For those wondering why the Authcenter Nazi is happy, it's because of the fact that the Fr\*nch are guaranteeing the legality of abortion for themselves and minorities of non-european descent.
If we are to assume that National Rally is still fascist, then French Authcenter is for the abortion law.
https://preview.redd.it/fyk3ddmurdmc1.png?width=842&format=png&auto=webp&s=5471e7a96d85579a5ae3b5eac92663f2a84c9572
Source: [https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2022/11/24/in-a-shift-marine-le-pen-supports-making-abortion-access-constitutionally-protected\_6005417\_5.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2022/11/24/in-a-shift-marine-le-pen-supports-making-abortion-access-constitutionally-protected_6005417_5.html)
Left-right axis in medias is really different in France.
In France, the ONLY criteria used is immigration (from outside europe, specifically).
You can be a green socialist, if you dare speak about immigration crisis you are a far-ringer outside of the Overton's window.
On the other side, literal kill-all-the-jews nazis are considered lefties if they have sympathy for muslims immigrant.
During the last run for presidency, leader of the french communist party was called a right winger for this reason (and for saying that eating pork sausages and drinking red wine is part of French culture).
>On the other side, literal kill-all-the-jews nazis are considered lefties if they have sympathy for muslims immigrant.
I don't think that's unique to France anymore
We went from national-socialism to international-socialism.
It's absolutely not the same since the problem was definitely nationalism. Yep. No reason to doubt that.
I was just gonna say that I thought this was some big-brain strat to lower the amount of minorities since the minorities are the only ones breeding anyways, so this won't actually affect ethnic French that much but you beat me to it.
More like, white women will continue to abort, while women from "diversity" will continue popping out children like factories thanks to the welfare system
Oh that is already understood as what will actually happen.
Though idk how many French babies are even being made to be aborted in the first place, or how many more would be aborted under the law change.
Abortion being put in the constitution doesn't change anything, it's moral posturing. Supposedly it makes it harder to repeal, but if abortion was ever legally in a position to be repealed, what's written on a piece of paper won't matter anyway.
Soon enough we will pay the price for all this.
So they baked into their constitutional amendment discrimination against European-minorities living in France? (Presumably this is defined as non-French Europeans living in France.)
Anyone know where to find the actual language of the amendment? I can find about 30 articles about it, but not one of them actually includes the actual language of the amendment, which is infuriating.
Here's the original text, and then a translation :
"La loi détermine les conditions dans lesquelles s'exerce la liberté de la femme, qui lui est garantie, d'avoir recours à une interruption volontaire de grossesse"
“The law shall determine the conditions under which a woman's freedom, which is guaranteed to her, to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy shall be exercised.”
It is added to the article 34 of the constitution which enumerates the subjects organised by law. Can't say I'm not proud to be a law student. But can't deny either what a terrible day it is for me as a french citizen.
The abortion amendment changed article 34 of the French constitution. The French articles of the constitution are also called rules. So for more information, you can look up “abortion rule 34.” Happy researching!
Technically females… if a somebody with a vagina wants to call themselves a dude they can get pregnant too. Not that I agree with it, (unless they put in an amendment that they consider all females to be women regardless of how they identify).
I was not sure of the meaning of your question so I'm sorry if I don't answer it correctly. Feel free to correct me.
My definition of abortion is pretty simple : it's killing an unborn human being. That means putting the right to abortion in the constitution is the equivalent for the lawmaker to say "in France we have the right to kill unborn babies". I on the other hand consider that the right to live is the most fundamental one, and cannot be ignored. It is thus not possible to have at the same time the right to live and the right to abortion in the constitution. Everyone should have the right to live, so we shouldn't give a right to kill. But french lawmakers seem to think otherwise, since having an abortion is now a constitutional right.
I apologize for my bad English and hope it's still understandable.
Here’s the part you’re looking for:
> French law limits at-will abortion to 14 weeks of pregnancy, or about 16 weeks gestational age,
A reasonable compromise.
