Tuesday, 15th April 2008
Council of Europe
Bid to stop abortion debate narrowly defeated
A bid to strike abortion off the agenda of tomorrow's plenary session of the Council of Europe was yesterday defeated by a mere 20 votes, The Times has learnt.
This unusual request, supported by Malta's parliamentary delegation in Strasbourg, was presented by a Spanish MP from the European People's Party (EPP) based on the "superficiality" of a highly charged report calling for the decriminalisation of abortion in all of the CoE's 47 member states.
Since abortion remained on the agenda, the council will tomorrow be called to vote on the resolution proposing that women must be offered the conditions of a free and enlightened choice. The government has made sure Malta will make its voice heard, despite the fact that it initially risked not being present since Parliament has not yet reconvened.
Recognising the importance of the matter, it briefed Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando to lead a Maltese parliamentary delegation, made up of Nationalist MP Robert Arrigo, Labour MP Leo Brincat and Joe Debono Grech (who is contesting a casual election in the eighth district on behalf of the Labour Party).
The resolution has caused a furore here, even though, as happens with all CoE resolutions, it would not be legally binding if approved. However, if a case goes to the European Court of Justice and this resolution is in force, it could be a different matter.
Contacted yesterday, Dr Pullicino Orlando, who has 10 years' experience in the CoE, said he could not remember such an unusual request - to strike a topic off the agenda.
The request was strongly supported by the EPP, which met again last night to forge a common front and take an official stand on the matter tomorrow, without limiting the individual members' right to vote according to their conscience.
Dr Pullicino Orlando added that the EPP was planning to meet again today to ask for substantial changes to be made to the resolution, through its Cypriot MP on the Legal Affairs Committee. In all likelihood no changes will be made and the EPP will then vote en bloc against the resolution.
This issue is so highly charged that tomorrow's agenda has been adjusted and the vote pushed back to 4 p.m. - another unusual move - instead of being taken at noon. This is to ensure that everybody will have a chance to voice their opinion.
This controversial resolution followed the report, called Access To Safe And Legal Abortion In Europe, which was approved by the Council of Europe's Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in March.
It calls on the council's member states to make abortion "an unconditional right" and urges them to "guarantee women's effective exercise of their right to abortion", even as it holds that "abortion must, as far as possible, be avoided".
"These terms are contradictory. You either have a right, which you exercise, or you don't," Dr Pullicino Orlando said.
"To decriminalise is one thing, but this is the first time we are speaking of abortion as a right. Not even the United Nations speaks of abortion as a right.
"Apart from this, if we're talking about rights, then we feel the matter should be discussed by the Legal Affairs Committee, which will then delve into the rights of the unborn child, not the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men," he stressed.
Last month, David Fieldsend, manager of the Brussels-based CARE-Europe, had written to the members of the Parliamentary Assembly saying: "We are saddened that a process which started with a call to consider 'abortion and its impact on women' from a concern about the negative effects of the high rate of abortions in some European countries has ended up with a draft resolution calling for abortion-on-demand to be made a right."
Dr Pullicino Orlando pointed out that the report was "blatantly biased" in favour of abortion, and consultations were only carried with pro-choice organisations, none with pro-life.
The report cites the opinion of a director from an abortion organisation in the UK describing the psychological effects experienced by a woman who is prevented from having an abortion.
However, it chooses to ignore the report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists which last month warned that abortion could lead to mental illness.
"The EPP feels there is a pre-determined bias in the report and it's not prepared to accept it. It also feels the report should have never been presented in this way," Dr Pullicino Orlando said.
The Council is considered to be the chief protector and promoter of human rights in Europe, but in this case the report could risk breaking the European Constitution's right to life; the most basic human right.
Meanwhile, Mr Brincat also issued a statement encouraging the Socialist Group to withdraw the resolution, first and foremost because this is an issue for national governments to decide.
Secondly, it should respect the unanimous position of countries such as Malta, where both civil society and the country's two political parties are against abortion, he argued.
RSS
Comments
Cynics?! "The church is there to shepherd your soul into heaven, why else would it object to divorce other than it gets in the way of your salvation." Of course, stupid me! Why else would the church have sent thousands to die in the crusades? Why else would it have accused thousands of witchery, tortured the hell out of them and burnt them at the stake? Why else would the church have opposed all innovations, science, secularisation, the french revolution, socialism (but not the nazis) etc. To show the way to salvation!! Thanks.
Oh and congrats for: "Tell you what, I hope Jesus comes back not as a carpenter, but as a mercenary, mean and moody, and hell bent on whacking the hypocrites!!!!!" I think I'll nominate that for the 'quote of the century' award. The 5th century, that is! Just one thing: apart from the fact that it's been scientifically established that dead people do not "come back", wouldn't a "mercenary, mean, moody, whacking " christ make him an anti-christ? A contradiction? Dont' tell me you got your logic wrong! All the rest made soooo much sense!
"Would you kill a child born with a deformed, badly damaged or even missing brain?"
If you would contact me I would be happy to give you the fullest answer to this question that I am able to. In the meantime I will suggest that babies without brains (i.e. missing brains) do not possess individuality as per my previous explanation.
Fortunately I do not need to tackle this question for as far as the abortion question is concerned.
"Regarding women's choices: Wouldn't the argument that women choosing not to use contraception would have made an irresponsible choice for which an unborn child be made to pay?"
Fortunately we live in kinder and less fatalistic times that history would tell us about. I do believe that abortive methods should be sufficiently weighted in cost as to make it a significantly undesirable alternative to contraception. Irresponsibility tends to coincide with convenience and costs represent an inconvenience.
"At conception a new human being forms. It is an individual, completely distinct from its mother (or father). Reasons for this are given in my previous comments."
At conception you have human embryonic cells with the equivalent of a self-assembly programme. It begins a construction process that would lead to a human being (such as yourself, as you rightly observe).
However before a brain 'starts' to form, you would surely appreciate that an embryo is incapable of any individuality other than that conferred to it by third persons (aka personification - which is effectively what is at play when an object or concept is given human traits by the observer (eg. an archway standing proudly) - as well as the respects given to the deceased when their life has been extinguished.
The brand of individuality that can only be seated within the brain, the individuality not ascribed by others but achieved by self (regardless of whether there is any exterior manifestation of the existence of such) include, amongst other things, the ability to remember (where memories exist), the ability to think or have thoughts, the ability to feel (and brain formation is not predated by the development of a nervous system in any case) and, most importantly, the ability to have a will of its own.
It is important in the context of the acknowledgement that a would-be mother is an adult, with a brain, and a will of her own.
The problem with the placement of conception as the point where abortion should not be permissable (note the meaning of 'permission' as differing from 'intrude' as you put it) is that in one fell swoop so-called pro-lifers decide to disregard an approximate three week period where the will of the mother is ignored in favour of a will that does not yet exist, that of the would-be child - as the seat of will, the brain (and no, self-assembly is not will any more than the healing of a superficial cut is), does not yet exist.
I agree that women should seek help - however what sort of help can a woman expect of persons who would 'advise' her to keep going with a pregnancy, increasing the moral implications should the patience of that woman run out, guilting her all the way about how morally wrong aborting a would-be child is, and ultimately washing their hands of responsibility should the would-be mother lose the plot and do something drastic and/ or fatal.
One advantage of acknowledging the capability of being an individual (the criteria of individuality outlined in this comment) as the line that one should draw, is that a couple or so weeks is more than enough time for a woman to decide, with minimal (not necessarily nil) guilt, not to proceed with a pregnancy. This would make a lot of situations a lot clearer-cut, including involuntary pregnancy and accidents. I do not enter into the realm of medical complications as that is almost an entirely different dilema.
Let us pause and think about what has just been said. Does it not make sense? What if the 'soul' is not yet resident prior to capability of individuality just as it isn't resident after passing?
"How interesting. So the proposed wording of the Constitutional amendment ("protect the human person from conception") is by your own definition an "inaccuracy"..."
My, my, my, Mr. Vassallo. You're putting in quite an effort at confusing me that I rechecked my sources. As detailed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conception, "Conception" is the point at which the nuclei fuse together to form the full genetic structure. There's no beating about the bush about it then.
Given that, I would discourage the use of the morning-after pill because (apart from the fact that more research needs to be done on this) given the time the pill takes to be absorbed by the body and also due to the fact that enough of the pill needs to arrive at the womb (and absorbed here too) the woman would be in risk that it fails and that syngamy would have already taken place and it would result in abortion.
