If abortion were banned on the state or national level, would "pro-lifers" support...

So Germans assume all women are stupid and must be force fed the "facts of life". ...OK, I thought Germany was more advanced than that, my mistake.

If abortion isn't murder why is there a law against it. To CONTROL and punish women can be the only answer.

 

Yes. This is true, especially for living donors who are limited by laws on what costs may be defrayed by the buyer.

For tissue of the deceased, some states offer additional compensation according to Findlaw.

If PP is only recovering or passing through the compensation deemed legal by law, I doubt a crime has been committed.

 

Sure, and they by Lamborghini's with the cash tip put into the jar at the receptionist desk at the local Planned Parenthood.

 

Then you assumed wrongly. Coercion to counceling in Germany is not limited to abortion but also occurs in other cases, for example unemployment. In all those cases, including abortion, those programs have been quite controversal. Insofar, you might rightfully acknowledge that the understanding of liberty in Germany is different from that in other countries and especially the English-speaking world.

It should not be left unmentioned, though, that - contrary to what you indicate - the sexist notion does rather not lie in the assumption that consulting can be effective but rather in the assumption that consulting had absolutely no effect, since this implies that women make decisions not based on the available information (and therefore on reason) but that their decisions were rather an axiomatic part of their personality (i.e. based on their instincts). I clearly reject the latter.

The purpose of the law is to protect the unborn life. Think away from the "punishment", "murder" and all the other revenge stuff. It doesn't actually bring us very far.

Ironically, statements like this imply the sexist world view that you actually want to deprecate, which is not only ironic, but also quite sad.

 

The purpose of the law is to protect the unborn? From what? From the woman aborting (killing) it. Why would that be considered wrong if it's not murder?
What IS it called?


The understanding of "liberty" in Germany is that it's not equally applied to women.



Is abortion paid for by the government? Then, like unemployment, there should be counseling....if the woman isn't seeking government assistance then it should be no one's business but hers.

""""""""""you might rightfully acknowledge that the understanding of liberty in Germany is different """""""

It certainly is " different"..... (absent).


My idea of liberty is that both sexes enjoy it and for women it means having her reproductive tract all to herself, able to decide what to do with it and her life without government interference. Abortion is a medical procedure, nothing more.

 

1: Property rights of the father regarding growing sperm.
2: Interests in enforcing authenticated agreements to procreate.
3: Interests of parents teaching abortions are killing and immoral if a heartbeat is stopped after 12-weeks.
4: State interests in protecting young children and public from witnessing unnatural loss of life.
5: State interests in prohibiting detectable violations of natural law.
6: State interests in scientific discoveries and inventions lost already and continuing to be lost.

This law prohibits abortions from being done after development of a heartbeat. This will result in abortions being done before 12-weeks gestation or NOT AT ALL, except for when medically necessary.

It will not be worthless for parents to then be able to teach children life "starts" and is protected by the State when a heartbeat develops until a jury sentences the person to death or another unplanned artificial interruption of life occurs.

The death penalty is abortion of life by the State after conviction by a jury and does not deter criminals. (source)

The State should NEVER allow artificial abortion of a human heartbeat and will recognize this empirically soon enough. Unless death penalty convicts become mandatory organ donors, there is no honorable return for aborting heartbeats at either end of a life.

 

It is abortion, and as such ("pregnancy abort"), it is also conceptionalized in the law (§ 218 StGB). The Constitutional Court openly describes it as "Tötung" (killing) (cf. BVerfGE 88, 203).

That is an opinion, but I don't think it has much base in this context.

The laws concerning abortion are based on the assumption that the unborn child has a right to live (as explicitly mentioned in the decision by the Constitutional Court). Based on that assumption and under full acknowledgement of the woman's right to self determination, the court has ruled that the "right to live" [sic] of the "unborn" [sic] has a higher rank in the constitution than the right to self-determination of the pregnant woman.

I can only repeat that this has to do with the structure and nature of the German constitution in which the right to life (Art. 1) is categorically more important than the right to self determination (Art. 2). The thing is that you simply have different assumptions here. You don't assume that the fetus is a human who actually has rights. The Constitutional Court had a different opinion.

