The EU’s new Victims’ Rights Directive, which aims to establish uniform standards for victims of war crimes, is the first EU legislative act to seek to make abortion a “right”. This is a dangerous precedent – and that is precisely what it is intended to be: the highly emotive (but in reality rare) case of a child conceived through rape is being used as a pretext to introduce a “right to abortion” into EU law. Once this has been done, the scope and application of this supposed “right” – which is in reality a grave injustice – can and will be extended in whatever direction one pleases.
What is left out of consideration is that abortion constitutes the deliberate killing of a child who is in no way to blame for the circumstances that led to its conception. This so-called ‘victim’s right’ is essentially an uncivilised act of revenge against an innocent child who is, as it were, killed in place of his or her father. This was decided by politicians who are immensely proud of their stance against the death penalty.
The authors of this new regulation are well aware of the hypocrisy and self-contradiction of their argument. That is why the word ‘abortion’ does not appear in the actual text of the directive – there, one reads only of the ‘sexual and reproductive rights’ of the victims of crime, which must be safeguarded.Only one recital states that “sexual and reproductive health” may also include abortion.
The wording is cryptic. Generally speaking, definitions serve to clarify the meaning of a term, and they are usually found within the text of the legislation itself, rather than in a recital. The phrase in a recital stating that a particular term ‘may’ encompass another term is therefore doubly unclear.
In addition, “sexual and reproductive health” is a neologism, an Orwellian Newspeak, devised by the abortion industry with the purpose of trivialising the killing of children.B ut this evil intention does not change the fact that according to the objective meaning of the word, the abortion of healthy children in the wombs of healthy mothers is, of course, not an act that leads to any form of “health” (regardless of which adjective one might use to qualify it), but rather aims at the killing innocent human beings, i.e. at the transforming of living children into dead ones.
The fact that the reference to abortion as a ‘health measure’ is hidden away in a recital was presumably intended to ensure that it went as unnoticed as possible. Only later, after the directive has been adopted, will it be trumpeted from the rooftops that the EU has thereby recognised abortions as “health services”. Attempts will be made to incorporate this into the interpretation of all manner of other legal provisions … for the sake of consistency, of course.
However, this only works if one regards the legal system as a language game involving terms defined entirely arbitrarily, which can be combined to form equally arbitrary arrangements. This, however, is an extremely authoritarian view of the law, in which the will of the legislator alone counts, whilst reality (in this case: the fact that an abortion heals no one, but kills an innocent child) can be disregarded.
one-of-us.org 