LEGAL OPINION ON ABORTION

Case n° 20/2016: United Nations (UN) & Secretary General Ban Ki-moon & Secretary General Antonio Guterres
LEGAL OPINION ON ABORTION
July13, 2018
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights, in the face of the continuing show of support from the United Nations (UN) toward abortion, which is a perverse and criminal practice that violates the fundamental human right to life protected by the International Law treaties, below will determine whether the facts exposed constitute an act of deepening of the crimes carried out by the United Nations (UN), which has previously been sentenced as Responsible for having committed Genocide, Crimes against humanity, War crimes, Corruption, Violation of International Human Rights Law, High Crimes against World Peace, and High Violations of the rights of children and women.
I. Description of the Case
In 2018, the Argentine government of President Macri entered into a deep economic crisis as a result of a systemic inept and corrupt administration. In a desperate attempt to distract public opinion and the media, the Argentine government promulgated the debate on the decriminalization of abortion, simultaneously by wickedly saying that the Argentine Presidency is pro-life. During the parliamentary debate not only the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) supported the immoral Argentine politicians and violated the American Convention on Human Rights, which says that a person is every human being and that he or she must be legally protected from the moment of conception and should not be assassinated arbitrarily, but also the United Nations Organization (UNO) congratulated Argentina for trying to legalize abortion and urged Congress to approve such law. Through the Mandate of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in legislation and in practice, the UN argued that the lack of access to abortion would constitute gender discrimination and a violation of the human right to health of women. Even this working group of the United Nations (UN) blatantly dared to manipulate International Law, falsely claiming that the criminalization of abortion is contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that have been signed by Argentina. This type of defense of abortion not only violates the right to life of the unborn child, but also manipulates the essential norms of international conventions, in particular violating the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which in its article 31 states that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
II. Preliminary warning
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights evaluates violations of ethics and human rights, so its legal framework is the Buddhist Tribal Law and the International Law. These procedures are millenarian and intrinsic to the system of self-government of the spiritual commune (sangha), although they have the innovation of universal jurisdiction that allows analyzing violations of other communities and countries.
The legal cases carried out end with a Judgment. However, when there is an aggravation of the sentenced conditions, an immediate ethical legitimacy is acquired to extend the Judgment by means of the issuance of legal acts, notifications, resolutions, statements and rulings denouncing such aggravations.
III. Supreme Offense against International Morality and the Sanctity of life
With the aim of analyzing the existence of an act of Supreme Offense against International Morality and the Sanctity of Life on the part of the United Nations (UN) in this case, it is fundamental to offer the background of violations of the human right to life carried out by the accused within the framework of International Law.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights confirms that the promotion of abortion carried out by the UN violates international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights, which makes it clear that every human being is a person with the right to life from the conception and with the right to be legally protected. In addition, the UN’s support for abortion violates other international standards that strictly protect the human right to life, such as Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 1 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights denounces that the promotion of abortion carried out by the UN violates international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which in its Article 6 not only protects the inherent right to life of every human being, but even totally prohibits the death penalty on children under 18 as well as on pregnant women, thus demonstrating that the unborn child is an innocent person and a subject of rights that cannot be stripped of his or her life by arbitrary means, because the right to life is independent of the life of the mother.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights denounces that in November 2017 the UN Human Rights Committee excluded the unborn child from holding the inherent right to life, incredibly deciding to turn abortion into a human right or fundamental freedom effective and affordable for all women. Even the UN Human Rights Committee decided to ignore the fact that human life begins biologically from fertilization, giving freedom to each State to define the beginning of human life according to its own perspectives. In this sense, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights agrees with the United States and other countries in affirming that the UN Human Rights Committee does not have the authority to include the right to abortion within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which clearly protects human life.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights denounces that the promotion of abortion carried out by the UN violates international treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which in its article 12 does not only oblige states to recognize the human right to physical and mental health, but also ensures that this right is effective through the healthy development of children and the reduction of infant mortality.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights supports the decision of the United States government to block economic funds to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) during the years 2017 and 2018. This decision would have been taken due to the participation of this UN agency to collaborate with family planning or population control of China, despite the fact that one of the main techniques of this regime is forced abortion, which violates the Kemp-Kasten Amendment of the United States. As evidence of the participation of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) in the 350 million forced abortions carried out by China’s family planning program, there is not only the testimony of Stephen Mosher of the Population Research Institute, who claims that UNFPA looked the other way in the face of forced abortions and forced sterilization, but even Dr. Nafis Sadik, former director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), was awarded in 2002 with the Population Prize Award by the Chinese State Family Planning Commission, making an acceptance speech by praising the progress made by China in its population controls, considering UNFPA cooperation with China as a wise decision. For this reason, Reggie Littlejohn, President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, considered that the silence of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) in the face of hundreds of millions of murders of babies in China is an act of complicity.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights confirms that in June of 2018 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended Argentina to guarantee the legal practice of abortion for minors, urging that the government insure girls to access the abortion service. Obviously, by promoting abortion, the United Nations Organization (UN) has violated the Convention on the Rights of the Child, since, as Argentine law 23.849 shows, the child must be interpreted as every human being from the time of his/her conception until 18 years. In effect, the Convention on the Rights of the Child determines that all children have the inherent right to life, so that States must ensure the survival and development of the child, understanding the child as every human being under 18 years old. By not mentioning that the child exists from birth, the Convention on the Rights of the Child clearly shows that the existence of the child occurs from the beginning of human life, which is subject of rights or holder of special aid and juridical protection. In fact, so that there is no doubt about it, the Declaration on the Rights of the Child and also the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognize in their Preamble that the child needs special protection and care due to his lack of physical and mental maturity, and must receive legal protection both before and after birth.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights denounces that the promotion of abortion carried out by the UN violates international treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which does not create the existence of the right to abortion, but even prohibits it through Article 12, in which is confirmed that States must guarantee women the access to appropriate and free medical care services during pregnancy, delivery and post-partum, ensuring adequate nutrition in pregnancy and breastfeeding.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights considers that the United Nations (UN) manipulates and violates International Law through the dissemination of a fictitious right to abortion that neither exists nor is inferred in any kind of international standard, whose binding treaties actually support the right to life of unborn children, especially the American Convention on Human Rights and its defense of human life from conception. When the UN Monitoring Committees function as super-legislators of the States or even position themselves as a sort of judicial body or supreme constitutional court, they are exceeding their limited competence and power, since the Committees are not above international treaties or neither are their observations legally binding. In this way, the recommendations of such UN Committees are actually made by non-representative members of sovereign States, which have no power to extend treaties and conventions outside the decisions negotiated and agreed upon by the signatory nations.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights agrees with Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Apostolic Nuncio and Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, that an international normative body that departs from the original intention of the parties and expands its mandate beyond the power granted by States, runs the risk of affecting its own credibility and legitimacy, and may discourage other states from joining conventions.
By ignoring the right to life, which is intrinsic to every human being, the United Nations (UN) has positioned itself on a Path opposed to peace, justice, education and health, abandoning the path of righteousness by being complicit in the worst cases of violations of international human rights law, as is the case of the hundreds of millions of forced abortions that are crimes against humanity and have gone unpunished thanks to the UN support.
IV. Violation of the Constitutional Law
After having ruled the Responsibility for committing a Supreme Offense against International Morality and the Sanctity of Life carried out by the United Nations (UN) under the leadership of Secretaries General Ban Ki-moon & Antonio Guterres, it is an unavoidable ethical duty on the part of the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights to establish whether, together with these violations, a “Violation of Constitutional Law” was committed.