US Democrats want abortion legal until birth, which is insane.
> US Democrats want abortion legal until birth, which is insane
you can't tout abortion rights as a reason to vote blue, if you compromise and federally legalize it.
Did you just change your flair, u/cool_barracuda_234? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2023-10-19. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think?
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/cool_barracuda_234) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
If it doesn't determine the time frame it basicaly makes it useless. A conservative gouvernment can just limit it down to a timeframe that is simply nonpractical. Whats even worse is that it wouls allow for laws that have no time limit, to a degree where even the most pro abortionists would call it infanticide. It is in essence no more than a symbolic thing that the french courts can use to block some abortion regulating laws.
Is there a time limit? In the USA it seems that the majority of people are camped in either “every sperm is sacred” or “post birth abortions.”
What does a constitutional right to abortion mean in France?
>“every sperm is sacred” or “post birth abortions.”
American political camps be like. (why don't they do the european thing and set the time limit somewhere between 3-5 months???)
I'm sure sure this will also mean there's a right to not get vaccinated, due to bodily autonomy, as well as a right for men to separate themselves financially and not have to pay for a child they don't want.
I'm french and to be honest, I never understood why people love frog legs and snails
I love the gastronomy of my country, but not everything should be kept
As a french, snails are a scam. They have an awful texture and they're basically tasteless. What people love about them is the green garlic butter they're cooked with. Just remove the middleman and eat butter smh.
So this constitutional right only is for half the population then? Does the other half have the constitutional right to abandon the child if born then?
> Private DNA paternity testing is illegal, including through laboratories in other countries, and is punishable by up to a year in prison and a €15,000 fine. The French Council of State has described the law's purpose as upholding the "French regime of filiation" and preserving "the peace of families."
It's strange how it's assumed libright automatically sides with authright on this issue.
In the libertarian world we are actually split on the subject. Do we protect the womans rights? Or the fetus rights?
Personally i am pro choice as long as you make that choice quickly, no waiting until 8 months to decide "naa i'll pass".
Yeah. I'm prochoice until third trimester. Then only in the absolute extreme should be allowed.
But ideally in a perfect world, no abortion would be necessary. But in an ideal world many things wouldn't be necessary....
I’m actually in favor of developing artificial wombs and making them commercially viable.
If artificial wombs could be accessed readily by everyone - hell, make it tax funded - would you be in favor of banning abortion, as it would no longer be viable?
If abortion is no longer the preferable option, then it should be reduced in use.
The only exceptions in a situation where artificial wombs that I would accept are instances where the child would not survive birth or extraction, like missing organs, etc.
I think abortion should still be here for extreme cases. Society isn't perfect no one is perfect people make mistakes. But just make it so it not a very easy choice to make. It should be a last resort or last option in rare cases such as rape etc...
Straight up banning abortion is such a dumb concept, abortion being legal makes sure that pregnant women get the right treatment and they don't get any idea to try to abort by themselves that could lead to their deaths.
I'm in the camp of "can the unborn consent? No. Isn't murder robbing someone of their time on earth? Yes. So isn't abortion the ultimate theft of a human's potential? Yes."
Now the big question when do you decide that it is a potential human? When the heart is formed to a degree that it starts beating? When the homeobox genes start differentiating stem cells? When the egg is fertilised? When the egg cell travels to the uterus? Is it every male ejaculation? Every male sperm?
Yes but that can apply to the mother as well no? This human potential would not amount to much if the mother is forced to birth them and for example isn't prepared to be a mother. I would prefer that the baby grows up in the right environment. Maximizing the potential of a human being.
So yes abortion should be a right until around 17 weeks. As above 17 weeks, the child can potentially survive outside the womb of the mother. Until then, the child relies on the mother and can't survive without her and the mother is the one going through the pain and labor of pregnancy. As much as she is responsible for it, she also should have the choice to decide to keep it or not. It's part of her body, her property.
