Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote
in message news:<jkcte050q90mqk10de7fgstigmosk9ta9r@4ax.com>...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:
============================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On Jul. 9, 2004, the AP posted an article titled "Court
Won't Rule on Fetus Case." Go to:
http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040709/NEWS03/207090362/-1/news
_____________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"Europe's top human rights court rejected an appeal
Thursday to grant full human rights to a fetus,
saying that was a matter for national governments
to decide.
"Meeting in Strasbourg, France, the European Court
of Human Rights said it could not rule on the case
of a French woman who was forced to have an abortion
after a doctor's mistake.
[...]
"Vo's lawyers referred to Article 2 of the European
Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing the right to
life.
"However, the 17-judge panel said there was no consensus
among nations that have ratified the convention on when
right to life begins.
[...]
"Vo's lawyer Bruno Le Griel said the court avoided a
decision on whether the article of the convention was
applicable.
[...]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Go to:
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~~ . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~
"Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11, Rome, 4.XI.1950
[...]
Article 2 ? Right to life
1. EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO LIFE shall be protected by law.
No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally
save in the execution of a sentence of a court fol-
lowing his conviction of a crime for which this
penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted
in contravention of this article when it results from
the use of force which is no more than absolutely
necessary:
1. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
2. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent
the escape of a person lawfully detained;
3. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of
quelling a riot or insurrection.
~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~~ . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~
Where is the logic? Please notice Article 2 does NOT make
exceptions for unborn children. Why? Because some of the
nations in the EU would never have signed it if such
wording was included.
If the judges are going to rule in favor of abortions, they
should have the backbone to stand up and be counted.
============================================================================
Adam H. wrote:
Ah, yes. How convenient that you forgot to mention article 4
(prohibition of forced labour) and article 5 (right to liberty) in
there.
Oh, and article 17: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as
implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any
activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the
rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a
greater extent than is provided for in the Convention."
It's a package, PJ.
============================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
I didn't mention Articles 4, 5, or 17 because the judges
who decided the case didn't mention them.
That tells me these judges don't consider normal pregnancy
to be slavery or an illegal denial of liberty. I'm sure
that if the woman in question was chained up and repeatedly
raped, those points would have been considered.
Oh, an Article 17 doesn't mean pregnant women are free to
kill their unborn children for convenience.
Would you try to use Article 17 to argue that parents
may not be denied the "liberty" to beat their born
children? What's the difference?
.