There are simply many other safer and effective methods of contraception which the couple can "choose" to prevent pregnancy. A method to stop someone else's life though is never an option.
I'd like to comment on Mr. Brincat's statement (bottom of the article itself) that the Socialist Group should respect the country's two (?) political parties.
The truth is that were the majority to have their way then a lot of minorities would lose out. That includes homosexuals, non-Catholics, non-MLPN, small communities with little voting power, disabled persons, married persons who don't want to be married and, of course, pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant, amongst others.
This is not a majority issue. We are not discussing whether to drive on the left side of the road or the right side of the road nor are we discussing whether the rubbish should be collected at dawn or dusk nor are we discussing pensions. We are discussing (well, those of us who want to discuss - its clear from the article that some do not, and that is real mature...) the rights of minorities.
The majority want to give birth to and keep their children - and with good reason, but there is a distinct minority who are pregnant but do not. Entrenchment in the constitution of anti-abortion sentiments of less substance and more conservativeness, for want of a better word, not only alienates the women that make up this minority but could serve to ruin their lives.
Perhaps there are elements of subjectivity in this particular post but it is worth thinking about nonetheless.
How interesting. So the proposed wording of the Constitutional amendment ("protect the human person from conception") is by your own definition an "inaccuracy"...
"but to keep things simple for anyone reading I decided to refer to this moment as fertilization or conception (which in reality happens very close to this fusion)."
Pro-nuclear syngamy occurs between 20 and 24 hours after penetration of the ovum, which in turn occurs a few hours after intercourse. "Very close" is therefore relative. A lot can happen in 24 hours. Your new (and different) position is now that there is no human being at all until at almost a whole day after fertilisation. So can you kindly explain to me why the morning after pill was banned in Malta? And why Gift of Life agreed with the ban at the time? (I am assuming you are a GoL member. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)
Please note also that your revised opinion of the origins of the human individual would, if entrenched in the constitution, provide excellent grounds to challenge the above ban in the Constitutional court...
This is actually the moment I had in mind (when the nuclei of both gametes fuse to form a cell with the full genetic structure characteristic of every human being) and I fully agree with the committee but to keep things simple for anyone reading I decided to refer to this moment as fertilization or conception (which in reality happens very close to this fusion). Excuse me for my inaccuracy.
"If the unique genetic information contained in one's DNA were all that was required to make a human person, then every single human cell would qualify overnight for full human rights."
Every cell that makes up my body is part of my person so much so that if you attempt to harm any of my cells (be they found in my head or in my leg) you will notice (surely) I will retaliate because you are harming my person. What would qualify as a person (by the standards you mention since I'm not playing judge on who's a "person" or not) would be the whole group of cells working together not each and every one of the cells (since all the cells have the same genetic structure).
"Even just having a haircut would be tantamount to genocide."
And finally, just for your information, hair (from the follicle upwards: the part of it that we cut) is made up of dead cells (cells which no longer perform any of the vital life processes). In fact, you don't feel pain when you have a haircut.
Respect life and life will respect you back tremedously.
"At conception a new human being forms. It is an individual, completely distinct from its mother (or father)."
I'm sorry but this is another subjective interpretation, and as always there are other conflicting views. Up to eight days after conception, the embryo can still split into two or more human beings. This has been used (even by certain theologians) to argue that the earliest origins of human individuality cannot possibly predate the first appearance of the primitive streak. Now can you kindly explain why we should accept your definition, but not anyone else's?
Also, your argument assumes that conception is a single, well-defined moment. But it is evident that not everyone has the same moment in mind when they use the word. For instance, Malta's own parliamentary committee for bio-ethics identifies the point of pro-nuclear syngamy as the first appearance of the human person. This takes place around 20 hours after fertilisation, which is your own preferred choice. It seems, then, that pro-lifers can't even agree among themselves when a human person begins. Again, why should we accept your version, and not the bio-ethics committee's?
