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?

 

Updates:

Conscience, How Dost Thou Afflict Me! 7 January 2006

EU Brings Down Slovak Government, 9 February 2006

And now for some Christian spam!

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2009-12-11 22:35.

Is that a new evangelizing technique? Automatically crawling weblogs and adding entries to direct traffic to Christian websites? Maybe a soul will be saved, who knows. At least they're not advocating jihad!

Bart Vanhauwaert's comments

Submitted by Paul W. Davis (not verified) on Mon, 2006-01-02 17:56.

Obviously Mr. Vanhauwaert either cannot read, or cannot understand the ramifications of written statements.

"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;..."

The above quotation plainly states that the State must have an effective answer (or remedy under law) to anyone who refuses to perform an abortion. Indicating plainly that refusals to commit abortion based upon one's conscience will ultimately be considered a crime.

"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;..."

This statement is also clear that the doctor must violate his or her conscience. Why? Because to refer someone seeking an abortion to another "doctor" who will provide it, is equivalent to performing the abortion yourself. The end result will be the same - the child still dies. In America, the law holds that if one has knowledge of a crime, and does nothing to stop it, or never reports it, one is an accessory to that crime. In some instances, being an accessory can carry the same penalty as committing the crime yourself. It is the principle of aiding and abetting. The doctor will still be enabling to woman to kill the unborn child, even though they do not do the procedure.

"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."

Now, what do make of this? What if the only doctor who is willing to serve in remote area happens to be one that absolutely refuses to perform abortions? Is the State going to force another person to relocate against their will? Will the State (or EU) take that individual willing to serve in the remote location and force them to perform abortions against their will?

Please don't tell me that this situation cannot come about as I see it in America all the time where there is a chronic shortage of doctors and teachers in remote villages - even when the incentives for service are very good.

I think Mr. Vanhauwaert is willingly ignorant of some very important ramifications contained in the EU documents in question.

Regards,

Paul W. Davis

Obviously you can read...

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Tue, 2006-01-03 08:29.

...things that are not written.

I repeat : not one of the 3 points say that doctors must abort.

Only the second point actually imposes something on a doctor : that (s)he should refer a patient to ANOTHER health care practitioner who is willing to perform the abortion.

The last point again explicitly states that ANOTHER qualified health care practitioner should be available.

Note the word ANOTHER (emphasis mine) which means not the same (as the doctor that refuses in the first place)

Granted, the first point is unclear. You say it means that the state must have an effective answer to anyone who refuses an abortion. It could just as well mean that the State must have an effective answer for anyone who was refused for an abortion (ie the patient not the doctor) In fact given the nature of the second and third point which spell out that answer it seems more likely that my interpretation is correct.

But even if we accept your interpretation there that remedy is not specified, so your conclusion that refusals to commit abortion based upon one's conscience will ultimately be considered a crime is not so plain as you make it look.

Able to read, or understand the implication?

Submitted by Paul W. Davis (not verified) on Sat, 2006-01-14 01:19.

Quite plainly Mr. Vanhauwaert, you have not had the dubious pleasure of listening to William Jefferson Clinton state the unstated. By that I mean that things were implied, but not specifically stated; nonetheless, the statements were there. It is no surprise to me that one would take the tack of saying that something was not specifically stated. I have heard this argument before, and it does not hold water.

At the risk of sounding violent, I am going to use an example:
Since I live in a rural area, stray dogs are a problem. However, there seems to be a frequency of dogs getting lead poisoning and dying around here.

Please don't accuse me of shooting dogs, because I didn't specifically state that. However, the implication of the above statement is quite plain, isn't it?

In my study of history, particularly European history, (though it is by no means limited to Europe) I find many statements and speeches by despots that do not specifically state that certain elements of the population are undesirable, nonetheless, those under them clearly understood the implication of the statements made and acted accordingly. Moreover, I find that Socialists and Communists are masters at this kind of deception.

By now you should be able to understand the point.

Regards

Abortion Rights

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2005-12-30 07:43.

Whatever happened the the rights of the doctors and the unborn children. This isn't a fake left-wing/right-wing issue it is about the globalist NWO plans for depopulation in Agenda 21.

Overreacting once again

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Thu, 2005-12-29 12:09.

Is a brusselsjournalwatch.com needed? Again Mr Paul Belien misrepresents the issue.

First, this is just non binding advisory. So the EU hasn't said anything to doctors contrary to what the title suggests.

Secondly, the advisory in question acknowledges objection on religious conscientious grounds. As such it does not ask Catholic doctors to perform abortions if they do not want to. Again contrary to the title (and content) of this article.

