Council of Europe approves abortion resolution

You are correct in that I am what I am because my mother decided not to have an abortion, and wanted a child. And for that reason I am grateful. However at least she had the choice, which you and the church is denying to women today.
I grew up in a family where I was wanted .. imagine growing up where you weren't wanted, and bascially ill-treated by your mum (I'm sure the father would be long gone). I very much doubt people like you will go round to everyone's house to ensure that the child is being treated well. You just wish to interfere with people lives, but not deal with the consequence.
It's for that reason that I believe it should be up the women whether she wants an abortion. Denying the right, just makes the practice go underground with all the associated risks. Shame on you Jane Misfud for holding back the rights of women. Shame on you!!

I believe there should be a balance in everything in life. I am in favour of abortion when it's done in case of health issues, rape, etc. Also I believe that this is a choice and decision of the pregnant lady although some sort of laws should be in force. We have to move on in life and don't play saints and they act otherwise. Same goes with divorce. Let people decide, we're 1 of only 2 countries in the world, but still having so many seperations and other people don't want to get married as no divorce exists. LET'S B REAL!!!

Mr Scullion,
The fact that you refer to an embryo as a parasite unless it develops further should be an enough strong argument against abortion. You are what you are today because your mother was sensible enough not to think of you as just a parasite with no rights whatsoever, and have you sucked out of her body.

As such, yes, abortion is murder.

It's 2 entirley different things .. abortion & murder.
With murder your actually killing someone who lives, has a life
Abortion is (and lets not be fluffy about it) bascially removing a parasite from a body. It's not a human being (otherwise it could live without any help and even have it's own organs).
Thats the difference.
Your not killing a person if it hasn't even developed into a human shape.

Dear Mr Scullion,
It's not a case about being a bunch of non-appointed religious know-it-alls... it's a question of MURDER...

How about if you trespass against someone, and this someone decides to kill you? If abortion - which plain and simple is murdering a human being who has done nothing wrong - is legitimate, shouldn't this someone have the right to murder you? once it is fine to murder an innocent being, wouldn't it also be right to murder you if you trespasses against someone?

i dont agree with abortion, But if its a health risk to the mother or the unborn child it should be taken away.. but not for the sake of a mother saying i dont want this child give me an abortion.

@ Etienne Calleja. So be it.

@ A Grech. As the reactions to my post attest, there *ARE* 'emotional factors involved'.

@nmuscat, Philip B Cortis & Jane Spiteri. I'm forever grateful towards my mother for carrying me to full term. But I can't see how, on the basis of this, I can conclude that upon being conceived I (or rather, those cells that would eventually become 'me') had the RIGHT to be carried till full development.

Look, I sincerely admire women who despite not wanting a pregnancy, decide to carry it on and give birth because of their pro-life convictions. But what about those women who decide otherwise? It seems that at the Council of Europe , the idea that the right of a women over her own body exceeds the right to life of the 10 week embryo she might be carrying inside her prevails. There are various arguments to support this idea and I shan't enter into any here. However, sooner or later Malta's stance against abortion will be challenged before the court of human rights. I don’t think that 'life begins at conception' or 'abortion is murder' will be judged good enough reasons to force a woman to undergo an unwanted-pregnancy - certainly not if the pregnancy is in its very early stages (which is when the vast majority of abortions take place). 'Life begins at conception' is, at best, a factual statement. It does not justify the claim that a newly-conceived human being has the same rights as the woman that is hosting it and upon whom its entire existence depends. [I was not trying to be offensive or anything when I quizzed about the right of a human being to live inside another human being.] 'Abortion is murder' is a case of begging the question; 'murder' presupposes that the victim is a human being with full legal/moral status, which is exactly what is being disputed. Devoid of any real argumentation, our pro-life claims will reduce to statements of faith, which as we all know is a personal matter and cannot be imposed on others.

One last thing: the term ‘unborn child’ is usually used to refer to a fully-formed viable fetus (one that would be able to survive outside the womb and is entitled to full human rights protection) and not to zygotes and embryos. I’m not being picky, but if you want to get anywhere, better choose your words carefully, otherwise you’ll come across as wanting to blur the issue by appealing to emotions.

Good on the CoE helping to bring everyone into the 21st century.
However as this is a non-binding resolution I can't see how Malta is affected, and infact the Government can ignore it.
Still that won't stop a bunch of non-appointed religious know-it-alls to tell other people how to live their lives.

Thanks to Mr Borg and Mr Scerri for correcting me. You're right, it's the Council of Europe and not the EU. Such Council should not be "counselling" others what to do.

LLL

Life is too precious

Let's protect the unborn and waste no more time with amending our Constitution

LLL

Hi Kyle Pulicino

by quoting "my" LLL (Let's Love Live) you gave me an idea.

All those who are against abortion, just sign this article with LLL. You can also send a mail to yur friends to do so as well. I'm sure that shall this have a substantial number of signatures, timesofmalta.com will be proud that it hosts the voice of many Maltese / EU citizens. Maybe with such strong voice, the council of europe will realise that it made a huge foul.

LLL (Let's Love Life)

Surely this is a start of something very dark. The Government and the Opposition have to protect us and our children through the Constitution. I agree with that amendment now. Before, I sincerely thiought it was all just hysteria but it is clear that Malta is in trouble.

As some were stating, the Council of Europe is not the European Council. The Council of Europe was founded in 1949 to promote cooperation between european States. It is independent from the EU. Infact, there are non-EU States which are members of this Council. On the otherhand, the European Council is part of the EU.

