Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-312"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-07-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Sexual and reproductive health and rights2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020702.14.2-312"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-07-02-Speech-2-3132
lpv:speaker	lp:Geneviève Fraisse2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Indépendant (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2002-09-08)3,3 member; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3,3 member; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should just like to comment on an amendment to be proposed tomorrow, which seeks to change the title of this report by removing the word ‘rights’. We sit in a parliament and we live in democracies. We have experienced two UN conferences, a conference on population in Cairo in 1994, and a conference on women in Peking in 1995. What did those two conferences say? On the one hand, that the question of controlling fertility and reproduction was a human right, and on the other, in 1995 in Peking, that it was a woman’s right. Human rights or women’s rights – they are still rights. We are therefore stating people’s rights, not controlling populations. In the mails and in the scores of letters that I receive, I discover that the only things being discussed are population control, women’s fertility, retirement for all, falling birth rates in our countries – we could also talk about birth rates, why not – and that is what I would call population control. That has nothing to do with rights. I believe, therefore, that the proposed amendment is quite representative of the conflict that we have here. If we accept that we are in a country as of right, we can go so far as to say what I myself say, namely that the right to contraception, to fertility control, is the of women. We said thirty years ago that our bodies belong to us. This is what is known as the exact translation of the English expression, ‘our bodies our selves’. That is called . Therefore, if we look at matters from that viewpoint, we shall not fantasise about the subsidiarity reaffirmed in Article 1. We shall not fantasise about abortion, which would become the way to obtain contraception. No one wants an abortion. No one would wish an abortion on anyone. It has nothing to do with contraception. Therefore, if we look at things from that angle, we are looking at them from the angle of women’s rights, which are the equivalent of human rights, and I believe that with this in mind, unless we want to contradict ourselves, we must vote in favour of Mrs Van Lancker’s report."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1 "e"1 "habeas corpus"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph