When abortion is mentioned in the USA, it’s often asserted that women have a right to abortion when and where they want it, and that any restriction is a violation of their rights.
In most European countries, there are restrictions on abortion stronger than those in the USA. For example, abortion on demand is only legal in France, Belgium, Norway, and Denmark up to the 12th week of pregnancy. After that, it is only legal under cases of medical necessity or some government-defined extraordinary circumstances. In Germany, it’s legal in the first three months of pregnancy. Several of these European countries also require by law that a woman who wants an abortion receive counseling from a professional several days before the procedure and place other restrictions on it.
I’ve never heard anyone describe the policies in these European countries as violations of women’s rights, even when I lived in France or Germany. Nor have I ever heard any American abortion rights activist attacking the policies of any of these European countries. It may well happen, but there seems to be a curious difference between the vocal opposition to any abortion restricts in this country vs. minimal complaining when other countries have restriction that are, at least in some ways, stronger.
Now, the next thing I say may be completely wrong because I know nothing about abortion laws in Europe and the environment that they were formed in. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that they are static, that is, those laws have been in place for some time and are not getting any more or less strict. If that is the context, then there is a way that the US laws are worse – the barriers in the US are being put in place to make it more difficult to get an abortion, with the intent of banning abortions in the longer term. They are meant to chip away at abortion rights while staying just to this side of the Supreme Court’s rules.
So, assuming Europe’s abortion laws are static, then they are in some sense not as bad as the newer US restrictions in that they are not made with the intent of banning abortion. The newer US restrictions are clearly made with that intent.
I would much prefer laws like Bryan Ekers claims they have in Canada – no laws about it, let women and their physicians figure it out.
One more point – I don’t know if those medical-necessity provisions actually act as any sort of deterrent in Europe – for all I know, it could be a matter of routine to get a doctor’s approval.
Still another point – if access to abortion is Europe is much easier and cheaper than in the US, then there may be far fewer pregnancies that go past 12 weeks to begin with.
You find it curious that US activists are more vocal about the situation in the US then places that are not the US? I find it kinda curious anyone would find that curious.
Freedom of speech protections in the UK are, generally speaking, not as strong as they are in the US. That doesn’t mean that people in the UK don’t have freedom of speech. If I, personally, lived in the UK, the differences in those protections would probably bother me a little bit. But given that I live on the other side of the planet, I’m content to know that there is free speech in the UK, and I leave it up to the citizens of that country to work out just what that means to them.
I feel pretty much the same way about abortion in the EU.
While, by the letter of the law, abortion is more legal in the US than it is in many localities in Europe, the US is also full of politically-connected groups who want to make abortions impossible to get in practice. If you are supporter of abortion availability, that is worth protesting.
Ever since abortion law has been shaped by that decision. Abortion is not technically legal, but by law it is not punished if you follow certain rules. The details have changed over the years, until the current law was passed in the mid 90s. Now it seems that both sides can live with the status quo reasonably well and abortion is dead as a mainstream political issue.
It is de facto legal during the first 12 weeks after approved counseling or if the pregnacy was the result of rape and at any time in cases of genuine medical necessity.
There are people who believe in a largely unchecked right to abortion, but there is no significant lobby for that. Abortions are effectively available and most of the pro-choice side is content with that.
The side in favor of restrictions (which probably wouldn’t qualify as pro-life in US terms) is largely content with the nominal condemnation, time limits and mandatory open-ended counseling. There is opposition from Christian fringe groups, but nothing of real political relevance.
I’m definitely “pro-choice” but I’ll admit that some of the arguments made from my side, particularly those about women’s rights, aren’t the most compelling IMHO.
However, I am a pragmatist and I don’t think society benefits at all from having unwanted, badly cared-for children. My feeling is that if society says it values life, then it should value the entirety of life, not just the cutesy pre-natal stage. Those European countries you rattled off may very well have stricter abortion laws than the US, but they also have superior social welfare programs. I think a lot of Americans liberals would be less bothered by “pro-life” rhetoric if the voices spewing it weren’t also the same voices who want to take an axe to social welfare spending…while also advocating capital punishment and expanding the prison-industrial complex. Maybe if the “pro-life” movement could divorce itself from these contradictory views, then it wouldn’t be so objectionable to people who actually do care about “life”.