What's worse : the article even quotes the relevent parts of the advisory so I can only conclude that the misrepresentation is not by error but stems from malice.

BrusselsJournalWatch

Submitted by VHfc on Thu, 2005-12-29 17:10.

Bart, the domain name is still free. What are you waiting for? ;-)
As a starter, you could have re-posted the relevant link. Of course, if you are right, your comment on this article is the most relevant one.

He is wrong

Submitted by Paul Belien on Thu, 2005-12-29 18:00.

I cannot help it if you two cannot read. The advice of the Network deals with the proposed treaty between Slovakia and the Vatican that would guarantee Catholic doctors a right not to act against their conscience. The Network says such a treaty is not compatible with the EU position on fundamental rights because the right to conscientious objection is not "unlimited". What does this mean if it does not mean what it means?

It means 3 things

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Thu, 2005-12-29 22:32.

Quoting from your quote from an article that quotes the advisory : 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.

Note how "thou shalt abort" is not included.

Thou shalt cooperate to abort.

Submitted by Cogito on Fri, 2005-12-30 12:55.

@BART:
A doctor who has conscientious objections to abortion is likely to help his patient by persuading her she does not need abortion, for instance by explaining his own moral viewpoints to her on abortion, parentship, marriage, education, society, religion and all other issues that together lead him to his pro-life point of view, and showing her how she can welcome the child instead and accept motherhood. He can do so, since he has freedom of speech.
Coercing him to refer the patient to a doctor of whom he knows he has no objection to execute the abortion, is almost as cruel and is by no means morally different than coercing him to abort...
Shall this doctor, referring his patient instead to a priest, thus cooperating with other pro-life supporters to avoid abortion , then be prosecutable?

Changing the subject

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Tue, 2006-01-03 08:35.

@cogito : Quite literally in fact with your choice of title.

Thus you concede that no doctor will be forced to abort against his/her will under this directive then?

That the duty to refer is just as cruel as the duty to abort is your personal feeling and has zero relevance to the point I am making. And for what it is worth I disagree with that opinion but again that is a completly different discussion. One that I was specifically not having in this thread.

abortion

Submitted by ikborah (not verified) on Thu, 2005-12-29 03:21.

We humans have forgotten the concept of sin. Our original parents Adam and Eve did the deed that cast a pall of sin upon all humanity. Cain slaughtered Abel, and now thousands of years later we still justify bloodletting under the guise of abortion. May we pray for the repentenance of those who have had abortions and those who perform them. Without prayer, billions of souls will be lost. Let us join our prayer to Heaven for repentance of this formidable evil, orchestrated by the demon of evil. Pray my brothers and sisters who read this post because we can do nothing in our human protests to change it. God will hear us and act. Humbly,
ikb

This is TOTALLY outrageous!!

Submitted by Marti (not verified) on Thu, 2005-12-29 02:33.

This is TOTALLY outrageous!! I doubt very much if these pretend human beings wish anyone Merry Christmas since it`s obvious they have no idea, at all, who Jesus Christ is!! The day will come - when they find out!!

Coventry Carol

Submitted by Chris Gillibrand on Wed, 2005-12-28 10:11.

The Coventry Carol

This beautiful English lullaby carol originated in the Coventry Corpus Christi Mystery Plays performed in the 15th century. In a play called The Pageant of the Shearmen and Tailors, the women of Bethlehem sing this song just before Herod's soldiers come to slaughter their children. It tells the story of the murder of the Holy Innocents, and is sung today ( December 28), their feastday.

Lully, Lullay, thou little tiny child.
Bye, bye, lully, lullay.
Lullay thou little tiny child
Bye, bye, lully, lullay

O sisters, too, how may we do,
For to preserve this day;
This poor Youngling for whom we sing
Bye, bye lully, lullay

Herod the King, in his raging,
Charged he hath this day;
His men of might, in his own sight,
All young children to slay.

Then woe is me, poor child, for thee,
And ever mourn and say;
For thy parting neither say nor sing,
Bye, bye lully, lullay.

EUROPA - Justice and Home

Submitted by Chris Gillibrand on Wed, 2005-12-28 01:00.

See EUROPA - Justice and Home Affairs - CFR-CDF: "The CFR-CDF coordinator is Olivier DE SCHUTTER, Professor of Law and Director of the CRIDHO at the University of Louvain (Belgium), Member of the Global Law Faculty of New York University, Director of the CIEDHU at the International Institute of Human Rights(Strasbourg)."

CORRECTION!
That should be the "allegedly Catholic University of Louvain". After the turmoil of the 60s, the University all but gave up teaching the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas. Out went natural law, in came personalism and worse. This is the sad consequence.

