Later this month legislators in Europe will decide if abortion should be legally considered a human right.
(CNSNews) — European lawmakers this month will vote on a measure that promotes abortion as a fundamental human right, while taking aim at the conscientious objection rights of pro-life doctors and health workers.
[…]
The measure would therefore require member states to “regulate and monitor the use of conscientious objection so as to ensure that reproductive health care is guaranteed as an individual’s right, while access to lawful services is ensured and appropriate and affordable referrals systems are in place.”
[…]
Aside from the anti-conscientious objection language, arguably the most explosive part of the draft report is a clause that says “as a human rights concern, abortion should be made legal, safe and accessible to all.”
The EU aren’t the only one’s seeking to make this move. Reproductiverights.org is an abortion advocacy organization which “has used the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that all governments are legally obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill.” Of course by reproductive freedom Reproductive Rights means abortion “on-demand”. Reproductive Rights believes “Reproductive freedom lies at the heart of the promise of human dignity, self-determination and equality embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Note: neither document references abortion as a right.
Elective abortion as a human right actually runs contrary to the UDHR (Article 3), which states it is a human right that everyone possesses the right to life and security. Here’s where the complications begin.
It’s a medical and scientific fact that at conception there is a wholly different living human being growing within the mother. It is alive, and by every conceivable means of identification, human. It is genetically unique from the mother and father, and as such not simply a growth or arbitrary set of cells. This fact is the root of the problem believing elective abortion should be a human right.
Abortion on-demand as a human right violates not only Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, but also Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. The growing child in the womb is being deprived of both of these protections. Abortion takes its life and its security and so is a violation of Article 3. The only way to justify the taking of the life and violating Article 3, is to deny the baby, which is human, the protection of Article 6.
Another inconsistency is that according to the UN, human rights are rights afforded to all regardless of “sex…or other status”. Men by nature cannot have abortions. In this way, abortion cannot be a human since it’s not afforded to men. You can’t deny a human right half the world’s population and still call it a human right. Human rights are described as rights granted to all and thus doesn’t qualify by the UN definition of a human right. This point undermines the entire concept of abortion as a human right.
The fundamental right to abortion on-demand necessarily violates the rights outlined in Articles 3 (everyone’s right to life and security) and 6 (the right of everyone to be recognized as a person), since it both denies the right to life and security of the yet-to-be-born by denying the right to be recognized as a person who would be protected by law; which itself is a denial of Article 2 that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. “Yet-to-be-born” is a status of among the kind listed in so far as it’s a condition which the baby has no control over and is innate to and a requirement of it’s nature. The womb is the natural location and environment of a person — every person — at the beginning stages of their development.
Taking this even further, it would also seem that the yet-to-be-born baby — if female — has more of a right to an abortion on-demand after being birthed, than a right to first be birthed. Not only does this seem contrary to clear reason. Abortion is a right which needs to be secured and protected, but but being born isn’t a right even though being born is a necessary life event which must occur prior to the right to an abortion. If it isn’t true that life is a basic human right by virtue of being a member of the human family, on what basis can you claim any rights at all? Now consider this: the woman who has the abortion has now denied her yet-to-be-born baby — if female — her right to an abortion. If abortion is an inalienable right, as some believe, then every aborted girl has been denied the right to her own abortion: the very procedure they argue must not be infringed in any degree! An act which the new EU law, if passed, would be considered a human rights violation.
The consequences of accepting elective abortion as a right necessarily entails that when one person’s rights are secured, another’s are denied simply by virtue of exercising the right of abortion on-demand. In order to fulfill abortion as a right it must deny rights to the yet-to-be-born. Not only can elective abortion not be a human right, it’s quite morbid to suggest it ought to be.
Sifting Reality 
Obviously I disagree with abortion, but let me play devil’s advocate here.
From a practical perspective is it better to have abortion than increasing the population of poor and uncared for children? Could abortion hypothetically reduce the number of criminals, orphans, homeless, poor, etc.?
Thats also an argument to kill toddlers. If its better to have them dead because of real or potential living conditions, then the age of the child is irrelevant. When something outside the humanness of the person determines the legality or morality of killing them, then nothing about the actual human being matters when considering killing them.
What about the morning after pill or the first month or so. Say – before the heart beats.
At conception a new human being begins to exist and live. Anything that intentionally ends that life is morally wrong, except to save the life of the mother.
i have too many thoughts about this please read my posts against abortion, expect a very right slanted opinion, http://crystaldelarm.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/55-million-a-testament-to-children/ http://crystaldelarm.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/seed-the-right-of-choice-of-a-woman/ also i posted this in response to someone else on fb and garnered much discussion if life starts at birth, does that mean we have to put a full term baby into a woman to make it a viable birth? worthy of saving? they are so stupid, you can not grow a baby outside of the womb, it is life whether they want to say it or not…all of that being said, i feel for your country, the refugee muslim unhindered mass reproduction is destroying your economy – i think you should start there, end that they are all going straight to the welfare state…they have to there cant be enough jobs to accommodate that amount of people
Crystal
It would be amusing if the subject werent so dire. Abortion defenders practically turn into 6 year olds trying to come up with an excuse.
“Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception. Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.
“It is the embryo who stops his mother’s periods and makes her womb habitable by developing a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He regulates his own amniotic fluid volume and although women speak of their waters breaking or their membranes rupturing, these structures belong to the fetus. And finally, it is the fetus, not the mother, who decides when labor should be initiated.
“This, then, is the fetus we know and indeed once were. This is also the fetus whose existence and identity must be callously ignored or energetically denied by advocates of abortion.”
Dr. A.W. Liley, Research Professor in Fetal Physiology, Aukland, NZ, 11/18/1970.