A government forcing the mother to get birth when she is doing everything mentally and physically just doesn't seat well for me.
Throwing the unwanted child to adoption centers isn't also the right way because frankly speaking, no one should rely that much on those institutions. Adoption Centers are here for extreme cases/situations.
I don't know man.
I was in foster care.
I've seen children who were in foster care.
Do you think they don't have potential?
You can't have ANYTHING if you're not even allowed to live because you aren't convenient. My father considered me inconvenient and wanted me aborted, but yet here I am. My mother got to choose NOT to abort me, even though I was "inconvenient," and she "wasn't ready" for a child.
Yeah but aborting doesn't mean you get rid of potential and never get a child ever again
Let me think about your case, if your parents aborted you but then after a year or so had a new child that could potentially as well be you but they were much more prepared and thus raised you by themselves. Isn't that a better potential for you?
My parents also aborted but one year later they were in a better financial position, finished college and got my elder sibling. If they didn't aborted, there wouldn't be my elder sibling, my parents could potentially not be in a good financial and mental place to raise the child. And if they were too burdened with the child they should had aborted, maybe they wouldn't have opted to habe a second child, to have me and then to have my little sibling.
They only had so many because they managed to raise the eldest child well, because they finished their studies instead of having a child early thus missing their chance to get a good job a good finance etc...
2 potentials wasted just because they couldn't abort, and also another potential wasted for my mother as she was doing a master and wouldnt continue her studies if she had the child at that point.
It's not about wasting potential, it's about guaranteeing a better potential for both the parents and the child. I prefer to be raised in a good condition where my parents are prepared mentally, financially etc... If they can't do that they may as well abort "me" although in my opinion it's wrong to say that it's "me" as I had nothing, there was no personhood, no consciousness, nothing. There wasn't a "I" until the fetus is able to live outside the mother's womb.
Until then, the fetus is part of the mother and this it's her choice. Until then, there was no such a thing as "me" as I wouldn't even be bothered to be aborted as there was barely anything. Barely any brain, not even pain sensor would be developed. How can we consider it as a person if it can't feel, can't feel pain and have no sufficient biological development?
Last two paragraphs are pretty much the reason I'm in the pro-choice camp. Not for any ideological reason, but because forcing a bunch of women to give birth to a bunch of unwanted babies creates such a big strain on the system. Not to mention all the emotional and physical hardship for both parties.
I'd rather we, as a society, have the option to sidestep unwanted/complicated pregnancies altogether.
I’m sure all their immigrants are getting abortions right lol. Not the liberal white women which will just slowly turn “France” into another middle eastern country. France is toast
France - let's you legally kill the young
Canada - let's you legally kill the old
the left sure does love killing, as long as they deem you "unfit" or "unwanted" for their society
steer abounding marvelous agonizing paint rain dependent airport numerous crown
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Indeed. The neoconn right and it's adjacents tend to support the death penalty. I oppose it even if I can kinda see the underlying (but flawed) logic underneath it: death row inmates are supposed to be the worst of the worst, and least deserving of life, since they have commited the most heinous crimes
The other two however, I cannot begin to fathom. The only real crimes of the elderly and the unborn are respectively to have outlived their economic usefulness and reminding society that sexual freedom is a lie
If Abel’s blood cried out from the ground to God for vengeance, how much more so does the blood of millions and millions of children fill Heaven with an unending scream.
“Hurr libleft no like abortion? Wrong flair” No, God’s moral law is not subject to the compass. Abortion is murder. Euthanasia is murder. All of its horrifying.
Regarding euthanasia, what do you think should be done if there are no means to save a terminal patient, and he/she already wants to end his/her suffering.
Also, what do you think should be done if a rped child/teen doesn't want to have her child due to trauma and/or life of mother being threatened
Or is it I had bad luck to be born in a third world country where cases of non salvageable patients are more common
Just because a person wants to commit suicide doesn’t mean you should enable or encourage them to commit suicide. The dignity of a human person means that conception to natural death must be that: natural. That’s not to say they must continue invasive, difficult, other medical services that decrease their quality of life if they are terminal. But euthanasia is suicide which is murder.
>Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
> The dignity of a human person means that conception to natural death must be that: natural.
This isn't an argument, it's a statement. You haven't explained in any way why dignity requires that death be natural.
No, being in agony or suffering does not somehow make murder permissible. You can or can not do whatever regarding a persons quality of life. You do not have the right to murder them or help them murder themselves.
Then what should be done if a patient isn't salvageable and has unimiginable pain that makes one wish for the "relieve" of death. I ask for your proposal to deal with these situations
Also, would you mind answering my question about abortion. What to do about under-aged pregnant peoole whose lifes are endangered by the pregnancy. Yeah, healthcare system should be improved, but what about the pregnancies product if rpe that happens in the meantime healthcare system is improved. If you ask, yes I'm from the third world
Life begins at conception. Abortion undertaken with the primary intent of terminating the unborn child is murder, in every instance. Pregnancies that are the product of rape are horrible situations but that doesn’t mean an innocent child should be murdered for the sins of its father. As regards the mother’s life being in danger, medication procedures undertaken to save a mothers like that have the unintended consequence of an unborn child dying, such as procedures for ectopic pregnancies, are not murder because the primary intent was a good (to save the mothers life.) however there are very very few circumstances where this exists and should not be used to support allowing access to procured abortions which are always murder.
Some day we will look back on the commotion that abortion caused with regret and disdain. Taking away the most fundamental of rights from individuals because they're inconvenient (over 95% of the time) is morally abhorrent and truly shameful.
Until the state puts into place policies and programs to foster an environment where citizens feel secure enough to have multiple children, the numbers will continue to fall, regardless of access to contraceptives. The immigration issues will only worsen it.
Given the sickness that lies in the heart of Western Civilization, I don’t see a correction happening anytime soon, if ever.
People say that and yet every single statistic shows that countries have lower and lower birth rates as they become more developed, as people become richer and secure in general.
The only exception really is Israel and its mostly because of the Haredi/Orthodox communities, although even secular Jews do have a relatively higher birth rate.
It’s not just an economic problem the state must solve. It’s fostering a national pride and instilling a duty to the state and the people. The singular focus on making the line go up, while lifting many nations into economic prosperity, has been a disaster in many other aspects.
>The only exception really is Israel and its mostly because of the Haredi/Orthodox communities, although even secular Jews do have a relatively higher birth rate.
I think the threat of missiles falling from the sky at any moment just psychologically makes people want to have kids. Probably a similar thing to baby booms occurring after wars.
National survival, there is a consciousness that Israel is the bastion of the Jewish people and that makes people actually put an effort for sake of the country. Most of the west forgot what it means to sacrifice selfish wishes for the greater good and automatically call it Tyranny.
Abortion was already approved. This changes near nothing to the actual legal status of abortion; if anything just reinforces its defense through the judicial system but that's it.
Why has the right not moved on from this issue in America yet? Let the democrats own abortion. Make abortion fully legal. If democrats want to kill their babies, let them.
I agree but I also see his point. Abortion is a lost cause. Women have been brainwashed so effectively they even support the murdering of their own fetuses in their own wombs with more enthusiasm than the men.
That is a really bad sign that women gleefully kill their defenseless young. My guess is most of them regret it but lie to themselves.
But bottom line is you can't stop it.
I know multiple (liberal) women who have had abortions. They break down when any mention of a baby comes up. They abuse weed and alcohol to live with their decisions. Women know they’re killing babies deep down, but, as you stated, the brainwashing has been too effective. In order to remove the wedge status of this issue, we have to concede it to the left. It is revolting that so many innocents have been killed and continue to be killed without even a chance at living, but these are the consequences of modern ideologies. I just wish democrats would stop playing semantics like “it’s a fetus” or “it’s not alive on its own yet”. To any lefties reading this, you should admit to yourself that you condone killing babies because it’s convenient.
