ADVERTISEMENT

France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution

A healthy premarital sex life can help make a person's married sex life and therefore subsequent marriage even better.
I agree only if the number of partners one has had is low. This idea now that girls, and guys by extension, can be run through in college and then expect to have a healthy monogamous marriage is flawed.

Ive come to believe over the years that the legality of abortion has led to a decreased reliance on partner selection strategy. People are having sex with others they would never consider actually being a relationship with. I dont think this is a good thing.
 

We don't need illegal immigrants in volume,.. We need legal immigrants capable of participating in a modern economy that every day moves more and more in the direction of high tech, increased productivity and reduced labor,.. We don't need millions of unemployable laborers.
 
I think premarital sex in and of itself is fine,.. provided it comes with personal responsibility.
Agreed. I certainly had my share. But....I also knew that a pregnancy was possible and would have had to step up if so. With a rare exception or two, I would have been willing to marry the women I was banging if I had to.
We need more of that today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifler
Well f%^k, I just wrote a long response to you and GIA choked on it and deleted.

Short version.
1) "thou shall not kill" is flawed based on A) inconsistency of application within that religious group and B) almost everyone has a red line they do think is acceptable to cross. Also, "thou shall not kill <what>" Life, any life (food animals)?, a human? what? need to be more clear on killing what?
The commandment is about killing other people. I don’t think there’s any theologic confusion on that.

2) Which religious / spiritual belief set should be the law of the land? All? None? the first here?

My point was that laws to defend my life from someone else ending it can also be found in religion, but that doesn’t make a law defending my life from you inherently religious, nor does it mean someone is pushing a religious argument.
I’m not making any argument based in religion.

3) Life and viable human life are 2 different things. So the conception position falls short when we start to poke at it once we start to define (see also #1 above). IMO conception is a cellular mass that is life based on basic definition but not a viable human life until it reaches a certain level of development (doctors know best on this). It has chromosomal / DNA markers to be a human, but isn't a human or human life yet.
If it’s not human, what species is it on the phylum tree?

You’re a big, fat cellular mass, but your DNA clearly makes you human.
I don’t see the logic in trying to argue the creature at 1 day after conception is a different creature than 1 year after conception. It’s the same DNA, just at different stages of growth.

‘Viable’ doesn’t strike me as an objective standard. Most sharks born from an egg are immediately ‘viable’, in that it doesn’t require assistance to obtain the means to continue to grow. But mammalian development has extended considerably, and 1 month old human isn’t viable in the sense it can take care of itself and continue to grow. We know it starves without care for years after birth.
And the other trouble for this standard is the advancements in medical science mean it’s likely we can see artificial placentas developed for humans within our lifetime, so viable in that medical sense will keep marching backwards.
My cousin went through a couple of miscarriages before her child was born at 22 weeks. Decades ago that was certain death for that individual.

4) Freedom OF religion also inherently implies freedom FROM "your" religion (see #2 above when conflicts arise). Otherwise, we should all be paying tithings right now (as one of many examples).
I’m not trying to make any religious argument.

5) Separation of church and state means a religious belief (human life begins at conception (which unto itself I disagree with)) shouldn't be used to create law (abortion bans).
Again, I don’t see that as religious, but scientific. You are the undeniably distinct iteration of your ancestrally combined DNA. There have been environmental changes to your DNA, but you’re the same distinct genetic individual today that you were when cell one of you was created. You’re not a tumor of your mother.
If you weren’t human, what were you?

This idea, that in one place you’re a human, but that same individual in another place (the other side of the birth canal) less than human, reminds me of the Mason-Dixon Line.
On this side, a person recognized with the rights to life, liberty etc, but on that side of the line that person is someone else’s property, to be disposed as they see fit.
I find that an uncomfortable and unconvincing argument.
 
With the endorsement of a specially convened session of lawmakers at Versailles, France on Monday became the first country in the world to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in its constitution — an effort galvanized by the rollback of protections in the United States.

The amendment referring to abortion as a “guaranteed freedom” needed the approval of three-fifths of lawmakers.