Cite? What US pro-choice group is seriously advocating having no restrictions on abortion?
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
In most European countries, there are restrictions on abortion stronger than those in the USA.
[/quote]
Cite? While there may be minor differences in time limits on elective abortions, I think you’ll be hard put to make a case that abortion in Western Europe is actually more difficult to obtain than in the US.
In the USA the debate has been polarized to the extent that on one side you have that every fertilized egg is fully human and sentient being and should have the same rights as such and some even are willing to even kill to prevent abortion; whereas on the other side you have a group that a woman’s choice trumps everything and even fetus that could survive outside the womb can be aborted as a mere matter of choice, some even taking the extreme and quite frankly disturbing position that a baby that has survived an abortion process can be killed if the women so chooses. Obviously that is a generalization and there are people occupying the vast expanse of middle ground between these two extreme positions, but I’m shocked at how polarized it seems to an outsider.
Europe is far, far from homogeneous, but I can say in the Great Britain (I leave out NI due to its different abortion laws) I feel there’s a more balanced view. We realize that an embryo doesn’t magically become a person the minute an egg is fertilized, but we also realize that a it isn’t the case that fetus only magically become something worthy of legal protection until it is born at the woman’s choice.
There are some in Great Britain that hold either of the extreme positions that are more common in the USA, but in they are very much in the minority and in the mainstream they are recognized as the fruitcakes they are and have very little traction. I can’t say that the abortion debate is completely done in the GB, for example any change to abortion laws can still stir up controversy. But for the majority the legal, but with tight though non-onerous restrictions, status of abortion is seen as being the sensible position and the abortion issue doesn’t provoke much discussion.
Once again, do you have a cite for the second part of that assertion? The bit about an alleged “group” that maintains that it should be legal to electively abort viable fetuses, and even to electively kill newborns?
You and ITR champion both seem to have some seriously distorted views of the so-called “polarization” on abortion in the US, which is actually much more asymmetrical than you suggest.
AFAIK, it is quite true that there is a politically active and vocal anti-abortion faction in the US that supports every restriction on abortion of any kind that can be legally implemented, based on their belief that a zygote becomes a fully human individual at the moment of conception and is entitled to full human rights thenceforth.
But I know of no organized advocacy group in the US that seriously proposes removing all restrictions on elective abortions during any stage of pregnancy, much less killing unwanted newborns.
And in the absence of a plausible cite from anybody claiming that such a group exists, I will continue to assume that allegations of its existence are more made-up bullshit ultimately derived from the most extremist radical anti-abortion faction trying to make themselves look less loony by inventing an imaginary adversary who’s even loonier.
Heck, most of my exposure to the abortion “debate” is on this board. And we certainly have posters who feel a woman “not only has the right to terminate it up to and including the moment of birth, but even after birth.”
Of course, that’s just what people type on the internet. People also type that anyone who wants to restrict abortion in any way secretly hates women. No telling what they actually think. Both are positions I’d pretend to take if I wanted the other “side” to look stupid.
There isn’t really any abortion debate in France, either. Of course, there are people, amongst conservative catholics, who are opposed to it, but we hardly ever hear of them. The law allowing abortion was voted in 1974 or somesuch, it was hotly debated at the time, but AFAIK never changed since and it never became again a “hot topic”.
I occassionnally hear, though, that there are problems re availibility because there are less and less gynecologists performing it. Not out of moral concern, but because performing abortions is neither glamorous nor particularly well paid.
Like I said, comparing an extreme anti-abortion-rights position that is officially endorsed by many well-funded advocacy groups striving with considerable success to implement that position through legislation and intimidation with an extreme pro-abortion-rights position that is spouted by a few loonies on the internet…
…and claiming that those two phenomena constitute a “POLARIZED DEBATE”…
…is a gross distortion of the facts. Radicalism on the issue of abortion rights in the US is so asymmetrical that it’s a false equivalency to compare the two extremes.
