifeNews.
“The UNFPA report is based on the proclamation that family planning is a ‘human right.’ It bluntly states that ‘ensuring universal access’ to family planning means challenging traditional and local practices – another way of saying that any disagreement is to be squelched, and that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are irrelevant when family planning ‘rights’ are at stake,” she said. “The UNFPA goals are justified by claiming that reducing unintended pregnancies would mean fewer abortions.”
Crouse continued: “Throughout the report, words like ‘all’ and ‘everyone’ pile up as the UNFPA declares their intent that ‘everyone’ in ‘all’ nations has a ‘human right’ for family planning and nothing can stand in the way of implementing UNFPA’s family planning goals.....
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Rights cannot come in the form of a product. This whole concept is going to be the death of us as a country.
Unbelievable!
Why is the UN so preoccupied with peoples sex lives but so adamant that we cannot decapitate their governments that are keeping them in such depraved environments.
You have the right to keep your pecker in your pants, and hold your knees together.
You can have no right to some other person’s wealth, property, or labor.
how is that..if they weren’t born with it?
If some woman wants 15 children, does her right to family planning allow her to compel me to provide the, uh, servicing and product?
Does my right to family planning allow me to compel a woman of my choice to perform impregnation services with me and carry my issue?
I favor free sterilization for anyone who wants it. Where’s the downside to paying a little to have another Democrat spayed?
That’s debatable at the UN...
Oh, come on! Spaying is what you do to a pet! Who’d want a Democrat as a pet?
Hey, you can also euthanize them when they go rabid.
Laughable. It’s not a right, it’s a responsibility.
Sure UN, you can go and spread that ‘right’ FIRST in the Islamic countries.
I dare you.
They don’t come that way already?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This isn't about "rights" being access to a "product". It's about limiting population, for one thing - and since contraception never works all the time, the next "right" is abortion. And then killing the useless eaters. It's also about changing the moral standards from sex within marriage to a hedonist frenzy free for all, thus ruining stable families all over the world.
It’s simple: There’s no such thing as a “right” to do wrong. I think it is in Romans where Paul teaches that human beings are not allowed to do evil that good may come from it.
Since when is using contraception a responsibility? That implies that not using contraception is irresponsible.
It's responsible to use a contraceptive when you don't want a pregnancy. It's irresponsible to not use a contraceptive when you don't want a pregnancy -- except in the case where not using a contraceptive because of religious beliefs. Then it is neither since ostensibly the couple will accept whatever befalls them. I.E it's unlikely that people not using contraceptives for religious reasons would then use abortion as a form of contraceptive.
So no, your inference is wrong because your inference is incomplete.
Exactly. So called “positive” rights are always an assault on someone’s negative rights(the only true rights there are.)
I might agree with you or not, depending on what you're getting at. Exactly what is a responsibility?
I might agree with you or not, depending on what you're getting at. Exactly what is a responsibility?
How can a “right” for someone come at the expense of another person?
Freedom is a right. It comes from the Almighty. Humans deserve to not have their Gd given freedom taken away.
If a condom or pill is a Gd given right, then Gd would have created unfree slaves to procure and make them for others.
Thus it’s a dead syllogism. It doesn’t exist.
Well, I understand that you're just saying that in order to express the overall undesirability of Democrats.
But if your question were a real question, the real answer would be that sterilizing any human being --- Democrats included --- reinforces the norms that the corrupters of sex are promoting, that: sex is (or should be) inherently sterile; there is no rational argument against any kind of perversion; and natural sexuality is a social problem which can be solved by intentional impairment on a mass scale.
IOW, it just promotes their perverted "new normal."
And don't think that would limit their numbers. Like NAMBLA, they don't breed: they recruit.
It’s pretty simple. Both male and female have the responsibility, when they are not prepared for a pregnancy, to use contraceptives.
Abortion is not a contraceptive.
If your religion doesn’t allow for contraceptives, then I at least I assume it doesn’t allow for abortion either and if you proceed, you do so at the risk of a pregnancy and an entirely new level of responsibility.
Again, abortion is not contraception.
What you've said would all be wise and true, and, probably, draw almost universal agreement --- which would be a welcome thing, in this fractured world of ours--- if you simply substituted "effective and ethical methods of family planning" for the word "contraceptives".
No individual or entity can be “values neutral”. It is not possible, other than in perhaps fields of mathemtics or other very hard sciences. But even then the use of such knowledge will be guided one way or another by moral values or the lack or inversion thereof.
The idea that government can be values neutral is excatly what got us into the fix we’re in, or at least a good chunk of the reason. Values neutral means a vacuum, and vacuums do not remain empty for long.
How long does twilight last, between daytime and nighttime?
The dem gal who speaks about this has a future at the UN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.