Abortion reform in Spain : Madness!

 I have just read a news post on the EOS news blog on the new abortion reform and I personally was shocked at it. I am not aware of the legalities in the UK on this but I think forbidding women to abort when there baby or "foetus" is deformed or mentally handicapped goes against a women's rights. I expect many will be shocked at my post but I don't think that should be a decision taken by the State. I understand that there should be a time limit after which an abortion should not be carried out but don't you think this is going too far? Will the state guarantee lifetime support for these future children or will their families be forced into supporting them themselves?

However it doesn't stop there the new law will prohibit any girl under the age of 18 from having an abortion without their parents consent. Which I think is ridiculous considering a 16 year old is aold enough to get married and have sexual relationships but not old enough to decide if she wants an abortion. What happens if her parents are religious and she isn't? 

Basically the law has been tightened up so much that abortion will only be legal if the child puts the mother's life at risk, so effectively the law considers the mother's life to be more important but the mother's rights and decisions not to be. 

Where is the sense in this?

www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/spainnews/10000/women-carrying-deformed-or-handicapped-babies-will-not-be-allowed-to-have-an-abortion.aspx

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

I haven't a clue how the first part of you post would or could work in reality,  the second part i can understand to some degree.  Maybe in Spain like as in England right now kids, i say kids some are all but children, are having unprotected sex, getting pregnant, having abortions because of the shame in telling parents, it might go some way in trying to stop kids from having kids.

In England i think the law is still in place, although to look about it does make you wonder.... against the law to have sex 15 or under. Can only suppose trying to do something is better then to be seen doing nothing about this growing problem.

Some of the kids here with kids are not fit to look after themselves let alone babies.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

 

 

 Reading, Berkshire. Population: 232,662.

 

This message was last edited by johnzx on 17/04/2013.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

 Johnzx that law was changed about two months ago with the new child protection act and raised to 16, if I am not mistaken. 

Baz1964, Apparantly to have an abortion you will have to have a certificate from a doctor certifying that your life is at stake if you continue with the pregnancy. Otherwise you will not be able to have an abortion, in Spain at least. I don't think this is the way forward as you say John it didn't solve the problem in the Uk and I don't know how "tight" it was or still is.

However their motives are not published as trying to reduce abortions as such, but protect life... a slightly different argument

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

 

 

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

These idiots would be better off focusing on their own lives and sorting out their own morality rather than imposing it on women. What a cheek. No-one has the right to tell another person what they should do with their own body; it's none of their business. Hopefully, it will be yet another one of these meaningless laws that everyone will disobey. Only a few years ago I accompanied a friend to have an abortion in Spain and it was very easy (not for her obviously - but it was a straightforward process) - paid 300 euros and job done. She was a woman in her thirties whose children were around 10 and 8 years of age, and she thought she'd go mad if she had to start with a baby again. I just explained this to the doctor, as my friend's Spanish wasn't up to it, and that was that. The mess the country's in and they're wasting their time on this nonsense.  As Mac indicates, the people trying to pass this law are not the ones who will have to face the consequences of it.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

Okay, instead of the woman deciding what happens with her own body, a whole bunch of (usually male) strangers can have the say in something that does not remotely concern them. Instead of trying to bring unwanted children into this world against the will of the women who will have to go through the pregnancies and then bring up the children for the rest of their lives, they'd do better to sort out feeding all the babies and children and indeed adults that are already in the world and starving. Millions of people go to bed hungry every night.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

John, if you're so worried about little babies, then as I say, focus on the millions who are starving and dying of preventable diseases, rather than trying to impose your own idea of morality on others and interfering with women's rights over their own bodies. Morality is first and foremost about what you do yourself, not what you tell others they should do. And are you really supporting this idea of forcing women and girls to have handicapped children? Where do you stand on forcing them to have children when they've been raped?

 

This message was last edited by eggcup on 17/04/2013.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

I think if one brings "life" into the equation it complicates matters considerably. Whether it's life or "potential life" I don't think that is the question. We disregard "potential" life or life on a daily basis and no one complains about it. Simple contraception is disregarding potential life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also "human lives" and those not implanted are routinely thrown away and I don't see any protests against this. Surprisingly looking at figures from the US and I don't think they would be much different else where, only 8% of women who had an abortion didn't use some sort of contraception and put it down to carelessness. Rather than base this argument on "protecting" life which, clearly is a slippery slope, I think it just boils down to the rights that the mother has over her body and her life and the rights that the baby has when it is effectively an independant being. 88% of all abortions occur in the first three months when the "baby", "fetus", " mass of tissue" whatever you decide to call it, is totally dependant on the mother to live and stay alive, it is impossible for it to survive outside of the womb.  At this stage surely the mother has complete control over her body and the fetus. If she was to go on a hunger strike and the fetus died would she be trialed for murder? I don't think so... so what is the difference. I think the line is very clear... when the fetus becomes a person is when it should be considered to have rights of it's own and that can only be when it can survive with out the mother. 

To force women not to have an abortion in the early stage of pregancy is a complete violation of a womens right to control her body and determine the course of her life. Decisions like this, I feel, only make society take a step backwards instead of moving forward. There are so many exceptional situations that it complicates moral issues tremendously, what about in rape situations or 16/17 year olds or even younger, sexual abuse etc. Are these women supposed to accept it and raise a child born from these terrible situations. A Valencian University professor came out the other day saying "A child born from rape was God's compensation for the cruelty suffered" which is scandalous. But these are the brains of the country talking, well supposedly...

