Natural Rights versus Artificial Constructs: Another UN Disgrace

Normally, when public figures dealing in politics or social mores act contrary to my expectations or wants, I shake my head and bear it. I’m not happy, I’d like to see undone what they’ve done, and I won’t abandon my desire to see that change come about, but I am not shocked, I’m not surprised, and my view of the world isn’t drastically altered. I’ve come to expect failings morally and logically by the powers that be. That said, every so often, something comes along which not only shocks me, but lessens my faith in the world and humanity and general. Today, something came along.

And I can thank the United Nations for it. Allow me to explain.

When dealing with things of a political or social nature, one term that gets thrown around with more force and less sense than any other is “rights.” What constitutes a right is not concrete. Often, we think of rights as something which, no matter what, cannot be taken away from us, and we are born possessing them. In an effort to determine what rights are truly essential, efforts were made to boil the concept of rights into its most essential and most indispensable. This country was founded on the belief that there did exist rights, called “natural” by John Locke, which Jefferson said were given to us by God himself, indisputable and absolute, the existence of which is “self-evident,” that is, latently obvious and clear. These were life, liberty, and, depending on the author, property, estate, or the pursuit of happiness.

Remember that. Given to us by God, within the natural progression of things on Earth, unable to be taken away, and existing in a clear and obvious fashion, is the right to life.

Read this article.

An American delegate to an international, UN-sanctioned diplomatic conference, was openly jeered and harassed, which Reuters even admitted was “rare at the world body.” Why was she harassed?

Because, Sauerbrey, the head American delegate, wanted to include an amendment to a ten-year old document on women’s rights that would state that abortion was not a fundamental right. The amendment was dropped from consideration, under the improvised cover that the amendment was “redundant” and the point was made. However, the representative speaking for New Zealand, Australia, and Canada was quite clear that he felt the document protected women’s right to “control their own sexuality.”

Let’s be clear about what happened here. The main thrust of the American amendment would not have encroached upon any existing availabilities of abortion in the world. This isn’t a typical pro-life/pro-choice debate. The amendment merely stated that abortion is a matter of “national sovereignty,” and it is not a “fundamental” right. Basically, the United States wanted to make it clear that no international body could give people around the world the right to have an abortion as a fundamental human right; it’s a question for each country to decide on its own, in accordance with its own wishes, beliefs, and values.

The response from Europe, Asia, and Africa? Catcalls.

Did any nations agree with the American view? Yes: the Vatican City, Panama, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Unlike the United States, those four nations are staunchly Catholic, and Catholicism has among its strongest social views that the concept of abortion is wrong and that the unborn are as alive and deserving of rights as the born. These members of the family of nations, as equal as any other, had their fundamental cultural views treated thusly by this “diplomatic” assembly:

Mary Ann Dantuono, the Vatican delegate, was interrupted by shouts when she said the Catholic Church "would have preferred a clearer statement emphasizing that the Beijing documents cannot be interpreted as creating new human rights including the right to abortion."

Ms. Dantuono spoke diplomatically. Sadly, she was not afforded the same respect. And why, what caused this shameful abandonment of tact and the dignity of what the assembly attempted to accomplish? Defense of a mythical right to abortion.

This isn’t a question of whether abortion is right or wrong. I personally believe it to be wrong, but I’m not arguing that. That’s a topic for debate in the public spectrum, a topic in which people take sides based on deeply ingrained senses of experience, belief, and faith. Evidently, the majority of the world wishes that debate to be ended, and, tragically, they wish it to be ended in favor of the side which does not protect to the right to life.

Yes, how far we’ve come! The United Nations hesitates to defend the right to life for all, yet will consider abortion as a fundamental right. Abortion as a human right—is that what we really have allowed the concept of natural and human rights to become? Is that what was intended when it was decided that human beings ought to have their God-given rights defended?

A man named Thomas Jefferson once said:

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.

How far we’ve come in 200 years! According to the UN, governments have no place preventing the destruction of human life. Once, “the first and only object of good government” was the protection of human life, now…? Who knows. The right to have abortions has become more important and deserving of animated defense. But…

“The right to development is the measure of the respect of all other human rights. That should be our aim: a situation in which all individuals are enabled to maximize their potential, and to contribute to the evolution of society as a whole.”

Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, did not say that 200 years ago. He said it in, and intended it for, our day and age. His quote does not appear controversial, and probably was warmly received when said. Yet, what if he had implied that “all individuals” included human life unborn?

I view abortion as an unequivocal evil. But I didn’t set out to make that point today, or to arouse that debate at this moment. If the UN had its way, I would not be able to.

My point is this. To borrow a line from a song, “You can’t trust freedom when it’s not in your hands.” Meaning, the farther and farther away from you those making decisions for your life are, the less faith you can put in what they give you. Ever since the concept of rights and freedom exploded across the Western world in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, and had its victories, two trends have become evident. First, more and more freedoms are called “rights” and attached to the list with those rare rights considered unalienable. Secondly, the center of power moves elsewhere, consolidating far away from the participation of those who will be affected by its decisions. It took the form of centralization, to begin with, and then mutated into internationalization and multilateralism.

What happens? A force we can’t control, influence, or stop gives us rights we don’t want or need, at the expense of those which form the cornerstone of the land in which we live. Pro-life, pro-choice—it doesn’t matter. It’s a sad day to be a human being. Not because the amendment wasn’t accepted, or even because of the poor statesmanship that shouted it down; rather, it’s a tragic day because its times like these we see how far gone the concepts of individual freedom have become. What was once sacred, inalienable, has become subject to debate. When it is the very concept of human life put to question, it is very hard to say that the world has become a better place because of it.