The concept of human rights used to mean something. One look at a report from the EU or the UN could tell you which countries respected their citizens’ human rights and which oppressed them. We could agree on the context. If people were denied freedoms, food, access to healthcare, or they were punished severely and cruelly for unproven offenses, we could condemn those countries without question.
But now the concept of “human rights” has become politicized. According to last week’s “Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World 2013 and the European Union’s Policy on the Matter,” fundamental human rights include gay marriage and abortion.
Right.
The report, drawn up by the European Parliament, proves that this body is more about activism than it is about taking a sober look at the state of humanity. There’s no room in an objective report on human rights for a word like “homophobia.” Sorry, there just isn’t. And the fact that we now include the right to kill your unborn child as “inalienable” is a sign of how quickly we’ve turned our backs on thousands of years of moral progress.
When it comes to gays, it is perfectly acceptable for the report to condemn the wrongful imprisonment and execution of LGBT people we see in the Islamic hellholes that inevitably give rise to such intolerance. It’s quite another matter to argue that it is a natural human right to get married to a partner of the same sex. In fact, that’s asinine.
Common sense, historical precedent, and modern studies have demonstrated the importance of a traditional family structure. Take morality out of it completely, because I understand that not everyone comes to the table with the same background. Let’s just talk about what’s best for civilization. And we know, inarguably, that a child fares best when raised by a mother and a father. It may touch the heartstrings to see lesbian couples stroll to the altar, but it isn’t improving the direction of society. And it isn’t infringing on anyone’s human rights to disallow it. Gays and lesbians have the same right to get married as anyone else.
Where is the chapter in the report standing up for the rights of the unborn? By what justification do they deny a fetus its right to life? At what point does a baby gain those rights? These questions are posed again and again to the pro-abortion crowd, but they never seem to come up with a satisfactory answer. It’s always the same refrain: a woman should be able to choose what she does with her body. Okay. Sure. Except for that poor woman who hasn’t been born yet. Not her.
Until these organizations take a more considered view of human rights, free from liberal propaganda, they can be safely dismissed as political statements and nothing more.
Comments are closed.