NationStates Jolt Archive

All the time in America, we hear from all sorts of pro-choice people that abortion should not be restricted anymore than it is. After all, if it is, its just Republicans enforcing their morality on everyone else, or so it goes.

With the death penalty, we constantly hear about how we're one of the only developed countries to still allow capital punishment. Look, people say, at Europe and the countries that have banned the death penalty, and then look at those countries which haven't : China, Iran, etc...

So whats the big deal? The availability of abortion varies from state to state, with some states such as New York having much more lax laws than Arizona. The latest big ruling on abortion, Planned Parenthood v Casey, allowed for abortions until fetal viability.

So lets look at other countries, to see the latest date abortions can be obtained on demand, with the exception of health reasons. First,


Andorra 0 Weeks
Argentina 0 Weeks
Australia Varies on area - 0-20 Weeks
Austria 12 Weeks
Belgium 12 Weeks
Brazil 0 Weeks
Canada Depends on Province
Chile 0 Weeks
Czech Republic 12 Weeks
Denmark 12 Weeks
Estonia 12 Weeks
Finland 12 Weeks
France 10 Weeks
Germany 12 Weeks
Greece 12 Weeks
Hungary 12 Weeks
Iceland 16 Weeks
Israel 0 Weeks
Ireland 0 Weeks
Italy 13 Weeks
Japan 22 Weeks
Latvia 12 Weeks
Liechenstein 0 Weeks
Lithuania 12 Weeks
Luxembourg 12 Weeks
Malta 0 Weeks
Mexico 0 Weeks (FD)
Monaco 0 Weeks
Netherlands 13 Weeks
New Zealand 0 Weeks
Norway 18 Weeks
Phillipenes 0 Weeks
Poland 0 Weeks
Portugal 0 Weeks
Romania 14 Weeks
San Marino 0 Weeks
Slovakia 12 Weeks
Slovenia 10 Weeks
Spain 0 Weeks
Sweden 18 Weeks
Switzerland 0 Weeks
Turkey 10 Weeks
United Kingdom 24 Weeks
United States Until Viability - 24-28 Weeks

When a country was listed as "no abortions for economic or social reasons and not available upon request", I put it at 0.
Perhaps someone else can pick up on the prevailing trend of the richer countries in the world on something besides the restriction of death penalty. I used the info on this site, by the UN, (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/profiles.htm) and it may be slightly out of date, but I don't think really seismic shifts have occured. Also note that many of the countries have additional restrictions applied, such as spousal notification and mandatory counseling. I believe I got those numbers right, but I'll go back and change it if need be.

Surely someone who uses the "other developed countries don't have it, so neither should we" argument can post :(

I think the difference is in the direction that society is moving-- we are behind the rest of the world on the subject of the death penalty, because the rest of the world is moving away from the use of capital punishment. It was, undebatably, much more common in the past than it is now. For abortion, however, the opposite is true. It has in the past been less acceptable than it is now. Society is developing towards the legalization of abortion, and away from the legalization of capital punishment.

Incidentally, are you pro-life? If so, do you think you could answer a question for me? This is not supposed to be bait, I'm just curious. Is abortion so abhorrent to you because of the life that has ended, or because of the potential for life that has been eliminated?

I think the difference is in the direction that society is moving-- we are behind the rest of the world on the subject of the death penalty, because the rest of the world is moving away from the use of capital punishment. It was, undebatably, much more common in the past than it is now. For abortion, however, the opposite is true. It has in the past been less acceptable than it is now. Society is developing towards the legalization of abortion, and away from the legalization of capital punishment.

Incidentally, are you pro-life? If so, do you think you could answer a question for me? This is not supposed to be bait, I'm just curious. Is abortion so abhorrent to you because of the life that has ended, or because of the potential for life that has been eliminated?
It depends on the situation. If its in the 3rd trimester, as some people would like to have abortion legalized in, its fairly obvious (to me, at least) that its because life has just been ended. When you go earlier and earlier it gets fuzzier.

But I think you're wrong in your assertion that society is developing towards the legalization of abortion. It is true that in the early 20th century, abortion was almost uniformly illegal, but after the explosion of abortion legalizations in the 1970s, the movement has mainly been towards a more pro-life stance. This is true, for example, in the United States (Roe v Wade compared to Casey v PP), France, Germany (particularly Eastern Germany), Israel, or the UK.