My personal opinion in this regard is that neither you nor the German Consitutional court are right, but that it is a matter which lies in a philosophical uncertainty. In my opinion, this means that the government must undertake all actions in order to protect the unborn life and on the other hand may not criminalize the pregnant woman. The counceling is actually debateable. As said before, I acknowledge that, by making it a requirement for a legal abortion, it is being coerced and usually I reject coercion. On the other hand, I find it rather counter-productive to over-dramatize the matter. For those pregnant women who are firm in their decision and already informed about all matters, the counceling is merely a bureaucratic act of not more than 20 minutes, similar to obtaining a passport in the city hall. If you want to call that mind control or intimidation, that's your thing. It would rather not come to my mind that I am being coerced to obtain a passport, because it is required in order to leave the country - or that I am being mind controlled by a border guard who wants to know my destination and then discourages me to go there because of a travel warning by the Department of State, but, maybe, in your opinion, women are just different. As I mentioned before, it is actually very hard to fight against these sexist notions of weak women who don't have an opinion of their own and easily just do what they're told to. I am very happy, that these clichees don't have much ground in Germany anymore and women are assumed and encouraged to make a reasonable decision in their best interest, even and especially when being confronted with positions which challenge their convictions.

 

I understand, women do not have equal rights in Germany ... a fetus even has more rights. A fetus has the right to harm the woman but women have no right to self -defense (without begging and/or justifying their reasons).

Well, here a fetus is not a person. It has no rights. Which is as it should be.

 

What punishments do you want? There is another thread on this that you can go explain it on, or explain it here. Laws with no enforcement provisions are, of course, nothing.

 

After all, they are Germans, historically control freaks and social engineers over private lives including procreation. German women just drive across the border. It isn't far.

 

I wish for punishments to be deterrents without any question.
I prefer infliction of severe physical pain and permanent mutilation for rape convictions.
Cruel and unusual punishments would deter rape and murder and should make criminals hope for death. I would rather see "torture" and harvesting of kidney, liver, lung, and heart replace lethal injection. Castration and removal of the penis would deter rape. Rape could be a capital offense depending on circumstances.

 

If you are refusing to answer just say so. I didn't ask about rape. But about your list. Such as violating a man's "property right to his sperm." What is a woman does that?

 

Actually, the fetus doesn't have more rights than a woman, but less. The life of the fetus is not protected by laws which criminalize its killing by penalties up to 25 years. Insted it is protected by making counceling obligatory prior to its elimination. There are no laws which remove the penalty for killing a woman after a counceling has taken place in which the person who wants to kill her is being told that she is eventually an individual with a right to live.

It has been argued by some (few) philosophers - particularly those of the English speaking world - that abortion could be percieved as a self-defense situation not only in cases that the life of the pregnant woman is threatened but also in every other situation, since the process of pregnancy (1) bears certain medical risks, (2) is usually accompanied by a lot of pain and (3) alters the physical state of the pregnant woman's body to a certain extent.

The argument was actually not taken into consideration by the German Constitutional Court. The decision weighs up the life of the unborn merely against the right to self determination, but not against the harm that a pregnancy will cause to her (i.e., in the legal sense, the right to physical integrity), except in the case of serious complications during the pregnancy, because it assumes that a pregnant woman, in all stages of a normal pregnancy, is a person with full physical integrity. As far as I know, there haven't been philosophers who would argue for the fetus' "right to live" and at the same time come to the conclusion that the right to physical integrity in this case outweighs the "right to live", except, as I stated, in the case of complications during the pregnancy.

In the newer debate, however, it was argued that the notion of percieving abortion as self defense in all pregnancy cases, violates the principle of proportionality. Killing, even in cases where my physical integrity is constantly being harmed by another person, is not permitted in any case, especially not in the case when the harm is an unintended and inevitable side effect of the overall situation. To give an example, it would rather not be argued that in a case when two people are inevitably locked in a room and one of them carries an illness, this would allow the other person to kill the infected. Such an action would only be legitimate if the disease certainly led to death.

Even more so, it has been argued by the decision of the German Constitutional Court, that not only an abotion violates the right of the "unborn life", but that there is a legal duty ("Rechtspflicht") of the pregnant woman to continue the pregnancy, in the same way as there is a legal duty to help a person who is injured (cf. laws criminalizing denial of assistance, for example in § 323c StGB, see also here).

