Can we really speak of abortions as "imprescriptible crimes against humanity"?
After World War II, once the magnitude of Nazi atrocities became better known, the "crimes against humanity" were denounced. Besides the war crimes and the crimes against peace, it was above al this chief accusation that was principally pursued at the Nuremburg Trials.
These crimes included murder, mass extermination, genocide, torture, arbitrary arrest, etc. Ever since the Convention was adopted on November 26, 1968, by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these crimes against humanity have been considered imprescriptible, that is, they can never be ordered. They are thus precisely because they must always be condemned in the name of a law inscribed on the heart of man and anterior to all positive legislation. On the contrary, positive legislation is subject to the sanction of the law inscribed in the heart of man.
What was emphasized at Nuremburg is that the Nazi crimes could not be prescribed because they were committed in the name of evil laws. Yes, they were evil laws because they did not respect the inalienable rights of every human being.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 would draw its teaching both from this war and trial. It would make more explicit, while proclaiming the ultimate reasons why we had to -and must always- fight against Naziism, condemn its crimes and prevent its resurgence.
The liberalization of abortion beckons again the very principles upon which formed the basis of the condemnation of Naziism.
Back to "Toward Ultra-Naziism".
Back to "Summary".