One of the ‘Founding Fathers’ of the United States of America, Benjamin Franklin, once stated: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Liberty, which is distinct from freedom, is “the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely.” Thus, we can exercise our freedom, which is “the state of being free to enjoy political, social, and civil liberties. It is the power to decide one’s actions, and the state of being free from restraints or confinement. It is synonymous to the words liberty, privilege, deliverance, and independence.”
In the protection of such “political, social, and civil liberties,” there are many today who believe that the United Nations Organization (UN) is still the pre-eminent global NGO working to ensure our rights and well-being. After all, people say, in 1948 the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was originally named The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man. And during the coronavirus pandemic, UN Secretary-General António Guterres even stated that the UN was actively seeking to support governments in order “to ensure that the global economy and the people we serve emerge stronger from this crisis.”
The truth of the UN’s work is quite different. And it is lies hidden behind the façade of Article 1 of the UDHR: “All human beings are born free [italicized for emphasis] and equal in dignity and rights”—which is altogether different from the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which reads: “all men are created equal.” The wording of the former essentially excludes the unborn children living in their mothers’ wombs from such rights. Consequently, it considers individuals merely as individual statistics, rather than as individual human persons created in the image and likeness of God.
Operating under their version of soft law, the UN has imposed effective altruistic guidelines and codes of conduct upon the international community whereby the human person can no longer act according to reason but according to what it sees as the ultimate good for the human race. Simultaneously, one is coerced into what Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan called “self-preservation”—in which man “shall think it necessary, to lay down [his] right to all things” in order to be protected from an outside aggressor. In other words, in its self-appointed role as the world’s international police, the UN has annulled both the sovereignty of nations and our human freedoms.
The specific concern today is that since the UN launched a global drive to develop a coronavirus vaccine—just as with the United States’ “Operation Warp Speed” which aims at finding a vaccine at all costs—there has been no indication if such research would explore only morally acceptable, non-abortion related vaccines. Regrettably, given the UN’s past policies of birth control and euthanasia, the prospect of developing a vaccine against the novel coronavirus raises real concerns.
The Background of the UN
The United Nations fundamentally evolved from the League of Nations, an idea originally developed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson when he spoke before both Houses of Congress on 8 January 1918. The idea was to create a united and collective security in order to avoid and resolve international conflicts among States. In specific terms, there was an attempt to collectively avoid the use of war as a legitimate means to resolve international disputes.
During the First World War, never-before-used non-conventional weapons—such as nerve gas—were employed, thereby leading to unprecedented destruction. Hence, the League sought not just to humanize human warfare but to also harmonize international relations upon the motivation of its Member States. Above all, Wilson wanted to guarantee the continuity of the territorial status quo achieved at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. He enumerated Fourteen Points, which called for a “general association of nations … formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”
The idea is that, through the phenomena of the international organization, governance—i.e., international governability for the daily operation of life through intergovernmental international and non-intergovernmental international organizations—is established. The former involves the operations of two or more states or government, thereby creating an intergovernmental structure and are regulated by an international juridical order. Its method is composed of a series of structures and ties via diplomatic relations, which are based on economic and military models. The latter are ruled by the juridical norms of the state in which they are born (such as the Red Cross).
Although man’s dignity and worth are the founding premises of the UDHR—and are enshrined in Article 55 of the UN Charter, which requires States to promote and encourage “‘the principle of equal [human] rights”—nowhere does the Charter define precisely what these rights are [italicized for emphasis].” This is because, as reflected by the wording of the UDHR, the natural rights which were universally declared have no absoluteness since they are not based on the moral natural law—and therefore are subject to provisos. Such is the case with the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Declaration of the Equality of Women.
Convention of the Rights of the Child
The Convention of the Rights of the Child in 1989 declared that “[e]very child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights [i.e., protection to live as a dignified person], without distinction or discrimination on account of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.”