The second argument that can be brought up against the notion of percieving abortion as self defense in all cases of pregnancy is the perception that the pregnancy was not caused by the fetus, and was neither inevitable but that it was directly caused by the couple at the time of conception, who actually put the unborn life to the place where it can not be removed without causing any harm.

As mentioned before, these lines of argument can only be understood when assuming that the fetus actually does have a right to live. After all, I think indeed that this is the critical point where the perceptions in terms of abortion are ultimately divided.

The legal terms here actually don't conceptualize the fetus as a person, but as an "unborn" or as "developing life". This is one of the reasons why abortion is not percieved as a classic act of killing ("Tötungshandlung"), but that laws were created which deal exclusively with the matter of abortion.

 

Post 364 is NOT my quote

 

OK, you state """The life of the fetus is not protected by laws which criminalize its killing by penalties up to 25 years. ""

How is that NOT protected by law?



And sorry to see that there are no self defense laws in Germany and anyone can beat the crap out of someone without them being allowed to fight back.
In this country we do not even have to take abuse from the mentally incompetent . Harming others is wrong in the US.



""" but that there is a legal duty ("Rechtspflicht") of the pregnant woman to continue the pregnancy, in the same way as there is a legal duty to help a person who is injured """

So pregnancy has no injuries in Germany...how nice to pretend women don't receive injury from pregnancy but then women don't sound very important in Germany...and obviously they can be beaten and are not allowed to fight back.

In conclusion: German abortion law: Barbaric and backwards aimed at punishing women for having sex ( """"that it was directly caused by the couple at the time of conception, who actually put the unborn life to the place where it can not be removed without causing any harm.""""")




.....and does NOTHING to stop abortions

 

The sentence might have been miscomprehensible. The intended meaning was:
The life of women is being protected by laws which criminalize killing a woman by penalties up to 25 years. In contrast to that, the life of the fetus is not protected by such laws but merely by an obligation to undertake counceling before the fetus is removed.

There are actually laws supporting self defense in Germany (cf. § 32 StGB), and, de jure, they are even more rigorous than those of the United States. Abortion in the United States, however, was not legalized on the ground that it can be percieved as self defense, though. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court decision states:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. [...] Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.​

In other words: The United States Supreme Court acknowledges that if the unborn had a right to live, the court wouldn't have decided in favour of the legalization of abortion.

Women can receive injury from pregnancy even until the last day of this pregnancy. Arguing both that the unborn has a right to live and that the woman has a right to self defense would mean that women should be allowed to conduct abortions even until that last day. But that is not the line of argument. Or maybe it is yours, I don't know.

Actually I can only repeat myself here that the concept of revenge is alien to the German legal theory. The purpose of the abortion law is the protection of the unborn life.

Within the scholarly debate of the issue, there is a broad consensus that risk factors of abortion are poverty and lack of social security. In contrast to the English speaking sphere, daycare and health insurance are free of charge in Germany and citizens as wel as foreign nationals are entitled to them (from the age of one and in cases of hardship from the day of birth), people have a right to have their apartment paid by their government in case of unemployment and receive a sufficient amount of money (the equivalent of more than 420 USD) per month both for themselves, as well as for every other person in the household. In contrast to the public debate on abortion in the United States, the public debate rarely stigmatizes women who are about to or have conducted an abortion because even the most conservative institutions have realized that it is of no help to the matter. I suppose we talk again in a few decades when the United States do as much for pregnant women in need.

 

No, RvW is NOT based on the fetus being a person and I never said it was. If German law says it's a person then the woman it is in SHOULD have self defense as a recourse to stop the fetus from harming her.

And your phrase, """""""that it was directly caused by the couple at the time of conception, who actually put the unborn life to the place where it can not be removed without causing any harm.""""".....proves, that like all of the Anti-Abortion people it ALWAYS boils down, eventually, to punishing the woman for having sex.
Whether that is intentional or not doesn't matter, it does.




