ADVERTISEMENT

France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution

Read the article I linked.
No need.

I know when a fetus is viable outside the womb.

6 weeks ain't it.
A functioning S-A node ain't it.

24-26 weeks is it. With 24 being pretty much the very bottom end, because without functioning lungs (and/or ones that cannot produce the surfactants to remain open), the baby dies.
 
PLENTY of "natural" miscarriages occur after your "6 weeks heartbeat" timeframe.
And end up "not viable". Ergo, that is a very poor 'standard'.
Big difference between a 'natural' miscarriage and an unnatural one. i.e. procedural Id suggest.
 
No need.

I know when a fetus is viable outside the womb.

6 weeks ain't it.
A functioning S-A node ain't it.

24-26 weeks is it. With 24 being pretty much the very bottom end, because without functioning lungs (and/or ones that cannot produce the surfactants to remain open), the baby dies.
These are reasonable opinions to have. I disgaree but sure, knock yourself out.
Your posts making statements that are verifiably false are ones I take issue with and have tried to explain to you multiple times.

Statements such as:
'Which an ultrasound sensor "sees" and a computer programmer turns that motion into sound.
There is no sound.'

'And the fetal heart does not pump the blood until birth. Prior to then, it is provided by the placenta and host heart.'

Tell you what, since you seem to have an incomplete understanding of heartbeat. Lets change the word to pulse.

"Fetal pulse laws" Does a fetus have a pulse?
 
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.”

Between infatuation with abortion, gay marriage, and trans rights, they’ll be extinct in a few generations. Phuck the French!
 
Big difference between a 'natural' miscarriage and an unnatural one.

Not really.

Both were "cherished embryos" from the start.
And newer research indicates that an undersized placenta - no embryonic anomalies at all - is a major risk factor for miscarriage.
 
Statements such as:
'Which an ultrasound sensor "sees" and a computer programmer turns that motion into sound.
There is no sound.'
That statement is FACT, which has been confirmed for you by other posters who looked it up.

Seems like you want to disregard basic facts in forming your opinions....BAU.
 
They are "uninformed" opinions.

When you are poorly informed, the likelihood of having a "poor" (not a "reasonable") opinion, goes up substantially.
I think you are gonna need to move to my ignore list Bud. Your shtick has grown very tiresome.

Youre often wrong, never admit it, resort to questioning others intelligence etc when you have zero idea to whom you are talking, never defer to another's knowledge.
 
That statement is FACT, which has been confirmed for you by other posters who looked it up.

Seems like you want to disregard basic facts in forming your opinions....BAU.
You can hear a fetal heartbeat in the way you suggest is the only true method, after 20 weeks, with a standard stethoscope btw. But the larger point...

The Doppler sound is not 'faked'. It is an audible representation of the cardiac flow, or pulse, of the fetal heart. It isnt creating the false impression of something that isnt there. It takes the effect of the flow of the blood from cardiac contractions and represents that as a sound that we can hear when it is output from a speaker.

This is no more fake than a digitally acquired photo is 'faked'. Taking light waves and activating sensors and turning that input into an image processed by a computer and represented on a computer screen. Are you to suggest that that isnt 'real' as well? I'd like an actual response to this. I ask you questions and you always evade.....

As I have suggested any sound we detect as humans is actually artificially created in our brains in reality as well. But this discussion is above your knowledge base so I dont expect you to get it.

Your attempt to turn the fact that cardiac activity, producing myocardial contractions and blood flow in fetal circulation isnt actually a heartbeat because it cant be heard by a stethoscope is foolish. And that a Doppler isnt real is worse.

You can make the argument that until the fetus is extrauterine that it doesnt meet your definition of a protected life but to make all these other false statements as if you have any idea WTF you are talking about is intolerable.
 
As I have suggested any sound we detect as humans is actually artificially created in our brains in reality as well.

That "sound" is heard by actual "sound sensors" (hairs) in your ears.

Doppler US is detecting MOTION. It "detects" the same sounds it "generates" to create those images.


You are truly going off the deep end, to try and claim a 6 wk fetal heart makes "audible sound". It does not.
 
The Doppler sound is not 'faked'. It is an audible representation of the cardiac flow, or pulse

Nope. It is a VISUAL representation. They "add in" the sounds with computer algorithms.
You've been told this like 6 times now, and STILL refuse to understand it.
 
That "sound" is heard by actual "sound sensors" (hairs) in your ears.

Doppler US is detecting MOTION. It "detects" the same sounds it "generates" to create those images.


You are truly going off the deep end, to try and claim a 6 wk fetal heart makes "audible sound". It does not.
How do the sound sensors in your ears work? What do they detect?

Youre doubling down on stupidity Joe.
 
