You may want to be a little more original in your choice of subject line, especially to avoid confusion.

Eddy: "So protecting the innocent unborn humans..."

Firstly, how is innocence relevant here? Are the mothers somehow guilty then? Secondly, these foetuses are "unborn" and therefore cannot be considered as humans. Indeed, foetuses will be aborted to protect the mother if birthing poses to be a health risk e.g. blood poisoning; the medical community unanimously holds the mother's rights above those of her foetus. Thirdly, arguably every instance of male masturbation, female ovulation or sexual intercourse without pregnancy is preventing a human being from being born.

Eddy: "Shouldn't these women "chose" before they have sex?"

What about the responsibility of their male partner; why was he not using contraceptives? What about rape; where is her choice there? Of course, in societies that ban contraceptives, unwanted pregnancies will occur precisely because abstinence does not work, clearly even for Catholic priests.

Eddy: "Should they not be taught that sex can lead to pregnancy and then it is too late to have any "choice"?"

Actually, these societies generally teach women that they are breeding machines and the property of their husbands; official teachings and unofficial socialisation pressures conflict with their innate sexual impulses.

Eddy: "Once life has started, there is no more choice, unless of course the choice between good and evil."

Meaningless propaganda.

Eddy: "We live in a strange world were "pro life" has become synonimous to "evil" (especially in Europe)."

The Pro-life movement is considered patriarchal by Western societies influenced by the 1960s Sexual Revolution, and because it is comprised almost entirely of Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, it is viewed with suspicion by atheists, agnostics and others who do not share Christian beliefs.

Eddy: "Of course, I'm sure that Kapitein Andre will protect the fertilized eggs of the almost extinct Bald Eagle, but cannot make that logical step for an innocent human being..."

Humanity is not extinct; if anything our species overpopulates the Earth, and will be culled by the Malthusian triumvirate unless of course we settle off-world.

Eddy: "And with regard to the protection of women, I can recommend the book written by women (some of them former pro-choice) in which it is clearly illustrated the horrible impact of abortion on women in general."

So? Clearly women want the freedom to have abortions.

Eddy: "I recommend to Andre that he starts thinking and reading a bit more about the consequences of choice and the scientific proofs that life starts at conception, before he writes these cliché responses."

I recommend that you examine your own hipocrisy. Your garden variety kind accuses socialists of engaging in social engineering in contradiction to innate human nature, yet you are ignoring relevant facts:

• Abstinence has failed to prevent human beings from submitting to their sexual impuleses and to prevent pregnancies

• When sex outside of marriage results in pregnancy, it is almost assured that the male partner will renounce responsibility and that the mother will become a single-mother, which in most of the world means poverty and often death

While I would prefer the use of condoms over abortion, there are cases where abortion is warranted (e.g. rape), and as aforementioned, many societies ban contraceptives and discourage their use. Secondly, I abhor unwarranted abortion e.g. an irresponsible woman who aborts foetuses on a regular basis because she is too lazy to use condoms and often abuses drugs and alcohol during her pregnancy. However, the latter are a statistically insignificant minority. Thirdly, if abortion is so "horrible," then when women use it, it must be usually warranted and therefore it must remain an option, even if use of contraceptives is encouraged as an alternative.

The US demand from candidate countries for financial aid that they behave in a democratic way. The EU demands that these countries perform abortions.

This sounds very democratic to me. But then again, in the EU democracy means the ability of the state to intervene in the life of the individual. In the US it means exactly the opposite. In the EU we have elections that don't mean much: politicians go their own way anyway. We even have politicians who say they prefer not to have elections because this interferes too much with the ways they want to have it.

@ Kapitein Andre: "controlling their sexuality"? Ha, that's a good one? So protecting the innocent unborn humans, should give away to the right of women to "choose"? Shouldn't these women "chose" before they have sex?  Should they not be taught that sex can lead to pregnancy and then it is too late to have any "choice"?

Once life has started, there is no more choice, unless of course the choice between good and evil.

We live in a strange world were "pro life" has become synonimous to "evil" (especially in Europe).

Of course, I'm sure that Kapitein Andre will protect the fertilized eggs of the almost extinct Bald Eagle, but cannot make that logical step for an innocent human being...

And with regard to the protection of women, I can recommend the book written by women (some of them former pro-choice) in which it is clearly illustrated the horrible impact of abortion on women in general.  http://www.amazon.com/Cost-Choice-Evaluate-Impact-Abortion/dp/1594030510

I recommend to Andre that he starts thinking and reading a bit more about the consequences of choice and the scientific proofs that life starts at conception, before he writes these cliché responses.

Thanks,

Ed

This former agricultural "expert" for the Equatorial Guinea governement is today the desk officer for Nicaragua, working in the Commission in Brussels. His political views can be assumed as extreme left, given the country he is assigned to (Nicaragua comes right after Cuba in the leftie's heaven).
Given his subaltern position, I wonder loudly if the policy statements he made, in a role that he usurped, will not/should not have disciplinary consequences: Especially when he makes statements in the name of the "EU" (He actually at best represents the Commission). But in reallity, when he says "we", he at best speaks for himself and his dog, who is in food dependency and cannot speak for himself.
With this type of staff, the "EU" has a great future indeed!

Q: Is this no-abortion rule applied consistently for all and any EU aid, or are exceptions made for you-know-who?

Seeing that abortion is still illegal in Poland, Ireland and Portugal this shows how out of touch the EUSSR is with its own citizens and member states.

I don't think they should kill more nicaraguan babies.

The Nicaraguan government is infringing upon the rights of its female citizenry, namely by controlling their sexuality. If the government also included a law prohibiting men from having sexual intercourse with a woman without being married to her, without having full employment and without having the necessary resources to raise a child, its prior legislation could be considered equal from the point of view of gender; additionally, men could face castration for rape.

There are, of course, practical concerns with regards to this policy. No Western state is interested in a population explosion in Nicaragua, which would only result in a flood of legal and illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.

The Pro-Life movement, which includes the Vatican, has been adept at maintaining expansive Third World fertility rates which only produce more hungry mouths to feed.