The worst thing about these stupid laws is that they do not reduce abortion. When women feel it is absolutely necessary, they will choose to have abortions, even in secret, without medical care, in dangerous circumstances. In the two decades before abortion was legal in the U.S, it's been estimated that nearly a million women per year sought out illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands were mutilated. All were forced to behave as if they were criminals and search out non professionals to do the job.

It is incomprehensible to think that a "fetus" deserves the same rights as a women.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

Eggcup can we stick to logical argument on abortion (and refrain from introducing non connected matters, such as world starvation and my moral standards, of which you know nothing).

The abortion of handicapped children and rape victims and other life and health  threatening conditions of the mother are permitted in UK.    

Victims of rape in UK have been aborted since 1938.

It was those cases, which the figured showed in 1967 would account for a few hundred abortions a year, not over 500 a day.

What is not covered by UK law is the reckless behaviour of those relying on abortion instead of prevention.

 

For info :- 

Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967

In England and Wales and Scotland, section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 now reads:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.^[1]

RAPE:   The Bourne Case 1938

In 1938 the Bourne case set the scene for a change of policy on abortion. A young woman was gang raped by a group of soldiers and became pregnant. Dr Alec Bourne agreed to perform an abortion for her and was subsequently prosecuted. Bourne argued that it was necessary to perform the abortion to preserve the health of the young woman. The judge agreed that forcing her to continue with the pregnancy would have been tantamount to wrecking her life. The doctor was not convicted. This case set a legal precedent for performing an abortion to preserve a woman’s mental health.

 

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

Hi John it is a misled conception that women rely on abortion as a form of contraception. As I mentioned from the stats I have seen only 8% of women who have abortions used no form of contraception. This 8% put it down to carelessness, they weren't necessarily "relying" on abortion as a means to correct a mistake. I can't imagine any women would rather have an abortion than use contraception. If that was the case abortions would be in the thousands every day. Recklessness, maybe, but the reason this % were reckless is not because abortion is allowed, I don't think, but because they were being irresponsible, if abortion wasn't allowed I would imagine that this % would still exist. It is a very difficult and controversial subject and everyone will never be content.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

John, you haven't answered my question:

Are you really supporting this idea of forcing women and girls in Spain to have handicapped children? Where do you stand on forcing them to have children when they've been raped? Because that will be the next step. They've done it in Ireland and if they introduce their latest mad idea in Spain, then rape victims will be next in the firing line.

Also, why quote UK law? We're talking about a proposed abortion reform in Spain.

And also don't resort to insulting me on a personal level regarding my knowledge. My Phd might be in issues related to world starvation for all you know. Are you saying millions of people don't go to bed every night hungry and that a scandalous amount of people don't die every day from preventable diseases?

As you say Mac, the rights of a foetus are being seen as superior to those of women. The rate of divorce amongst parents of disabled children is very high because of the strains involved and the life-long commitment to the child and subsequent worries about what will happen to the child when the parents die. Invariably it is the women who carry the can (while men not remotely connected to those women impose ignorant and sexist laws upon them).

I wonder what is behind this obsession amongst some men (and a few women) to control women's bodies in this way? And why now? Might it be a little distraction to get people to forget about the massive economic problems they are facing?

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

So if i read it correctly it's wrong that Johnzx cant quote UK law on abortions, but it's okay that you can bring in starving millions around the world and preventable diseases, yep that sounds about right.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

Right Mac. Maybe you can clear this one up with one of your polls? How many people on Eye on Spain are in favour of this proposed new law? That should clarify things.

It should be like the Falklands Referendum in terms of the percentage of the vote.

 

This message was last edited by eggcup on 18/04/2013.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

 If the thread generates a bit more interest I might just do that eggcup.

Actually I think it is interesting that John has quoted the UK law as I wasn't aware of the details. From what John has posted it is certainly more permissive than the Spanish law will be, up until now they were both very similiar :

From what has been published it is unclear what would be the situation with points A) AND B) but for now it is clear that :

 

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated  :  This is the only condition so far, for not being found guilty of an offense

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.^{[1] : This would now be illegal in Spain}

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

 

 

a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week

My friend had a premature baby at 22 wks less than 2lbs in weight and he survived surely he could not be classed 'as in the first three months when the "baby", "fetus", " mass of tissue" whatever you decide to call it, is totally dependant on the mother to live and stay alive'- as he is now14 mths. He is perfectly healthy. 

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

 Clearly the baby couldn't be classed as within the first three months (12 weeks) if the baby survived at  22 weeks (5 months). My grandson survived at 21 weeks and weighed 690 grams, absolute miracle. His ears hadn't even seperated from his head yet. There is a massive difference between three months and five months. 

a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week

This is from UK law, I am not aware what is the maximum is for Spain. But even though I agree with abortion under certain circumstances I think 5,5 - 6 months is too late.  I believe all tests can be carried out in the 15th week of pregnancy, when it is a question of malformation or severe mental disability. So there is no need to wait longer. And I think if it is a psychological issue with the mother the limit should be earlier as that decision is pretty clear as soon as they have discovered they are pregnant. 

 

This message was last edited by mac75 on 18/04/2013.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

This is a subject that always evokes strong feelings. My own thoughts are that abortion in the case of rape, severe disability or life threatening to the mother should be allowed.  I think the time limit should be reduced to 20 weeks. I'm sure when the debate re time limits was going on in the UK a couple of years ago there was evidence that a lot of abortions were being used as a form of contraception but I've not got time now to find it now.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know