EU to criminalise pro-life views

[GirdYourLoins]

In a new bill being voted on soon at the EU they have included wording to say that reducing access to abortion, which includes opposing abortion and trying to persuade people they should consider other options, is "violence against women and girls". The catch all bill was debated in the European Parliament and a video of independent MEP Steve Woolfe raising this in the discussion is doing the rounds on Facebook showing him stating that the wording will make anyone with Pro-life views and anyone who opposes abortion being guilty of violence against women and girls.

I was made aware of this by a friend who is a former politician and is a pro life activist and Christian. By all accounts this bill brings several pieces of proposed legislation together and it is only when they are all read together does it become clear what the implications are. To me, this appears to be trying to criminalise anyone who opposes the EU liberal agenda and another attack on Christian values by subversive tactics. When the bits of legislation are read separately it does not criminalise pro-life views but it is only the way the legislation is combined that creates this. Even so this has a very strong chance of being passed.

How do you feel about pro-life views being criminalised?

 

[brinny]

In a new bill being voted on soon at the EU they have included wording to say that reducing access to abortion, which includes opposing abortion and trying to persuade people they should consider other options, is "violence against women and girls". The catch all bill was debated in the European Parliament and a video of independent MEP Steve Woolfe raising this in the discussion is doing the rounds on Facebook showing him stating that the wording will make anyone with Pro-life views and anyone who opposes abortion being guilty of violence against women and girls.

I was made aware of this by a friend who is a former politician and is a pro life activist and Christian. By all accounts this bill brings several pieces of proposed legislation together and it is only when they are all read together does it become clear what the implications are. To me, this appears to be trying to criminalise anyone who opposes the EU liberal agenda and another attack on Christian values by subversive tactics. When the bits of legislation are read separately it does not criminalise pro-life views but it is only the way the legislation is combined that creates this. Even so this has a very strong chance of being passed.

How do you feel about pro-life views being criminalised?

God have mercy!

Praying.

 

[Adstar]

In a new bill being voted on soon at the EU they have included wording to say that reducing access to abortion, which includes opposing abortion and trying to persuade people they should consider other options, is "violence against women and girls". The catch all bill was debated in the European Parliament and a video of independent MEP Steve Woolfe raising this in the discussion is doing the rounds on Facebook showing him stating that the wording will make anyone with Pro-life views and anyone who opposes abortion being guilty of violence against women and girls.

I was made aware of this by a friend who is a former politician and is a pro life activist and Christian. By all accounts this bill brings several pieces of proposed legislation together and it is only when they are all read together does it become clear what the implications are. To me, this appears to be trying to criminalise anyone who opposes the EU liberal agenda and another attack on Christian values by subversive tactics. When the bits of legislation are read separately it does not criminalise pro-life views but it is only the way the legislation is combined that creates this. Even so this has a very strong chance of being passed.

How do you feel about pro-life views being criminalised?

Criminalized or not i will still declare abortion murder..

 

[GirdYourLoins]

I found a youtube clip where he talks about it

 

[Bible2+]

GirdYourLoins said in post #1:

How do you feel about pro-life views being criminalised?

It's shocking, if it comes to pass.

But it could come to pass not only in the post-Christian EU, but even in the Christian U.S.

For the Supreme Court (not the Congress) could eventually outlaw even speaking against abortion (or even speaking against homosexuality, for that matter), calling it "hate speech", thereby effectively negating the 1st Amendment. The way this could be done would be by employing the principle of the past Supreme Court ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which even Scalia mistakenly supported, which says a law can in effect forbid a specific religious activity so long as the law doesn't specifically target religion, but is a neutral law of general applicability. That is, a future, anti-Christian Supreme Court ruling could claim it's not targeting Biblical Christianity per se, but is generally forbidding "hate speech" by anyone, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof.

Also, the future forbidding of Biblical Christians from making any speech against abortion or homosexuality could be perpetrated by a future Supreme Court by claiming any such speech presents a "clear and present danger" (Schenck v. U.S.) to homosexuals and abortion clinics, as such speech could lead to violent attacks against them, such as the mass shooting at the Pulse gay-nightclub in Orlando, or when a man attacked an abortion clinic claiming to be "a warrior for the babies". Of course, from a pacifist's point of view, nothing about Romans 1:26-27, for example, contradicts Matthew 5:39. So simply saying homosexuality and abortion are sins in no way supports violence. But the connection could still be made by a future, anti-Christian Supreme Court as a means to squelch Biblical Christians' Constitutional rights to free speech and religion (thereby contradicting the Supreme Court's own "content" precedent in, for example, Reed v. Town of Gilbert).

 

[LionL]

In a new bill being voted on soon

Your thread title is misleading. Rather than 'EU to criminalise pro-life views' oughtn't it to say 'EU to debate a bill, part of which relates to the criminalisation of pro-life views, before voting on it and either passing or rejecting it'?

 

[Sketcher]

Do you have a link to said bill?

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you have a link to said bill?

Excellent point. Are the concerns raised (by a single member of the EU Parliament) a mistaken understanding of the legislation or a genuine recognition of a real possibility? Basing ones reaction on a misleading thread title and one legislator's opinion is not a sound idea.

If, and only if, the legislation is as draconian as it is portrayed then it should be opposed by any right thinking person, regardless of where they stand on the issue of abortion. But that risk needs to be demonstrated, not simply claimed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In a new bill being voted on soon at the EU they have included wording to say that reducing access to abortion, which includes opposing abortion and trying to persuade people they should consider other options, is "violence against women and girls". The catch all bill was debated in the European Parliament and a video of independent MEP Steve Woolfe raising this in the discussion is doing the rounds on Facebook showing him stating that the wording will make anyone with Pro-life views and anyone who opposes abortion being guilty of violence against women and girls.

I was made aware of this by a friend who is a former politician and is a pro life activist and Christian. By all accounts this bill brings several pieces of proposed legislation together and it is only when they are all read together does it become clear what the implications are. To me, this appears to be trying to criminalise anyone who opposes the EU liberal agenda and another attack on Christian values by subversive tactics. When the bits of legislation are read separately it does not criminalise pro-life views but it is only the way the legislation is combined that creates this. Even so this has a very strong chance of being passed.

How do you feel about pro-life views being criminalised?

Nice bunch of assertions.

Now link to the actual texts where it is apparantly "clear" that thought crimes are being legislated in the EU.


Please, show us where it says "clearly", that merely having an opinion against abortion, makes you eligeble for prosecution.

Once you link the actual texts, it can be discussed.
Until then.... it's just your blanket assertion to which I could just as easily respond with the blanket response of "no it's not".

 

[ananda]

Who elected the EU again?

 

[Ophiolite]

Who elected the EU again?

That is as meaningful as asking, "Who elected the USA?" Perhaps you meant to ask something esle. What?

 

[mindlight]

I found a youtube clip where he talks about it

Think the section you were referring to was AI - 4 and yes they do need to clarify their language. For those of us who think that the murder of an unborn girl is worse than the inconvenience for the mother of bearing the child there is a major freedom of speech issue here.

INTERIM REPORT on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, by the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence - A8-0266/2017

 

[Dave RP]

Who elected the EU again?

The EU parliament is elected by the populations of individual member states under a proportional representation system.

 

[ananda]

The EU parliament is elected by the populations of individual member states under a proportional representation system.

I was referencing the EU itself - who voted to create it, in the first place? the People of Europe?

 

[Dave RP]

I was referencing the EU itself - who voted to create it, in the first place? the People of Europe?

The governments of each individual member state asked to join, some had referenda, the UK had one after we first joined in the 70’s. pro EU governments have been elected by every member state ever since, albeit some countries are a bit disappointed with the EU. Only the UK has been stupid enough to leave.

 

[ananda]

The governments of each individual member state asked to join, some had referenda, the UK had one after we first joined in the 70’s. pro EU governments have been elected by every member state ever since, albeit some countries are a bit disappointed with the EU. Only the UK has been stupid enough to leave.

Why is centralized government a positive, in your view?

 

[Dave RP]

Why is centralized government a positive, in your view?

Well that’s a strange question. I support the UKs membership of the EU because I believe that it is best for us economically and as part of the EU we have a better standing in the world.

That’s not to say the EU is perfect, it’s far from it, but I thought we had a better chance of influencing it from within.

The EU schould in my opinion be a looser union of independent nation states, not an economic and political union. However we are leaving now and they will have to find their own path, as will the UK.

I think our government is too centralised and we should hand more powers and control to our regions, I like most people in the UK support a state backed health service largely free at the point of delivery, alongside private health cover. Other than that I am a liberal, people should look after themselves and the state intervene where they need help.

 

[pat34lee]

How do you feel about pro-life views being criminalised?

I would say that if it passes, we are that much closer
to mandatory abortions and euthanization for elders
and those with chronic conditions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is centralized government a positive, in your view?

Efficiency and consistency in rule/law.
Cost effective.
Unified market / economy.
Easier to move goods and people from place to place.
Less bureaucracy.
...


To illustrate:
If you live in London in 2020, good luck with having your London based company construct a factory in Poland. Or if you breed cats, good luck exporting them to European mainland.

I'm sure it will be possible to do these things... However, I'ld like to say the pile of forms and administration you'll have to take care of compared to what you would have had to do in 2016 to accomplish the same. As well as the price tag it will come with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would say that if it passes, we are that much closer
to mandatory abortions and euthanization for elders
and those with chronic conditions.

Ridiculous.