How the United Nations Betrays Its Own Treaty on Child Rights

Over 20 years ago, the United Nations held the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The purpose of this convention was to outline the universal rights of children throughout the world.  With the new human rights treaty, UNICEF and others could put social pressure on nations to conform their standards with the accepted rights of children.

Towards this end, the Convention decided that any human being under the age of eighteen would be considered a child, typically.  Yet the U.N. continually betrays its own standards when it pushes abortion throughout the world.  Take, for example, Article 6, which states that children have the right to survive and develop to the fullest.

The U.N. betrays the very children it claims to protect.

Hmmm…and here I thought that unborn children were indeed human beings under the age of eighteen.  Remember, it’s the U.N. that made the definition of child include human being rather than person, so you can’t argue a lack of personhood here.  By the U.N.’s own standard, unborn children have the right to survive and develop to the fullest.

Article 20 states that children have the right to a loving and caring family, and Article 5 says that every child has a right to a family.   This, of course, is why abortion is such a better option than adoption, right, U.N.?  Because there are no families out there who would give ANYTHING IN THE WORLD to adopt a baby and love him or her with all their hearts, right? 

Article 24 declares that children have the right to healthy environments.  Something tells me that a truly healthy environment should not include the risk of being killed at any moment based on your mother’s whim.  Sounds pretty unhealthy to me.

Seriously, the list of the U.N.’s absolute insane hypocrisy could go on and on.  Articles 6, 8, and 19 set out that children have rights to develop to their full potential, be protected from abuse, and to have an identity.  Can someone please explain to me how an aborted child is allowed to develop fully?  How is she protected from abuse when she is literally ripped apart limb from limb while still alive?  If that’s not abuse, please tell me what is.  How is a baby allowed to have his own identity when he is denied his first birthday?

If all rights to a childhood really deserve protection (Article 1), the U.N. has NO BUSINESS promoting abortion.  They laugh in the face of the very standards they pretend to promote.

Many ask why this world fails to value children in large measure.  Why are there so many child prostitutes, child laborers, child warriors, and child slaves?  Because even the U.N.—the organization that claims to stand up for the rights of children—fails to see the irony in promoting the murder of children before they take their first breath.

If that’s not a knife in the heart of every child’s “right to survive,” I don’t know what is…

  • Bruce Bates

    I am so sick of articles trying to say an embryo is an unborn child. An embryo is NOT a human by ANY definition of the word. An abortion is the removal of an embryo not an unborn child. 

    This entire article is flawed based on that very fact. 

    The term “embryo” is only used to refer to eukaryote organisms, otherwise known as multicellur organisms. Typically, people use the term specifically to refer to diploid eukaryotes, meaning that the embryo has a complete set of genetic material from two donors. This genetic material takes the form of haploid sperm and eggs; a haploid cell only contains half a set of Chromosomes, meaning that it cannot develop into anything unless it is combined with another haploid cell. As an embryo matures, it starts to turn into a recognizable form, at which point people may start referring to it as a fetus, especially in humans.
    The formation of an embryo starts at fertilization. When eggs and sperm meet, they form what is known as a zygote. A zygote is a single diploid cell, created through the merging of two haploid cells. After fertilization, the zygote starts to divide, laying the groundwork for the mature organism which will eventually be born, hatched, or grown. When division begins, a zygote turns into an embryo.
    Embryos cannot survive independently because they lack the tissues, body structure, organs, and so forth needed to do so. 

    • Amanda Nero

      @ Bruce Bates: What is your “definition” of human?

      At the time of fertilization, the zygote contains all the genetic material that that being will ever have. As you say, “the embryo has a complete set of genetic material from two donors.” From human sperm and egg, the only product ever produced will be a human. Period. No armadillos or bananas will ever be produced from a zygote that is the result of fertilization of a human egg by human sperm. Therefore, the “product” of human fertilization cannot realistically be considered anything but human.

      The problem seems to be that it is not yet “a recognizable form.” Unfortunately, there are people who been in fires and have received horrible deformations as a result. However, whether they are recognizable or not, if they are still living, they are considered a human being. Just because I don’t look like you, or you don’t look like me, or we don’t look “normal,” by someone’s definition, does NOT make us any less human.

      No, embryos cannot survive independently. Neither can preemie babies, or 9-month-old newborns, or toddlers. Or, sometimes, elderly persons in their 70s, 80s, etc. Perhaps there is a discrepancy in our definitions of “independently.” I will assume that you mean “without the life support system of the mother, or outside of her body.” However, whether outside the body or inside the body, a baby cannot survive on it’s own. A “fully-developed” baby will not survive an hour without shelter or food, the same as an unborn baby will not survive without the shelter of the womb, or the nourishment provided by its umbilical cord. It is inconsistent to say that a human baby is not a human baby, because it will not survive if it is taken out of it’s mother’s womb prematurely. This is defining a human being on the basis of its own environment and level of development. If that were true, why then, do we consider those who require a life-support system, such as a pacemaker, or those who will die if they do not remain in the hospital for a period of time, human beings?

      Again, what is your definition of human?

  • Guest

    Why are there so many child prostitutes, child laborers, child warriors, and child slaves?  Because even the U.N.—the organization that claims to stand up for the rights of children—fails to see the irony in promotingthe murder of children before they take their first breath. 

    Isn’t it remarkable that child prostitution, the exploitation of child labor, child soldiers, and child slaves have appeared just in the few decades since the UN started taking a position on abortion?  If only past UN committees had had someone with your firm grasp of irony on board, this all could have been averted!

    Even though the UN doesn’t listen to you, I’m sure that countries with very restrictive abortion laws, like the Central African Republic, Chad, the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda, appreciate your moral and intellectual support.  Imagine how terrible life for the children in those places would be if their leaders bowed to UN pressure.