Forced pregnancy: a very, very traditional value

According to the news crawl at the Traditional Values Coalition, Canadian judge and war crimes prosecutor Louise Arbour has been appointment as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (Alert readers will note that Arbour was appointed in February 2004, but this is traditional news.)

According to the TVC, Arbour hates families, and not just because she prosecuted people who belonged to families for killing other people's families in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Arbour hates families and tradition so much that she opposes the enlargement of families by "forced pregnancy." For those of your who don't know, "forced pregnancy" is the International Criminal Court's negative gloss on what might more positively and constructively be referred to as "reverse genocide."

This deeply traditional practice is defined in Article 7 of the notoriously family-unfriendly Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998:

(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

For more information on why forced pregnancy is a traditional value, see here.

Comments

[PZ Myers]

Dang liberal hypocrites. One minute you're all giddy and happy about a bushmeat baby born behind bars in Boston, and the next you're whining about Blessed Events in cages in the Balkans. And hey, if you don't like genocide (a perfectly acceptable Biblical practice, I'll have you know) , shouldn't you be thrilled with reversing it?

(Oops, forgot to add the <sarcasm> tags.)