UN: abortion & euthanasia should be universal human rights; one world government in 12 years

5 (100%) 2 votes

Inés San Martin reports for Crux, Nov. 15, 2018, that the United Nations Human Rights Committee wants to make abortion and “assisted suicide” — a euphemism for euthanasia — a univeral human right.

A “General Comment” is a UN agency’s interpretation of the provisions of the treaties to which it is a party.

According to a draft “General Comment” of the UN Human Rights Committee’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN member governments:

  • Must decriminalize abortion for women and abortionists.
  • Must guarantee “safe, legal and effective” access to abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk, or when carrying the pregnancy to term could cause her “pain or suffering” as in the cases of rape or incest.
  • Must remove barriers that deny access to a safe abortion, “including barriers caused as a result of the exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers.” In other words, medical providers must be forced to perform abortion, regardless of their religious or moral objection.
  • Guarantee girls’ and women’s access to post-abortion health care “in all circumstances, and on a confidential basis.”
  • Guarantee access by “boys and girls” to a wide range of affordable contraceptive methods.
  • Allow medical professionals to “facilitate the termination of life of afflicted adults, such as those who are terminally ill, who experience severe physical or mental pain and suffering and who wish to die with dignity.”

An earlier version of the draft was read in July 2017, during the 120th session of the Human Rights Committee and made available online by the UN. “All interested stakeholders” were invited to comment on the draft. Although many pro-life groups submitted comments, their views are disregarded as the current version of the draft, as of October 31, shows that the language calling for governments to guarantee access to abortion and “assisted suicide” remains.

Meanwhhile, writing for American Thinker, Oct. 27, 2018, E. Jeffrey Ludwig reminds us that in 2015, the UN issued a program for world government, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The 14,883-words document has 91 numbered sections addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership; and contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

The earlier UN ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are now subsumed under “sustainability”. The UN World Commission on Environment and Development defines “sustainable development” as:

  • Development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” — whatever that means.
  • “Environmentalism” — preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources.
  • The Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”

Ludwig warns:

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment.  There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN….

The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.

This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality. The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?

The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers. The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945. Will you accept it, or is it time, more than ever before, to begin rethinking our membership in that unsustainable body?

See also:


Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

16 responses to “UN: abortion & euthanasia should be universal human rights; one world government in 12 years

  1. Excellent report. While the Repoops are not totally innocent either it should be quite obvious which of the two parties in this country are all in for globalist tyranny. Can’t believe there are so many morons that support this.

  2. So, assisted suicide is deemed a universal human right, but access to opiate pain relief isn’t. THAT makes perfect sense. (Not.)

  3. Will it be o.k. with the supporters of this stuff when the people in charge start deciding it’s time to assist someone whether they want to be assisted or not? Liberish = Liberal Gibberish

    • You said it- it will just be a matter of time before they move to the implementation of euthanizing the ” undesirables.”

  4. So…I’m waiting….euthanasia might be a pretty good deal if I get a say in whom gets euthanized….Who gets say? Who gets a say in universal rights to abortion? Who will speak for the aborted? Conversely….what if there was a mistake? What if someone whom I think SHOULD have been aborted, was NOT? LIke Charles Manson…..whose death penalty conviction was vacated when crying-out-liberal California vacated the death penalty here. Could we legally abort him after the fact….or euthanize him in lieu of the vacated death penalty out of compassion for the human lives—murdered and living, that he destroyed? Is there a “re-do” on abortion or euthanasia? GEEZ—when can we kill someone/take life away legally when they have committed NO CRIME and have no voice and have no representative in our government of laws?????? Evidently now…evidently since Roe v Wade. …..BUT…..we can uphold the life of a murderer b/c he/she has “rights.” ????? I guess this means in our society as it is today, that life inside the womb has no rights unless/until outside the womb.????? Miss it by a day, and you are TOAST these days…..In Barack Insane Obama’s language: (in digest form) if the mother wants an abortion, even if the child survives the abortion, the child should be isolated and forced to die from non-care, because, the life of this live born child goes against the wishes of the mother, who has a right to abortion…to KILL this child, even if live-born. To do otherwise, in the thoughts of Barack Insane Obama….would be to negate the “rights” of the mother and the “rights” of all women to abort under the present laws. This was Barack Insane Obama’s reasoning for supporting a bill that allowed late term abortions…EVEN IF the child survived the abortion……

    Summary….alll this BULLSHIT about abortion and euthanasia is modern-day abdication of guarding human rights, human responsibilties to others, born and unborn, and political dalliances that, unfortunately, deal in actual and natural human life and life situtations with which we used to/can deal with today in more “humanistic” and sane terms. KILLING someone is not a medical “cure” for pregnancy. KILLING someone is not a medical cure for terminal illness, chronic illness, depression, or aging. These killings are a CONVENIENCE. Period. Like, today….ordering delivery-out pizza or other on an app is a convenience….life made easier….pretty much, same thing: no committments to anything beyond…..cheap…..nothing labor-intensive, no big decisions or angst after the order is executed….all done….no problems….nothing more to do……PAY and participate, and walk away free of anything else. So….I guess I’m saying that life, coming and going is as easy as an app on a cell phone to “get rid of” today…..and just as impersonal and just as cheap…..as well as just as guilt-free and thought-free…..

  5. Pingback: HOT: UN: abortion & euthanasia should be universal human rights; one world government in 12 years – JomaliaBand

  6. G. Edward Griffin (American lecturer, filmmaker, and author of books such as “The Creature From Jekyll Island” and “The Fearful Master”) Mr. Griffin discusses with candid detail how as Americans we have all become enslaved to an international banking cartel. He then deciphers the relationship between the original United Nations charter and the former Soviet Russian communist constitution. (((The USA is now the USSSA)))

  7. Henry Kissinger, “Yes, many people will die when the New World Order is established [progs, take note, you are part of the plan to be among the many], but it will be a much better world for those who survive.” Henry is one who answered the call of Emma Lazarus; or was it David Rockefeller who beckoned?

