(+61)0410027593 milton@miltoncaine.com

The Unborn Child’s Rights

The Unborn Child’s Rights

I SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE UNBORN CHILD FROM FERTILISATION HAS THE UNQUESTIONED RIGHT FOR LIFE.

The Rights of the Unborn Child

LIFE OR DEATH

ONE OR THE OTHER

To accept abortion as being legal gives the potential right to a mother of a pre-18 year old person to, at the mother’s whim, remove the life of her child in the same way that she can abort her unborn child.

The reason is that Gareth Evans, as the Foreign Affairs Minister, signed into law that “the rights of the unborn are the same as the rights of the born child”.

To remove the right to life for one potentially can remove that self same right from the other.

Is this what we want?

No

Policy on the Rights of the Unborn Child.

Just a personal note: There have been a number of cases where an expectant mother has had a stillbirth due to a trauma inflicted upon her by accident or intentionally and the grief that the mother, and sometimes the father, is not dealt with at law. Because The State, in a legal way, claims that the now dead baby was not a person and so no charges can be brought before the court in regard to the circumstances of the baby’s death.

This is repugnant to me and justice is not served. The baby has rights and I will fight for them.

A Survey conducted in NSW during April and May 2017 

http://www.abortionrethink.org/images/What_NSW_Really_Thinks_About_Abortion_Complete.pdf

THE POLICY:

  1. Declaring that Life begins at fertilisation and that all life is required to be protected by law.
  2. Family planning will give options of keeping a child and putting a child up for adoption, or assistance in temporary foster care to assist families where a child is arriving at a difficult time for the family with the view that the child may be able to be returned to the family at a future time.
  3. Adoption laws will be changed to make it easier for Australian born babies to be adopted by Australian families.
  4. Upholding the UN’s declaration of the rights of the unborn child and therefore disallowing any state law that contravenes this declaration.
  5. Abortions will be illegal except in the case of a medical emergency where the life of the mother and child are at real risk then the mother’s life should be saved and while and if the baby cannot be saved as well then this will not be a homicide.
  6. The supply of medication or any substance that will cause the termination of a pregnancy will be an offence against the unborn child.
  7. The crime of murder or manslaughter will apply when an assault on a pregnant woman results in the death of the unborn child. Unlawful assault charges will need to be answered if a child is hurt as a result of an assault on a pregnant woman.

Background to the Rights of the Unborn Child

  1. The Bible clearly teaches that God is involved from conception in the life of a developing child and as God is involved we cannot take away this life.
  2. The international community via the United Nations has a charter to protect the unborn child, quoted below.

“RECALLING that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,

CONSIDERING that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,

BEARING in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[1] (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[2] (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,

BEARING in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”,

2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:

(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;

(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;

(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;

(d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers;

(e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breast-feeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents;

(f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services

3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.

However, in this article, we will argue that Alston’s contention, far from being certain, is almost certainly false. First, during the drafting of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 an amendment, to article 6, submitted by Belgium, Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico and Morocco [37] led to a discussion as to whether the right to life should be protected by law “from the moment of conception”. “Those supporting the amendment maintained that it was only logical to guarantee the right to life from the moment life began.” [38]

The amendment was rejected. [39] It was pointed out that the legislation of many countries accorded protection to the unborn child. On the other hand, the amendment was opposed on the grounds that it was impossible for the State to determine the moment of conception and hence, to undertake to protect life from that moment. Moreover, the proposed clause would involve the question of the rights and duties of the medical profession. Legislation on the subject was based on different principles in different countries and it was, therefore, inappropriate to include such a provision in an international instrument. [40]

The toleration of abortion played no part in the rejection of the amendment. Secondly, in the context of the CRC, Malta and Senegal proposed an amendment to draft Article 1 to explicitly protect the rights of the unborn child from conception. [41]

These proposals were not rejected by the Member States but were withdrawn by Malta and Senegal “in the light of the text of preambular paragraph 6 as adopted” which referred to the rights of the child “before as well as after birth.” [42]

Thirdly:

26 For example, Malta and Senegal. In the United Nations ratification information concerning the CRC, Ecuador expressly declared:

In signing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Ecuador reaffirms . . . [that it is] especially pleased with the ninth preambular paragraph of the draft Convention, which pointed to the need to protect the unborn child, and believed that that paragraph should be borne in mind in interpreting all the articles of the Convention, particularly article 24. While the minimum age set in article 38 was, in its view, too low, [the Government of Ecuador] did not wish to endanger the chances for the Convention’s adoption by consensus and therefore would not propose any amendment to the text. [Doc. A/RES/44/25]

The Holy See also declared:

. . . that the Convention represents an enactment of principles previously adopted by the United Nations, and once effective as a ratified instrument, will safeguard the rights of the child before as well as after birth, as expressly affirmed in the ‘Declaration of the Rights of the Child’ [Res. 136 (XIV)] and restated in the ninth preambular paragraph of the Convention.

The Holy See remains confident that the ninth preambular paragraph will serve as the perspective through which the rest of the Convention will be interpreted, in conformity with article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. [Doc. A/RES/44/25] According to a UN Glossary of Terms “states make ‘declarations’ as to their understanding of some matter or as to the interpretation of a particular provision. Unlike reservations, declarations merely clarify the state’s position and do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of a treaty. Usually, declarations are made at the time of the deposit of the corresponding instrument or at the time of signature.” These two quotes were the only references in the formal ratification information concerning the unborn.”

WHAT RIGHTS, IF ANY, DO THE UNBORN HAVE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Dr. John I. Fleming & Dr. Michael G. Hains

  1. Australia is a signatory to the UN Charter to protect the rights of a child including before birth
  2. There has been an increase in confusion of the rights of the unborn child.

Given the above information the Christian Democratic Party will protect the rights of the unborn child by:

  1. Declaring that Life begins at fertilization and the all life is required to be protected at law.
  2. Family planning will give options of keeping a child and putting a child up for adoption, or assistance in temporary foster care to assist families where a child is arriving at a difficult time for the family with the view that the child may be able to be returned to the family at a future time.
  3. Adoption laws will be changed to make it easier for Australian born babies to be adopted by Australian families.
  4. Upholding the UN’s declaration of the rights of the unborn child and therefore disallowing any state law that contravenes this declaration.
  5. Abortions will be illegal except in the case of a medical emergency where the life of the mother and child are at real risk then the mother’s life should be saved and while and if the baby cannot be saved as well then this will not be a homicide.
  6. The supply of medication or any substance that will cause the termination of a pregnancy will be an offence against the unborn child.
  7. The crime of murder or manslaughter will apply when an assault on a pregnant woman results in the death of the unborn child. Unlawful assault charges will need to be answered if a child is hurt as a result of an assault on a pregnant woman.

 

Share This