UNICEF Promotes Abortion in Latin America

[didymus]

from The Catholic Thing:

UNICEF Promotes Abortion in Latin America

A high-ranking UNICEF official has placed himself in the middle of an ongoing constitutional debate in the Dominican Republic. Put aside the question of how the constitutional deliberations of a sovereign state are in any way the business of a U.N. agency and look at the topic upon which they intervened: abortion.

The national legislature of the Dominican Republic is debating the content of the new federal constitution. The document, which has just been approved by one of the two houses of the Dominican legislature, states: “The right to life is inviolable from conception to death.” Nils Kastberg, a Swede who serves as UNICEF’s regional director for Latin America, couldn’t contain himself. He told Dominican legislators that they should not make abortion illegal rather they should make it legal so that women would not be forced into “unsafe procedures.” He went on to suggest that legislators would be “hypocrites” for ignoring the high teen pregnancy rate, which presumably UNICEF wants to solve by performing abortions on teens.

Why is an official of the U.N. agency responsible for the welfare of children speaking right out of the talking points of abortion advocates? Who would have thought that someone from UNICEF would be making such arguments?

This is not the first time that UNICEF has gotten involved in a national abortion debate and come down not, on the side not of protecting children, but of aborting them. In 2006 the national legislature of Nicaragua considered legislation making abortion for any reason illegal. Along with the radically pro-abortion U.N. Population Fund, UNICEF sent a letter to the head of the Nicaraguan National Assembly saying such an act would violate international agreements if it outlawed all abortions. Of course, that is a lie. There is no such international agreement, though abortion proponents think that if they say it often enough it will become true.

So I ask once more – why is there still a UN? And why do we still belong to it?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I quit supporting UNICEF a long time ago. They’ve been notorious for this type of stuff.
Ditto for “The March of Dimes” & The American Diabetes Assoc. who promotes embryonic stem cell research & human cloning.Of course, all these organizations collect money in schools, civic groups, & businesses.And they are less than forthcoming when you ask the hard questions.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

I quit supporting UNICEF a long time ago. They’ve been notorious for this type of stuff.
Ditto for “The March of Dimes” & The American Diabetes Assoc. who promotes embryonic stem cell research & human cloning.Of course, all these organizations collect money in schools, civic groups, & businesses.And they are less than forthcoming when you ask the hard questions.

Unicef, as with many organizations: have long since: utterly ceased in near every way: to in any way represent the “United Nations”!

 

[Chellow]

Very proud of my country of birth, who’s motto is (God - County - Liberty).

(Spero News)… Rather than bowing to external pressure from UNICEF and pro-abortion non-governmental organizations, this week members of the bicameral constitutional assembly voted 167-32 to approve the proposed charter, including Article 30, which states, “The right to life is inviolable from conception to death.” Another article would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

 

[spectrm]

There is clearly a lack of understanding of what exactly is happening in under-developed nations. The attitudes expressed in this thread are the same that pressed for Bibles (not food) to be shipped to Uganda and Somalia.

My wife and I are avid supporters of UNICEF for their efforts domestically and I’ve seen nothing but positive come out of their efforts abroad. If you want to really talk about bad international charities, start with the ‘Salvation Army’ and the ‘United Christian Fund’ (though I have little good to say about the ‘March of Dimes’. I think it’s sad when the politics of an organization stands directly in the way of their helping effectively.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Very proud of my country of birth, who’s motto is (God - County - Liberty).

(Spero News)… Rather than bowing to external pressure from UNICEF and pro-abortion non-governmental organizations, this week members of the bicameral constitutional assembly voted 167-32 to approve the proposed charter, including Article 30, which states, “The right to life is inviolable from conception to death.” Another article would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Go Dominican Republic!

 

[aggiecatholic05]

My wife and I are avid supporters of UNICEF for their efforts domestically and I’ve seen nothing but positive come out of their efforts abroad.

their efforts abroad have directly led to an increase in abortions. i’d say that is about as far from a positive result as you can get.

