>

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.
This should be done at the EU leve!
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. >

If only the us was so advanced. >

You guys need more strikes >

But think of the poor billionaires/s >

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? >

I've lived in Paris for 17 years.

Yes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.
If 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.
Support for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.

I don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years. >

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. >

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 >

Ty. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something? >

Some women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months >

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). >

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

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

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.