The Convention also calls for a universal respect for the rights and duties of parents in providing religious and moral guidance to their children.” Yet, as per Article 14: “Children have the right to think and believe what they want and to practice their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Parents should help guide their children in these matters.
Aside from the fact that a child—at least in the pre-pubescent age—is limited in making a mature and conscientious decision, Art. 14 not only contests the parents’ right and obligation of raising their children under the laws of God, but it gives full range to the child to rebel from religious his/her upbringing, regardless of age, if it becomes desirable. This ultimately divides the family into individuals independent from each other, each being allowed to do as he or she pleases, instead of consulting with one another as to what ought to be done.
No ethically compelled person can deny a child protection under the law, which includes the right to be properly raised, equal opportunity to education and tutelage against any form of violence or abuse. However, while Art. 1 of the UN Convention stipulates that a child is any human being under the age of 18, it “is silent on the age at which childhood begins, and unclear regarding whether the rights reserved to children under the [aforementioned] Convention apply to the unborn.”
The complexity is that while the 1959 Declaration mentioned that “[the child] shall be entitled … [to] special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care [italicized for emphasis],” Art. 1 of the Convention tends to juridically override the 1959 Declaration—thereby leaving the beginning of human life up in the air. Such confusion therefore leaves the unborn child to the whims of the legislator—for it is unclear whether life begins at fertilization or at conception, or at birth.
Again, it is quite clear that, judging by the wording of the Convention, a child’s life must be protected at all costs. However, whether this principle encompasses the unborn child in the mother’s womb (or, for that matter, a child who survives the process of an induced abortion) is left entirely up to a subjective interpretation of what exactly the term child means. Arguably, if the drafters had intended “child” in the Convention to apply to a point before birth, they would have explicitly noted that application in the Art. 1 definition. In a contrary manner, the drafters, having different perspectives on the question of when human life begins, might have felt that restricting the rights guaranteed by the Convention to children only from birth would have required a specific mention of that limitation in the Art. 1 definition.
Declaration of the Equality of Women
One of the clearest expressions of the human dignity between man and woman in regard to the institution of the human family comes from the 1975 Declaration of the Equality of Women:
Women and men have equal rights and responsibilities in the family and in society. Equality between women and men should be guaranteed in the family, which is the basic unit of society and where human relations are nurtured. Men should participate more actively, creatively and responsibly in family life for its sound development in order to enable women to be more intensively involved in the activities of their communities and with a view to combining effectively home and work possibilities of both partners.
A woman’s right to a just wage and having an equal opportunity in the workplace (so long as she can properly perform that function)—especially if, as a parent, she needs to provide for the family—is not the point of discussion here. The issue at hand is that in today’s globalized society, consequentialism—i.e., financial success—has become the litmus test for a woman’s recognition as a successful person. This is a situation in which her personal career takes precedence over her motherhood—a role that only a woman can fulfil. The end result of this state of affairs is that having children becomes secondary. This has been one of the key principles used to justify the use of abortion—as a means of ensuring a woman’s human development and self-actualization. Anything that might impede this is considered an impediment to societal progress and women’s emancipation.
Just over a month prior to his resignation, Benedict XVI in his Message for the Celebration of the 46th World Peace Day, warned us about such false measures of peace. He wrote:
Those who insufficiently value human life and, in consequence, support among other things the liberalization of abortion, perhaps do not realize that in this way they are proposing the pursuit of a false peace. The flight from responsibility, which degrades human persons, and even more so the killing of a defenseless and innocent being, will never be able to produce happiness or peace. Indeed how could one claim to bring about peace, the integral development of peoples or even the protection of the environment without defending the life of those who are weakest, beginning with the unborn.
Human Rights as Population Control
Along with the ‘Declaration of the Equality of Women’ in 1975, the ‘Declaration of the Rights of the Child’ in 1959, and the ‘Convention on the Rights on the Child’ in 1990, the UN has done more than many international bodies to achieve a separation of classes and a division of the human family. Under the guise of combating afflictions such as workplace discrimination and unjust labor laws, it has resurrected the Malthusian doctrine of a coming global catastrophe, which it has used to justify a total re-fashioning of natural rights—and, with the assistance of the U.S. government, it has addressed poverty through population control measures (no different from China’s One Child Policy).