That kind of rhetoric about “polarization” is, as I said, ultimately nothing but a smokescreen for the most radical anti-abortion faction trying to disguise the lack of balance in the abortion debate.
My impression of abortion debates on this board is that the "abortion up to an instant before birth"crowd is not merely present, but actively dominates the pro-choice side. That doesn’t mean they’re the majority, of course, but dismissing them as an irrelevantly tiny minority seems implausible. Moreover, the more moderate pro-choicers have never seemed particularly inclined to criticize them, so I don’t get the impression that it’s a terribly controversial position.
At any rate, looking at a bit of statistics… A 2011 poll showed 10% support for third trimester abortions, which is not insignificant. Moreover, also quite interesting is that only 24% supported second trimester abortions. That’s the status quo, isn’t it? Given that those 10% are a large portion of the 24%, and that the more extreme your position the more willing you tend to be to shout it to the rooftops, it’s not at all surprising if they’re punching above their weight.
Maybe, but this thread is more about the comparison to Europe. Afaik, neither of those positions exist to any significant degree in the Netherlands or the UK. I’ve never heard anyone really taking a position. The Christian political parties oppose abortion in theory, but don’t make much noise about it. The only position people discuss regards countries where it is problematic, eg “Ireland should legalise abortion”.
So in that sense the existence of people or groups, organised or not, who take an extreme position in the abortion debate are different from Europe, where it doesn’t exist to the same degree. Since that is the topic if discussion, and not the relevance of the comparison of the two extreme sides, I don’t think all the shouting was warranted.
RE the OP:
I think in Europe the position is a little more pragmatic, and in the US more ideological. Mostly, the views is that a meaningless clump of cells at some point turns into a human being who can experience pain, but we don’t know exactly when that is so we do the best we can to balance everyone’s rights.
Bear in mind that one reason it’s less of debate is that there are fewer abortions here (in the Netherlands, UK not so much). If you teach kids in schools that sex is ok if you use a condom, and parents take their daughters to get the pill when they are 13, you end up with very few people needing an abortion.
It may also mean, and I have no cite for this, that there is less stigma and more knowledge about the body, so that pregnancy is detected and discussed sooner, so that it is very rarely an issue of someone finding out they are pregnant when it’s too late. There may also be a role there for less obesity, but again, I’m just speculating.
If it isn’t as much of a problem, if it’s something that quite rarely occurs, you don’t need a big public debate. There doesn’t seem to be any feeling that there is a problem or that women’s rights are being violated. I personally know a grand total of one person who got pregnant at an inconvenient time when she was young. She noticed in plenty of time and felt free to discuss her options, again with plenty of time.
Regarding the issue of counselling before an abortion: that isn’t so strange here. There are lots of situation in which the law requires that you receive a phone call from counsellors. If you have witnessed an accident or something, you get a call for counselling. It’s a part of healthcare here, not pressure to change your mind.
In Norway those mentioned legal abortions are performed after a simple request to your personal physician by a publicly funded health care system. And the current worse threat is one of making it more inaccessible in for a tiny, semi-random number of women.* I don’t find it surprising Americans are then more interested in worrying about their own system where it appears to mostly be supplied by a non-governmental non-profit organization that’s constantly under heavy attack by loons.
The restrictions that do exist in Norway have wide support in a populace that are otherwise not fighting to restrict the access to abortions further. That does not appear to be the case for the debate in the US.
*The government that took over this week has signed an agreement with one of the supporting parties to allow primary physicians to ethically object to signing referrals for abortions. This means a woman either has to ahead of time make sure her primary physician is not in the tiny majority thinking even signing a referral is an unethical act (and in rural areas you don’t have much choice in alternative physicians) or has to go through an extra step of visiting a second physician (because telling a patient which physician she has to go to to get her referral apparently isn’t unethical) before visiting a hospital for the actual procedure.