>

I specifically said "breathe and eat on their own."  They can function as an individual.

The mother had a choice to sleep with a man

AH! And there it is!  It always boils down to this with pro-lifers. Punishment. You think because a woman made a choice you don't like, she should be forced to be pregnant against her will.  Because in your books birth control never fails, rape never happens, health issues never appear. It's always because the woman did a naughty thing that makes you feel icky, and you want her to suffer for it.
Have a good day.
This should be done at the EU level!
Everyone needs to have full rights on its own body! >

Good luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections. >

Unfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month. >

There is no alternative to vote for. >

The lesser evil >

There is no lesser evil, you either vote for PiS or KE/whatever Tusks party  is called and get your country wrecked.
Holownia is way too fresh to give him any meaningful political power right now. >

That's the point, no matter who you vote for it's gonna end up badly, you just need to choose bettwen two bads. >

If only the us was so advanced. >

You guys need more strikes >

My state (Texas) made it so if my profession (teacher) strikes, that I lose my professional license and my entire pension.
Edit: not saying I don't strike. When there are strikes announced, I'm there. But there are a lot of people who are afraid of the consequences. We need the support of everyone - we are barely a democracy here. >

..how does that even work ?
"I don’t like how things currently are, so I will voice my discontent !"
"Well well well, looks like someone lost kneecaps privileges" >

I’d ultimately prefer unlimited abortion ability over no abortion ability. >

Yeah, but what did France actually pass? >

Nothing (yet, hopefully). The title literally says "to add to the Constitution" which would make it a "stronger" law you can't change unless you change the Constitution.
Right now abortion is legal in France (until 14 weeks) but the Parlement could change the law anytime (honestly it's never happening under this Parlement and probably only if there's a far-right majority one day). If it's in the Constitution, it can't be changed or overturned as easily. >

I’d bet a 12-14 week abortion law would pass in the US. Congress should put it up for a vote >

Could someone familiar with France provide context here?

Suppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?
Just reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?
As of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like "Congress shall make no law" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?

I guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change? >


Could someone familiar with France provide context here?

The context is that in France the support for abortion is so strong (90% in favor), that adding it to the constitution is completely unnecessary.
It's just a diversion attempt from domestic troubles, but nobody really cares so people are still in the streets. >

Yes, the first thing about France, is that the immense majority of people are completely in line with the separation of church and state, so any religious nonsense is never ground for debate in French politics.  

It's just a diversion attempt from domestic troubles, but nobody really cares so people are still in the streets.  

Very likely, I never heard anyone having a serious stance vs abortion in France. >


Very likely, I never heard anyone having a serious stance vs abortion in France.

Marine Le Pen very briefly tried to go against what she called "convenience abortions" but got so much backlash she won't touch it anymore. That should tell you something.
Even Eric Zemmour, arguably the most far-right-conservative-women-bad candidate France has seen in modern times, said he wouldn't dream of attacking this right. >

In the US they had Supreme Court nominees saying that Roe v Wade was the law of the land and a settled matter... right until they were in a position to overturn it. And in France we've had Bolloré trying to peddle some anti-abortion fuckery on TV (that film that made headlines a few years back). So yeah obviously it's not at all a major issue the way it is in the issue but I wouldn't be 100% complacent about it either. >

Can we get that in the U.S., too?
Edit: Who got offended by this question? >

Only if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen. >

In fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen! >

I wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything >

Just like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs. >

i don't understand why this still has to be a discussion to begin with. More often than not, it's a bunch of grey conservative man dictating what women can and cannot do with their own bodies. The cases that are based on religious principles are even more pointless. >

I think the point is that they are arguing that it’s not only their body anymore but they’re now carrying someone inside them. I think that a lot of normal people are lost on what the “for” and “against” are arguing for. Does the “for camp” want “abort 1 minute before birth? I don’t think so. Does the against camp want “1 minute after conception”? No, I don’t think so either.
Most people agree with each other that there is some time after which a seed and egg becomes a child. I’m sure there are people on either far side but if we had a clear view on this than maybe this would not be as much of an issue. Also there is the temptation to change the definition and people don’t love living with a possible sliding scale. Today it’s 12 weeks, next month they might change it to 20 weeks or 4 weeks. If it got “set in stone” that all legislation will be declared nullified the moment it was amended then the discussion would likely be much easier I think. >

The French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff. >

If only the rest of the world would join the 21st century. >

Denying life?
What are you talking about?
A life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?
Will these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?
If the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?
These pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain. >

Wrong.
Ask any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!
We will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.
You’d have to actually talk to us to know that though. >

That's bullshit!
Please finish with these jokes!
We know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others. >

And you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???
I’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!
I’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. 
I’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended). >


And you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???

I'm basing it on the common sense and how geneally the society doesn't care much about its less fortunate members.
Plus the economy is i shambles with inflation raising to the roof. >

It’s not common sense if it’s not true my friend. 
I’d suggest talking with some pro-life people, you may be surprised at what we would be willing to do if it meant less abortion. 
We aren’t bad people trying to hold women down and force them to live the handmaidens tale. That’s all panic porn BS, I promise you. >

Isn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks? >

Updated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. 
Original one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks >


Abortions at later stages of pregnancy up until birth are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

Worth noting, as eg the UK is 0 weeks on the books, but if two physicians sign off, 24wks. In practice this is so routine that the NHS doesn't even mention it on their overviews, I'm not sure how that differs w/ France. >

If the mother's life is at stake or if the foetus presents severe illness there's no limit. Up until de delivery term abortion can be done >

0 babies are murdered >

Then you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. 
If you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. 
Genetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.
Abortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. 
If your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community. >

You must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious. >

Yes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy.  The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that.  It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus. >

I think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response. 
And that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?
Life and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO. >

A toddler and a poor person are still surviving on their own. They breathe their own air and eat their own food.  A fetus is quite literally draining the energy from the woman carrying it.
Yes, life and rights are a fine line to walk, but you're missing the woman in the situation. If you want to give a fetus rights to life, that means you have to take away the woman's rights.  That is the entire issue. The woman is more important at the end of the day.  She is aware, she is sentient, she knows she is suffering. A fetus does not care. >

A toddler cannot survive on its own, I’m not sure how you even argue that. A baby I’m the womb does take sustenance from the mother, yes. That’s basic knowledge, just like that getting pregnant can result in a pregnancy. 
The mother had a choice to sleep with a man, had a choice to make him wear a condom, had a choice to take a pill or any of the other various forms of birth control, etc. Because she chose to do that irresponsibly doesn’t mean she has the right to actively take a life. We need some accountability here. 
You started at survival, went to the ability to eat yourself, and ended at sentience. That’s three separate ideas of what constitutes life, all of which could easily be used in places other than abortion to place less worth on an individuals life.