papa jack wrote:
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote
in message news:<40EF225A.627800EE@citlink.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?
===========================================================================
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Because it's covered in Article 1 ? Obligation to respect human
rights
"The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their
jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this
Convention."
===========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
But nowhere is abortion discussed in this entire document.
Nor does it discuss driving drunk,
And, the words you quoted were immediately followed by:
....that which is still quoted above.
Article 2 specifically discusses the taking of human life --
and, it lists the legal exceptions. Nowhere do we find
any mention of abortion.
Because the contents of a womb are not within their respective
jurisdictions. Abortion is eliminated from inclusion in Article 1.
===========================================================================
Frank Dwyer wrote:
The contents of a womb are not "within their jurisdiction".
===========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
If a drug pusher swallowed some ballons filled wiht illegal
drugs when being arrested, would the contents of his stomach
be within the court's jurisdiction? Of counse they would.
Is it illegal for a woman to have a fetus in her womb? Of course it
isn't.
.