In the framework of the public debate in Argentina on the law of legalization of abortion that is supported by the UN, in 2018 the National Academy of Law and Social Sciences of Buenos Aires and also the Bar Association of the City of Buenos Aires warned that the law of abortion would be unconstitutional for violating fundamental standards of the Argentine National Constitution that strictly protect the right to life, so that in case of approving the law of abortion the Constitution should be modified. In effect, not only Article 19 of the Civil and Commercial Code of Argentina declares that the human person begins from conception, but also Article 75 paragraph 23 of the Argentine National Constitution is the one that decides to protect life since pregnancy, by legislating and promoting positive measures guaranteeing true equal opportunities and treatment, the full benefit and exercise of the rights recognized by this Constitution and by the international treaties on human rights in force, particularly referring to children, women, the aged, and disabled persons, by issuing a special and integral social security system to protect children against abandonment, protecting since pregnancy up to the end of elementary education, and to protect the mother during pregnancy and the period of lactation. Obviously, abortion constitutes an act of total abandonment toward the child, thus violating the supreme constitutional norm. In this way, the Argentine National Constitution defends the Sanctity of life, which is the intrinsic dignity or Buddhic nature of every human being, so that instead of resorting to the legalization of abortion, the Constitution would point in the direction of a public assistance regime that simultaneously protects the life of the child and the mother, something that is currently evidenced by the fact that pregnant women receive the universal subsidy for children. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights agrees with the Path tending to the protection of life through education, prevention, containment and accompaniment of those pregnant women who do not want to give birth, since they can perfectly place the child for adoption with no need to condemn him or her to death. Therefore, the legalization of abortion is unconstitutional and an attack against the sanctity or intrinsic dignity of life, violating the right to life that the unborn child owns since conception, which is also protected in 13 Argentine States Constitutions.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights agrees with the Argentina National Association of Medicine, recalling that the basic scientific principles and the practical medical precepts binding all professionals oblige to care for, protect and save the life of the mother and the unborn child, following a Hippocratic ethic that inalienablely defends the human life from its conception. In effect, the existence of clandestine abortions constitutes a sanitary issue that the State must prevent and cure without resorting to the legalization of the murder of the unborn child, which would violate the fundamental right to life. The Buddhist Tribunal also agrees with the Argentina National Association of Medicine that the unborn child is biologically and scientifically a human being from the moment of conception, being also a subject of law according to the Argentine National Constitution, the international human rights treaties and the internal legal codes of the country.
However, this Violation of Constitutional Law by the United Nations (UN) through the promotion of abortion is not only an attack against the Argentine Constitution, but it is also a violation against the Constitutional Courts of Chile and Peru, which have recognized that international treaties protect the right to life of the unborn child. Indeed, the Constitutional Court of Chile recalled in 2008 that the Chilean Constitution states in its Article 19 that all people have the right to life and to physical and mental integrity, legally protecting the life of the unborn child or embryo, concluding then that a norm on regulation of fertility that attempts against the right to life by means of the morning-after pill, which aborts the fertilized ovum, would be unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court of Peru ruled on October 26 2009 that, based on international regulations, the State should be ordered to refrain from providing such instruments as public policy.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights recalls that Justice John Marshall, president of the Supreme Court of the United States, ruled in the case “Marbury v. Madison” in 1803 that a Law repugnant to the Constitution is void. Therefore, when practicing the doctrine of control of constitutionality, it is concluded that the laws of legalization of abortion promoted by the United Nations (UN) are fundamentally void. In this way, and following the spirit of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Abigail Adams, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights states that considering the UN as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution is dangerous because it would place the people under the despotism of an oligarchy. This is because UN officials are as honest as any ordinary politician, but not necessarily more honest, having the same passions of power and privileges, in addition to the fact that their power is more dangerous than that of the ordinary politician because UN officials are not responsible to be accountable to electoral control. In agreement with jurist Robert Bork, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights defines that the UN can look at the text, the structure and the history of international conventions without this implies a license to invent extra-constitutional and extra-conventional rights, as is the case of the fictitious right to abortion that is nothing more than an anti-right to life. In short, as highlighted by Judge Adrian Burke, the right to life is based on Natural Law and should not be a right granted by the State, since the fact that a State grants a right to life would be dangerous because the one who grant a right is also able to decide to remove it.
