| ►
Wednesday STOPP Report - June 24, 2009
by Marie Hahnenberg
Released June 24, 2009
In this issue:
Part 1 of STOPP’s Special WSR edition: IPPF’s declaration on “sexual rights”
IPPF’s declaration on “sexual rights,” Part 1
Document paints a bleak picture of a heathen world entitled to self-destruction through self-centered sexual pleasure, with no regard for the consequences of that behavior
After two years of preparation, International Planned Parenthood Federation has issued a document intended to create “change,” promote and ensure “sexual rights” as human rights, and promote the use of legislative and judicial action to enforce these supposed rights. It is titled Sexual rights: an IPPF declaration.
This 29-page document is divided into three parts. It begins with a preamble, which describes the concept of sexual rights as “a component of human rights, which are an evolving set of entitlements,” and then sets forth seven “principles,” which are the framework for the declaration. It concludes with a section titled “Sexual rights are human rights related to sexuality.” This section includes 10 “sexual rights.”
This week’s WSR will focus on the preamble and the declaration’s seven “principles,” which will help expose this document’s propaganda and falsehood. Next week, we will examine the 10 “sexual rights” that, according to IPPF, flow from the seven “principles.”
May your reading of the ungodly radical concepts and philosophies espoused in this document fill you with righteous indignation and inspire you to recommit yourself ever more fully to opposing Planned Parenthood and its agenda at every turn. This is not a battle we can afford to walk away from, but one that everyone who stands for truth and goodness must stand and fight.
The preamble of IPPF’s “sexual rights” document
The preamble begins by saying, “sexual rights are a component of human rights, which are an evolving set of entitlements related to sexuality that contribute to the freedom, equality and dignity of all people.”
Let’s take a closer look at that statement. Webster’s dictionary defines “evolve” as “to develop by or as if by evolution: undergo evolutionary change.” In this content, evolving rights thus means rights that are subject to change, depending upon who is defining those rights.
The preamble goes on to claim that the Declaration is “grounded in core international human rights treaties.” It is important to note that the United States has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, one of the treaties upon which IPPF relies in this Declaration. The treaty would usurp parental rights in contradiction with established laws that protect parents’ rights.
Further, the preamble defines “sexual rights” as “norms that emerge when existing human rights are applied to sexuality. These rights include freedom, equality, privacy, autonomy, integrity and dignity of all people; principles recognized in many international instruments that are particularly relevant to sexuality.”
Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical The Gospel of Life, says that one of the great advancements of the modern age has been the acceptance of “universal rights.” Yet the pope also noted that we have come to believe we have rights to actions that have no basis in truth. IPPF’s claiming of rights that have no basis in truth leads to disregard for genuine human rights.
The seven ‘general principles’
IPPF enumerates seven principles to promote and fulfill its “sexual rights” propaganda.
“Principle 1 – Sexuality is an integral part of the personhood of every human being. For this reason, a favourable environment in which everyone may enjoy all sexual rights as part of the process of development must be created.”
Principle 1 goes on to say, “Poverty is both a cause and a consequence of sexual ill health and sexuality-based inequalities and exclusions. Programming must address the interconnection of poverty with these issues, recognizing its role in the enjoyment and denial of human rights and, in particular, its effects on sexual rights.”
“Principle 2 – The rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen differ from those of adults, and must take into account the evolving capacities of the individual child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf.”
Here IPPF refers to Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, saying that “it is stated that the direction and guidance provided by parents or others with responsibility for the child must take into account the capacities of the child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf. The concept of evolving capacity of children requires a balance between recognizing children as active agents in their own lives entitled to be respected as citizens, as people and as rights-bearers with increasing autonomy, while also being entitled to protection in accordance with their vulnerability.”
IPPF’s explanation continues: “Several key principles govern the interrelationship between children’s rights and other interests. Among these are: the view of persons under 18 as rights holders; the best interests of the child; the evolving capacities of the child; non-discrimination; and the responsibility for ensuring conditions for thriving. In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent’s understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand.”
The key to understanding all this bureaucratic language is the last sentence. Let’s restate that line and add some emphasis in the form of underlining:
"In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent’s understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand."
What this means is that your child will not be safe from this ideology. For example, if Planned Parenthood can convince a judge that your child is mature and that the child is being stifled because of the Christian morality you are attempting to “impose” on him or her, then the judge can declare your child to be emancipated for purposes of attaining sexual pleasure. It means that once the attainment of sexual pleasure is declared a right, you will be helpless to enforce any rules restricting your minor child’s sexual activity.
“Principle 3- Non-discrimination underlies all human rights protection and promotion.”
This section states, in part, “This framework of non-discrimination prohibits any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of sex; age; gender; gender identity; sexual orientation; marital status; sexual history or behaviour, real or imputed;… religion… which has the purpose or effect of nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others, of all human rights.”
Here we have IPPF claiming, in the name of non-discrimination, the “right” to indulge in any type of sexual behavior, with the underlying threat of enforcement of such “rights” through non-discrimination statutes and legislation.
This section also sets out to prohibit “discrimination in the realm of sexual rights… through unequal access” to “comprehensive sexuality education” (a term that Planned Parenthood juxtaposes with chastity education or “abstinence-only education,” which it opposes.)
PP, in the meantime, pushes “comprehensive sexuality education” programs to children as young as age five. Today’s sex education programs, such as those promoted by Planned Parenthood, are extremely harmful for children according to experts such as Dr. Melvin Anchell, who discusses the psychological aspects of human sexual development here: http://www.stopp.org/anchell.htm.
“Principle 4 – Sexuality, and the pleasure deriving from it, is a central aspect of being human, whether or not a person chooses to reproduce.”