Does this abortion resolution reflect a climax of our civilization? I think it is a step backward because it shows that human life is not valuable anymore. If an innocent human life is not protected, at least on paper, what will be the next step? Where are we going?

Once upon a time, western civilization was moving towards the promotion of human dignity. In these last decades, it seems that it is moving towards the maximum exploitation of human beings, especially of the defenseless. However, I do not want to be so negative. There is a lot of good which our civilization is promoting but we have to open our eyes in front of such dangerous events.

I respect those who do not agree with me. Everyone has the right and the freedom of thought. We live in a democratic and pluralistic society where everyone has the right to express his opinion and the duty to respect others' different opinions.

I'll reply to only one comment here, that of Mr. Caruana who seems cheerful that the CoE chose the death of a child and also to make a woman's life miserable over that of helping both the mother and child to live a healthy life.

I hope now that, Mr. Caruana, you won't come scurrying back here saying you didn't want to lose your right to life in a few years time.

LLL (Let's Love Life ☺)

J. Tonna - a similar resolution even in the EP would not be binding because (i) abortion does not fall within the competence of the EU and (ii) although closely involved in decision-making process, within the EU it is the Council that is also a prime actor in the legislative process. But in any case, there is no way the EU can legislate or decide on such a matter because it is the exclusive competence of the Member States.

Mr. Grech-Attard - for the umpteenth time - dont confuse the Council of Europe with the EU!!!!! Besides, the EU Constitution is dead and buried and will never be binding on anyone!

Shame on Europe, the cradle of Christianity, although, at times, not morality. I sincerely hope that both government and opposition strongly denounce this resolution. We MUST make our voices strongly heard and continue to shout and scream against this resolution. What shall happen if it is implemented in an EU Constitution, despite the fact that, up till now, it is not binding. We must begin now.

When the chairman declared the motion approved, our representatives should have got up and declared tha Malta will not be an accomplice in this 'legalised murder'. After all it is only a COUNCIL of Europe, not like the european Parliament, which is binding.

Mr Grech, in your endeavour, perhaps, to attack the EU, you made the mistake into mixing up the EU with the Council of Europe. The EU has nothing to do with this resolution. It is the Council of Europe which does. Two completely different things. Check your facts before coming out public.

Dear Julian, I guess that since you replied to this article you have intelligence, know how to use a computer, most probably you have a relatively good life. You can enjoy time with friends and another million positive things (that are typically overlooked) that you love / enjoy or make you feel good. Unfortunately, that would not had happened shall you mother aborted you, but she DID choose not to end your life and today you are here, enjoying life with all it's problems.

The decision for 2 humans to give life to another human is an irrevocable one. One should take precautions beforehand not when we have a new person. At best, we have to leave that person decides for himself, however I'm sure that the decision will be to live.

LLL - Let's Love Life

You will surely find those who voted in favour in front line protesting in favour of birds and animals rights.

That is the only madness that these people put human beings before animals.

Animals should be respected and protected but that should be always after humans.

As a mother myself, I cannot but strongly agree against abortion. It is such a miracle to have your own son kicking inside of you!! How could a mother kill her own son?? I guess the emotional burden if a person takes the life of a baby is much worse than having to go through an unwanted pregnancy!!

And sorry Mr. Julian Borg, but I could not really make heads or tails of your last statement. If human nature itself gives the female the privilege of having a living baby inside, why are you waiting for a legislation to give the baby a right to live inside another human being? Have you stopped to think that If your mum thought about this issue your way, you might not be here, dear!!

A. Grech - just a point of info - it is not the EU but the Council of Europe - totally different.

Be it the hunt where innocent animals are slaughtered or abortion where innocent foetuses alike are literally snuffed out, no one Mr. Borg has the right to KILL!!

Once more we confuse the Council of Europe with the EU! The Resolution was approved by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe which is composed of delegations representing national parliaments of the 47 Member States.

I also find it ironic that while rightly defending the right to life of the unborn child, we lose all sense of decency and respect towards the human dignity of others, including those who may have and express different views.

Mr. Grech,

This was a Resolution of the Council of Europe not of the EU.. The two are different in size, scope and shape.

mr borg, being conceived is not a question of having the right to live inside another person. it is just the way nature works...and remember that you are alive exactly because your mother chose to carry you to full term.

What effect, if any, does this resolution have on Europe? If the motions passed by the CoE have no legal and binding effect than what is its use? Do we need to even worry about it any way?

Who cares about the Council of Europe ? Let's get out of this pig sty. We're wasting money on this non entity. And shame on Julian Borg.

Can anyone doubt the right of a "human being" to live safely, protected, cared and loved inside his mother? And at the same time recognize the right of anybody to destroy the "human being" when s/he is defenceless? Emotional?

HURRAY !!!!!

What a shame! Where has human dignity disappeared to?

Julian, there's no emotional factors involved. There is reality, the murder reality of a human being.

Shame on the EU for passing such a motion.

Julian Borg, you're disgusting.

Ivan, how about: "The fundamental right to life of the human zygote/embryo/fetus has to be safeguarded and protected at all costs."? Why can't you pro-lifers do without the emotional factor?

Also, where in the hr declaration, is it stated that a human being has the right to live inside another human being?

I would like to express my support to the maltese delegation in CoE debate on abortion. The fundamental right to life of the unborn child has to be safeguarded and protected at all costs. The universal declaration of human rights, article 3 states that: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Let us not forget it.