(And for those who think the above difference is a case of splitting hairs, consider this: a strict interpretation of the committee's conclusions would lead to legalisation of the morning-after pill. )
And last of all, your definition of a human being is to say the least vague. If the unique genetic information contained in one's DNA were all that was required to make a human person, then every single human cell would qualify overnight for full human rights. There are approximately 50 trillion cells in a single human body, and over 6 billion human beings in the world (many more, if you count all the unborn, too). Can you imagine the implications? Even just having a haircut would be tantamount to genocide.
I am afraid that you have only convinced me of the scientific superficiality of the current drive to amend the Constitution (and please note I haven't even started on the legal implications). I sincerely hope common sense will prevail in the end, but given the quality of the debate I somehow doubt it.
A couple of question in relation to your arguments:
a. Would you kill a child born with a deformed, badly damaged or even missing brain?
b. Regarding women's choices: Wouldn't the argument that women choosing not to use contraception would have made an irresponsible choice for which an unborn child be made to pay?
I look forward to your answer.
------------------------------------------------------
- At conception a new human being forms. It is an individual, completely distinct from its mother (or father). Reasons for this are given in my previous comments.
- I too am a human being. Reasons are similar (genetic structures and such).
- I have the liberty to live because it is a fact that human beings have a right to a life of their own (given by UN charters, Maltese Constitution, etc).
- Since, there is a human being within the womb therefore it is affected by the right as detailed in the previous statement.
------------------------------------------------------
What people with a pro-choice argument are doing is to cover up and hide the truth that there is a human being within the womb by applying concepts and stories such as "personhood" ("a self-evident fact... followed by an observation which is not self-evident at all"). The facts are there. There's no beating about the bush now.
Women should seek help if they are in need of it. There's nothing wrong with seeking help. Don't let some abortionist rubbish your dignity so much that he intrudes even your womb.
LLL (Let's Love Life) for the better of our society.
"This argument is subjective and subjective arguments have no place in a criminal code."
Is this argument subjective? Are you actually implying that the criminal code is objective? Don't make me laugh. There is evidence to the contrary on every single day of its application.
Could you kindly point out the subjective element of my argument, which is based upon extrapolation of the known upon the less known (just as the Greeks did a couple of thousand years ago to deduce that the World was round)?
Now, to your points:
1.) You pivot your argument on conception. I pivot my argument on the dividing line where having the capability of being an individual becomes a plausible possibility - the point when a brain (the seat of individuality) begins to form. At every point of time before that, including pre-conception, there is only the potential to become an individual.
2.) You are being one-dimensional in your argument. You do not tackle the rights that belong to all human beings after death and you do not tackle the rights of the would-be mother.
3.) I've only seen a fistful of such pictures - and believe these to be ill-conceived reactions to the pro-life camp for whom misleading disturbing imagery is the bread and butter of their arguments.
4.) Setting conception as an anchor is a violation of a woman's right to choose her destiny. I have chosen to fight the point of potential for individuality - approximately 3 weeks into any pregnancy (since I am not an expert in the field of neurology I prefer to choose the conservative estimate).
Such is a matter of weighing the interests of the would-be mother against those of the would-be child in any scenario that the former might want to abort. Why should a woman be forced through with what might not even have been her choice? Is this not a violation of one's right to choose?
Worried about abuse? Put a price on it and educate but at least give a choice. I am sure that no woman takes pleasure in getting pregnant in any circumstance but that where she is trying for a child. Conception as a pivot provides no such choice - too little flexibility for too little justification.
Nobody is really contesting your definition of the human organism at the moment of conception. But millions of people worldwide - including many scientists - would disagree that the moment of conception is also the moment when the resulting human organism becomes a human person, complete with all the corresponding rights and privileges.
Quoting from text-books doesn't change the fact that the above interpretation is open to doubt. And when there are different, mutually exclusive interpretations for the same set of data, the individual interpretations themselves - including yours - are BY DEFINITION subjective.
Eg. "A human cell has 46 (sometimes 47) chromosomes" is an objective statement, and as such can be verified by scientific method.
"A newly fertilised human egg deserves the same legal status and protection as a 30-year-old woman" is a subjective viewpoint, and as such cannot be ascertained other than by aggressive assertion.
In fact, this is how most of the pro-amendment arguments have to date been worded: "I believe this, therefore this is how it has to be" or "It is a self-evident fact that... followed by an observation which is not self-evident at all.
By the way, I agree with you entirely when you say that there is no place for subjective arguments in law. But I can't understand how you don;t apply the same principle to your own arguments, too.
Isn't it funny how my "allegedly" subjective opinions turn up inside scientific books such as "Human Embryology & Teratology" where on page 5 it states that "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed". This is also confirmed on other books such as "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology" and "Essentials of Human Embryology"
I have no idea why you are saying that my arguments are subjective. I'll explain some more science behind all this:
In each and every cell that we are composed of there are thread-like structures called chromosomes. The fact that there are 46 (or in some special cases, 47) chromosomes in each of our cells makes us human beings. If we had any other number of chromosomes we would be members of another species.
The chromosomes contain the DNA material that eventually makes our eyes appear as a particular colour and also how tall or short we are among many other things.
It was found that when the male and female sex cells join together, a new, single cell is formed that has 46 chromosomes. BUT... these 46 chromosome were unlike those of the mother (or father) so that the cell is a human being (46 chromosomes) but is not simply an extension of the mother (or the father).
This process is so wonderful that just at a single cell, we could find out hair colour, sex, eye colour and so many other things that the new baby will develop into.
That is something which has been confirmed. According to your agenda now, you will either choose to accept the truth or dump the truth and continue your own way (inflicting dire consequences on the society as a whole).
Kyle Pullicino: "This argument is subjective and subjective arguments have no place in a criminal code."
Err... the view that the human person originates at the moment of conception is also a subjective argument. So are you saying that it has no place in the Constitution? Or are we to understand that YOUR subjective beliefs should be imposed on everyone by law, but not anyone else's? Explain, please.
By the way, the following two arguments are also entirely subjective:
1) "Due to the genetic structure of the embryo it is an individual human being."
2) "A new human being forms when the nuclei of both gametes fuse together (conception/fertilization) therefore gaining those rights that belong to all human beings."
Meanwhile, I still want to now if Gift of Life believes that abortion should be punishable by life imprisonment. Is it murder, or isn't it?
This argument is subjective and subjective arguments have no place in a criminal code.
Let's have it the objective (scientific) way:
- Due to the genetic structure of the embryo it is an individual human being. I am also a human being. Since this is so, then my rights (those conferred to me because I'm a human being, basically that right to live) are identical to those of the embryo.
- A new human being forms when the nuclei of both gametes fuse together (conception/fertilization) therefore gaining those rights that belong to all human beings.
- The vast majority of pro-choice people show (black & white) pictures of women who died because of illegal abortions whose society probably never bothered showing this women that it can help and the consequences of illegal abortion.
Once the right to life is no longer conferred to the most vulnerable of human beings then it is a matter until we also lose that right.
"Mellissa, you are quite right. That is why abortion needs to be decriminalized. Otherwise nobody would come forward, and thus society would have no access to these unfortunate women who would need all the help they can get, and stir them towards full pregnancy and the birth of a child – the biggest miracle of nature."
I'm sorry but I can't see any point in doing this. What do you mean by "come out"? Do you mean that they'll have an abortion after "coming out" and consider that as help? Please clarify this better.
- - -
Leaving this aside, I shall categorically state that I disagree that abortion in all its forms be made illegal and entrenched within the constitution.
I shall compress my views to the following two points:
- We cease to be conferred the status of being "alive" (i.e. as an individual, not in terms of living cells) when we are pronounced braindead. If this is so then why shouldn't the status of being "alive" be conferred at a point where one can reasonably suspect the presence of a functional brain?
- An embryo begins to form a brain approximately 17-20 days into a pregnancy following fertilization.
- The vast majority of pro-life anti-abortion pictures feature foetuses - typically over 6 months into pregnancy (never mind that most abortions take place within the first couple of months)
- - -
Within my own understanding of the ethical dimension of this matter (the one reasoned through by myself - not the one often dictated by institutions and their texts) there are two sides of the abortion debate. The would-be child, with no shortage of attention, and the would-be-mother, usually given more weight by the pro-choice side of the debate.
Of course I do not align myself with either, as there is more to this question than a scale of black and white.
I do however believe that there is an ethical basis not to force would-be-mothers to go through with a pregnancy that is unwanted for whatever reason (accidental pregnancy/ failed contraceptive/ involuntary pregnancy/ sudden change of heart/ medical complication/ etc.).
