Prolife Documents

We intend to gather the most relevant documents to Prolife stance, in order to make it easier for prolifers to defend the most basic ethical position on Earth.

Life's defense is engraved in our hearts and in natural law, but abortion supporters have used and continue to use the most sophisticated emotional tricks to convince people to kill their own babies as a "solution" to their problems. That's why we need a thorough information about human life, its scientific facts and its ethical and moral conclusions.

You can watch our expert videos on prolife topics.

In view of the attempts by activists and politicians (in addition to the UN itself or the European Commission and Parliament) to distort, ignore or hide the founding texts of international legislation on the defense of life, we present here the current legislation and declarations (some of them binding).

San José Articles

The San José Articles were signed in the capital of Costa Rica in 2011 in the face of a growing trend within the United Nations and other national spheres affirming that there was a "right to abortion."

Its objective was and continues to be to bear witness that no such right exists based on international law.

31 experts from different countries in international legislation, international organizations, public health, medicine and science met.

Among them were law professors, philosophers, parliamentarians, ambassadors, human rights lawyers and delegates to the United Nations Assembly.

The articles can be read in their entirety on this website.

The fundamental idea is that, as article 1 states, human life begins at conception, according to medical science. Additionally, we highlight these two articles:

Article 5.  There is no right to abortion under international law, neither through a binding international treaty nor under norms of common international law. There is no United Nations treaty that can be accurately cited to establish or recognize a right to abortion.

Article 7.  Claims made by international agencies or non-governmental actors that abortion is a human right are false and must be rejected.

There is no international legal obligation to provide access to abortion based on any reason: health, privacy, sexual autonomy, non-discrimination or any other reason.

Of a binding and obligatory nature, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is in force, signed on November 20, 1989 as an international human rights treaty and developed over 10 years by the contributions of various societies, cultures and religions.
In it, it is expressly said, in the preamble:

"Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the child, due to his lack of physical and mental maturity, needs special protection and care, including due legal protection, both before and after birth..."

Within the articles themselves, we find this clear reference:

"1. States Parties shall respect the rights set forth in this Convention and shall ensure their application to every child subject to their jurisdiction, without distinction of any kind, regardless of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion. nature, national, ethnic or social origin, economic position, physical handicaps, birth or any other condition of the child, his parents or his legal representatives."

Here you can see how failing to protect unborn children is age discrimination, which, like other circumstances, cannot in any case be a detriment to their rights. Equally contrary to this right is eugenic abortion, which eliminates the lives of children with physical disabilities.

It can be read on the United Nations website in its convention section.

Adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly in its resolution 217 A (III), of December 10, 1948.

These articles of the declaration are interesting to read, since they defend concepts that today are under very harsh attack, many times by the United Nations itself, or of "progressive" political parties and/or governments (as "progressive" as the current leadership of the UN).

"Considering that freedom, justice and peace in the world are based on the recognition of the intrinsic dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family."

"Considering that the Member States have undertaken to ensure, in cooperation with the United Nations, universal and effective respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of man..." (the virus of misnamed language had not yet exploded non-sexist).

Article 2.
"Everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms proclaimed in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic position, birth or any other condition.»

Article 3
«Every individual has the right to life, liberty and security of person. »

The embryo's DNA is unique and unrepeatable, witness to its individuality as a human being.

Article 6
"Every human being has the right, everywhere, to recognition of his legal personality."

The embryo is, without a doubt, human, since it comes from totipotent human cells. The statements of certain high courts that the unborn child is not a person do not seem to fit well in this article, since by the fact of being human, they already have legal personality.

Article 16.3
«The family is the natural and fundamental element of society and has the right to protection by society and the State. ».

When family is anything, protection no longer makes sense.

Article 18
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; This right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, as well as the freedom to manifest his religion or belief, individually and collectively, both in public and private, in teaching, practice, worship and observance.»

For this reason, the exclusion zones applied in England and Scotland, and the criminal restrictions sought in Spain, clearly go against fundamental rights.

Article 19
“Every individual has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; This right includes not being disturbed because of one's opinions, the right to investigate and receive information and opinions, and the right to disseminate them, without limitation of borders, through any means of expression. »

Once again, exclusion zones or the prohibition of giving certain messages in certain situations conflict with this article.

Article 20
"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."

Article 26.3
«Parents will have the preferential right to choose the type of education that will be given to their children.»

This article clashes with the latest tendencies of the so-called "progressives" to impose by the State (and the ideologies that currently support it) a certain type of affective sexual ethics, conception of the family or marriage or sexual morality .

You can read it on the UN website

San José, Costa Rica November 7 to 22, 1969

AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (Pact of San José)

PART I – DUTIES OF STATES AND PROTECTED RIGHTS

CHAPTER I - LIST OF DUTIES

Article 1. Obligation to Respect Rights

1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, without any discrimination on grounds of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, economic position, birth or any other social status.

2. For the purposes of this Convention, a person is every human being.

Article 4. Right to Life

1. Every person has the right to have their life respected. This right will be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one can be deprived of life arbitrarily.

Article 29. Rules of Interpretation No provision of this Convention may be interpreted in the sense of:

a) allowing any of the States Parties, group or person, to suppress the enjoyment and exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention or to limit them. to a greater extent than that provided for in it;

b) limit the enjoyment and exercise of any right or freedom that may be recognized in accordance with the laws of any of the States Parties or in accordance with another convention to which one of said States is a party;

c) exclude other rights and guarantees that are inherent to the human being or that derive from the representative democratic form of government, and  

d) exclude or limit the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature.

You can read it on the OAS website