  8. If the globalist commie-libs would just perform a post-natal abortion on themselves, the world would be a much better place.

  9. Dominique C Ruddy

    I don’t really see the problem with euthanasia. I had to put my cat down 1.5 months ago, but I was so relieved when I did it, and I was so glad that she went out in a dignified way, calm and peaceful, without suffering and being in pain for days or weeks. If we can bestow that kind of mercy on animals, why force humans who are 100x more conscious and aware of pain and suffering to endure it? We all have to die eventually. Why is it wrong to allow people to choose for themselves when they go? I think it’s okay for some people diagnosed with stage 4 cancer to choose euthanasia over suffering through incredible pain for 6 months or a year, only to die then anyways. I think it is humane to make the option discreetly available.

    • Dominique: I have wrestled with this question, too. The problem is WHO decides when it’s time and how it’s done: is it the patient, the patient’s family, the doctors, or the insurance company? What happens when euthanasia is far cheaper than treatment?

      Think of this: my husband has multiple chronic health issues, some of which cause him intractable pain. His pain had been managed with opiate medications (and others), but now with the “War On Opioids”, he no longer has access to pain relief. His pain is no longer manageable, and he’s suffering terribly. He has already had three neck surgeries (and another is on the way), has had countless injections, TENS units, PT, Botox injections, acupuncture, laser treatments, you name it.

      So, is my husband a candidate for euthanasia? Many chronic pain patients are already killing themselves in droves; you won’t hear it on the news, but it’s happening.

      People have been utilizing euthanasia with the help of their doctors or family members for time immemorial; it should stay private, without government or insurance company interference. For kicks, do a little digging into the term “brain death”, and what that REALLY means.

      • Life is sacred. Some things simply have to be placed above convenience. I guarantee that once a concept like euthanasia takes hold it will rapidly spiral out of control like abortion has.

        It usually starts in the “language” developed to discus it, such as “abortion – ON DEMAND”. Obviously, someone would be making these decisions. Do we have confidence that whoever that may be has superior knowledge and ability than we do? What would the criteria look like.

        My wife has Fibromyalgia. She is in constant pain. Lately the doctors have been putting her through hell over “opioid” drugs. This is all entirely bullshit. The pharmaceutical companies are churning them out, doctors used to prescribe them, now they are under the gun to stop. It’s not the patient’s fault.

        Anyway, our quality of life and the very things that made us who we are are under attack. “Government” should not be empowered to make decisions such as these. I don’t even feel good about euthanizing my animals. They are precious to me and I always wonder if I’ve done the right thing.

        God is always right. It is always better to let God make such decisions.

        • “I don’t even feel good about euthanizing my animals. They are precious to me and I always wonder if I’ve done the right thing.”


          And 100 dittos on “life is sacred”.

        • I agree about the sacredness of life. Just in the past six months, I had two beloved dogs put down, and it was such a difficult decision. The second pup was definitely suffering, so that time was easier, but it reminded me of just how much suffering some of us will have to endure. I believe our life, difficult or not, is a gift from God. He gave us life, and only He shall take it away. But that’s easier to say than it is to endure.

          I don’t think the government should be involved in any of our affairs, but DEFINITELY not suicide. Suicide, in my view, is a terrible sin, but since it doesn’t physically aggress on another, should be left to God to judge. It’s none of the State’s business.

          I just can’t begin to bear the irony that the State would deem my husband’s condition severe enough to qualify for euthanasia and yet withhold the very medication that could/did (cheaply!) treat his worst symptoms. They clearly want most of us GONE, and they are definitely not merciful. I think they’re even denying ANIMALS opiates, to avoid “misdirection” (I think that’s the term).

          I’m sorry about your wife, Lop. I’m in the same boat as you are. I’m not sure, but it might be worse watching my loved one suffer than to go through it myself. Either way, it SUCKS.

          • Thank you. I only mention it because it seems germane. Why DO we allow them to intrude. I didn’t ask them to regulate any of these things.

            There is a not so subtle change being worked over time. I’ve mentioned this before but I think it bears repeating. The US was founded on English Common Law. This is important. Outside of the UK and us the others were based on Roman Law.

            They may appear very similar but they’re not. This is one of the fundamental problems with the concept of “globalism” or “one-world government”. Our premise is that God gives rights and government’s job is to protect them. Roman law’s premise is that The State gives rights. Under Roman Law one needs permission from The State to do anything.

            Because The State gives rights The State can take them away at their pleasure. We see this in thousands of little ways recently. It appears in the schools with the State trying to raise our children. It appears in laws that seek to make The State the final arbiter of morality and other higher things that the State has no business interfering with.

            In order to make their little universe work they must have Roman Law or something similar. Look at how easily we fall into discussions about abortion or same-sex “marriage” as “legal” issues. They are not. They are MORAL issues and, just like life, are sacred. Nothing as profane as The State should be allowed to defile the holy.

          • By the way I’m very sorry to hear of your problems. I hope he can find relief and some peace. I had to take opioids while I was being treated for cancer. They were necessary. Nonetheless they gave me a lot of grief about them every time I went to refill a prescription. I got so angry once I almost chased everybody out of the pharmacy.

            I didn’t have any problem quitting them, even though I was taking a Fentanyl. They do have side effects but, it’s better than pain. Who cares if someone with chronic pain is addicted? Besides, if they’re taking them under a doctor’s orders what’s the problem? Does the State think its better qualified to make medical determinations? Apparently they think so.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.