Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.14.2-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, it is not a case of barbarians on one side and civilised people on the other, of reactionaries on one side and progressives on the other, of the moral on one side and the immoral on the other. The debate should proceed in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and on that score we should thank both Mrs Van Lancker and the shadow rapporteur from our Group, Mrs Müller, for the way in which they have worked together. The fact remains, however, that this debate is out of time. Even Mrs Van Lancker recognises this in her report, and I quote, ‘... the legal or regulatory policy concerning reproductive health falls within the Member States’ sphere of competence’. The proposed resolution that we are discussing today, no doubt authorised, wrongly, by Parliament’s Bureau in the context of our institution’s right to take the initiative, does not seem to me to be well-founded. It seems to be even less well-founded if we remember that just one month ago – and we really are being paradoxical here – we voted in favour of the Lamassoure report on the division of competencies into what falls within the remit of the Community and what is the responsibility of the Member States, and we should apply what we voted for to ourselves. That is the first reason why I shall not be voting in favour of this report.
My second reason is that I do not know how we can impose standards in every area. There are a certain number of cultural differences, but what is a good standard? Let me give you an example. In France, we have introduced legislation governing the morning-after pill. Suppose we were to take French legislation as our basis. It is entirely unsatisfactory. Why is that? It is because at the present time the morning-after pill is authorised in France and is distributed exclusively in schools. It cannot be authorised in hospitals. Yet schools operate for 150 days out of 365. Shall we take other legislation as our basis? We shall still find that there is something missing from the framework. What, then, is the framework for good practice?
The third point, which really concerns me, is that I believe that at the present time, the combination of the recommended longer period during which abortion will be allowed and the progress being made in science which means that potential anomalies in unborn children can be diagnosed increasingly early, plus the progress being made in bio-ethics, carries with it a risk. A certain number of doctors, and by no means the least progressive – I am thinking, in the case of France, for example, of Professor Nisand – would agree with me on this point, and the risk is that this combination of circumstances might lead, tomorrow, either directly or indirectly, somewhere, to a system of State eugenics which would prejudice the founding of a peoples’ Europe which is what we are all hoping to achieve."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples