Luxembourg: State Council promotes “comfort abortion”
On 16th July, feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, the State Council of the Great-Duchy of Luxembourg issued its review of the draft law facilitating abortion.
It is a laxest opinion that enshrines the most radical subjectivism and women’s total autonomy in deciding to abort. It thus favors « comfort abortions » and let nobody dare cast the slightest doubt.
The Council’s review of the draft adopts purely subjective interpretation of the pregnant mother supposed “state of distress” in face of an unforeseen pregnancy. “The state of distress,” it says, “cannot be but a woman’s inborn perception that cannot be scrutinized by someone else”, for it is a “personal situation that cannot be objectified and that varies from woman to woman.”
Thus it is enough for a woman to declare that pregnancy places her in a state of distress for her to be granted the right to kill her baby, even though this decision may be due to futile reasons of mere personal convenience.
This is the Sate Council’s opinion as it enshrines into law a pregnant woman’s total self-determination regarding her pregnancy and the baby she carries in her womb:
1. Approves the suppression of the current medical “indication” from a doctor for an abortion to be performed.
2. Invites the authors of the draft to suppress the reference to rape and to future serious risk for the baby’s health, because both became purposeless “once the notion of state of distress is upheld.” It also invites them to eliminate any characterization of the supposed state of distress by eliminating the adjective “social” attached to it in the draft.
3. It proposes to suppress the obligation of a previous consultation in an authorized counseling centre. “Why does a simple consultation (…) need to be decisive (…) for a woman (…) to obtain guiltlessness?” The only compulsory measure, it says, “is the obligation imposed on a medical doctor to fulfill the woman’s right to be informed.”
4. Regarding non emancipated underage girls, it admits the principle of their autonomy as regards their parents right to decide whether to have an abortion, as well as the principle of the consent of a third party, an adult of their entourage, instead. It only obliges the medical doctor “to try to obtain”, through the girl, the parents consent. But “if the underage girl doesn’t want such an approach or if the parents’ consent is not obtained, the doctor shall take advise about the choice from a trustworthy adult” who can sign in their behalf. This is almost the same as the provisions of the draft and will annihilate the parents’ rights and will introduce discord within the family.
5. It suggests further diluting the malice of abortion by taking it out of the chapter on “Crimes against the good order of families and against public morality” and placing it in a chapter that includes sex education, the prevention of clandestine abortion and the regulation of the “termination of pregnancy”.
6. It confirms the obligation made in the draft to the doctors to ensure “the continuity of the care provided to the sick ones” (as if pregnancy were a disease!) and it proposes to compel the doctor “to give the pregnant woman the list of authorized centers that perform abortions.” This effectively makes doctors accomplices of the abortion that would follow, in total violation of their right to conscientious objection.
7. Finally, it proposes the suppression of the clause of three months previous residence in Luxembourg to benefit from the exemptions of the law. Luxembourg could thus become a platform for cross-border abortions, like the Netherlands or Catalonia.
To sum it all up, the State Council’s review is far more radical than the draft law introduced by the government in its Parliament. The only aspect where it is slightly more moderate is in its opposition to chemical abortions in ambulatory centers.
Such laxity is even more astonishing in view of the fact that the State Council itself acknowledges that in France, the very country it takes as a model, this trivialization of “comfort abortion” resulted in “an increase of the probability of abortion in cases of unexpected pregnancy”—as the State Council itself recognizes by quoting the famous 2009 official report on the “French paradox.”
The bottom line is that the State Council fully assumes the hedonistic view of a sexuality fully liberated from any moral constraint promoted by the European Parliament when it pleads for “the recognition of women’s total physical and sexual autonomy”, a resolution that the State Council’s legal opinion wittingly quotes.
Based on such premise, it is not surprising that the State Council of Luxembourg had explicitly declared in its review that it would “refrain from examining the different theories about the potential beginning of life.”
As if the medical evidence of the beginning of a new, distinct human life from the moment of conception was a mere “theory” unconfirmed by all the last decades discoveries in the field of Genetics!
--
Fédération Pro Europa Christiana (FPEC)
Paul Herzog von Oldenburg
Director of the Brussels Office
Rue du Taciturne 49
B-1000 Bruxelles
T. +32 2 23 10 944
F. +32 2 23 07 545
mobil +32 485 14 34 39
www.federation-pro-europa-christiana.org
www.SOSvita.org
No comments:
Post a Comment