This section promotes an entitlement to the enjoyment of sexuality without reproduction, and the entitlement to reproduction without sex, against the backdrop of the previously mentioned demand for non-discrimination on the basis of age, sexual orientation or identity, sexual history or behavior, religion, etc.
This section also brazenly states, “The entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction, and reproduction independent of sexuality should be safeguarded, paying particular attention to those who, historically and in the present, are denied such an entitlement.”
Attempting to divorce society from the natural law, to divorce civilization from its most basic and beneficial institution – sacramental marriage between one man and one woman, and the children who spring forth from and thrive within this marital bond – this document paints a bleak picture of a heathen world entitled to self-destruction through self-centered sexual pleasure with no regard for the consequences of that behavior.
Children become something that interferes with pleasure and thus something to be avoided. When avoidance fails, they are easily destroyed by abortion. They become, on the other hand, property to which adults are entitled, without the need of reproductive sex (i.e., through cloning; in vitro fertilization; adoption by anyone regardless of sexual orientation or sexual behavior, etc.).
Pulling out all the stops, IPPF then claims, “All persons are entitled to the conditions that enable the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality.” It continues, “Given that pleasure is an intrinsic aspect of sexuality, the right to seek, express and determine when to experience it must not be denied to anyone.”
Having opened the door to all sorts of deviant sexual activity, this document seeks to place a permanent wedge in the door, allowing evil to run at full force.
With an entitlement to seek, express and determine when, where and how to express one’s sexuality, what’s to stop someone from fornicating in the middle of the public square? According to Principle 4, such an activity should not be denied. When a society begins to accept and embrace evil, total chaos will follow.
Principles 5 and 6:
“Principle 5- Ensuring sexual rights for all includes a commitment to freedom and protection from harm.”
“Principle 6- Sexual rights may be subject only to those limitations determined by law for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and the general welfare in a democratic society.”
Once again negating the laws of God, the document states that the only limitations to be placed on sexual freedom are those determined by the laws of man.
In the face of a declaration that basically states, “Do whatever feels good,” it is going to be very difficult to protect people from abuse and harm, since the declaration attempts to eliminate any trace of conscience and guilt from a person and makes no distinction between what is right and what is wrong.
“Principle 7 – The obligations to respect, protect and fufil apply to all sexual rights and freedoms.”
This section states, “Sexual rights and freedoms include core legal claims as well as access to the means to fulfil those claims.” It would require states to refrain from violating or otherwise interfering with a person’s “sexual rights.” It also places the burden on states to prevent third parties from interfering with these “rights” and would require that states adopt “appropriate legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial, promotional and other measures towards the full realization of the right.”
It further seeks to hold “other actors in civil society whose actions and omissions have effects on the enjoyment of sexual rights” accountable under the law. It comes as no great surprise that among the groups listed which PP would like to hold legally responsible for interference with sexual rights are “not-for-profit and religious entities.”
There you have it: International Planned Parenthood Federation is attempting to set the stage for requiring churches to support PP’s agenda, by “respecting, protecting and fulfilling” the “sexual rights” of all, in accordance with IPPF’s philosophies.
IPPF and PPFA do not understand the gift of sexuality. As is stated in the Vatican document The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family, “Sexuality is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love.”
Is love mentioned at all throughout the entire Declaration? No, not once. The word “love” is never mentioned nor is the word chastity. Perhaps IPPF needs to get a lesson or two about chastity, since “chastity is the joyous affirmation of someone who knows how to live self-giving, free from any form of self-centered slavery” (emphasis added).
Self-centered slavery
That phrase sums up the content of this entire “sexual rights” document.
Sexuality is part of what makes us human. IPPF’s idea of freedom, as set out in this document, is “[a]ll persons have the right to explore their sexuality, to have dreams and fantasies free from fear, shame, guilt, false beliefs and other impediments to the free expression of their desires.”
It appears that IPPF is espousing that all people should be free to participate in any type of “evolving” sexual behavior or lifestyle, suffering no consequences, within the confines of the law, and that the law is also subject to change.
IPPF says that all people should be free from guilt. But you must wonder, why is guilt present in the first place? Because we are seeded with truth. “God created man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). Guilt is “a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong.” IPPF is attempting to assuage guilt by declaring that immoral sexual behavior is acceptable and should be considered a human right.
Pope John Paul II elaborated on the state of a society that suppresses and distorts the truth, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995). These words go to the heart of IPPF’s current efforts to mandate sexual rights that have no basis in truth:
A large part of contemporary society looks sadly like that humanity which Paul describes in his Letter to the Romans. It is composed "of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth" (1:18): having denied God and believing that they can build the earthly city without him, "they became futile in their thinking" so that "their senseless minds were darkened" (1:21); "claiming to be wise, they became fools" (1:22), carrying out works deserving of death, and "they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (1:32). When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt 6:22-23), calls "evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20), it is already on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest moral blindness.
And yet all the conditioning and efforts to enforce silence fail to stifle the voice of the Lord echoing in the conscience of every individual: it is always from this intimate sanctuary of the conscience that a new journey of love, openness and service to human life can begin.
It is up to us to listen to the voice of the Lord “Who tries so hard to get our attention,” echoing in our consciences. It is up to us to fight the good fight and to leave no stone unturned in opposing IPPF’s evil “sexual rights” agenda, so that our children and our children’s children may truly enjoy the knowledge and freedom of living a chaste life of self-giving, rather than perishing in the eternal darkness of a self-centered, self-destructive “freedom” which will steal their souls and condemn them to eternal misery.
To learn more about our proven plan to defeat Planned Parenthood, visit www.all.org/stopp.
|