 

[spectrm]

their efforts abroad have directly led to an increase in abortions. i’d say that is about as far from a positive result as you can get.

Or one could argue that an influx of unwanted, but still borned babies would severely tax and detriment the local economy and immediate resource pool to such an extent that the entirety of the nation can descend into poverty.

Particularly in Africa, babies with a high probability of contracting HIV in the womb or during birth are aborted. This reduces the amount of disease in the environment and also keeps the drain on the local resource pool to a minimum - especially given the cost and availability of certain meds.

Instead of lashing out at organizations that are performing abortions for utilitarian purposes, look at China and their practice of leaving unwanted babies out to exposure. Especially when China has the resources…it’s really just done for population control (which is another natural thing - ingrained in every other species but us, apparently).

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Or one could argue that an influx of unwanted, but still borned babies would severely tax and detriment the local economy and immediate resource pool to such an extent that the entirety of the nation can descend into poverty.

Particularly in Africa, babies with a high probability of contracting HIV in the womb or during birth are aborted. This reduces the amount of disease in the environment and also keeps the drain on the local resource pool to a minimum - especially given the cost and availability of certain meds.

Instead of lashing out at organizations that are performing abortions for utilitarian purposes, look at China and their practice of leaving unwanted babies out to exposure. Especially when China has the resources…it’s really just done for population control (which is another natural thing - ingrained in every other species but us, apparently).

your aids comparison is flawed. if slowing the spread of the disease and stopping the economic burden it causes is justyification for one murder why not more. instead of abortion why doesnt the un just kill every person that has the disease then it cant spread and they can save money on medicine.

utilitarin purposes? its murder, premediated murder. the logic that the ends justify the means is too flawed.

we may well have some natural population control in us, but we don’t know yet because we have reached the sustainable limit of the planet yet. 6billion or so people thats all there is, but the earth can handle 10 times that amount. so when we get there we can see if you have a point about our ability for self control until then it is a mute point.

 

[spectrm]

your aids comparison is flawed. if slowing the spread of the disease and stopping the economic burden it causes is justyification for one murder why not more. instead of abortion why doesnt the un just kill every person that has the disease then it cant spread and they can save money on medicine.

SEE!!! NOW you’re putting the shoe on the other foot. Seriously…you can hold whatever opinion you want, I support it - you were merely making statements that suggested a lack of understanding of the situation. A comment to the tune of “It’s truly tragic that people feel the need for so much destruction”. I’m not trying to tell you how to think or speak, I’m merely telling you the reasoning that I can muster. I think in many cases the end does justify the means. I’m sure I have a different view on when life begins than you do, but MY sentiment is much the same. I don’t like abortion at all. I wish it weren’t an option - REAL prohibitions tend to work much better than ‘ought’ - but it is and so long as it is, it needs to be done safely, in the interests of the “survivors”.

utilitarin purposes? its murder, premediated murder. the logic that the ends justify the means is too flawed.

once again, we have a difference in opinion over when life begins. Don’t be throwing words like ‘murder’ around. And don’t kid yourself, you make a million utilitarian decisions a day. It’s a method that works and is ingrained into our very genetics. Much like logic, you shouldn’t be so quick to cast aside “God’s gifts”.

we may well have some natural population control in us, but we don’t know yet because we have reached the sustainable limit of the planet yet. 6billion or so people thats all there is, but the earth can handle 10 times that amount. so when we get there we can see if you have a point about our ability for self control until then it is a mute point.

It’s ‘moot’, not ‘mute’.
Don’t quote pseudo-science like “The earth can easily handle 60 billion people” - the data is so tenuous and the parameters are different in every calculation. Consider, for one: these are taken as averages - around the world. The carbon/consumption/waste footprint of every human being (statistically with the number of 6.**whatever billion)…so folks in the US are being largely offset by the larger populations inhabiting Beijing, Taipei, large cities in African countries (essentially the poor - “the other 60% of the earths population”). If ‘civilization’ continues the way it has in the US, Europe, Japan, parts of Russia and Southeast Asia, the average footprint will be closer to that of the average American - which puts the limit on the planet right around that 6 billion number. These numbers also don’t account for the other animals, insects, fish, etc. on the planet. These animals are almost always displaced when humans settle a new area. If we did get to the 60 billion mark, there’d be nearly no wildlife save in the oceans, and we’d pollute that so much, that’s not too likely either. Look at what a mess it’s become just getting to 6 billion!!!