After all, it is the woman who is making a big decision in her life - do we really need to make it more fatalistic?
Mary Cassar, got the point?
in this ongoing debate I have yet to see the focus on what would drive women to consider abortion in the first place. I have yet to hear of women falling pregnant to have an abortion - I do not think it is something women enjoy looking forward to!
Fact of the matter is that the wilful termination of an unborn child does not constitute homicide according to Maltese law. If it did, the penalties would be the same. Therefore, it is not legally correct to use the word 'murder" to refer to an abortion... except maybe as a emotively charged metaphor, or to deliberately confuse issues.
Now: is anyone out there (Gift of Life, perhaps?) actually advocating life imprisonment for abortion? Because if we change the Constitution to grant full human rights to the foetus from the moment of conception, that is the only logical outcome.
Direct abortion means procured miscarriage, meaning the wilful killing (murder) of an innocent person not yet born.
Thank God, the great majority of Maltese are against abortion. Only a few narrow-minded are in favour.
Thank you for your clarification. As things stand there is no "slightly wrong".
We must bear in mind that we are talking of a Resolution of the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe.
Correct me if I am wrong but the Resolution does not, of itself, change the nature of the Charter of Human Rights and as such will not have a direct bearing on the ECHR's workings and interpretation. The resolution is NOT legally binding and at most can be seen as an invitation to all 47 states to decriminalise abortion - far from being an impositition.
As for the ECJ relationship with the ECHR post ratification of LIsbon I am sure you know that this has to be seen in the light of the subject matter of cases before the ECJ that would eventually fall for possible scrutiny by the ECHR.
So. It's not "slightly wrong". It is right as things stand. Granted, it will turn out to be "slightly wrong.... " if an impossible chain of events were to occur i.e.:
1) The ECJ rules directly on abortion rights (why? on what basis? Aren't we forgetting competence?) Don't forget that the closest the ECJ got to abortion was the right to advertise abortion (Grogan*) - treated as advertising of services - not exactly a decision infringing national determination of whether it is criminal or not.
2) The case is taken to the ECHR to scrutinise the ECJ decision.
3) and we cannot forget this part - the ECHR feels bound to apply a Parliamentary Resolution inviting for the decriminalisation of abortion.
Slightly wrong perhaps. But only if we want to imagine the impossible.
Here is Hans Kruger (Deputy Sec-Gen of the Council of Europe) on the issue:
"If the European Union acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights, the tasks of the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts would be complementary. The Court of Justice of the European Communities would continue to take the final decisions on all questions of Community law. If the Strasbourg Court found incompatibilities between the Convention and European Community or European Union law, the relevant European Union institutions would then be responsible for taking the action needed to bring the corresponding regulations, or their application in specific cases, into line with the Convention's requirements. Like other Parties, the European Union institutions would, under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, have a measure of discretion in executing the Strasbourg Court's judgments. In other words, external scrutiny in the field of fundamental and human rights in no way conflicts with the Court of Justice's role as the court of last instance for the interpretation of Community law."
and here is a summary (1992) of the Grogan case:
"Ireland's 1983 constitutional amendment banning abortion has exacerbated tension between Ireland's identity as a sovereign state and its role as a member of the European Economic Community, (EEC), where only Ireland extensively prohibits abortion. The Grogan case arose when Irish anti abortion groups, using the Irish constitution, argued that providing information in Ireland about the availability of abortion in other EEC member states should be prohibited, and initiated Irish High Court proceedings in 1989 against the representative officers of 3 student associations. The Irish High Court determined that any adjudication required the application of community law, and referred 3 questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule in accordance with the European Economic Community Treaty. The ECJ determined that it had appropriate jurisdiction over the questions, that the activities in question constituted a service within the meaning of the Treaty, but that the Treaty did not apply to the students because they were not providing the abortion services and were in no way affiliated with the providers of such services, making them unprotected under the Treaty; no community-law issues was involved. The Advocate General's analysis diverged from the ECJ's and concluded that in order to obtain economic equality for providers of services, potential recipients must have equal freedom of access to services regardless of nationality, place of establishment, or origin of the information. In Grogan, the ECJ accepted Ireland's infringement on the freedom to provide services within the EEC because it did not reach the substantive issues where the balancing of domestic and ECC concerns becomes crucial. "
Of course the debate regarding the relationship between ECJ and ECHR post ratification merits much more space than this comment. I stand by my orginial statement - the resolution in the COE parliament assembly will have NO effect on ECJ judgements. Let us not contribute to the confusion that still exists in reporting events in Strasbourg and events in Luxembourg!
