Is it true that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child threatens parents’ rights and the family? Was it signed by the Vatican? Anon., Ottawa
Yes, it is true. The Convention’s stated purpose is to protect children worldwide from tyranny and exploitation – and who would quarrel with that? However, a number of the Document’s 53 Articles (it is said to be longer than the U.S. Constitution) are threats to undermine, or completely abolish the rights and prerogatives which belong to parents. Amongst these are:
Article 13 gives children the “right” to receive information of all kinds through the “media of the child’s choice.” Thus parents could not ban pornography of the worse kind.
Article 15 denies any restriction on a child’s freedom of association, “except as necessary for national security, public safety or order, public health or morals or to protect the rights and freedoms of others.” There is no suggestion that parents have a right to oppose their child’s undesirable – even dangerous – relationships with e.g. bad companions, homosexual groups or “religious,” even satanic cults.
Article 16 guarantees the absolute right to privacy to any child, even from its own parents.
Article 26 requires governments to develop family planning services.
The convention also undermines Canada’s sovereignty. Under the terms of the Treaty, there is to be a bureaucratic system, established and run by the United Nations, in charge of monitoring how well the countries which signed the Convention are complying with its Articles.
While the Vatican did sign the Convention it did so “with reservations” which were clearly stated, e.g.: that Article 26 be interpreted to mean only natural family planning; “that it interprets the Articles of the Convention in a way that safeguards the primary and inalienable rights of parents” particularly concerning “education (Articles 13 and 28), religion (Article 14), association with others (Article 15) and privacy (Article 16).”
The Vatican saw, and rejected, the attack on the family.
I don’t like to ask, but I must know. What happened to the soul of the baby I aborted? Anon.
I suppose this is a question for a theologian, but I’ll answer it anyway. I am sure that when your little baby died his soul went straight back into God’s loving hands. You say your baby’s earthly father abandoned him and you, but you may be very sure that his Heavenly Father loves and treasures you both. Be comforted. Your baby is safe in God’s care. How could he be happier and safer.
Have you any information about Depo-Provera, now that forces in the U.S. seem to be pushing for its use there?
Depo-Provera is a long-term abortifacients which affects the lining of the womb and thus, after conception, the newly fertilized ovum is prevented from implantation. It was developed by the Upjohn Company and has special appeal for the population planners for the Third World. One injection lasted for three to six months without any further effort on the part of the woman, and was seen to be cost and labour effective.
In 1976, the Upjohn Company applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of the drug’s use, but was refused. The FDA considered it to be unsafe for American women, and to date it has never been approved. Depo-Provera was regarded as being unsafe for American women but that did not stop either Upjohn or the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from inflicting it on millions of women in dozens of underdeveloped nations.
Amongst the possible effects are breast cancer, cervical cancer-in-situ, blood clots and permanent sterility. It is interesting that the YWCA (which supports abortion) condemned the drug in its publication YW Resource (Sept. 1980). “Depo-Provera is a powerful drug. It causes ‘menstrual changes’ which for women mean severe bleeding. It makes women highly susceptible to infection, diabetes, headaches, depressions and dizziness. Pregnant or breast-feeding women using the drug may pass it on to their children. It has also been known to cause birth defects such as congenital heart disease, curvature of the spine, and, in the case of the female fetus, masculinization.”
All this was visited on Third World women.