Finally, however, you neglect the “law” - contractual law. UNICEF doesn’t design and implement programs in every country it funds. In countries that are mildly if not fully developed (ex. most, if not all, of South America), there is often a healthy government, medical system, etc. in urban areas. UNICEF signs deals with nations that ask for aid. When the country needs funds for a program they wish to enact, they ask the partner they’ve signed a deal with, and they get their money. It isn’t UNICEF’s job to ask what the money is for - they already signed the deal.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

If one reads the Genocide definition of the UN: I think that any member supporting abortion is odd and wrong. Article 2 section d always refers to future population, and more than that: laws are imposed.

 

[doubtingdaniel]

There is clearly a lack of understanding of what exactly is happening in under-developed nations. The attitudes expressed in this thread are the same that pressed for Bibles (not food) to be shipped to Uganda and Somalia.

My wife and I are avid supporters of UNICEF for their efforts domestically and I’ve seen nothing but positive come out of their efforts abroad. If you want to really talk about bad international charities, start with the ‘Salvation Army’ and the ‘United Christian Fund’ (though I have little good to say about the ‘March of Dimes’. I think it’s sad when the politics of an organization stands directly in the way of their helping effectively.

Here Here!!! I tip my hat to you sir!

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

Here Here!!! I tip my hat to you sir!

From persons in the “Developed world”: which links aid to how many abortions are performed. That’s completely sick, and in my opinion evil. Why you spend time on these forums, is beyond me!

 

[Canto]

UNICEF

feministsforlife.org/news/commonw.htm

 

[aggiecatholic05]

I’m sure I have a different view on when life begins than you do,

It’s ‘moot’, not ‘mute’.

my view of when life begins is based on science, not opinion. at conception there is a new human being, and middle school biology textbook can explain that.

secondly going after my spelling(which i know is horrible) shows a real weakness in your arguments. please debate the issues not my ability to hit the keys.

 

[JimG]

Apparently UNICEF considers that the way to eliminate poverty is to kill the poor, and to do it before they have a chance to defend themselves.

 

[spectrm]

@aggiecatholic05: Well…sorry I tried to help your self-admitted poor spelling. I prefer to share useful information when it’s needed. I wasn’t correcting your spelling to debase you. The ‘Mute’ ‘moot’ mixup is common amongst non-brits. I was merely informing another person…don’t take my pedancy personally.

And since you hadn’t noticed, I was aruging the points. You just seem not to have read below my spelling correction. That’s your foul, not mine.

@canto: UNICEF is mentioned no where in that article. That page is an opinion paper from a special-interest group who used no real data to back any of their statements. I’m not saying it’s a lie, but it needs to be handled with greater scrutiny that most published works. Essentially, it’s rubbish.

 

[doubtingdaniel]

From persons in the “Developed world”: which links aid to how many abortions are performed. That’s completely sick, and in my opinion evil. Why you spend time on these forums, is beyond me!

I’m hoping to convert you!!!

 

[Canto]

UNICEF and abortion

lifesitenews.com/waronfamily/unicef/index.html

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

I’m hoping to convert you!!!

To what, a bleak world without hope: where I am all “alone”: sounds lonely and horrid: more than that: it would require rejecting the :Hippocratic Oath", and UN genocide declaration, and common sense. Sad. Try spread the apathy and depression elsewhere: I hear there’s an online forum for people like you! Otherwise: go onto an “evangelical” forum: they might make you really happy, so much that you clap and dance: mind you, not sure which you I’d prefer!

Just consider what I said: why bother with us: the statistics say we’ll live happy, and successful lives: why bother to convert us if it does nothing for us?