EU To Force Catholic Doctors To Perform Abortions

[Annie]

Tolerance?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/596

EU to Catholic Doctors: Thou Shalt Abort
From the desk of Paul Belien on Sat, 2005-12-24 15:21

Do abortionists wish each other a Merry Christmas?

Every year one in three pregnancies worldwide ends in an abortion. A total of 40 million abortions are performed each year, which means that since 1980 one billion children have not been allowed to be born. Contemplating Baby Jesus in the crib one may wonder whether the fact that there are 6.5 billion of us today instead of 7.5 billion is a human achievement or not. Some think it is, some think it is not. But why do those who consider universal legalised abortion to be a sign of progress want to force those who regard abortion as a crime to be a part of it?

A European Union advisory panel has issued a statement saying that medical professionals are not allowed to refuse to participate in abortions. According to the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights doctors should be forced to perform abortions, even if they have conscientious objections, because the right to abort a child is an “international human right.”

The Network, which consists of one expert per EU member state, assists the European Commission and the European Parliament in developing EU policy on fundamental rights. The Network wrote a 40-page opinion stressing that the right to conscientious objection is not “unlimited.” The opinion was given in connection with a proposed treaty between the Vatican and Slovakia. This treaty includes a guarantee that Catholic hospitals in Slovakia will not be legally obliged to “perform artificial abortions, artificial or assisted fertilizations, experiments with or handling of human organs, human embryos or human sex cells, euthanasia, cloning, sterilizations, [and] acts connected with contraception.”

The Network states that agreements which guarantee Catholic doctors and nurses a right not to be involved in abortions violate EU law. Leftist groups have complained that some new EU members – namely Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia – are so overwhelmingly Catholic that far too few doctors are willing to perform abortions. This makes it hard for women who want an abortion to find a doctor who has no conscientious objection. In such cases, the EU experts say, doctors should be forced to abort:

“Indeed, the right to religious conscientious objection may conflict with other rights, also recognized under international law. In such circumstances, an adequate balance must be struck between these conflicting requirements, which may not lead to one right being sacrificed to another.”

The experts declare that the right to religious conscientious objection

“should be regulated in order to ensure that, in circumstances where abortion is legal, no woman shall be deprived from having effective access to the medical service of abortion. In the view of the Network, this implies that the State concerned must ensure, first, that an effective remedy should be open to challenge any refusal to provide abortion; second, that an obligation will be imposed on the health care practitioner exercising his or her right to religious conscientious objection to refer the woman seeking abortion to another qualified health care practitioner who will agree to perform the abortion; third, that another qualified health care practitioner will be indeed available, including in rural areas or in areas which are geographically remote from the centre.”

Recently there was a row about a display in the building of the European Parliament in Brussels of a poster comparing abortion with the holocaust. The poster was part of an exhibition organised by Members of the European Parliament belonging to the League of Polish Families. When leftist MEPs tried to rip the posters down a tussle broke out between MEPs. A group of 500 self-proclaimed “women’s rights and human rights leaders” subsequently wrote a letter to Josep Borrell-Fontelles, the president of the Parliament, to express their “outrage”.

Apart from the right of a woman to an abortion, which according to the EU’s “experts on fundamental rights” overrules the right of medical professionals to conscientious objections, some argue that there is also the right of the unborn child to live. People who think so are looked upon as “rightwing loonies” by self-styled sophisticated secularists. The latter claim that the unborn have no rights at all. The EU experts clearly belong to this group. This explains why, in their search for an “adequate balance to be struck between conflicting requirements, which may not lead to one right being sacrificed to another,” they consider the rights of women and doctors, but do not mention the rights of unborn children. On Christmas Eve this may deserve some contemplation.

Do EU experts wish each other a Merry Christmas?

 

[dmp]

Knowing there are so many unethical, immoral people on this planet saddens me. Seeing the human race embrace evil and call it good saddens me. I'm wondering how long before God will say 'enough!'. Why is it I have a very real sense of Evil, and can spot Evil without even 10 seconds of thought? Rhetorical question, I know. I believe God must daily give millions over to their reprobate minds. I'm amazed God tolerates Humans. I mean, I doubt God was THIS patient with the world when he cleansed it the first time. I doubt the world could have been WORSE. We've got idiots having sex with members of the same gender, and calling it 'Enlightened!'. We have very educated, but very stupid 'experts' calling for the killing of babies - SOLEY based on the will of the mother. I'll never understand why killing a baby 6 months after conception is 'choice', but 20 seconds after birth is 'murder'.

God help us...God save us. From ourselves.

 

[no1tovote4]

They couldn't force me to do this. I would move to the US or simply quit being a doctor. There is no possible way that they could get me to kill children by force of law.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

They couldn't force me to do this. I would move to the US or simply quit being a doctor. There is no possible way that they could get me to kill children by force of law.

If a doctor, I would wind up in jail. I wouldnt do abortions unless it will save teh mothers life.

I wouldnt quit practicing medicine and stop helping alleviate suffering.

Europe is continuing down that slope of destruction.

On top of that, abortion is contributing to their negative population growth, and increase in percentage of muslims and lack of kids to support the elderly when they retire.

Oh well, I dont fret too much, its all in Gods plan. I totally Trust HIM.

 

[Annie]

They couldn't force me to do this. I would move to the US or simply quit being a doctor. There is no possible way that they could get me to kill children by force of law.

That's my feeling. So what will they do when they have a more critical doctor shortage? The immorality caused at root I believe, by European secularism is astounding. Yet, they have the gall to lecture us on any number of issues, starting with the death penalty.

 

[Mr. P]

Here’s a good example of what socialist thinking and a National Health care Plan will lead to in the USA. Don’t go there.

 

[KarlMarx]

We're headed there. Eventually, it will also be a crime for a priest, minister, imman, rabbi or other religious leader to preach against abortion.

 

[Mr. P]

We're headed there. .....

At a rapid rate, too.

 

[KarlMarx]

Roe vs. Wade took away the voters' right to decide whether or not to allow abortion in their state.

The EU is forcing doctors to perform abortions against their conscience.

The IMF was withholding funds to those countries that did not have access to legal abortions

The father of the child has no say as to whether his child lives or dies

Parents have no right to know whether their minor age children are getting an abortion

The unborn person (a.k.a. fetus) has no legal protection under the law and no legal rights

Now I understand why abortion is a matter of choice....

 

[dmp]

Roe vs. Wade took away the voters' right to decide whether or not to allow abortion in their state.

The EU is forcing doctors to perform abortions against their conscience.

The IMF was withholding funds to those countries that did not have access to legal abortions

The father of the child has no say as to whether his child lives or dies

Parents have no right to know whether their minor age children are getting an abortion

The unborn person (a.k.a. fetus) has no legal protection under the law and no legal rights

Now I understand why abortion is a matter of choice....

One Caviat...the baby DOES have protection - from anybody but the Mother. See: Texas, Woman asked Boyfriend to help her beat herself to cause a mis-carriage. Man goes to jail for 20 years, Woman not charged with a crime.

 

[KarlMarx]

One Caviat...the baby DOES have protection - from anybody but the Mother. See: Texas, Woman asked Boyfriend to help her beat herself to cause a mis-carriage. Man goes to jail for 20 years, Woman not charged with a crime.

Good point, but that's recent. And no thanks to the pro-abortion lobby.

 

[dmp]

Good point, but that's recent. And no thanks to the pro-abortion lobby.

The more 'enlightened' society gets - the further they get away from Christian ideals - the more barbaric and evil society gets.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

We're headed there. Eventually, it will also be a crime for a priest, minister, imman, rabbi or other religious leader to preach against abortion.

I disagree. I have a more optimistic view of the future.
The conservatives are getting more and more judicial appointees.
The pendulum has always historically swung back and forth.
The "the country is going to hell in a handbasket" concept was alive and well in the 19th century, throughout.
Its a very long term swing, we are pushing it around and need to continue the momentum.
Dont give up.
Some key places to work on.
Judicial appointees.
Schools, school choice would be HUGE, and the dems know it. Thats why they are willing to sacrafice good education for todays youth, to retain control via the teachers unions.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Good point, but that's recent. And no thanks to the pro-abortion lobby.

Another caveat (dont some of the libs here accuse us of never disagreeing? ), I think it is the pro abortion group that makes it manslaughter for anyone other than the mother or doctor to cause death to the unborn BABY.

Its really quite ridiculous. Its breaks basic tenants of law, and also is unconstitutional. But the liberal judges are willing to let that slide

Is a different punishment for different people committing the same act on ANOTHER PERSON, equal protection under the law? Same thing applies to hate laws.

They had to redefine "manslaughter" as it used to be the death of a "person", but since the fetus isnt a person, and a person who kills the fetus can be charged with manslaughter.

They wanted such criminal charges because it supports women getting even more rights and power, which is what the pro abortion lobby seeks. Its their tip priority.

The liberalness of Europe may help us in our abortion debate.
I dont think America is as liberal in basic nature as Europe is. I think many Americans are ambivilant to abortion laws because they dont believe the slippery slope will occur. When it is occuring before our very eyes, then it wakes SOME of them up. Lets pray this is the case.

 

[5stringJeff]

And here I thought that they were pro-CHOICE...

 

[KarlMarx]

I disagree. I have a more optimistic view of the future.
The conservatives are getting more and more judicial appointees.
The pendulum has always historically swung back and forth.
The "the country is going to hell in a handbasket" concept was alive and well in the 19th century, throughout.
Its a very long term swing, we are pushing it around and need to continue the momentum.
Dont give up.
Some key places to work on.
Judicial appointees.
Schools, school choice would be HUGE, and the dems know it. Thats why they are willing to sacrafice good education for todays youth, to retain control via the teachers unions.

I hope that you're right.....

But the reason I said it in the first place is because I had "CEDAW" in mind.
Most people have never heard of the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

It's scary stuff. In effect, this tidbit gives the UN authority to clamp down on the sovereignty of nations. That means that our rights could be taken away if the US should ever become a signatory of this abomination...


From the UN's website...

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

By accepting the Convention, States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including:

to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.
.
.
.
The Convention is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations.
.
.
.

Countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention are legally bound to put its provisions into practice. They are also committed to submit national reports, at least every four years, on measures they have taken to comply with their treaty obligations.

The CEDAW Committee at the UN did the following.

Directed China to legalize prostitution
Criticized Belarus for establishing Mother's Day
Directed Kyrgyzstan to legalize lesbianism
Directed Ireland to legalize abortion
Criticized Ireland for the Church's influence in public policy
Directed Libya to reinterpret the Koran to fall within CEDAW guidelines

In other words, the United Nations, via the CEDAW committee, will become your unelected government.

See also...

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1578&department=BLI&categoryid=media

If the United States ever signs on to this, you and I can kiss our Constitutional Rights good-bye!

 

[dmp]

good lord that is scary stuff, Karl....wow....

 

[Avatar4321]

We're headed there. Eventually, it will also be a crime for a priest, minister, imman, rabbi or other religious leader to preach against abortion.

Then Ill go to prison. Cause id rather rot in a cell then stop speaking out against such a henious action.

 

[Avatar4321]

I disagree. I have a more optimistic view of the future.
The conservatives are getting more and more judicial appointees.
The pendulum has always historically swung back and forth.
The "the country is going to hell in a handbasket" concept was alive and well in the 19th century, throughout.
Its a very long term swing, we are pushing it around and need to continue the momentum.
Dont give up.
Some key places to work on.
Judicial appointees.
Schools, school choice would be HUGE, and the dems know it. Thats why they are willing to sacrafice good education for todays youth, to retain control via the teachers unions.

See, I am not sure I agree with you. Dont get me wrong I have an optimistic view of the future. For those who are good and decent human beings. But i also forsee alot of death and destruction among people. I think some of us may be imprisoned for what we believe.

 

[KarlMarx]

good lord that is scary stuff, Karl....wow....

Most people haven't heard of it. Of course, the basic idea SOUNDS so nice. After all, who would want to be thought of as being in FAVOR of discriminating against women? The problem is that in order to achieve the goal, we would have to give up our rights as a free people, and our sovereignty as a nation.

I think this illustrates my soon to become famous Theory of Socialist Tricks.

Here it is.... You can apply this scenario to just about anything, be it radical feminsts' definition of rape, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act etc. I believe that, if you apply this to recent news stories, you will see a common pattern.

So here is my Theory of Socialist Tricks….

Socialist Trick #1 - take a commonly used term for an evil e.g. "torture", "discrimination", "racism", "oppression", then redefine it to fit your worldview. However, when you use the term, don't tell the masses your definition, let them instead believe that your definition of the term is the same as commonly understood one. Also, feel free to alter, amend and otherwise change your definition to fit changes in events.

Socialist Trick #2 - use a noble sounding goal e.g. "equal rights", "freedom", "liberation", to justify your actions (also known as "the ends justifying the means"). This noble goal must include items from your actual agenda e.g. taxpayer funded abortion, racial preferences for college admissions etc.

Socialist Trick #3 - combine your twisted definition of a commonly understood word from Socialist Trick #1, contrast it with your noble sounding goal from Socialist Trick #2, to not only justify your actions, but to get the masses to agree with you, believe that you are looking out for the common good and to embarrass your opposition should they complain.

Example:

Most people understand that the term "rape" is defined as "sexual intercourse by forcible means". But the radical feminists have a much broader definition of the term, which includes dirty jokes, staring, lewd remarks, having certain religious beliefs, being pro-life, a wife having sex with her husband, or heterosexual intercourse in general, as well as sexual intercourse by forcible means.

So, when radical feminists use the term "rape", most people assume they mean only "sexual intercourse by forcible means". So when radical feminists claim that most women have been victims of rape, the masses automatically assume that most women have been forced to have intercourse. Now the masses believe that there is a huge problem, when in fact, there isn't.

This now allows the radical feminists to propose, endorse, campaign for and get Congress, school boards, state and local governments to pass laws and policies which discriminate against men, use taxpayer dollars to “educate” the masses to the radical feminist worldview, and to get taxpayer dollars to implement key goals of the radical feminist agenda.

Now, they've achieved their intended goals but couched them in a mantle of nobility (after all, these measures prevent RAPE!!!!!). If anyone disagrees with them, the feminists need only claim that their opposition is in favor of RAPE (the masses assume the commonly used definition is being used), when in fact, the feminists actually mean things that include, among other things, Constitutionally protected rights.