V. Violation to the Canon Law
After having ruled the Responsibility for committing a Violation of Constitutional Law on the part of the United Nations (UN), below it will be analyzed if that international body had committed a Violation of Canon Law, which is a legal system that is officially recognized by Argentina following a concordat with the Vatican in 1966.
Beyond the fact that Western civilization has historically been built on the Judeo-Christian ethic based on the commandment You shall not kill, revealed by the Prophet Moses, but also based on the commandment to Love thy neighbor like thyself, taught by the Master Jesus, even in contemporary times the Catholic Church continues to fight passionately against abortion due to the obligation imposed by Canon Law. In this sense, in his work Gaudete et Exsultate: Apostolic Exhortation on the call to holiness in today’s world, Pope Francis I has stated that the defense of the innocent unborn needs to be clear, firm and passionate for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development.
For this reason, at the beginning of the 21st century, Pope Benedict XVI has warned that Catholic politicians who support abortion risk being ethically sanctioned through excommunication, which is not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon Law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion with Christ. The excommunication of pro-abortion politicians, as happened in Mexico (2007) and Uruguay (2008), according to Pope Benedict XVI, would be nothing new, surprising or arbitrary, since it is simply announcing publicly what is contained in the Law of Catholic Church, expressing the appreciation of life and the human personality present from the first moment of life. In fact, from Canon Law it is considered that practicing or supporting abortion produces automatic excommunication over oneself, since it is the person himself or herself who performs the judgment through his or her criminal act in the jurisdiction of his or her conscience. Thus, Archbishop Nicolás Cotugno of Montevideo has publicly clarified that those politicians who vote in favor of the decriminalization of abortion are ipso facto excommunicated, while Monsignor Heriberto Bodeant has pointed out that automatic excommunication is for those who collaborate in the execution of an abortion, so that when a Catholic politician votes a law of legalization of abortion he himself or she herself departs from the communion of the Church. For this reason, Monsignor Gea Escolano has not hesitated to affirm that Catholic parliamentarians who approve laws justifying abortion should be excommunicated, while Monsignor Juan Antonio Martínez Camino maintained that pro-abortion Catholic politicians cannot be admitted to Holy Communion because they consider lawful to end the life of a human being and they therefore would have become heretics and would be excommunicated latae sententiae. Indeed, in 2004 Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent American bishops a letter entitled Dignity to receive Holy Communion – General Principles, where he indicates that Eucharistic communion should be denied to those politicians who authorize or promote legalization of abortion or euthanasia until they end their situation of moral crime, only there being the exception made by Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, stating moral attenuating when, by means of amendments, a politician try to reduce the damage of an already approved abortion law to which he or she opposes. However, as pointed out by Archbishop William Joseph Levada and Cardinal Angelo Scola, even voters would incur serious immoralities when they vote for politicians who do not fight abortion and who perform serious acts against life, justice and peace. This strict ethical position was defended in 2002 by Cardinal Ratzinger, establishing that both legislators and Catholic voters have the obligation to oppose any law that threatens human life, and should not comment or vote in favor of abortion laws.
The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights agrees with Pope Benedict XVI that at the root of pro-abortion legislation is selfishness and the doubt about the value and beauty of life, which is why the Buddhist Tribunal supports the Catholic struggle in order to defend the gift of life, which cannot be the object of a plebiscite. In this way, the Pontifical Council for the interpretation of the Legislative Texts has clarified on May 23 1988 that the crime of abortion includes not only expulsions of the embryo with the intention of killing it, but also any kind of death provoked against his or her life, regardless at all if there are therapeutic reasons, eugenic reasons, economic reasons or sociocultural reasons. Even if the baby were the product of rape, his or her life is innocent and does not deserve the death penalty, which would be a traumatic situation that would only make the trauma of sexual abuse worse. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights agrees with the Canon Law in penalizing abortion despite any kind of motive that has led the mother to make the immoral decision to kill the life of the unborn child. Undoubtedly, the canonical order of the Catholic Church shows a great courage and integrity when recalling this doctrine of defense of life in the contemporary world devoid of all kinds of values and mercy.