So rights belong to groups

Submitted by rich (not verified) on Mon, 2005-12-26 04:25.

So rights belong to groups rather than individuals? And if group rights conflict with individual rights, group rights prevail? I don't think the EU will adopt this unless they bar doctors from leaving the EU. People can still vote with their feet, and doctors are welcome in a lot of countries that are not as oppressive as this.

Merry Christmas Paul

Submitted by Flemish American on Sun, 2005-12-25 20:49.

Paul,

If I ever had any doubts about whether to put my hat in the ring with you, they dissappeared now. Congratulations on such an insightful way to present these thoughts.

I have long thought that the so-called "Right -vs- Left" debates were getting side-tracked on the issues by the Left's successful efforts at getting their arguments supported by the ideal of "politically correct". They have managed to get any of us who take stands based on morality, religion or practical sense labeled as bigots and, ironically, put themselves on the moral high ground.

Forcing a doctor to perform an abortion despite his own conscience objections would be nothing short of cruel. It is hard enough for many of us to accept that anyone can ask an abortion for almost any reason and that it no longer is an issue of mother's safety only. However, to ask us to participate in this against our will crosses many lines including religious freedom.

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

As an American I am not

Submitted by truthserum (not verified) on Sun, 2005-12-25 16:39.

As an American I am not fully aquainted with all the details with the EU or it's constitution. From the little I have gleamed from reading about it on this site as well as others, I am deeply troubled as to how much power it has over Europeans and their individual cultures.

While it is true that abortion is legal in America, our government would never force a doctor to perform one. He or she could choose a hospital or open a clinic that adheres to there personal beliefs.

I thought the EU's original intent was to knock down trade barriers and borders between European countries so that it could be in a better position to compete with the US, Japan, and other so called trading monopolies. That was a great idea.

The EU, however, seems to have deviated from it's original path and taken on a new one. One in which it seems to impose cultural and social rules upon all EU member countries.
Two things stand out that are very problematic...and very alarming. One is that these individuals that are making all the decisions for Europeans are not elected and two, they appear to all be leftist. Their personal political and social agendas seem to be taking precedence which are appearing more and more communistic every day.

Your basic individual freedoms have increasingly come under attack as well as your cultural differences. The traditions and values you hold dear will slowly erode away. All it will take is for you, the people, to stand by and do nothing.

As an American....

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2005-12-29 11:24.

I am an Indian citizen and wish to thank you for your very well written and enlightening letter.
The EU could probably be the first step of the One World One Religion Govt. As we can see now this world order will be of a Communistic Nature. Who said Communism is dead, it is very much alive, we Christians have fallen asleep.

While it is true that

Submitted by Dennis_Mahon (not verified) on Sun, 2005-12-25 19:42.

While it is true that abortion is legal in America, our government would never force a doctor to perform one.

Not yet; but with the recent uproar over pharmacists being required to dispense contraceptives/abortafecients such as the "morning-after pill" over their moral and ethical objections, how long will it be before the same requirement is made of doctors in the US?

Merry Christmas everyone, and a Happy New Year.

Merry Christmas

Submitted by Jim,MtnView,CA,USA (not verified) on Sat, 2005-12-24 16:57.

"Do EU experts wish each other a Merry Christmas?"
Presumably they do not. But this primitive, right-wing, mouth-breathing, bigoted and unregenerate American does:
Merry Christmas to all BrusselsJournal readers!
Best wishes for 2006!
Freedom for Flanders! :)
Thank you for BrusselsJournal. It is a very helpful and illuminating window into the Euro culture.

Thanks!

Submitted by A.N. on Sat, 2005-12-24 23:05.

Thanks Jim, for your generous Christmas wishes. I'm happy to see that you appreciate the Brussels Journal initiative. A merry Christmas to you too!

Jim

Submitted by Johan Akkermans (not verified) on Sat, 2005-12-24 22:40.

Jim calls it "Euro culture". It's not. It's a creepy way to ensure our own downfall.
As far as I know, the term "culture" has something to do with keeping and enhancing one's life and society's structures. The second holocaust (indeed, Mother Theresa's own words, and she knew what she was talking about) is a silent ongoing massmurder, proving Europe's suicidal aberration. This is not a 'culture', this is Worldwar III, only, we don't know it.
Yet.
Nevertheless, Jim, I thank you for your wishes (as I'm one of those BrusselsJournal readers) and I wish you, and the entire BJ-crew as well, a Merry Christmas too.

And freedom for Flanders...You betcha!