Sweden “should stop and think before lecturing other countries” on the subject of abortion, according to John Smyth of the Pro Life Campaign.He was reacting to Swedish proposals to make abortion there more available for non-nationals from countries where abortion is illegal or available in very limited circumstances, such as Ireland and Poland. The proposal was announced last month, and is currently being considered by the Swedish Parliament.
The bill would make it possible for women from any country in the world to travel to Sweden to have an abortion on demand - for any reason - during the first 18 weeks of their pregnancy.
Describing the proposal as “breathtakingly arrogant”, Mr Smyth told ciNews: “It would be more fitting for the Swedish Government to question its own laws on abortion before pointing the finger at countries like Ireland.
Abortion laws in Sweden denied the dignity and humanity of unborn children and ignore the negative after-effects of abortion on women, he continued.
Currently, Sweden's abortion law is regarded as one of the most liberal in Europe. Abortion on demand is permitted during the first 18 weeks of pregnancy.
For an abortion during weeks 19 through 22 of pregnancy, the National Board of Health and Welfare must authorise the procedure.
During 2005, 87 per cent of nearly 400 requests were granted.
“There is nothing inclusive or compassionate about such laws. In fact, the rhetoric of 'choice' is being overtaken by technological progress with the amazing advances in 4D ultrasound, which illuminates the truth that the unborn child is a human being with dignity and a right to life,” Mr Smyth said.
Officials from other countries have already criticised the Swedish plan. Poland's Minister of Health, Zbigniew Religa, expressed surprise at the proposal, saying that abortion was “nothing as simple as selling vegetables, it is about human life”.
And a prominent legal academic in Sweden, Professor Ulf Bernitz, was quoted in a leading Swedish newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, saying the proposed abortion amendment is lacking in “judicial reason”. Professor Bernitz, who lectures in European Union Law at Stockholm University, also suggested that Sweden might find itself in violation of the sovereign rights of other nations, should it follow the proposed course.
“Sweden might get in trouble if it introduces legislation that causes conflict with other countries' legislation”, he said.
Meanwhile the Irish Mail on Sunday reported last weekend that Labour Youth had plotted at a recent conference how to manufacture a test case which would lead to a liberalisation of abortion law in Ireland.
Around forty people attended the day long conference at the end of January, including, unknown to the organisers, twelve members of a pro-life movement.
Divided into three workshops, the participants were given the task of coming up with practical ideas to promote abortion. After the workshops, they met to discuss tactics, with Trinity College Law professor Ivana Bacik chairing the session.
Abortion is illegal in Ireland, unless there is a risk of suicide on the part of the mother.
“By manufacturing a constitutional crisis, Labour Youth had hoped to force a showdown with the medical profession, anti-abortion activists and the government – and ultimately to win a further liberalisation of the law,” wrote journalist Tom Prendeville.
“Although never stated, the scenario Labour Youth was perhaps hoping for was an unmarried and pregnant Muslim woman from a Third World country who, in all likelihood would face stoning to death if her residency claim was denied and she was repatriated.”
After the Irish Mail on Sunday began to make enquiries about the meeting, which took place on 27th January in the Central Hotel, Exchequer Street, all references to it were pulled from both of the Labour websites.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce