NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/35153

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-07 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35153 alt.abortion.inequity:3545
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!psuvax1!castor.cs.psu.edu!beaver
From: [e-mail] (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: castor.cs.psu.edu
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:34:51 GMT
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (D
>>avid Knapp) writes:
>
>>>Most northern European countries although I would have to read up on
>>>current policies for those countries.
>
>Netherlands, And Germany readily come to mind. I imagine, although I'm
>not sure, that Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium and perhaps Norway
>are not very much different, knowing somewhat what their lifestyles are.
>
>>Try Germany, for example.  The zygote is a person at implantation,
>>legally defined as 14 days after conception, and is then entitled
>>to protection under the German constitution.  The debate has been
>>over whether the mother has rights superior to the unborn child's,
>>not whether the zygote is a person or not.
>
>This statement is incorrect.  The German law was changed about two months
>ago to reflect its new constituency.

Have you read the text of the new law?  I'm not so sure it states
that the fetus is not a person; rather, it would be consistent
with the West German constitution to continue to regard the fetus
as a person, but now to say that the woman's rights supercede the fetus's.
Note that in the constitutional test of the previous pro-abortion law
(the Abortion Reform Act, see 39 BVerfGE 1 (1975)) the judges were
unanimous in agreeing that the zygote was a life; the dissenters,
however, claimed the woman's rights were superior.

In any case, this law is still the subject of intense debate,
and it is by no means beyond repeal.  Kinder-Kirche-Kuche
(children-church-kitchen, for women) still runs strong, along with a
pervasive xenophobia.  Have you seen any decisions handed down
by the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding the new law?
(I read a couple months ago, when the law was passed, that certain
groups were preparing a constitutional attack on precisely the grounds
mentioned above.)


The reunification has presented a lot of unresolved problems with
contradictory laws in East and West, as you mentioned.
It is interesting to note that the Communist nations were very
"progressive" in their permission of abortion on demand.


>If I remember correctly, the new
>law allows for abortions up to at least the first tri-mester, with a
>doctor's concurring opinion. (Guess how much that will retard abortion)

And I wonder how many people in the USA would complain at the requirement
that a doctor concur.  Thus supporting the statement, "It isn't so bad
in the USA."


Germany also provides extensive, constitutionally-guaranteed support
for mothers (can you say, "bounty"?), as well as extremely female-oriented
custody laws, to discourage abortions and encourage ("Aryan") population
growth.  This is a great inequity in male-female reproductive rights, IMO,
and one reason why I'm cautious when I hear "pro-lifers" offer support
to mothers as a disincentive to abortion.

Don
--
[e-mail]                       Opinions from the PC-challenged