Hundreds of Parisians gathered on a crisp winter’s day to watch the proceedings live on a giant television screen at Le Parvis des Droits de l’Homme — or “Human Rights Square” — in central Paris, with the Eiffel Tower looming dramatically over the scene.
Before the political debate began, the television screen showed a montage of women’s rights campaigners around the world holding signs declaring, “My body is mine” and “My body, my choice.” The sound system blared Aretha Franklin’s “Respect.” Parisians driving by honked their horns.



France decriminalized abortion in 1975; abortion is legal for any reason through the 14th week of pregnancy. This amendment won’t change any of that.
But while other countries have inferred abortion rights protections from their constitutions, as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, France is the first to explicitly codify in its constitution that abortion rights are protected. France is not interpreting its constitution; it is changing its constitution.
“March 4, 2024 is now engraved in the great history of human rights and women’s rights as a historic turning point‚” said Senator Mélanie Vogel, one of the main backers of the bill.
The outcome was “also a promise for all women who fight all over the world for the right to have autonomy over their bodies — in Argentina, in the United States, in Andorra, in Italy, in Hungary, in Poland,” said lawmaker Mathilde Panot, who had introduced the bill in the National Assembly. “This vote today tells them: your struggle is ours, this victory is yours.”


A reaction to the United States​

Activists and politicians have been transparent that this is, above all, a response to what has been happening in the United States since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022 and determined that the right to abortion has no constitutional stature — it could no longer be inferred from constitutional privacy protections.



France has moved in the opposite direction, with its politicians saying that abortion is indeed a matter of constitutional relevance. And more than that: The right to an abortion should be a “guaranteed freedom.”
Macron moves to add abortion to France’s constitution, reacting to U.S.
“It’s interesting to see French politicians saying, ‘We’re going to take the constitution into our own hands and away from the courts, or at least limit how much discretion the courts are going to have in this area,” said Mary Ruth Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis and the author of “Roe: The History of a National Obsession.”
The overturning of Roe was a “major shock around the world,” said Floriane Volt, a spokesperson for Fondation Des Femmes, a women’s right’s organization that organized Monday’s gathering.

“In France, it helped us so that French politicians understood what we were saying to them for years and years … we have to fight for abortion rights,” she said.
In many countries, abortion is protected by law, not court decision
She added that she hoped that the success of the French campaign would strengthen other abortion rights movements.

“U.S. activists — don’t give up the fight,” said Lola Schulmann, an advocacy officer with Amnesty International in Paris and another organizer of Monday’s gathering. “What is happening in France is for you and all women fighting for abortion rights in the world.”

A protester holds a placard during a demonstration against abortion and euthanasia in Versailles, France, on Monday. (Geoffroy Van Der Hasselt/AFP/Getty Images)

What would it take to change the U.S. Constitution, too?​

In both the United States and France, polls show that a majority of people broadly support abortion rights. But abortion is more divisive in the United States than in France. That may be in part because France is proud of its commitment to secularism. It may also be because abortion in France has long been framed as a public health issue, rather than a privacy issue, said Stéphanie Hennette-Vauchez, a professor of public law at the University of Paris-Nanterre.



Changing the U.S. Constitution would be harder — it requires not only two-thirds majority support in both houses of Congress, but also ratification by at least 38 of 50 state legislatures.
“The obstacles are more significant,” Ziegler said.
She noted that one of the most “notorious examples” of how hard it is to change the U.S. Constitution was the failure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which declared that sex discrimination was unconstitutional in the United States. “I think most people would think that’s less controversial than an abortion amendment would be,” Ziegler said.
Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified in the 1780s, it has only been amended 27 times, including the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. “That sort of perspective gives you a sense of just how difficult it is” to change it, said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University. “It’s even more difficult today to come up with a supermajority given the political divisions.” By contrast, the current constitution of France, adopted in 1958, has been amended 24 times.



State constitutions in the United States can be amended more easily than the U.S. Constitution. And so, “for people supporting women’s rights, the strategy has been to go incrementally through the states, and hope to build eventually towards something nationally,” Ziegler said.
Since the end of Roe, six states — California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont and Ohio — have approved abortion-related constitutional amendments. At least 13 additional states are trying to get abortion amendments on their ballots this year.