Canon 1398 of the Canon Law Code of 1983 defines that whoever procures the crime of abortion incurs latae sententiae excommunication. This excommunication encompasses both the woman who chooses infanticide, and also includes the abortionist doctor and his or her assistant nurses. As Pope John Paul II stated in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, this excommunication also includes anyone who is an accomplice without whose cooperation the crime would not have occurred, as is the case of relatives who provide money or give their consent to perform an abortion. However, as recalled by Cardinal Rivera of the Archdiocese of Mexico, this character of necessary accomplice to the crime of abortion also includes the legislators who supported the legalization of abortion, incurring latae sententiae excommunication. As the Canon Law Code defines that those who procures the crime of abortion incurs latae sententiae excommunication, and the act of procuring is defined as making procedures or efforts to make what was expressed happens, undoubtedly the politicians procuring the creation and approval of an abortion law are the main responsible for all abortions that are executed from that immoral law. These politicians complicit in the crime of abortion would not only be the parliamentarians who voted for the law, but also would be the ministers who supported it and the very President of the country who does not veto such legislation, all of whom would have incurred latae sententiae excommunication according to the Canon Law. This same ethical criterion should obviously be applied to Catholic officials who are part of the United Nations (UN) and who have procured to get member states to implement pro-abortion legislation and policies. In accordance with Canon Law, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights has the spiritual duty to teach, admonish and sanction, which is also an obligatory function within the Catholic Church and its triple mission of teaching-sanctify-govern (munus docendi-santificandi-regendi), which undoubtedly is profoundly similar to the triple mission of the Buddha-Dharma-Sangha. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights then shares with many bishops of the Catholic Church the function of informing, instructing, warning and admonishing society, being in accordance with Pope John Paul II about the pastoral orientation of the ethical-spiritual judgment against the crime of abortion, since in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae confirms that in the canonical discipline of the Catholic Church the penalty of excommunication against those who practice abortion is to make people fully aware about the seriousness of the immoral act and favoring an appropriate conversion and repentance.
Since the Catholic law against abortion is profoundly similar to the rule of Buddhist Law reflected in the Vinaya Code, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights revalidates the position of Canon Law against the criminal act of abortion as well as its position of protection of life of the human being from the moment of conception, denouncing that the United Nations (UN) would not be doing nothing more than apology of crime through promotions of abortionist laws that violate the right to life. In short, as Father Pedro María Reyes Vizcaíno, who is a doctor in Canon Law, has pointed out, the one who denies the doctrine about the right to life remains latae sententiae excommunicated.
VI. Violation of International Buddhist Law
After having ruled the Responsibility for committing a Violation of Canon Law by the United Nations (UN), then it must be analyzed whether such organization had committed a Violation of International Buddhist Law, which is an officially recognized legal system in some member states of the UN, besides being the ethical-legal system regulating the lives of more than 500 million Buddhists around the world.