But such measures have been ruthless and cruel, particularly in the case of China. As Richard Falk explains in his publication, On Human Governance, “abuses and hardships were widely reported, especially the revival in the countryside of female infanticide or neglect of ill female children to ensure that the one surviving child was male, capable of carrying on the family line and providing old age security.” And to ensure that marginalized women in places such as rural Tajikistan have access to improved sexual healthcare, artificial contraception has been presented as the only alternative. Falk writes: “Women are counselled on the various forms of contraception available—including intrauterine devices, oral contraceptives, injections, implants and condoms—and are matched to the kind best-suited to their needs.”
Since an increasing world population threatens financial stability, and in an effort to ensure that individual rights are not impaired and global stability ensured (i.e., keeping the poor and the marginalized under control), both the U.S. government and the UN have publicly promoted the sterilization of women and induced abortions, often with the backing of global elites and financial support from people such as George Soros and Bill Gates. Gates himself admitted (within the first minute of a 2014 interview he gave to CNN) that his proposal for a vaccine to fight the coronavirus could also be used to depopulate the human race.
In 2014, a statement signed by the 27 bishops of the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops alleged that the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF were injecting Kenyan women with a tetanus vaccine that had been laced with a hormone that caused miscarriages and rendered some women sterile. In their statement, the bishops make it clear that while they are certainly not opposed to vaccines, they are troubled by the numerous inconsistencies inherent to this vaccination program (such as incorrect batch numbers and improper administrative protocols). Additionally, testing results have shown the presence of the Beta-HCG hormone, which is not normally present in tetanus vaccines. (The HCG hormone, when injected into the body of a young woman, ends pregnancies by destroying the body’s own anti-body response, resulting in a spontaneous abortion. Its effectiveness lasts for years, causing abortions in women up to three years after injections.)
Apparently, the same situation occurred in Mexico in 1993 and in the Philippines in 1994, where women were given a five-part tetanus vaccination that was laced with Beta-HCG. The Kenya Bishops’ Conference thus called for a national boycott of anti-polio vaccines promoted by UNICEF because its makers failed to provide full disclosure of the elements used to produce the vaccines.
While UN efforts have been helpful in ending ‘colonialism’ and assisting in the partial disarmament of nuclear weapons, as well as providing food, medicine, and clean water to underdeveloped countries, it has also destroyed the lives of the unborn, especially among the poorest. Through its vaccine programs, an estimated total 2.3 million African girls and women were thus targeted by UNICEF and WHO.
Under the pretense of global security, the aforementioned population control measures, carried out without the knowledge of its supposed beneficiaries, has been used to construct a New World Order—i.e., a utopia in which the natural law and natural rights are altogether restricted and the human person is viewed as a mere economic input.
Sixty years ago, the drug thalidomide was prescribed to pregnant mothers to prevent morning sickness without having first undergone adequate testing. The drug had previously been used to treat leprosy, but its manufacturer claimed it had found that it also helped alleviate nausea and vomiting for pregnant moms. It produced disastrous results, with thousands of babies born in Europe with severe birth defects—arms and legs missing, hands and feet projecting directly from the shoulders and hips—before the drug was take off the market.
During this time of a global pandemic, many of us have complained about wearing face masks. Meanwhile, global elites have been striving to develop a vaccine against COVID-19. But wearing face masks and keeping some distance when socializing are mild compared to potentially being obligated to receive a vaccine under UN or WHO auspices, under their enforcement of soft law provisions on their Member States. If that happens, then we will have truly surrendered our freedom for a false sense of security. And the concept of human rights as traditionally understood will have been distorted by these global bodies beyond recognition.