The future of abortion rights in France​

In France, nothing will change immediately as a result of the new constitutional amendment.

The amendment doesn’t change the status quo or the content of legislation as it stands today. For instance, it is not suddenly legal for any reason to terminate a pregnancy after the 15th week of pregnancy. The French National Assembly and the Senate would need to pass legislation if they wanted to make that kind of change.


“It’s up to Parliament to regulate in this field,” Hennette-Vauchez said. But, going forward, “Parliament cannot do exactly what they want. They need to legislate in a particular direction. And that direction is one that would preserve the idea of a guaranteed freedom.”
She hypothesized a situation in which a new government decided that abortion was no longer fully covered by the country’s health insurance system. That kind of change probably wouldn’t fly under the new amendment.

But she noted that judicial interpretation is difficult to predict. “In that sense, the word ‘guarantee’ is very important, but it’s also relatively undefined.”
France’s constitutional amendment doesn’t safeguard abortion rights in France for eternity. Recognizing a right doesn’t eliminate all of the questions about that right. There will still be judicial interpretation over what a “guaranteed freedom” means.
And as lawmakers this year have shown, constitutions can be changed.
Far-right leader Marine Le Pen dismissed the historic nature of Monday’s vote, saying that it did not respond to any particular difficulties in France and was merely “a day that Emmanuel Macron organized for his own glory.”

Good for France. And I agree that this was totally driven by U.S. actions to strip women of their rights.
 
Do you think the increasing frequency of premarital sex has been a good thing for the country or a bad thing?
Generally good. But not uniformly good. Occasionally not good.

Clearly the answer is to force any unmarried person who has sex to immediately get married.

Problem solved.

Oh wait . . . that doesn't solve the problem? Then maybe it isn't the "premarital" part we should get worked up about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02
Ireland is mostly atheist now like France and America.
Roman Catholic 68.3%
Protestant 3.8% (Church of Ireland/Church of England/Anglican/Episcopalian 2.4%, other Protestant 1.4%)
Orthodox 2%
Other Christian 0.9%
Muslim 1.4%
Other 1.6%
None 15.4%
Unspecified 6.6%


I always trust the CIA. Doesn't everybody?
 
Ireland is mostly atheist now
No; Ireland is Catholic.

But after a woman was forced to carry a dead fetus with a functioning S-A node, until she became critically ill and died, they woke TF up and decided their anti-abortion policies were wrong and draconian.

They decided the lives of the women were more important than embryos or non-viable fetuses.
 
I could not care less if abortion is legal or not but I seriously lmao seeing men be so emotional about it.
 
I could not care less if abortion is legal or not but I seriously lmao seeing men be so emotional about it.

FUNFACT: Some men are married to women who have problem pregnancies, and require abortions before their health is impacted or their lives are in danger. Others have adult daughters and they want them to have the right to make those same decisions for themselves.
 
The commandment is about killing other people. I don’t think there’s any theologic confusion on that.



My point was that laws to defend my life from someone else ending it can also be found in religion, but that doesn’t make a law defending my life from you inherently religious, nor does it mean someone is pushing a religious argument.
I’m not making any argument based in religion.


If it’s not human, what species is it on the phylum tree?

You’re a big, fat cellular mass, but your DNA clearly makes you human.
I don’t see the logic in trying to argue the creature at 1 day after conception is a different creature than 1 year after conception. It’s the same DNA, just at different stages of growth.

‘Viable’ doesn’t strike me as an objective standard. Most sharks born from an egg are immediately ‘viable’, in that it doesn’t require assistance to obtain the means to continue to grow. But mammalian development has extended considerably, and 1 month old human isn’t viable in the sense it can take care of itself and continue to grow. We know it starves without care for years after birth.
And the other trouble for this standard is the advancements in medical science mean it’s likely we can see artificial placentas developed for humans within our lifetime, so viable in that medical sense will keep marching backwards.
My cousin went through a couple of miscarriages before her child was born at 22 weeks. Decades ago that was certain death for that individual.


I’m not trying to make any religious argument.


Again, I don’t see that as religious, but scientific. You are the undeniably distinct iteration of your ancestrally combined DNA. There have been environmental changes to your DNA, but you’re the same distinct genetic individual today that you were when cell one of you was created. You’re not a tumor of your mother.
If you weren’t human, what were you?

This idea, that in one place you’re a human, but that same individual in another place (the other side of the birth canal) less than human, reminds me of the Mason-Dixon Line.
On this side, a person recognized with the rights to life, liberty etc, but on that side of the line that person is someone else’s property, to be disposed as they see fit.
I find that an uncomfortable and unconvincing argument.

Im not trying to convince you with my position, I was giving you the courtesy of a defined response.

So the entire post and reply before yours, as well as your response had theology laced throughout, so of course my response was theology based. I also used quotes around your to indicate the royal, not you specifically. Sorry you didn't catch that distinction, esp since you mentioned "im not religious".

Moving away from the theological aspect, we are talking about human beings, a person. Not a mass of cells that is carry the traits of a human and will form into a human. You asked "if not human, what were you?" There are some very clearly scientific definitions.
  • The combined sperm and egg is called a zygote.
  • divides to form a ball of cells called a blastocyst
  • inner group of cells will become the embryo
  • Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period."
  • Fetus
IMO, they all have the traits of a human, the DNA, cell differentiation, but are not considered human beings, or, are people.

I would submit your note about the Mason Dixon line is a complete strawman distraction. Take all the people in the US away, humans repopulate the US, the MasonDixon is no more. It will never exactly be repeated in any other simulation, because it is arbitrary. The birth canal on the other hand does present some very distinct changes in the interaction between the baby, it's host, and the world around it. And that is pretty static in the development and evolution of people.

I would submit that a human is a person somewhere in the Position 3 in the following lecture.

But, for the purpose of when is abortion tolerable vs not, I do not buy the argument that it is at conception. While at the genetic level it is human DNA, it is NOT a human person. But again, it isn't really my opinion that should create legislation for all women, it is my belief that they should be able to decide with their doctor. But it is my job to defend my daughters right to decide, not have evangelicals apply their religious standards on my children.

Viable - capable of living. You don't know if a human fetus is viable until well into development, that's why it is an important litmus. Esp when talking about people and not oviparous sharks.

If you don't understand the difference in the support needed for a 1 month old baby and a 16 week old fetus to be capable of living independently, especially if you want to talk about sharks, this isn't the right medium for the discussion.
 
Weekly Church attendance is a better metric, IMO.


Except attendance is a metric on how active they are within their faith, whereas "which system, if any do you subscribe to?" was the question. And it is very condescending for you to think that people need to attend church to show how religious they are and if they don't, then they shouldn't be counted as having faith.
 
we are talking about human beings, a person. Not a mass of cells that is carry the traits of a human and will form into a human. You asked "if not human, what were you?" There are some very clearly scientific definitions.
  • The combined sperm and egg is called a zygote.
  • divides to form a ball of cells called a blastocyst
  • inner group of cells will become the embryo
  • Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period."
  • Fetus
Those are true of all mammalian life forms, as is adolescence and adulthood.
But at each stage of growth a human is a human, and a dog is a dog.

I asked if the ‘mass of cells’ isn’t human, where do you put it on the phylum tree?

Is it ever not human at some stage of growth? If not, what is it?

IMO, they all have the traits of a human, the DNA, cell differentiation, but are not considered human beings, or, are people.

Is the whole basis of that opinion that something really young just can’t be human? That’s your logic?

I would submit your note about the Mason Dixon line is a complete strawman distraction. Take all the people in the US away, humans repopulate the US, the MasonDixon is no more. It will never exactly be repeated in any other simulation, because it is arbitrary. The birth canal on the other hand does present some very distinct changes in the interaction between the baby, it's host, and the world around it. And that is pretty static in the development and evolution of people.

My point in that comparison is that my second cousin, under your logic about age determining humanity, is not human inside her mother’s womb at 22 weeks, and can be killed. Whereas, upon removing her from the womb and placing her in an incubator she’s suddenly human and deserves lawful protection from someone who would take active measures to end her life.

This side of the birth canal, property, to be disposed of as the owner sees fit, other side of the birth canal, human, with all the protections the law provides a human.
The age is the same, only difference is being on the ‘wrong side’ of the line in the eyes of the law.

Viable - capable of living. You don't know if a human fetus is viable until well into development, that's why it is an important litmus. Esp when talking about people and not oviparous sharks.

If you don't understand the difference in the support needed for a 1 month old baby and a 16 week old fetus to be capable of living independently, especially if you want to talk about sharks, this isn't the right medium for the discussion.
1 month old baby is incapable of living without support. Our evolution has drastically extended our ‘helpless’ period as a species.

30 years ago my premie second cousin would have essentially no shot. I think science is inevitably going to keep peeling back that age.
 
We don't need illegal immigrants in volume,.. We need legal immigrants capable of participating in a modern economy that every day moves more and more in the direction of high tech, increased productivity and reduced labor,.. We don't need millions of unemployable laborers.
No matter how high tech we get, we will always need laborers to pick crops, clean houses and hotel rooms, do many of the construction jobs, and a number of other physical labor jobs that most Americans will not do.
 
And yet, you won't support legal increases on immigration to make up that gap.

Furthermore, Republicans REFUSE to increase welfare systems to support thousands of "babies you want to save", so they end up in poverty and grow up without support infrastructure around them. And NOW the GOP is actively working to gut public education systems these same "embryos" would rely on.

Their entire thought process here is utterly dyslexic. If you cherish the unborn embryos, you would absolutely expand social safety nets for them. But they don't. And they won't.
Who said I said that? You made wrong assumptions. If we don't open reasonable methods of immigration we will fall of the demographics cliff. I have an adopted daughter who was a war refugee. Why would I be against immigration.

You wrongly assumed that because I have criticisms of the Ukrainian govt that I am pro Putin. Btw I have personally dealt with the Ukrainian mafia. One lady I was working with had her father in law torn up by a Moscow Guard dog because of her working with me.

Just stop with the assumptions
 
You can deliver NOTHING with the folks you vote for running the show, blocking basic social safety nets for lower-middle-class and poor people
I asked you a simple question. If this were possible, and it is because this is a theoretical discussion, would you trade universal healthcare for an abortion ban?
 
Oh wait . . . that doesn't solve the problem? Then maybe it isn't the "premarital" part we should get worked up about.
No you’re right it isn’t. It’s the fact people want to have sex yet want none of the responsibility that comes with it. So we erase the consequences. Otherwise known as abortions.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Wendy79
Link to data showing there’s been an “increasing frequency of premarital sex?”
I tried to find something quick but let me define things a bit better.

Because this is what I’m getting at.

I’m not concerned than one person having premarital sex with someone they intend to marry. Or the numbers of individual that report having had premarital sex. Rather more accurately the number of sexual partners and sexual encounters prior to marriage.

So while the percentage of Americans that have had premarital sex has. or has not, changed in decades is less relevant than the fact your average person has sex 3x with one partner prior to marriage in 1950 and 300x with 30 partners now. The likelihood of an abortion resulting being much higher in the latter I’d predict.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Wendy79
I think the freedom to live life as you see fit, is a GOOD thing.
And not have Bible-beaters imposing their versions of "morality" on you.
It's okay Joe, we know you don't have any morality. That's what happens when you lack foundational beliefs. You just go where the wind takes you.
 
I asked you a simple question. If this were possible, and it is because this is a theoretical discussion, would you trade universal healthcare for an abortion ban?
An "abortion ban" precludes the right to "universal healthcare", for the people who need an abortion to sustain their reproductive health.

Yes, there are women who have had miscarriages who have gone 'sterile' due to denied/delayed care because of abortion bans.

So, your premise is fully flawed from the outset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoProudNole
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT