Petition to the United Nations General Assembly,
to the attention of UN Secretary-General António Guterres
The UN Human Rights Committee (HRCttee) wants to enforce abortion legalization until birth, ignoring all human rights of unborn children.
But Article 1 UDHR says: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’. We are also born with legs and arms, in the same way our dignity and rights were already there long before birth.
Since slavery and serfdom are prohibited, no one may treat unborn children as private property of their mothers.
So far, the UN bodies have often striven for the complete legalization of abortions. Since then, however, a majority in the UN General Assembly regularly blocked such claims in all its resolutions.
As citizens of nations all over the world we respectfully call on the General Assembly to exercise its authority on all UN bodies and to adopt a resolution,
confirming that the inherent human dignity and equal human rights
must be recognized for each member of the human family
since the beginning of his physical existence at procreation,
prohibiting all UN bodies
to require, support or recommend any abortion,
as abortion violates human rights of children before their birth [4,5],
confirming that nobody can be authorized to declare or waive
any obligation on a state or persons living there,
independent and indisputable by the organs of that state,
as this violates the state’s sovereignty [7,17],
prohibiting all UN bodies
to claim any obligations of souveran states
that are not part of ratified treaties .
establishing an UN Special Rapporteur or Independent Expert
on violence and discrimination before birth,
instructing the UN Secretary-General to reprove any member
of the Human Rights Committee who did not vote against the support of abortion in GC No 36 , due to violation of article 5 ICCPR , and in future to take disciplinary action against any member of UN bodies that violates above prohibitions up to immediate dismissal.
In case the General Assembly will not adopt
a resolution according to these requests, we will escalate
and request each Contracting State of the ICCPR by its own, sovereign decision  to withdraw its Declarations on Competence of the Human Rights Committee
a) to receive and consider inter state communications  and
b) to receive and consider complaints of persons .
The UN Human Rights Committee actually has been mandated to oversee compliance with the Civil Covenant (ICCPR), and to explain human rights by 'General Comments'. While a 'General Comment' is not legally binding, it is used as a reference text and means of exerting pressure on States. Currently, its 18 independent members are planning a new General Comment on the Right to Life (GC No 36 ). But herein they claim in paragraph 9:
'States parties must provide safe access to abortion (..) in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman substantial pain or suffering (..)' [optional and veiling sections suppressed]
Neither the existence of the unborn child nor its human rights are mentioned in a word. Instead the HRCttee invents here a novel duty of states to provide legal abortions without any limitations, as nobody can guarantee that a birth will take place without substantial pain.
Contrary to the wording of human rights [5,11,12,14,15], despite the conviction of virtually all UN states, that consider it necessary to restrict abortion , and despite extensive rejoinders , the HRCttee refuses stubbornly to withdraw this claim.
This is unacceptable. We require a basic change.
As summarized in ‘Seven Claims of the Smallest Humans’ (www.goo.gl/SpJFDQ) human rights of children must be recognized already before they are born.
With its planned General Comment  the HRCttee fails to defend human rights in that it
- ignores the simple claim of article 6 ICCPR:
‘Every human being has the inherent right to life’,
- ignores all scientific facts like DNA code that prove the humanity and uniqueness of each child since its procreation,
- ignores the basic understanding of human dignity as an entity that can neither grow nor diminish, regardless of body size, shape, health or abilities,
- ignores the basic understanding of the equal value of each human being,
- requires lethal discrimination against the most vulnerable children,
- ignores all violence and torture on children before their birth, in order to seek for safety and freedom to offenders,
- ignores all harm to women by abortions despite they were executed completely professional,
- ignores the ratified, ordinary meaning of human rights (ICCPR) [4,5,11,12], as required by the rules for interpretation of international treaties , and, in case of ambiguous or obscure statements only, in the context of their historic negotiations [14,15],
- interprets human rights, as if these were ‘living documents’  with a changeable meaning,
- replaces explicit human rights by the vague opinion of a rich and influential minority,
- invents and claims new obligations of states without any mandate or confirmation of them,
- ignores the conviction of nearly all UN states  who do prohibit abortion at least partly,
- ignores all counter arguments of all 20 academics that submitted legal concerns , and
- ignores all counter arguments of NGO contributions (66 from 81 NGOs) .
This is unacceptable and inappropriate to an UN body.
We need UN bodies recognizing and defending human rights of all members of the human family.
We can not solve social problems by killing humans.
Pregnant women need something better than abortion.
We need solutions for life.
 General Comment No 36 on article 6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - paragraph 9, Advanced Unedited Version: www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf
 Worldwide, only 4 countries waive all legal abortion limits:
Canada, China, North Korea and Vietnam. Source:
Angelina Baglini, J.D., International Abortion Norms, 2014, Charlotte Lozier Institute; Abortion Law Index of UNFPA, www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion
 Dieter Egert, 'Survey on Submissions to General Comment on Article 6 ICCPR 2017', www.goo.gl/VREuU2
 Art. 6 (1), art. 6 (5), art. 2 (1), art. 24 (1), art. 26, art. 7, art. 8 ICCPR, Preamble of Declaration of Rights of the Child.
 Submission ‘Interessenvertretung ungeborener Menschen’ to GC No 36, 2017, pages 6-12, www.goo.gl/zXJws2
 Article 5 ICCPR: ‘1. Nothing may be interpreted as implying the destruction of any of the rights herein. 2. There shall be no restriction upon any human rights recognized in any State Party on the pretext that the Covenant does not recognize such rights.’ (abbreviated); Article 4 (2) ICCPR
 Article 1 (1,3) ICCPR
 Submission 'The United States Congress' to GC No 36, 2017, www.goo.gl/zXJws2
 Article 41 (2), ICCPR
 Article 12 (1), First Optional Protocol to ICCPR
 Submission 'Poland' to GC No 36, 2017, www.goo.gl/zXJws2
 Submission 'Ordo Iuris Institute’ to GC No 36, 2017, www.goo.gl/zXJws2
 Article 31, Article 32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
 Submission ‘ADF International’ to GC No 36, 2017, www.goo.gl/zXJws2
 Submission ‘Familiy & Life’, Ireland, to GC No 36, 2017, page 4, Notes on Travaux Préparatoires, www.goo.gl/zXJws2
 At the public meeting of the HRCttee on 27-10-2017, Mr. De Frouville expressed, that ‘the Covenant has to be interpreted as a living document in light of today’s circumstances’. Nobody of the other members of the HRCttee rejected this view.
 Submission ‘WOOMB International’ to GC No 36, 2017, para I-II, www.goo.gl/zXJws2
 see surveys and scientific studies at www.doctorsonfetalpain.com