The [European Court of Human Rights] said foetuses [i.e., unborn babies] could not be legally considered human beings with a corresponding right to life by rejecting a Frenchwoman's claim a hospital committed involuntary homicide in carrying out an [unwanted therapeutic] abortion six months into her pregnancy following a medical error.

The ruling, however, stopped short of determining whether a foetus was a person or not, saying such a distinction was impossible to make.

"The court is convinced that it is neither desirable, nor even possible as matters stand, to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child is a person for the purposes of Article 2" of the European convention on human rights, it said.

Well, this is a pretty piece of sophistry. When a court consents to review a case several things are implicit: the case has merit; the court has standing; a ruling will be forthcoming; the ruling will proceed from established legal principles, law, and precedent and the judgment will resolve the points in dispute; the court's legal methods and thinking will be transparent. If a court feels itself incompetent to so rule, the court declines the pleasure.

In this case, the European Court of Human Rights rules that the base legal principle is indeterminate and beggars its competency but were it competent to determine the base principle such a determination would be "undesirable". The court here openly flouts its competence in favor of dereliction. Why?

A contrary judgement could have opened the door to abortions becoming illegal in Europe.

Too bad for Mdm. Vo, whose measure of justice before the law might upset all the clever European thinking around abortion.

Mdm. Thi-Nho Vo, the plaintiff, a French citizen of Vietnamese origin, was six months pregnant when she lost her healthy baby. Mdm. Vo had gone to the Hotel-Dieu hospital in Lyons for a regular pre-natal check-up where Dr. Francois Golfier, an appointments-challenged gynecologist, performed a procedure scheduled for another patient on Mdm. Vo resulting in the termination of her pregnancy:

Following a criminal complaint lodged by Vo in 1991, Dr. Golfier was charged with causing unintentional injury. The charge was subsequently increased to one of unintentional homicide. On June 3, 1996, Lyons Criminal Court acquitted Golfier. Vo appealed and, on March 13, 1997, Lyons Court of Appeal overturned the criminal court's judgment, convicted the doctor of unintentional homicide and sentenced him to six-months' imprisonment, suspended, and a fine of 10,000 French francs. On June 30, 1999, following an appeal on points of law, the Court of Cessation [scil., court of cassation - France's highest court] reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, holding that the facts of the case did not constitute the offense of involuntary homicide since the court refused to consider the unborn child a human being entitled to the protection of the criminal law.

Vo applied to the European Court of Human Rights on December 20, 1999 [based on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights]. On May 22, 2003, the Chamber of the Court decided that the case was of such serious significance it would be heard by the Grand Chamber* of 17 judges rather than the normal 7 judge chamber.

On November 25, 2003, the President of the Grand Chamber granted the two pro-abortion groups [i.e., Family Planning Association (London) and the Center for Reproductive Rights (New York), both pro-abortion activist organizations] leave to intervene as third parties in the proceedings.

* Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention).

So progressive Europe has agreed on a right to life, but can't agree amongst its member states -- not who, but when -- a person qualifies for this nice protection. A feckless European Court of Human Rights, instituted to rule exclusively on such a right, declares itself incompetent and derelict.

France in this case leads European opinion. A French Europe clearly prefers an inviolate political right to abortion over a universal human right to life. But any rights that do not proceed from the primacy of a right to life cannot be secure. A French Europe would rather have dodgy rights than principled law.

That is as matters stand.

Ah yes, those criminal French... Another cheap (sick) attempt at taking an isolated tragedy and turning it into an French-bashing circus... But seriously:

A- What is the Roe vs. Wade case about, Damian?

B- Don't you think your pitiful record on out-of-wedlock children is equally as shameful?

What is the Roe vs. Wade case about, Damian?

It's about the Supreme Court pretending that there's a constitutionally protected right to infanticide, and that authority is provided to the federal government to legislate it. I think a bad batch of acid might have been involved.

zoomer

We here in this lazzais faire country, where an unwed mother could end up living under a bridge, could be excused for thinking an abortion might be the lesser evil. In socialist France, where even the most inept layabout is guaranteed home and sustenance from the cradle to the grave, you can not excuse yourselves. Killing someone just because they are not old enough to object?
This from the country that lectures on the evil of killing a monster like Saddam!

Pro-choice vs. pro-life, a topic that is hot only in conservative American minds. Coming to think of it, it is actually surprising that the matter didn't arise earlier. Yeah well maybe it is murder, most likely not, but if a woman really wants to abort, it is for sure criminal bigotry to have her do it in a hidden basement with some home-made needles and potions. And if God were to exist, He wouldn't let anyone do it anyway, would He? (unless you are God Himself, please do not try to answer this question)

Let's get to something more constructive:
There is this fine site over the net which presents political ads from 1952 ("I like Ike!") to 2004. The pictures changed but the wording seems amazingly constant: with the number of candidates that pledged to "clean-up the mess in DC", I would expect people to be able to eat on the pavement by now (Andy sure has a word to say about it).

But then new themes arise: can anyone explain why both candidates felt the need in 2004 to start every ad with "I am GWB/JFK and I support this message"?

Pro-choice vs. pro-life, a topic that is hot only in conservative American minds.

We can't know that for sure - it might also be in liberal minds, but can't escape the event horizon. Or maybe it undergoes explosive decompression upon entering. Or maybe our fat, lazy American minds can't leapfrog clear over the issue of whether the child has rights and arrive directly at the question of a woman's rights (we have this funny notion that the party being terminated should be prioritized for consideration over the party being inconvenienced). Do you also condemn public decency laws for forcing people to commit rape in out-of-the way places?

But then new themes arise: can anyone explain why both candidates felt the need in 2004 to start every ad with "I am GWB/JFK and I support this message"?

A number of reasons, but I guess they can all be summed up as "accountability". Among the campaign rules that I've never been able to keep track of are (or have been) limits on how much air time a candidate can buy and when, how much they can spend on them, and so on. When you start throwing in numerous partisan groups (Friends of Candidate X, etc.) that aren't really working directly in a candidate's name (MoveOn.org, for example, does promote Kerry but is neither funded nor directed by his campaign) these things can probably get tough to keep tabs on. A nice, clear statement from the candidate sorts all that out.

I can remember statements like that being attached to campaign commercials for years - I'm not certain, but it seems very likely to me that this disclosure is required by law.

M. Zoomerx,

The point of the post is to invite someone to make the argument the ECHR has declined to make. The EU makes a big show of declaring a set of inviolable human rights, institutes a court to rule on enforcement and protection, then...walks away. Please stop hiding behind the tragedy and explain to us why the inadvertent kiling of a healthy six-month baby in utero is not a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights of the nature of manslaughter.

Roe v. Wade is a legal fiction.

Dr. Evil,

No doubt you'd like to talk about something else, but the topic here is the European fictional right to life. Try to make a meaningful contribution.

Obviously the right to life is only a "window dressing" principle to European sophisticates such as yourself, and your tendentious dismissal seems all you can spare us. That and conjuring the left's timeless abortion basement plenteously equipped with knitting needles and unwound coat hangers. When was the last time you seriously read up on this issue?

And your simple ideas about the relationship between God and man, well, they are laughable even for a European atheist. Try reading some Augustine for a clue.

DGB

Augustine, the famous atheist?

Roe v. Wade is a legal fiction
Then I am afraid you leave in a fictitious country.

Please explain how a bunch of cells (before 12 weeks a foetus is merely that) can be assimilated to a living individual. Please go on to explain how spontaneous abortion (miscarriages) are not to be assimilated to murder (even if unwanted). And how teenagers spanking their little monkey aren't committing genocide (or half a genocide, to be precise).

Thanks Doug for this answer. I wouldn't have expected rules on how much candidates can express themselves. Wouldn't that be against the 1st amendment?

Zoomerx, I'm done with Pave: the topics brought up are either too repetitive or too sterile. From now on it's you against them all. Good luck! :)

I nearly forgot: thanks to MM.Andy, Doug and J.Mayeau for their input. We may disagree, but at least it was fun arguing with you.

Thanks Doug for this answer. I wouldn't have expected rules on how much candidates can express themselves. Wouldn't that be against the 1st amendment?

As I said, I can't keep track of which rules go where (different rules for different offices at different levels of governent in different states plus federal - it gets confusing), so I don't know specifically which limits apply to the presidential campaigns and the details of how. But one purpose behind limiting spending and air time is to keep someone from simply buying their way into office. Bill Gates could probably buy 10% of all prime time commercial spots on the three broadcast networks for a solid month before an election without feeling much pain - that isn't campaigning, it's saturation marketing. Another purpose is to keep someone else from buying you an election - Corporation X can't just buy an office for their preferred candidate.

There aren't any specific restrictions on what they can say, so it's not really a first amendment issue. They're free to campaign all they like - they can go anywhere in the country want, and stump 16 hours a day if they choose. They can print a billion pamphlets with any message they want. The restrictions just limit their ability to saturate the airwaves. Aren't there similar limits on what candidates or parties can spend and how in France? Can they buy all the TV time they want?

You're welcome, it's mutual, and drop back for some bashing whenever you miss it. ;)

Dr. Evil has left the building. Guess he couldn't cope with the abortion issue \\\\ I surmise it has unearthed some of his repressed childhood memories.

See you in the movies Doc ;-) Say hey to Mini Me.