The Headline Says It All

UN Population Meeting Split over Whether People Are a Burden or a Resource

The "culture of death" = People are a burden to be controlled

The "Culture of Life" = People have value

While I think "resource" isn't the best term to use, it does get across people have value. The problem with resource is that it can be perverted to a utilitarian meaning. The article talks about a "pro-people vision of development" that gets the idea across better. Development needs to be such that it sees the value of each human being, not just those that meet a certain criteria.

Another line by the pro-death faction shows how much they rebel against God & His plans: “if the evils of poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease and hunger are to be eliminated, population policies that ensure reproductive health and access to family planning have to be part of the arsenal.” (Hania Zlotnik, the director of the UN Population Division) The real way to solve those problems is by living out the Gospel. Here she is talking about relying on man's way of doing things, not God's. I also couldn't help but think of what Jesus said about always having the poor with us.

Another interesting bit is the fact that we see in the pressure being put on Honduras by the so-called pro-choice side, that they are only pro the choice of their side. If you want to chose to protect life then you don't have the right to chose.

Anyhow, here is the full story:

NEW YORK, NY, April 2, 2009 (C-FAM) - As the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) meets at the United Nations (UN) this week to mark the fifteenth anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held at Cairo, fault lines have appeared between states that see people as a resource to be promoted, and those that see people as a burden to be controlled.
On the one hand the Holy See and a number of Muslim nations in particular are defending a pro-people vision of development, emphasizing poverty reduction, basic education and health care, while the European Union, Canada and the new Obama administration propose fertility reduction and broad "sexual and reproductive rights," including contraception, "safe abortion" and "sexuality education."
The latter theme has been consistently stressed by UN agencies, radical non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and "progressive" nations throughout this CPD session. In her opening address, Hania Zlotnik, the director of the UN Population Division, called on states to applaud the "rapid reduction of fertility in most developing countries" which has been achieved "mainly by expanding access to effective methods of contraception. Zlotnik asserted that "if the evils of poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease and hunger are to be eliminated, population policies that ensure reproductive health and access to family planning have to be part of the arsenal."
There have been some positive surprises for pro-lifers. Japan made a strong statement recognizing the major demographic problem faced as a graying, aging nation, concluding that it was essential to encourage citizens to "get married, give birth and raise children." Croatia and Bulgaria spoke of the measures they were taking to promote birth, such as maternity allowances and paid pregnancy, maternity and paternity leave. Russia, aware of its drastic demographic collapse, also took a pro-natalist position, as it did last year.
Latin American states have been a major disappointment to pro-lifers. Brazil and Uruguay in particular have been pushing "reproductive rights" language. The contrast, between last year's Uruguayan statement, introduced by a professional demographer who recognized the problems caused by an aging populace, and this year's is striking, says the pro-life group C-Fam. The Brazilian representative also stated the government was discussing the inclusion of specialized health services, including surgical procedures, for homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals. In comparison, Cuba has been relatively restrained, inviting criticism from feminist NGOs.
Pro-life Latin voices have been muted. It is rumored that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the pro-abortion NGO Ipas are pressuring pro-life Honduras to go along with a new Latin American "consensus" that does not challenge reproductive rights language.
Malta, however, made a strong statement defending its pro-life laws and stated that it "has consistently expressed its reservation on the use of terms such as 'reproductive rights,' 'reproductive services' and 'control of fertility.'" Malta restated its reservation to the ICPD provision "In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe," stating that the phrase "could lend itself to multiple interpretations, implying among other things, that abortion can be completely free of medical and other psychological risks, while ignoring altogether the rights of the unborn."
Saint Lucia stressed that the unborn should be included in promoting maternal and child health, and also spoke of the success of its abstinence-based programs. Throughout negotiations, the Holy See has been a constant voice in support of human dignity and development. It faulted the UN for "giving priority to population control and getting the poor to accept these arrangements" rather than on development issues such education, basic health care, access to water, sanitation and employment."
The CPD session is to conclude on Friday. Given the apparent ideological gap, a failure to produce an outcome document - an extremely unusual occurrence, which is seen as a black mark on the presiding chairperson- is possible, though unlikely.

______________

As you will note, the article says the CPD session ended yesterday. The C-FAM report has some good news as the headline says: UN Commission Ends with Delegations Saying No to Abortion. What happenned is this. "Just prior to adoption, Iran took the floor to object to the phrase (“sexual and reproductive health and rights”) which has never before been included in any negotiated UN document. Iran stressed that the term remained problematic for a number of delegations and urged the Commission to revert back to previously agreed upon and carefully negotiated language from the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Program of Action, which is understood not to create any right to abortion."

At that point chairwoman from Mexico suspended the meeting. 20 minutes later, she announced that Iran’s proposal would be accepted & that “sexual and reproductive health and rights” would be removed from the text. At that point the document was then adopted by consensus. Even that wasn't enough for some delgates.

"Several delegations, however, went further and made statements to explicitly define abortion out of the CPD document and to reiterate that the document created no new rights. Comoros, Peru, Poland, Ireland, Chile, the Holy See, Malta, and Saint Lucia spoke out against the other remaining reproductive health-related terms such as “reproductive rights,” “reproductive health services” and “sexual and reproductive health” and emphasized that these could not be construed to “support, endorse or promote” abortion."

Malta’s ambassador said that his delegation was finding it more difficult in accepting the resolutions of UN bodies like the CPD because of the consistent attempts to expand “reproductive health” to include abortion.

Saint Lucia explicitly objected to the term “safe abortion” because it could “give the impression that abortion was a procedure completely free of medical and psychological risks.” Another part of the CPD Document that raised concern for Santa Lucia was the provision which called on states where abortion was legal to “train and equip health service providers and should take such measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible.” The representative made it clear that they "understood this provision did not impact the right of healthcare providers to refuse to perform or be complicit in abortions as a matter of conscience, stating, 'Again, no new rights are created or acknowledged in this document, and the universal right to conscience can in no way be overridden or weakened.'” (Maybe Obama better realize that this is exactly what he is doing with the HHS attempt to rescind the Bush regulations to protect the conscience rights of health care providers.)

I would like to know how the representative of Norway could express regret that the term “sexual and reproductive rights” was not accepted in the text. He said that his country had "widespread access to abortion and virtually no negative effects on women." Either he is completely ignorant of the widespread evidence out their of the emotional & psychological effects abortion does have, not only on women, but the fathers & other family members as well. Or he is willfully feigning ignorance because he is so sold out to the right to murder the unborn that he doesn't give a damn about the real harm it causes to others. (I suspect this is the real reason, not actual ignorance.)

Anyhow, this is just 1 small skirmish in the battle. The pro-death gang won't let this stop them. They have plenty of radical NGOs and UN committees that are just as willing to do what this meeting didn't, if they are allowed to. Thus the vigilance must be kept up at all levels.