You: """In contrast to the public debate on abortion in the United States, the public debate rarely stigmatizes women who are about to or have conducted an abortion because even the most conservative institutions have realized that it is of no help to the matter""

Yes, some backwards, ignorant people (Anti-Abortionists ) DO stigmatize, denigrate, women who have abortions , even calling them murderers....then, if the woman has the baby and needs assistance the same people scream and call her a leech on society. That's not right. But the majority of Americans, even if they don't approve of abortion, believe it should be legal.
Yes, Germany with it's free health insurance is better, in that respect, than the US .


In Canada they have no abortion laws and their abortion rate is actually lower than ours. It's another reason I don't think abortion laws are necessary and I will never agree they are anything more than an attempt to control and punish women for getting pregnant.

 

That is not what my posting was saying. I stated that RvW is clearly based on the interpretation that a fetus is not a person - and that the Supreme Court acknowledges, that, if the interpretation was different (i.e. if they had the same interpretation as the decision in the German supreme court is based on), they would have come to a different conclusion and had not legalized abortion.

The phrase doesn't imply any form of punishment, it implies that the pregnancy was caused by the couple at conception and that it is therefore a distortion of facts to view the fetus as an aggressor, since it was not the fetus who put itself there but it was actually put there. If someone locks me into his house and I break his window, he can not blame me for breaking it and he can not 'defend' himself by shooting me. That doesn't make much sense and it doesn't have anything to do with punishment, either.

That a baby in the womb must be cared for is not punishment, it is simply a matter of fact. Percieving pregnancy as punishment is one of the oldest sexist chlichees, by the way. That whole punishment thinking doesn't lead to anywhere. It's merely a distraction from the matter.

 

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. They are two separate acts. No one put the fetus there( like your analogy that you were locked into a house). But once the fetus is there it immediately attacks the women, compromising her immune system and affecting her blood pressure. Then the list of harm goes on and on....she should be free to end this harm .


Insisting that she has some weird obligation to give birth because she had sex IS punishing the woman for having sex.....there is no way around it.

A woman forced to maintain unwanted pregnancy does not instantly become a loving caring mother.

 

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy but in every pregnancy, it is obvious that the fetus never gave his consent to be in the womb.

If someone locks me into another person's house and that other person knows that I was put there without my consent, he can neither defend himself by shooting me, even if I break his window in order to escape the house.

After all, acknowledging the absudity of self defense justification with respect to pregnancy doesn't require concepts of guilt or punishment towards the pregnant woman. It requires merely to see the obvious fact that the unborn life is not guilty of the situation of the woman.

The obligation to give birth (if such a thing exists) doesn't result from the act of sex; it results from the fact that the unborn life needs care. In the same way as the obligation to help an injured person is not an obligation only of the person who caused the accident, but also everyone else's obligation.

 

Your locked in the house analogy must lose something tin the translation....it makes no sense in English.

We don't use the self defense issue here because the fetus is not a person.

NO "person" has the right to harm another without their consent. ... so IF the fetus is deemed a person it has NO right to harm another. Period. It cannot have "super" rights over another.

The woman is NOT obligated to give the fetus care since she didn't create it or consent to it's presence.




The woman having sex consented to only having sex, she did not consent to pregnancy(locking someone in a house), she didn't do that.

 

What evidence, you haven't produced any and of course you evade answering the question about the states calling for an investigation into the PP clinics in their jurisdiction even though those clinics do not partake in any tissue donation scheme .. explain the justification in that please.

Live action news are known for twisting and cherry picking, if those were scientists testifying before congress then produce the transcript of the actual testimony, not some two-bit site known for producing articles with their own twist added.

- Lewis Wolpert - Emeritus Professor of Biology as applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and developmental biology at University College London.

furthermore, explain whether a chimera twin is one human being or two?

 

The way you have arranged your quotation of me makes it appear as though the last balloon is my quotation. I would like to say that I don't appreciate you misquoting me, especially with such stupefying nonsense.

You usual technique of attacking the messenger doesn't work with me. I care not if you don't like my sources. If you have some sources that proves otherwise then that is your prerogative.

I don't know what conjoined twins has to do with anything.

PS. If you must break up quotes, you should do so in such a manner as to be clear that the quotation balloons are from the poster as I have done when breaking up your quotations. Otherwise, don't break up the quotes if you don't know how to do it properly.

(like this: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=416400&page=9&p=1065296454#post1065296454)