There is only one Jesus. Lots of frauds and abusers are attracted to easy targets of trusting followers.
 
I assume that's a religious reference, but it isn't clear what you mean by it. How does that reference indicate the point at which governments should criminalize women getting medical help?
If we don't protect the least of these that can protect themselves what do we have? What are you calling medical help? Abortion alone? Life of the woman? What are you referring to?
 
If we don't protect the least of these that can protect themselves what do we have? What are you calling medical help? Abortion alone? Life of the woman? What are you referring to?
What is your opinion on abortion rights? What is acceptable to you?
 
When human life begins is not the right question.

When we decide a life should be protected is the right question.
At the end of the day this is right.

Set aside the biological and moral issues, there’s a perfectly fair argument to be made that a society that purports to be based in significant part on liberty ought to have some bias in its rules toward letting individuals decide at some points in time. Balsncibg tests may be mushy, but they’re not unreasonable
 
How does it move?

It is muscle tissue.

Doppler Ultrasound imaging doesn't mean it "makes noise".
U gonna claim that "clouds" make noise, now, because we use the SAME algorithms for Doppler Radar systems & tracking cloud movements???
 
It is muscle tissue.

Doppler Ultrasound imaging doesn't mean it "makes noise".
U gonna claim that "clouds" make noise, now, because we use the SAME algorithms for Doppler Radar systems & tracking cloud movements???
Correct. The muscle contracts and moves blood. Otherwise known as a heartbeat.

You do know that sound is a wave and is only ‘heard’ if that motion is detected by something and translated into a signal right?
 
Sound Waves. That Move Through The Air
That make no ‘sound’ unless those waves are converted by your ears into a chemical and electrical signal your brain or another device then interprets. The waves exist no matter but they have to be received by something to be sound. In this case the ear drum and the hair cells that MOVE and convert those waves into signals.

Just exactly like a Doppler does with motion of blood in this case. This has been explained to you many times and you refuse to listen. Because what you cannot countenance is being incorrect. Which you have been over and over in this thread.
 
You do know that sound is a wave and is only ‘heard’ if that motion is detected by something

The images you see on Doppler ultrasounds are not "sounds", bud. No matter how much you want to complain otherwise.

There is no "heartbeat" at 6 wks.
 
Do they "measure sounds"???

Jeebus, you are really quadrupling down on the stupids here.
You claim that Doppler is fake. The blood motion feom cardiac contractility it senses , is converted into sound by a microphone it’s simply a more sensitive one that is what you think of as a standard microphone.

I suspect that if you had a standard microphone , as you’d think of it, with very localizable detectors and high sensitivity that the heart and blood would in fact make sound in the very basic way you seem to think of it.

Scientists and doctors use different ways of detecting this motion that I clearly have been overestimating your ability to comprehend.

Again you can argue that you don’t care if there is a heartbeat and are for abortion and that’s your choice but to do so on the basis that the fetal heart doesn’t contract and pump blood, the mothers heart does, is verifiably false. Additionally trying to create the illusion that the heart isn’t functioning because you can’t ‘hear’ it doing so with a stethoscope early in gestation shows you lack a sophisticated understanding of science, most basically, but specifically physics and physiology.
 
S
The images you see on Doppler ultrasounds are not "sounds", bud. No matter how much you want to complain otherwise.

There is no "heartbeat" at 6 wks.
Sure bud. Because sound is one thing right? How it sounds to your ear is the only way sound exists? If you don’t hear it, it doesn’t exist? Amirite?
 
You claim that Doppler is fake.

Not at all.
Doppler US and Doppler radar measure "movement". Not "sound".

The sounds that pregnant women hear during their US exams are artificially generated, by the US systems.
You've been told this now 10 times, and two people have linked site which confirm it.
 
S

How it sounds to your ear is the only way sound exists?

Because that's what defines "sound". Even high or low frequency sounds outside our range of hearing. Those are STILL pressure waves through air.

Doppler ultrasound is NOT that. It is an IMAGING technology, like MRI or Xray/CT/fluoroscopy. We could easily assign "sounds" in a computer program to a fluoro/CT live-image; that doesn't mean the CT is "picking up sounds".
 
Well stated. Do what you want to do. I will do what I want to do. But when you try to force your religious beliefs on me and mine, we have a problem and I no longer support you doing your thing.
This is the only premise upon which real democracy and peace can endure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: funksouljon
Not at all.
Doppler US and Doppler radar measure "movement". Not "sound".

The sounds that pregnant women hear during their US exams are artificially generated, by the US systems.
You've been told this now 10 times, and two people have linked site which confirm it.
Yes it does measure movement. What generates the movement that the Doppler detects?

Let me guess. The mother's hearr pumping blood for the baby? Because that's what you stated earlier. Just want to be sure I have it right.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT