Seime įkurta grupė už tradicinę šeimą
Ketvirtadienį Seime įregistruota parlamentinė grupė "Už tradicinę šeimą". Jos steigėjais tapo 91 parlamentaras.
"Norime pasakyti, kad Seimas tokią (tradicinę - BNS) šeimą mato kaip prioritetą ir siekiamybę", - grupės įsteigimo motyvus BNS dėstė valstietė liaudininkė Rima Baškienė.
Ji priminė, kad buvusios kadencijos Seime veikė Šeimos ir vaiko reikalų komisija, tačiau buvo panaikinta, todėl iš dalies jos funkcijas ketina perimti parlamentinė grupė.
R.Baškienės teigimu, į grupę susibūrę Seimo nariai nori parodyti, kad jie yra už tradicinę šeimą, pagrįstą vyro ir moters santuoka, už tradicinių vertybių išsaugojimą.
"Vykdysime kryptingą veiklą, propaguodami, agituodami, pasisakydami už tradicinę šeimą", - sakė politikė.
Ši parlamentinė grupė įsteigta netrukus po to, kai Konstitucinis Teismas prieštaraujančia Konstitucijai pripažino šeimos koncepcijoje numatytą šeimos apibrėžimą, kad šeima sukuriama tik per vyro ir moters santuoką. Be to, šią savaitę Seimo narė Marija Aušrinė Pavilionienė įregistravo Partnerystės įstatymo projektą, pagal kurį partneriais galėtų tapti ne tik vyras ir moteris, bet ir tos pačios lyties atstovai.
KOMENTARAI
Komentarai surikiuoti nuo naujausio iki seniausio (rodyti atvirkščiai)
Agnei Marijai. Gerai, kad atsižvelgiama į visuomenės nuomonę. O tam Ateastui galiu priminti, kad kitokių šeimų ir nebūna.
Agnei Marijai. Gerai, kad atsižvelgiama į visuomenės nuomonę. O tam Ateastui galiu priminti, kad kitokių šeimų ir nebūna.
Jokioj srity nėra tiek institucijų kaip teisėtvarkoj. Trijų milijonų gyventojų valstybei reikia tiek visokiausių teismų? Pripainiota, primaišyta: RAJONO APYLINKĖS TEISMAS - kas tai yra ir kokios to rajono apylinkės? Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas tikrai yra AUKŠČIAUSIAS? Kiek teismų turi "galutinio ir neskundžiamo" sprendimo teisę? Apie Konstitucinį ir kalbėti nesinori... Turime tokią nevykusią konstituciją, kad jai paaiškinti reikia išlaikyti 9 teisėjų TEISMĄ ! Ar ne paprasčiau būtų perredaguoti pačią konstituciją vietoje teismo sudarius kelių protingų redaktorių grupę?
Paprastai katalikai tą propagavimą supranta, kaip kitokių šeimų diskriminavimą :(
Oct 13, 2011 Lords in London Launch San Jose Articles By Lord David Alton LONDON, October 13 (C-FAM) When Lord Nicholas Windsor became a Catholic, he renounced his claim to the throne and embraced the Church’s teaching on the right to life of the unborn. This week in a Committee Room of Parliament, he supported a groundbreaking defense of that right, stating “I see the San Jose Articles as an attempt to draw a line and fight back against the strong drift towards conjuring a fully-fledged right to abortion from out of the provisions of international human rights law.” More than 30 senior politicians, diplomats, lawyers, scholars and public figures from around the world have signed the San Jose Articles, a document that defends the unborn child and refutes the subversive international campaign that falsely claims that abortion is a human right. The importance of the Articles was recently underlined when the UN Special Rapporteur on Health, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UN Secretary General all wrongly stated that a right to abortion exists. It is precisely this approach which has led to the gendercide that has taken the lives of over 100 million girls – aborted because of their sex. The San Jose Articles, named for the city where they were drafted in Costa Rica in March 2011, were launched this month at the United Nations. Further launches have taken place in legislatures around the world – with Jim Dobbin MP and Fiona Bruce MP, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the All Party Pro Life Group, joining me at Westminster. The San Jose Articles begin by proclaiming the scientific fact that human life begins at conception and further explains that no UN treaty mentions abortion or defines reproductive health as including abortion. On the contrary, a number of human rights treaties recognize the humanity of unborn children and the rights and duties of governments to protect them as members of the human family. Over two-thirds of UN member-states have laws recognizing that unborn children deserve protection. Only 56 countries permit abortion for any reason, and only 22 of these are without restriction. Some UN agencies, non-governmental organizations and wealthy countries are waging a campaign to bully and manipulate nations - from Nicaragua to Kenya; from Columbia to Ireland - into changing their laws on abortion. In this effort they misquote treaties and, more deplorably, use aid as a form of blackmail. Developing countries are told they will lose help for the poor if they fail to conform. Protecting the unborn can lead to retaliation and retribution. Sweden, for instance, withdrew all assistance to Nicaragua after it failed to pass a liberal abortion law. To justify this shocking intrusion, Sweden said abortion “is super important to us”. Some countries are undoubtedly succumbing to the bullying and bogus assertions. The High Court of Colombia changed its country’s abortion laws based on false claims. While no international right to abortion exists, the “right to life” is set out in Article 3 of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which had its genesis in the horrors of the Second World War. The San Jose Articles re-assert the admirable impulses that gave birth to the 1948 Declaration and recognize that the greatest of all rights is the right to life. I ended my remarks at the Westminster launch with a true story. In 1954 Joanne Schieble, a young unmarried student, discovered she was pregnant. Her father would not let her marry the child’s father. Although she could have had an abortion, it was illegal and dangerous. Instead, she arranged to have the baby adopted. Paul and Clara Jobs adopted the baby boy and named him Steven. Not every child will have a life as remarkable as Steve Jobs. But with every abortion we have little idea of who we are so casually losing. As the San Jose Articles remind us, every life is precious. http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-14/title.html
Oct 13, 2011 UN Women’s Agency Openly Promotes Abortion Rights By Tom McFeely NEW YORK, October 13 (C-FAM) Call it “the Columbus Day Surprise”: On a day most Americans were celebrating a national holiday, a senior UN official for women’s rights outlined a vision for a Brave New World that incorporates a push for a global “right” to abortion. This institutional UN affirmation of abortion rights — even though such a right has never been agreed upon by UN member states and does not exist in any major international human rights document — came via a presentation made to the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on Monday morning at the start of a three-day discussion about the advancement of women. Lakshmi Puri, deputy executive director of UN Women, was the first official to address the session. UN Women was created last year by merging four separate organizations working in the area of women’s rights. Puri presented the executive summary of the first report published by UN Women, on Access to Justice. Pro-lifers in attendance said the executive summary’s most striking aspect was its explicit promotion of abortion rights. The executive summary cites strict laws against abortion in 61 countries as a glaring example of “discriminatory laws, gaps in legal frameworks and failures of implementation” through which women “continue to be denied their rights.” Abortion is also prominently referenced in a section called “Balancing the Scales: Landmark Cases That Have Changed Women’s Lives.” One such “landmark case” is a 2006 decision by the Constitutional Court of Colombia that held that a national anti-abortion law violated women’s fundamental rights. In both the summary and in Puri’s remarks, UN Women implicitly signaled it will aggressively promote its claim that abortion is a settled “right” within the framework of international law. “We have devoted significant efforts to positioning UN Women as a catalyst for change,” Puri told the Third Committee. “We chose to focus our first flagship report on the important subject of women’s access to justice because we recognize that effective systems of justice are a foundation for gender equality and women’s full enjoyment of their human rights. Reforms to bring legislation into compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [CEDAW] are a key step.” The reference to the CEDAW treaty is highly significant, pro-life UN insiders point out. Even though CEDAW does not reference abortion, the UN committee that monitors compliance with CEDAW routinely utilizes the treaty to criticize national governments that restrict abortion. Silvia Pimentel, chair of the CEDAW monitoring committee, also addressed the Third Committee on Monday. In her remarks, she called on the United States and the six other countries that have not ratified CEDAW to do so expeditiously in order to join “the global consensus that women’s rights were human rights.” According to US pro-life advocates, the Third Committee’s Columbus Day discussion gives additional reasons why Congress should continue to reject CEDAW ratification. They warn that Puri’s remarks and UN Women’s executive summary document provide some of the clearest evidence to date of the UN’s formal co-operation with the campaign to use the treaty as a primary tool for enforcing their demand for a global right to abortion. http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-14/un-women%E2%80%99s-agency-openly-promotes-abortion-rights.html
O kodėl ši grupė įkurta tik dabar? Kodėl ne iš karto po KT sprendimo paskelbimo? Matyt tylėjo po šluota kol nepaaiškėjo visuomenės nuomonė šiuo klausimų. Dabar, kai ta nuomonė tapo akivaizdi, jie jaučiasi saugūs kurti grupę ir agituoti už tradicinę šeimą, bet tai yra tik politinių dividendų uždirbimas.
"Tikras draugas visada ir nelaimėj ir bėdoj greta,
Jei tau liūdna - jam nelinksma
Tu nemiegi - jis nerimsta,
Be jokių kalbų išties
Visad ranką tau išties.
Taip veiksmai nelygu būna,
Draugo arba pataikūno !" (V. Šekspyras)
Tai dabar tik referendumą dėl LR Konstitucijos atitinkamų straipsnių keitimo paskelbti belieka.
galėsime žinoti kurie Seimo nariai yra už šeimą - galėtų ir sąrašą paviešinti.