Infanticide, late abortion and freedom of conscience denounced before the UN

Publié le : 21 March 2014

 On the occasion of an initial debate on violence against children and another debate on freedom of conscience and religion in the world held on 14 March 2014 before the United Nations Council of Human Rights in Geneva, Grégor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) endeavoured to denounce infanticide, late abortions and violation of freedom of conscience.

During the initial debate, the Director of the ECLJ invited the Council to "condemn severe violation of the rights of children through infanticide and late abortions and to commit to a universal ban on abortion beyond the viability threshold". It was in fact noted that, on the one hand, many "children survive an abortion and are left to die without treatment or are killed" and, on the other hand, "some extremely violent late abortion methods constitute genuine acts of torture".  
Currently, a premature baby born at 21 weeks can be saved. In countries such as Sweden and the United Kingdom, "abortion on demand is legal up to the viability threshold", or in France up to the end of pregnancy in the case of foetal deformities. Thus, 66 children survived an abortion in England, in 2005, and 622 in Canada between 2000 and 2011: "all of them were left to die or were killed by injection or asphyxiation". Moreover, in England, asphyxia or lethal injection is even a practice recommended to doctors by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, for babies who survive an abortion. However, Grégor Puppinck emphasises that these are the same doctors who "do all they can to save premature babies born at the same stage of pregnancy.  Killing a child who is born alive is tantamount to infanticide". 

During the second debate on freedom of conscience and religion in the world, Grégor Puppinck denounced "violation of the right to conscientious objection by doctors, nurses and pharmacists when confronted with abortion". Firstly, the Director of the ECLJ shared his fear that "western countries are confronted with a new ideology that opposes freedom of conscience and the right to conscientious objection in particular". G. Puppinck went on to justify his comments by citing Sweden which "refuses to recognise the right of doctors not to practice abortion" or even France which "refuses to recognise the right of pharmacists not to get involved with abortion when a pharmacist, doctor or nurse are made redundant on the grounds of conscientious objection". 
Mr. Puppinck went on to ask the Council for Human Rights "to closely monitor respect for the right to conscientious objection as a moral issue, which is seriously challenged in several western countries". 

Share this article

BIOETHICS PRESS SYNTHESIS