Beyond the fact that the totality of the Buddhist spiritual traditions share the main ethical precept of committing to follow a path consisting in refraining from killing sentient beings, there are also specific legal codes in each tradition, as is the case of the Bodhisattva Code in which the commitment to avoid any action that causes suffering is assumed, in addition to assuming not to kill but to nurture life.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights confirms that the Vinaya Code of Theravada tradition has at its core a system of Buddhist Law whose rules are called Patimokkha. Precisely, the first four rules of the Patimokkha are the four Parajika, by means of which a member of the Spiritual Commune (Sangha) is expelled or excommunicated after committing the worst transgressions of Buddhist Law. As is the case with latae sententiae excommunication within the Catholic Canon Law, in this case the Theravada Canon Law considers that the infractions of the four Parajika are so serious that they do not require any ceremony or trial, since the penalty is an automatic expulsion. Within the four Parajika is the prohibition of deliberately killing a human being or encouraging the advantages of death, which obviously includes inciting homicide, suicide and abortion. This important rule that is found in the Vinaya Code of Buddhist Law is aimed at protecting human life, which according to the interpretative Canon called Vibhanga also includes human fetuses as subjects with the right to life from the moment of conception. In addition, the interpretive Vibhanga Canon also defines homicide as ending life or interrupting its continuity, whose clear examples are both its realization and the apologia of homicide, suicide and abortion. In conclusion, in the Theravada Canon Law, like in Catholic Canon Law, killing or inciting the murder of a born person or of an embryo is a Parajika crime, which causes automatic expulsion within the Buddhist Spiritual Community.
On this same path of righteousness, in 2017 the United Buddhist Nations Organization organized the Eighth Buddhist Council of history. In this historic event in 2600 years of tradition, the Buddhist Convention on Human Rights was agreed and approved, establishing the following with respect to the right to life: “Article 1 – The Buddhist Communities affirm that every person has the right to life in peace, which will be protected by Buddhist Law at all times. (…) Article 35 – The Buddhist Communities affirm that every person has the right to life, which is why both abortion and the death penalty must be prohibited. (…) Article 51 – The Buddhist Communities affirm that every person has the right that their constitutional guarantees or natural rights are never suspended, especially the right to life, integrity, free conscience, family, nationality and indispensable judicial guarantees.” All this leads to the conclusion that the United Nations (UN) has committed a Violation of International Buddhist Law.
VII. Conclusion
Pro-abortion politicians usually allege issues of Public Health, trying to legalize the infanticide of the unborn child by means of the pretext that this would serve to prevent thousands of deaths of women who perform illegal abortions. However, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights confirms that this is a false pretext, not only because very few women die of illegal abortions and it would be an abortion activists’ lie the fact that the deaths would be thousands, but also because this dangerous kind of reasoning would also allow the legalization of drugs as an attempt to avoid deaths caused by drug trafficking and the illegal use of drugs. In addition, unlike activists in favor of safe and free abortion, Doctor Chinda Brandolino confirms that in no case there is a safe type of abortion, so even with the legalization of abortion the deaths of some women who practice this procedure, which is so harmful to the integrity, health and dignity of life, might not be prevented.
Accordingly, based on official data from the World Health Organization and the Ministry of Health of Argentina, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights confirms that deaths from illegal abortions in Argentina do not constitute any type of Public Health problem, this issue being rather of a personal nature, considering that 30 to 40 women die from illegal abortions per year, while more than 500 women die from nutritional deficiencies per year and no feminist activist or politician says something about this tragedy. These official statistics demystify that abortion is a matter of Public Health, definitely not being among the main causes of female death. In fact, the rate of deaths from illegal abortions in Argentina is so low that it would be 0.025% of the female population, so it would not be an urgent matter for Public Health in no way.
Meanwhile, after demonstrating that death from illegal abortions does not actually constitute a real problem for the health of women in Argentina, and that the argument of the United Nations (UN) of not having access to abortion is false and violates women’s right to health, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights confirms that if the Argentine State and the UN are really interested in addressing the health and mortality problems of women then they should cure cardiovascular diseases, which are the main cause of premature mortality in the female population of the country, since about 33% die of this type of affections, being the mortality by heart problems six times greater than the mortality by oncological diseases or gynecological cancer. In this sense, instead of creating laws that enable and promote the infanticide of the unborn child, laws that violate the human right to life, the Argentine State and the UN should promote and intensify the care and control of the true causes of female mortality, focusing particularly on hypertension, diabetes, smoking, overweight and unhealthy diet, since as doctor Carlos Reguera reminds, cardiovascular diseases are still the leading cause of death worldwide. At the same time, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has examined and detailed the numbers of deaths and illnesses, as well as the risk factors, coming to the conclusion that in Argentina the five main causes of death are ischemic heart disease, low respiratory diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Alzheimer’s disease, with high blood pressure and eating behavior placed on the podium of the list of risk factors, all of which is drastically worsened because Argentina has 1/3 of the population in poverty and has a disastrous educational and cultural level. In this way, instead of preventing the development of human life through abortion, the UN and the Argentine State should create legislations that incorporate healthy habits of life and prevent the development of cardiovascular pathologies, recommending not to smoke; maintaining low cholesterol levels; improving feeding through grains, fruits and vegetables; controlling weight, abandon sedentary lifestyle; doing physical activity; not to drink alcohol; avoiding hypertension and sodium consumption; monitoring diabetes; and reducing stress.
The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights also recommends the practice of holistic natural medicines, such as Ayurveda and Yoga, which could be promoted by the UN and the Argentine State instead of promoting abortion, since the righteous lifestyle is part of the path to Awakening and the Cure of suffering as prescribed 2600 years ago by the supreme physician Siddharta Gautama.
In accordance with international treaties, there is an absolute duty to enforce the right to life, the right to peace, the right to justice and the right to health, all of which have been systematically and widespreadly violated by the United Nations (UN), reason by which the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights is entitled to rule the “Responsibility” of the United Nations (UN) in committing Supreme Offense against International Morality and the Sanctity of life, Violation of Constitutional Law, Violation of Canon Law and Violation of International Buddhist Law.
Ergo, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights dictates that:
1. Abortion is defined as an act of Infanticide, there being no difference between killing the child before birth and killing him after birth, since both are biologically and psychologically premature, so it is a perverse fiction to say that abortion constitutes a right.
2. States of the world are recommended not to be guided and pressured by international organizations that are totally corrupt, ideologized and without binding power, so the States should not surrender their sovereign power or weaken their own constitutional regulations in the face of cultural imperialism, since natural rights are primary and essential in the very international treaties.
3. The courts around the world are required to commit themselves to defend the right to life of all human beings, including the weakest, such as the poor, the elderly and children, declaring unconstitutional any law that violates rights and fundamental freedoms.
4. It is stated that the Argentine State has the duty to issue a new adoption law, taking into account that its current system is totally deplorable and with a bureaucracy that does not facilitate or expedite the procedures to provide a home for the child.
5. All Argentine deputies and senators are requested to approve the draft law of Senator Pinedo, who has proposed that the Argentine State should be in charge of accompanying the woman who wishes to have an abortion, providing economic help during pregnancy, medical assistance, accommodation, feeding and possibility of having interference in the choice of the future adoptive parents.
6. Coincides with the 2000 legal professionals who in June 2018 have publicly argued the unconstitutionality of the law of legalization of abortion promoted by the UN in Argentina, not only for violating the life of the unborn child but also for creating a discriminatory registry of physicians regarded as conscientious objectors, and that it could even force them to perform abortions in certain cases.
7. A call is made to all doctors to maintain fidelity and commitment toward the care of human life, and must valiantly exercise the human right to conscientious objection in order not to be forced to take actions contrary to ethics and Spirituality.
8. The President of Argentina is required to perform a control of constitutionality and conventionality through the veto of the law of legalization of abortion, which is a Supreme Offense against International Morality and the Sanctity of life, a Violation of Constitutional Law, a Violation of Canon Law and a Violation of International Buddhist Law.
9. The United Nations (UN) is condemned for promoting that the embryo is not a human being with intrinsic dignity or right to life, because this would open a dangerous path for the future by ignoring the human rights of the unborn child and would implicitly allow terrible practices such as the commercial sale of embryos and even the scientific experimentation of human-animal hybrids, all of which might happen after having stripped the embryo or unborn child from humanity and natural rights.
Always with spirit of reconciliation (maitri),
H.E. Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha
President of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s