Youth Blog

At the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women parallel event hosted by IPAS on Justice for Women in the DRC, panelists laid out a path of legal reforms to increase protection of women and girls against targeted violence. To strengthen women’s rights and to relieve the sufferings of women in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the focus was centered on expanding access to what they referred to as “safe abortion”.

Deeply troubled by the ignorance of the humanity of the pre-born child, once the room moved to the question period, I stood up and asked the panelists, “Is a safe abortion when only one person dies? Meaning the human being in the womb?”

Immediately, the moderator asked me for clarification. I repeated myself and confirmed with the panelists whether the intentional death of one human is what they seriously considered to be safe.

In response, the moderator, Ingrid Mukwanga from IPAS DRC, stated, “Being safe is having choice and knowing where to go get the choice, having access to information, and being able to access trained professionals if there is any complication."

I then challenged her lack of regard for the living child in the womb of pregnant mothers. Mukwanga responded with, “It's not a human being.”

Startled by the blatant denial of scientific reality, I asked: “What species is it?”

The room went silent, and the dialogue between the panelists and I had sharply concluded with the refusal to answer my final question.

Throughout the next four days of attending and engaging in events, I played my part as the pro-life presence by raising similar questions. Despite the focal point of the conversations being on justice, equality, and human rights for all women and girls, I observed that the personhood of the developing life in the womb, specifically in this case, unborn females, was not only rarely recognized but also placed with the least priority.

In an event on Strengthening Legal Pathways for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Justice, I attempted to gain common ground by acknowledging that not all females are yet equal and that, from my understanding, it was the goal of the panelists to provide equality to all humans.

I proceeded to challenge that by asking, “Is your version of bodily autonomy, human rights, and justice okay with excluding the most vulnerable being murdered in the womb, and their dignity and natural right to life?" As expected, I was met with a retort that centered around the life of the mother, and once again, the abandonment of the child who is not given the protected chance to be born.

During other sessions, pro-life questions were often met with silence. By the end of the week, it was apparent that in this environment of people who pride themselves on diversity and inclusivity, their limits were drawn when it came to individuals who uphold the sanctity of life.

The final session I had attended, titled Shaping the future: A Feminist Future Rooted in Bodily Autonomy, began with emphasis on the hosts' intention to construct a safe space, and rather than engaging with pro-lifers' concerns, they requested that all who do not support the “right” to abortion make their way to the exit.

Before I was handed the microphone, the organizers approached me to check if I intended to mention anti-abortion rhetoric in my question. Eventually, when I was allowed to speak, I opened with "Since this is a safe and diverse place”, then asked if they knew that in international law, “The right to life supersedes bodily autonomy”. Throughout the rest of the session, pro-lifers dominated much of the question period.

There was an unwillingness to shine light on the most fundamental question, yet the essence of the Commission was to delve into basic rights for all women and girls.

Who is considered a human, and at what moment do their rights begin?

This was not a mere disagreement in policy, but more so an unignorable difference in beliefs of human worth. The implied boundary in these spaces that claim universality excludes the living individuals who have yet to pass through the birth canal and the individuals who advocate for their right to life.

If there are limitations in interpretations on who exactly is a person, then the function of unalienable rights becomes conditional as well. Essentially, this explains why the humanity of the unborn goes unaddressed or is outrightly denied. Affirming it would directly challenge the feminist bedrock of their structure of rights.

Vocabulary such as “bodily autonomy”, “choice”, and “safe abortion”, were regularly used to frame the discourse and prevent the questioning of the pre-born human in the womb being deserted in their interpretations.

Avoidance of questions about the least protected among us did not only note disagreement, but rather a resistance to investigate truths that carry heavy moral implications.

Once pro-lifers were requested to leave, and I was questioned on the substance of my query before being permitted to ask, the paradox of the inclusiveness and diversity in these spaces became exceedingly visible, that certain mindsets are not meant to be welcome.

While the minds of panelists may not have been changed, pro-lifers taking up space within these feminist sessions disturbed the stream of dialogue and attracted attention to the most vulnerable humans who are usually forgotten in restitution for justice.

The principles put forward in UN events have an effect on global policies and govern how rights are ultimately put into practice. I believe exchanges on rights, laid bare the reality in the course of my personal encounters; that since human rights are to be for all, the definition of what makes one a human being needs to be clear, and universally defined accurately with scientific evidence.

Can institutions really claim to be human rights defenders if they cannot consistently answer who is deserving of these rights?

In the absence of clarity, commitment to justice for all humanity is left unfilled, and our pro-life duty to speak up for the protection of the unborn still stands.