So you want us to dump the women in need of help, Mr. Busutil? Not my idea of a strong society.
He also asked, "do you think that keeping abortion illegal is going to stop women who want to do it from doing it?"
Well of course it will. If you have adequate support services (such as those in Malta) and warn women of the dire consequences of illegal abortion you could change their decision.
Regarding Mr.Caruana's "How many persons have been identified, accused, and jailed for abortion??":
That's because our law courts use common sense and sensibility. Rather than sending the woman to jail they would direct her to someone that can offer her help and support her with her child.
Incidentally, it's lucky for him that he passed the comment about women who are pro-choice. Had he said the same thing about blacks, Jews, gays or pretty much any other world minority group, he would probably already be facing charges in court.
But while we're at it, can anyone please explain? If abortion is murder, why are there are two distinct laws specifying vastly different penalties, one for wilful homicide and the other for abortion?
In anycase anything decided by the Council of Europe would not need to be redecided or rediscussed at EU to have an effect in Malta.
By the way, please keep the bible out of this, it has nothing to do with religion and is a basic human fact that a baby dies in abortion and women suffer.
Even if the matter is sometimes raised by MEPs, the EU cannot do anything about it because it does not fall within its competence.
Secondly, the Treaty of Accession of Malta to the EU contains a Protocol regarding abortion. I suggest you read it.
You are slightly wrong. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, the EU will be the first non-state to sign the European Convention of Human Rights.
This means that the rulings on human rights by the ECJ will not be final, as it happens for every member state which has signed this convention. In fact the final ruling will be that of the ECHR and thus the ECJ will have to abide with it.
This emans that ultimately, there is a relation with the ECJ and the ECHR.
Everyone can avoid abortion through the use of contraceptives.
So why don't we all carry out a pro-contraceptive campagin and jsut bury this abortion issue once and for all?
Don't try to hammer me with the usual "oh, but what if the baby kills the mother" or any other excuse.
It is the duty of the couple that they check their health condition before they choose to have children.
If a pregnancy produces adverse affects which were never expected, than that is what they call destiny.
Are you still living in the middle ages?
do you think that keeping abortion illegal is going to stop women who want to do it from doing it?
If you feel so strongly about it don't do it, no one is asking you or anyone to have an abortion. However that should be up to each woman and her circumstances to decide, there are several instances i can think of, where the right to choose should only be a burden for the woman involved!
Cain and Abel........ How about all the murders committed by the Church in the name of God?
1) Are you one of the ones who favour the culture of death? After all, your argument seems to condone murder on the grounds of "an eye for an eye".
2) Legally speaking, abortion is not murder in this country. Murder carries with it a maximum life sentence. The maximum sentence for abortion is three years.
3) As for Cain and Abel: didn't God also place a mark on Cain to ensure that no one actually killed him?
However, are Mr. Silvan Agius and Mr. V. Xuereb in a position to assure us that the issue will ultimately not end up at EU level?
Furthermore, Mr. Agius, do you consider the killing of the unborn child as a concern with human rights and well-being?!!
I quote from the article: "The resolution has caused a furore here, even though, as happens with all CoE resolutions, it would not be legally binding if approved. However, if a case goes to the European Court of Justice and this resolution is in force, it could be a different matter."
The reference to the ECJ is erroneous. I believe what the writer had in mind is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR, Strasbourg, a CofE institution) and not the European Court of Justice (ECJ, Luxembourg, an EU institution).
A resolution by the CofE parliamentary assembly has no direct relation to the ECJ and its decisions.
What exactly do you mean by that, Joe Zammit?
EU is now making u-turn on what was agreed. First there was the issue of Spring Hunting, now the Abortion Issue, NEXT WHAT?!!
How bad that the only two parties in my Parliament are absolutely identical.