Pages

Monday, December 17, 2012

Human Rights for Born and Preborn Campaign

[Today's guest blogger is pro-life atheist Ward Ricker.]

International Human Rights Day was marked on December 10.  As we were approaching that day I was thinking to myself, What can I do to help promote human rights on December 10, with special consideration in mind for those who are subject to the most horrendous human rights abuse of all, the preborn, who are killed to the tune of tens of millions each year worldwide, over one million of those right here in the United States?

I have always been concerned over the focus of the pro-life/anti-abortion movement.  It seems that we often take positions in regards to ideology, religion, or other factors, and seem to almost forget sometimes that we’re talking about the killing of fellow human beings.  Indeed, the whole world out there seems to think that abortion is a religious issue, a conservative or liberal issue, or (what I might find the most ridiculous of all) a “social” issue.  (Somehow I think that if armed gangs were running around shooting down innocent people in the middle of the streets, we would not look upon that this being a “social” issue!) When we’re talking about abortion we’re talking about the killing of innocent little human beings.  Why does our society not see the horror of this and put a stop to it?

Well, one reason that occurred to me is that we have organizations that call themselves “human rights” organizations that not only do not advocate on behalf of those being killed, but many of whom actually advocate in favor of killing them!  I had previously listed all of the “human rights” organizations on my website that were listed in the Yahoo! Directory - over 100 of them – according to whether they opposed, supported or took no position on abortion.  Out of over 100 organizations, do you know how many took a stand on behalf those being killed by abortion?  Three.  Of the remaining 100-or-so organizations, somewhere around half actually promoted killing preborn human beings!  How are we ever going to convince people of the horror of the atrocity of abortion, as long as so-called “human rights” organizations promote abortion in the name of human rights?

So, with some help from my friends at the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, I started the Human Rights for Born and Preborn campaign.  The goal is two-fold.  First, the obvious goal is to contact these so-called human rights organizations and “call them on the carpet” for their stance in favor of killing people.  No human rights organization can stand for killing people, and we need to get these organizations to truly uphold human rights for all.

Secondly, the goal is to try to redirect the focus of existing pro-life/anti-abortion groups and organizations, and to make sure they are indeed looking on the issue of abortion not as a religious issue, or as a social issue, or as an ideological issue, but as what it is: a human rights issue - a human rights catastrophe that nothing else on earth currently compares with.  We need to take our place as the true human rights leaders – the true advocates for human rights.

So I took the list of human rights organizations that I had previously created, and turned it into a page for a campaign to “change the paradigm” and convert the world of human rights advocacy into true advocacy for those who need it most.  I got it together in time to “kick off” the campaign on International Human Rights Day, December 10.  I am asking everyone who cares about the plight of the preborn to go to my website, www.abortionreason.com/campaign.php, contact some or all of these organizations that claim to support human rights and ask them to truly stand up for the human rights of all people, no matter how young.  I hope that each person who reads this will go to the site and let these groups know that it is not okay to promote killing in the name of human rights.

13 comments:

Simon Jm said...

With due respect unless you come up with a coherent account that overcomes bodily autonomy, this campaign will just be dismissed like all the religious based campaigns. There is no human right- legally or philosophically- that says any human has the right to use another humans body against their will. IMO the best you can go for is bodily autonomy and responsibility under a general bodily compensation law. But that means a rape exception. (Which would mostly be solved with proper funding and counseling)



Likewise it will also come up as rank hypocrisy without also showing strong support for basic positive rights when that human is born.


Lets go for a stick and carrot not just rely on the stick.

Ward Ricker said...

I'm sorry that you think it is okay to kill a child. I don't.

Kara Baylog said...

Who said anything about not improving support for post-born children?

The more I think of it, the more it gets really scary to me when I hear otherwise smart, rational and caring people decide who is human enough and who is not. Is the law a great litmus test? 200 years ago it said a black person was 3/5ths a man. People, who might have otherwise been nice and kind, genuinely believed that black people were not fully human, and thus did not deserve certain rights. When we start making exceptions, saying that these unique and unmistakable homo sapiens, are not human, but those other unique and unmistakable homo sapiens are human, we are not presenting a progressive and egalitarian spirit. When we allow something as malleable as the law, or our gut feelings to change the definition of human, I think there is reason to be cautious, and reason to consider that we might not be on the right side of history.

JDC said...

With all due respect, many people far more intelligent than I have come up with perfectly coherent accounts that overcome bodily autonomy, and frankly I think that at this point it's more a matter of the other side being unwilling to take seriously any arguments that disagree with their own.

NorthStar156 said...

"There is no human right- legally or philosophically- that says any human
has the right to use another humans body against their will."

This statement is not true. Under Minnesota's murder statutes, people have a right to not be murdered -- regardless of whether that right somehow results in someone else's body being "used." By the way, how do you define "use" in this case?

NorthStar156 said...

"But that means a rape exception."

No, it does not. An abortion law without a rape exception does not infringe on a woman's right to not be pregnant because women have the right to not be raped.

Simon Jm said...

Really? I'm waiting on Josh Brahm at Life Report to publish a paper that looks at BA again be

cause he knows no one has developed a knockdown account that does this. One would have thought -given he is quite informed on the lit- if it was already a closed case he needn't have bothered. Why is that since, he doesn't support a rape exception?

Simon Jm said...

1st many conservatives wont spend a dime on resources for women or compensation for rape victims. & Its not about who is human' but whether a human can use another humans body against their will.

Simon Jm said...

So why are abortions currently legal? Seems a bit incoherent? You want to point the statute out and explain why it allows something you claim is illegal to go ahead.

Clinton Wilcox said...

Where do you get this information from? I know many pro-lifers who spend money on resources for women and compensation for rape victims, as well as adopting children (even children with disabilities).

NorthStar156 said...

"So why are abortions currently legal?"

Because the statutes do not include abortion. The right-to-life movement is trying to correct the inequity.

NorthStar156 said...

I appreciate the efforts of the author of this article.

Kara Baylog said...

Second what Clinton says. And the bodily autonomy issue has been well discussed, and that may be your focus, but you don't get to decide the most important part of the conversation. Legally, for now, you might be right, although I find it difficult to defend a situation where Person A makes Person B dependent on them, and they decides that due to bodily autonomy, they can revoke that usage even to Person B's death.
BUT that is not what I am talking about. What is LEGAL and what is RIGHT is not always the same thing, as we saw in a pre-civil war USA. Legally, are people being oppresses? Denied the most basic of rights? Put in situations that compromise their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Yes? Well then the law needs to change to address that.