I am a supporter of the movement "pro-life" and at the same time I am a supporter of the EU, but I noticed that most of the pro-life is anti-EU

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasiy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So teens, those who need work experience, or those who lack specialized skills and need an opportunity to learn them should just be left in the cold? Ouch.
 
Last edited:
Athanasiy said:
Why do proponents of the movement for life have to be xenophobes? ultra nationalists? and racists? I think that this is a stereotype.
Click to expand...
I’m a pro-life liberal. I accept that I’m in the minority. It can be an uphill struggle - pro-lifers cans be less accommodating to my beliefs than pro-choicers - but I’m not going to get bitter about it.

Beliefs don’t come in pre-wrapped packages. Figure out what yours are, and move on with your life.

By the way, did you know that it is possible to favor more localized governmental control without racist motives? The EU issue has fallen prey to some rather alarming black and white thinking . . .
 
Why do you feel compelled to use use nasty slurs and epithets to charactarize people who hold opinions different from yours?
 
Athanasiy said:
Why is pro-life always associated with extreme nationalism and resistance to a United Europe?
Why do proponents of the movement for life have to be xenophobes? ultra nationalists? and racists? I think that this is a stereotype.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of reasons.

The most important is that, very early on, many bishops and churchmen tied the pro-life position inextricably together with other positions not directly related to abortion, like Catholic “identity” and opposition to LGBT rights, among others, and insisted that you buy in to the whole package. They therefore essentially excluded anyone who might agree with them on abortion, but disagree on these other issues. And that means that they cut off a lot of people.

While it might of seemed a good move at the time, the unintended consequence was that this made it very difficult to frame opposition to abortion as a human rights issue, and easy to frame it as a conservative political issue. And more so a far-right issue, as Catholic “identity” became co-opted by the far-right as a signal of nationalism and opposition to immigration, particularly by Muslims. Especially among younger people.

Actually, the same thing happened more or less in the United States, where the pro-life movement has become inextricably tied first to the Republican Party platform, and recently to the Trump movement with its xenophobic nationalism.
 
I was wondering about this as I read the thread, iirc the abortion laws in Europe vary quite a bit, and few of them are as outrageous as the US.
 
It is stereotyping. However, in the 1,000 page EU constitution, not one single mention of the Christian founding, development or history of Europe. Talk about bigotry!

The problem is that the EU is essentially collectivist. All such systems sublimate the individual to the state and human dignity suffers.
 
po18guy said:
The problem is that the EU is essentially collectivist.
Click to expand...
Uh, no.

The EU is founded upon four fundamental market freedoms: free movement of goods, capital, services and labour.

Its entire economic premise is a single free market.


The European Single Market , Internal Market or Common Market is a single market which seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour – the " four freedoms " – within the European Union (EU).[3][4][5][6] The market encompasses the EU’s 28 member states, and has been extended, with exceptions, to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area and to Switzerland through bilateral treaties.

Yes, that market is circumscribed within a juridical order that enshrines social/workers rights as paramount - such as the Working Time Directive and the Agency Workers Directive - and thus protects the individual worker from arbitrary exploitation.

But that’s what a healthy, regulated market economy is all about.

 
I don’t know about that.
I know among older Evangelicals in Britain, who are pro-life, and have expressed an opinion, they’re split on the EU. But those in my age group are mostly (may even be overwhelmingly) pro-EU.
 
Last edited:
It seems that these words are just “guilt trips”, so that someone would give in. But then be labelled “hypocrites”.
 
po18guy said:
It is stereotyping. However, in the 1,000 page EU constitution, not one single mention of the Christian founding, development or history of Europe. Talk about bigotry!

The problem is that the EU is essentially collectivist. All such systems sublimate the individual to the state and human dignity suffers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it just mentions a few things about rights:
Member states also declare that the following principles prevail in their society:
 
Oh yeah. And a few aims for member states:
In its relations with the wider world the Union’s objectives are:
  • to uphold and promote its values and interests.
  • to contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth.
  • solidarity and mutual respect among people.
  • free and fair trade.
  • eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child.
  • strict observance and development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
But you’re right. Can’t see anything about Christianity. Are there any aspects of that multi faceted religion that you’d like to be included?
 
po18guy said:
It is stereotyping. However, in the 1,000 page EU constitution, not one single mention of the Christian founding, development or history of Europe. Talk about bigotry!
Click to expand...
There is no codified EU constitution.

That said, the US constitution makes absolutely no mention of God, Christianity or religion. Is that “bigotry”?

The EU, nonetheless, refers to Europe having a religious heritage in the preamble to the consolidated Treaty of the European Union (TEU), the Union’s primary constitutional document (indeed article 50, the right of secession, is outlined here) which reads as follows at the very beginning:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource....b2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

“DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law… ”

The same idea is also inscribed in a further clause of article 17 which, after stating that, ‘‘the European Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of the churches and religious associations in the member states ’’ adds that ‘‘recognizing their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organizations ’’.

So Christian ‘churches’ get a specific mention first over and above other religious ‘associations’ that the Union respects the ‘identity and contribution’ of and maintains ‘regular dialogue with’ in the member states.

All the US constitution says about religion, by contrast, is this in the 1st amendment:

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Click to expand...
That’s it.

No recognition at all of its ‘contribution’ to America or any duty of the federal government to remain in dialogue with religious bodies.
 
Last edited:
So that everyone is aware of what the EU can and cannot do, here is how it functions.

Read these articles of the Treaty on European Union :

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource....b2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
TITLE I
COMMON PROVISIONS
Article 1

By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called ‘the Union’, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common …

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties .

Article 4

1. In accordance with Article 5, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States .

2. The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities , inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.

3. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties . The Member States shall take any appropriate measure to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union. The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives

Article 5

1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States .

3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level , but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Abortion law, as part of healthcare and life issues more generally, is one of the areas in which the EU has no competence to legislate.

Europe

According to European treaties, the right to an abortion does not lie within EU’s competences, and remains an issue regulated by the member states. Therefore, EU institutions, such as the European Commission and the European Parliament, cannot authorize the legalization, or the restriction, of abortion.

Among 28 EU countries, Malta is the only one that does not grant a woman the right to abortion, even when her life is at risk. However, it observes the principle of a so-called “double effect”: a treatment that may lead to miscarriage is permitted if it is required to save a pregnant woman’s life.
Click to expand...
Here is a statement by the present EU Commissioner for Justice and Gender Equality, Věra Jourová:

Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Respect for women’s rights and gender equality is part of European integration. However, as you know, the EU has no competences on abortion policy and cannot interfere in Member States’ policies in this area .
Click to expand...
That’s the clear statement of its executive (government) which alone has legislative initiative (right to propose laws).

Now, its Court the “ECJ” two months ago:

The Press Officer of the European Court of Justice has stated that this Court cannot in any way grant the right to abortion or oblige member states to introduce abortion. To date, abortion falls within the competence of European Union member countries.

European Law does not recognise abortion as a right, and to date the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament have refused to grant abortion as a right in member states
Click to expand...
Finally, here is an example from a protocol attached to the Accession Treaty of Malta with the EU in 2003 that explicitly stated the following in regards to abortion in Malta (which is banned entirely):

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12003T/PRO/07
Protocol No 7

on abortion in Malta

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

HAVE AGREED UPON THE FOLLOWING PROVISION:

Nothing in the Treaty on European Union, or in the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in the territory of Malta of national legislation relating to abortion.
Click to expand...
For this reason, abortion law varies considerably across Europe depending upon the culture and religiosity, or lack thereof, of the given member state.
 
Last edited:
Again , sorry to say , but in the last EU elections , I believe the greater points of the debate were Brexit , immigration and middle class insatisfação,
Here in EU, most countries will defend the mother’s final decision to carry through their pregnancy or not , and in no country that I know of, will they be prosecuted.
And I am not saying I am in favour of abortion , but that this wasn’t a big point of contention in any of the debates ,in fact EU had plenty of other problems to take care of at this point .
On a different note here , and without stablishing a precedent , the only Catholic anti EU that I have met so far , was pro Trump also 😏
 
Athanasiy said:
Why is pro-life always associated with extreme nationalism and resistance to a United Europe?
Why do proponents of the movement for life have to be xenophobes? ultra nationalists? and racists? I think that this is a stereotype.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with being resistant to a federal Europe? The majority of people who voted in the 2016 referendum in the UK wish to leave the EU.
 
It was a slight majority 51.9% that voted to leave the EU. 49.1% voted remain. Referendum turnout was 71.8% of the population. The major problem with that referendum was that the British knew what they had agreed on with being an EU country but what the vote “NO” would mean was very much 100% uncertain. No trade deals with both EU member countries and other countries had been agreed upon, EU jobs and EU departments in Britain, EU citizens living in Britain and Britons living in EU countries agreements for studies work trade etc. It seems like the whole referendum ended up arguing if Eastern Europeans should be allowed to work in Britain or not and if they should be allowed the same social benefits like Britons.

It is still a big mess for all EU countries that Britain hasn’t left the EU or made up its mind that it is best to remain in the EU. With the large majority of the parliament members voted to remain in the EU, the members will never agree to anything that makes Britain leave the EU. If Britain leaves the EU, then Scotland and Northern Ireland are planning on leaving Britain, which will be another big mess! 😫
 
Brendan_64 said:
What is wrong with being resistant to a federal Europe? The majority of people who voted in the 2016 referendum in the UK wish to leave the EU.
Click to expand...
I struggle to understand all the issues surrounding Brexit as I’m a typical uninformed American on this.

I do know that the Brexit vote wasn’t one sided in all areas. In areas where it was strong to leave the EU, how much was due to immigration sentiment? Is the immigrant issue purely economic? What is the largest benefit to those that wanted to remain? Was it economic? Thanks.
 
Perhaps the two drivers were dissatisfaction among those who had suffered from the world economic collapse and the ensuing government austerity measures, and the feelings of those who had been persuaded that immigration was a substantial factor in their hardship. I suspect that may be a picture familiar to Americans?
 
Pattylt said:
What is the largest benefit to those that wanted to remain?
Click to expand...
Speaking as a 100% Remainer I would say (a) the economic cost of leaving and economic benefit of staying, (b) the contribution the EU makes to peace in a continent riven by war for thousands of years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top