I think you're wrong in your assertion that society is developing towards the legalization of abortion. It is true that in the early 20th century, abortion was almost uniformly illegal, but after the explosion of abortion legalizations in the 1970s, the movement has mainly been towards a more pro-life stance. This is true, for example, in the United States (Roe v Wade compared to Casey v PP), France, Germany (particularly Eastern Germany), Israel, or the UK.

Isn't that more likely to be a temporary backlash against a longer-lasting trend, rather than a trend in and of itself? Think of Huntington's waves and reverse waves of democracy. Whether or not the world is in a reverse wave, the world is still moving towards democracy. Wouldn't you say that the world was still moving towards democracy during the 1920s and '30s, even though the actual developements were in the oposite direction?

I think the big deal is more from the pro-lifers than the pro-choice people.

Personally, I think that Abortion should be a viable option should a person feel it necessary. However I do think ideas such as compulsory counselling and the like are a good idea.

Pregnancy scares are not fun, I've been in one, which thankfully didn't turn out to be a pregnancy scare, you can literally panic over how everything you'd hoped for in life might dissapear because of your responsibilities.

Eitherway, I find the idea that someone would try to enforce bringing a pregnancy to full term abhorrent, and that is a very biased and personal viewpoint. Both sexual relations and pregnancy are an intensely personal thing something which should be a major decision between two people, not just the one (although I support the idea that the final choice must lay in the hands of the woman).

But I think you're wrong in your assertion that society is developing towards the legalization of abortion. It is true that in the early 20th century, abortion was almost uniformly illegal, but after the explosion of abortion legalizations in the 1970s, the movement has mainly been towards a more pro-life stance. This is true, for example, in the United States (Roe v Wade compared to Casey v PP), France, Germany (particularly Eastern Germany), Israel, or the UK.


Actually, here in the UK an abortion is comparatively easy to obtain, and I have yet to hear of any major pro-life campaigns whatsoever, as opposed to the US where their anti-abortion stance is so severe that we hear about it over here...

One thing has always bugged me about this, why should congress make a law that only affects women when they are all wrinkly white men?

because vast tracts of america are still racist, sexist bigots

One thing has always bugged me about this, why should congress make a law that only affects women when they are all wrinkly white men?

women can run for congress too

One thing has always bugged me about this, why should congress make a law that only affects women when they are all wrinkly white men?
Taxation without representation? I hear another Revoltionary war coming!

women can run for congress too

But the fact is that Rwanda has a higher percentage of women in government then the US does... With such a vast lack of equality in result, there must be a lack of equality in opportunity.

One thing has always bugged me about this, why should congress make a law that only affects women when they are all wrinkly white men?
Translation: Why can't women by exempt from the law?

That was not stated in that post, nor is it a logical derivative of it.
Yes it is, it's saying men can't make laws that women have to abide by. That's sexism.

Surely someone who uses the "other developed countries don't have it, so neither should we" argument can post :(

I use it, but then, I'm also opposed to abortion. :)

Isn't that more likely to be a temporary backlash against a longer-lasting trend, rather than a trend in and of itself? Think of Huntington's waves and reverse waves of democracy. Whether or not the world is in a reverse wave, the world is still moving towards democracy. Wouldn't you say that the world was still moving towards democracy during the 1920s and '30s, even though the actual developements were in the oposite direction?
No. During the 20's and 30's the world was moving as you said... in the opposite direction. And that continued post-war as well, culminating in the 1970's when the vast majority of countries in the world were not democracies.

One thing has always bugged me about this, why should congress make a law that only affects women when they are all wrinkly white men?
Women consistently poll to be more anti-abortion than men, albeit only by a slight margin.

Actually, here in the UK an abortion is comparatively easy to obtain, and I have yet to hear of any major pro-life campaigns whatsoever, as opposed to the US where their anti-abortion stance is so severe that we hear about it over here...
I'm talking relatives here, not absolutes. The main thing I'm thinking of was the reduction in weeks from 24 to 22.

Women consistently poll to be more anti-abortion than men, albeit only by a slight margin.

I'd be interested to see a source for this, not because I doubt you, but because it seems like a useful thing to bring up next time I'm told, "You can't have an opinion on abortion! You're a man!"

I'm a guy, and I think that I should have a voice in this matter, seeing as how about half of the kids involved are guys. Besides guys caused the problem anyway. Anybody seen an immaculate conception recently?

One thing has always bugged me about this, why should congress make a law that only affects women when they are all wrinkly white men?
The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia muses that, if such logic were followed in all circumstances, then criminal law would end up being written only by those who committed crimes themselves.
...Perhaps this isn't as good of an example to show the fallicy of said logic as he originally thought it was...

I'd be interested to see a source for this, not because I doubt you, but because it seems like a useful thing to bring up next time I'm told, "You can't have an opinion on abortion! You're a man!"
Here is one...
CBS (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html)


Abortion should be :
Generally available
Men - 40%
Women - 37%

Available, but with stricter limits than now
Men - 40%
Women - 37%

Not permitted
Men - 20%
Women - 24%

The death penalty and abortions are different issues. With regards to abortions and other nations, several factors limit the relevency of other nations laws. Abortion is a legal issue, and so whether or not it is allowed is a legal decision, one based on the US Constitution. Law systems strive to be internally consistent, so US laws about abortions are constricted by other aspects of the law system that stem from the US Constitution and simply dont exist in some of the countries you have listed. Comparing how the US treats something that the US Constitution is deemed to gaurentee it's citizens, with how a nation that has made no such promise within it's Constitution, treats that same thing is a false analogy.

The death penalty and abortions are different issues. With regards to abortions and other nations, several factors limit the relevency of other nations laws. Abortion is a legal issue, and so whether or not it is allowed is a legal decision, one based on the US Constitution. Law systems strive to be internally consistent, so US laws about abortions are constricted by other aspects of the law system that stem from the US Constitution and simply dont exist in some of the countries you have listed. Comparing how the US treats something that the US Constitution is deemed to gaurentee it's citizens, with how a nation that has made no such promise within it's Constitution, treats that same thing is a false analogy.
In case you haven't noticed, the death penalty is a legal issue too. In 1972 the Supreme Court decided that it was cruel and unusual in Furman v. Georgia, and it wasn't until 1976 with Gregg v. Georgia that it was put back in place. Moreover, abortion will only be a right as long as the justices on the Supreme Court support it, with the current administration the opportunity may arise to change the makeup up the Supreme Court and thus bring the US more in line with the rest of the world. If this is the goal of people when talking about the death penalty, surely they would support the nomination of pro-life nominees to achieve the same goal? In Casey v PP four of the nine justices declared that abortion is not a legally protected right under the Constitution, which goes to show that it is not an uncontested right by any means.

No. During the 20's and 30's the world was moving as you said... in the opposite direction. And that continued post-war as well, culminating in the 1970's when the vast majority of countries in the world were not democracies.

Actually, it didn't continue post-war there was another upsurge of democracy (the second wave) in the late '50s and early '60s.

But that's besides the point.

What I meant was, no matter what it seemed like from the point of view of a political scientist in the 1930s, the general movement of the world wa towards democracy, not facism. The world is more generally democratic now than it was in the 1900s, no?

Point being that although we may appear to be moving away from a world in which abortions are legal and available, the fact is that society is much closer to that state then it was fifty years ago. Thus the overall movement of society is still towards legalizing abortion.

Actually, it didn't continue post-war there was another upsurge of democracy (the second wave) in the late '50s and early '60s.

But that's besides the point.

What I meant was, no matter what it seemed like from the point of view of a political scientist in the 1930s, the general movement of the world wa towards democracy, not facism. The world is more generally democratic now than it was in the 1900s, no?
More generally democratic now, yes, with the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. However as the colonial empires fell and communist and anti-communist states sprung up in the Cold War, this was definately not a movement towards democracy for much of 20th century.

Point being that although we may appear to be moving away from a world in which abortions are legal and available, the fact is that society is much closer to that state then it was fifty years ago. Thus the overall movement of society is still towards legalizing abortion.
Perhaps, but this isn't a particularly strong argument, seeing as how there has been no major moves towards increased legalization of abortion in the past twenty five years. On a line, where point A is absolute criminalization of all forms of abortion and B is absolute legalization, we are closer to point B now than fifty years ago. That does not, however, mean that countries will continue to move along this path - just because, overall, society has moved in this direction does not mean that society is continuing to move in this direction.