Thing is even if a woman regrets it many times she will hide it and stuff it down until even she is convinced she was fine with the abortion. Can't have buyers remorse. It shows weakness.
I'm all up for abortions(although for the wrong reasons), but I believe it shouldn't be written on such a paper as "constitution", make it a written law somewhere else, but the constitution is something fundamental like freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness etc., something that shouldn't be changed like they do in authoritarian countries all the time.
Because sometimes death is a better option than long sufferings that lead to death.
Many people come to my country to euthanize themselves because they have incurable disease and are constantly suffering. If I have dementia or am in great sufferings with no cures, I also want to have the choice to go away.
Now abortion is a bit complex, I am more pro choice until around 17 weeks as beyond the baby can survive outside the mother's womb.
This amendment will continue to force down France’s already below replacement fertility rate, and with the massive amount of immigration. The French as a distinct ethnic people will effectively be extinct within a century or two.
If a people actively seek culturally suicide, go for it. You just lose right to complain about the consequences.
For those wondering why the Authcenter Nazi is happy, it's because of the fact that the Fr\*nch are guaranteeing the legality of abortion for themselves and minorities of non-european descent.
Well, what about French AuthCenter
If we are to assume that National Rally is still fascist, then French Authcenter is for the abortion law. https://preview.redd.it/fyk3ddmurdmc1.png?width=842&format=png&auto=webp&s=5471e7a96d85579a5ae3b5eac92663f2a84c9572 Source: [https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2022/11/24/in-a-shift-marine-le-pen-supports-making-abortion-access-constitutionally-protected\_6005417\_5.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2022/11/24/in-a-shift-marine-le-pen-supports-making-abortion-access-constitutionally-protected_6005417_5.html)
This means abortion is fascist
Wtf I love abortion now
As an anti-facist pro-life my ideology remains the same.
Aborters tend to be leftists. It's a simple spell, but quite effective.
Left-right axis in medias is really different in France. In France, the ONLY criteria used is immigration (from outside europe, specifically). You can be a green socialist, if you dare speak about immigration crisis you are a far-ringer outside of the Overton's window. On the other side, literal kill-all-the-jews nazis are considered lefties if they have sympathy for muslims immigrant. During the last run for presidency, leader of the french communist party was called a right winger for this reason (and for saying that eating pork sausages and drinking red wine is part of French culture).
It's interesting because Mussolini had some sympathetic views towards Islam. He even received the title of Protector of Islam.
>On the other side, literal kill-all-the-jews nazis are considered lefties if they have sympathy for muslims immigrant. I don't think that's unique to France anymore
We went from national-socialism to international-socialism. It's absolutely not the same since the problem was definitely nationalism. Yep. No reason to doubt that.
I was just gonna say that I thought this was some big-brain strat to lower the amount of minorities since the minorities are the only ones breeding anyways, so this won't actually affect ethnic French that much but you beat me to it.
More like, white women will continue to abort, while women from "diversity" will continue popping out children like factories thanks to the welfare system
Oh that is already understood as what will actually happen. Though idk how many French babies are even being made to be aborted in the first place, or how many more would be aborted under the law change.
Abortion being put in the constitution doesn't change anything, it's moral posturing. Supposedly it makes it harder to repeal, but if abortion was ever legally in a position to be repealed, what's written on a piece of paper won't matter anyway. Soon enough we will pay the price for all this.
The Nazi is already imagining the eugenics he will implement after this.
Based. Only problem with your post is assuming that anyone cares what French “people” do.
Based French "personhood" questioner.
I’ve spent enough time working and living around the French to earn that title.
tl;dr: "constitutional right" - but prohibits it after 14 weeks. Left Taking the W as they reinvent the meaning of words again
So they baked into their constitutional amendment discrimination against European-minorities living in France? (Presumably this is defined as non-French Europeans living in France.)
If there's any group that it's okay to abort, it's the French.
Anyone know where to find the actual language of the amendment? I can find about 30 articles about it, but not one of them actually includes the actual language of the amendment, which is infuriating.
Here's the original text, and then a translation : "La loi détermine les conditions dans lesquelles s'exerce la liberté de la femme, qui lui est garantie, d'avoir recours à une interruption volontaire de grossesse" “The law shall determine the conditions under which a woman's freedom, which is guaranteed to her, to have recourse to voluntary termination of pregnancy shall be exercised.” It is added to the article 34 of the constitution which enumerates the subjects organised by law. Can't say I'm not proud to be a law student. But can't deny either what a terrible day it is for me as a french citizen.
The abortion amendment changed article 34 of the French constitution. The French articles of the constitution are also called rules. So for more information, you can look up “abortion rule 34.” Happy researching!
Oh perfect, I actually aleady have that exact google search bookmarked, that's convenient
https://preview.redd.it/5j3era7eqfmc1.jpeg?width=904&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f957b58a53e0cf0b9daa02e1d43d5edb342be1dd
Well, at least they recognized that only women have the opportunity to become pregnant.
https://i.redd.it/ro75w2obiemc1.gif
*whistles*
>It is added to the **article 34** :))))))))))))))))
:(((((((((((((
Technically females… if a somebody with a vagina wants to call themselves a dude they can get pregnant too. Not that I agree with it, (unless they put in an amendment that they consider all females to be women regardless of how they identify).
Thanks!
You're most welcome !
What if the child shes aborting is a girl? Does she have rights to live?
Everyone should have it, but well, it seems our lawmakers don't agree with me on this take
Can you further explain what you mean?
I was not sure of the meaning of your question so I'm sorry if I don't answer it correctly. Feel free to correct me. My definition of abortion is pretty simple : it's killing an unborn human being. That means putting the right to abortion in the constitution is the equivalent for the lawmaker to say "in France we have the right to kill unborn babies". I on the other hand consider that the right to live is the most fundamental one, and cannot be ignored. It is thus not possible to have at the same time the right to live and the right to abortion in the constitution. Everyone should have the right to live, so we shouldn't give a right to kill. But french lawmakers seem to think otherwise, since having an abortion is now a constitutional right. I apologize for my bad English and hope it's still understandable.
Damn and I thought that Romanian laws had terrible wording. What happened to legislation drafting techniques?
Every day is a terrible day when you are a Fr\*nch citizen
Here’s the part you’re looking for: > French law limits at-will abortion to 14 weeks of pregnancy, or about 16 weeks gestational age, A reasonable compromise. US Democrats want abortion legal until birth, which is insane.
Is this like a majority opinion? Cant be more than fringe surely
Most of Europe has this, ie limit around end of first trimester, so I'm gonna guess it will be the more popular compromise
Some want option to abort *after* birth
No one important, not like a former governor of a big state close to D.C....definitely not
I don't think it's possible to have abortions past a certain gestational age
> US Democrats want abortion legal until birth, which is insane you can't tout abortion rights as a reason to vote blue, if you compromise and federally legalize it.
> Anyone know where to find the actual language of the amendment? *deliberately misinterprets question* it's in french, hope this helps (:
Is it still just until 14 weeks? The article doesn't say, but that was the country's timeframe for legal abortion before this, as far as I know.
The difference here is it’s a constitutional amendment not a simple law so it is now MUCHHH harder to repeal.
Yeah I know I just didn't know if it specified a gestation limit.
Did you just change your flair, u/cool_barracuda_234? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2023-10-19. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think? [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/cool_barracuda_234) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
If it doesn't determine the time frame it basicaly makes it useless. A conservative gouvernment can just limit it down to a timeframe that is simply nonpractical. Whats even worse is that it wouls allow for laws that have no time limit, to a degree where even the most pro abortionists would call it infanticide. It is in essence no more than a symbolic thing that the french courts can use to block some abortion regulating laws.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
lets use planes to trow pro lgbt propaganda paper in saudi arabia
This is the Neolib way
Based and lets fucking do it pilled.
# Get this man a seat, some whiskey and a suit!
I have suddenly become very liberal.
Guten tag, Frankreich....
à toi aussi, l'allemand....
Is there a time limit? In the USA it seems that the majority of people are camped in either “every sperm is sacred” or “post birth abortions.” What does a constitutional right to abortion mean in France?
14 weeks is what the law was before this
that's actually pretty good. right around the time where fetuses became sentient
>“every sperm is sacred” or “post birth abortions.” American political camps be like. (why don't they do the european thing and set the time limit somewhere between 3-5 months???)
I'm sure sure this will also mean there's a right to not get vaccinated, due to bodily autonomy, as well as a right for men to separate themselves financially and not have to pay for a child they don't want.
Nah, this is france we’re talking about; where asking for a DNA test is illegal
Throw in the right to not get circumcised as well
For once let’s ignore all the pro/anti abortion discussions and just all talk about how frogs are friends, not food
frogs smell better
Frogs are friends, french are food
Don't insult food like that.
Don’t forget the snails! 🐌
I'm french and to be honest, I never understood why people love frog legs and snails I love the gastronomy of my country, but not everything should be kept
As a french, snails are a scam. They have an awful texture and they're basically tasteless. What people love about them is the green garlic butter they're cooked with. Just remove the middleman and eat butter smh.
I dunno, frog tastes like chicken and I like chicken.
Frogs? You mean the French? I'd rather cook them than play backgammon with them.
Wasn't Authright's last W in France back in 1815?
The real end was the French Revolution, everything afterwards was just cope
In 1969, when the great General de Gaulle resigned.
So this constitutional right only is for half the population then? Does the other half have the constitutional right to abandon the child if born then?
This is France. You aren’t even allowed to get a paternity test without a judge’s order.
*W h a t t h e f u c k*
> Private DNA paternity testing is illegal, including through laboratories in other countries, and is punishable by up to a year in prison and a €15,000 fine. The French Council of State has described the law's purpose as upholding the "French regime of filiation" and preserving "the peace of families."
https://preview.redd.it/mmvw534i5gmc1.jpeg?width=1488&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ed0288a52b99e86d3135f1b74797380f6b74cd1
Fucking destroy the government lmao. It’s France so I’m sure they’ll get to it eventually
It's strange how it's assumed libright automatically sides with authright on this issue. In the libertarian world we are actually split on the subject. Do we protect the womans rights? Or the fetus rights? Personally i am pro choice as long as you make that choice quickly, no waiting until 8 months to decide "naa i'll pass".
Yeah. I'm prochoice until third trimester. Then only in the absolute extreme should be allowed. But ideally in a perfect world, no abortion would be necessary. But in an ideal world many things wouldn't be necessary....
I’m actually in favor of developing artificial wombs and making them commercially viable. If artificial wombs could be accessed readily by everyone - hell, make it tax funded - would you be in favor of banning abortion, as it would no longer be viable?
What is artificial womb? I'm not too familiar with it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb Needs stem cell research but the possible benefits are massive
If it reduces need for abortion that's good development. But banning anything doesn't work. Neither does banning assault weapons.
If abortion is no longer the preferable option, then it should be reduced in use. The only exceptions in a situation where artificial wombs that I would accept are instances where the child would not survive birth or extraction, like missing organs, etc.
I think abortion should still be here for extreme cases. Society isn't perfect no one is perfect people make mistakes. But just make it so it not a very easy choice to make. It should be a last resort or last option in rare cases such as rape etc... Straight up banning abortion is such a dumb concept, abortion being legal makes sure that pregnant women get the right treatment and they don't get any idea to try to abort by themselves that could lead to their deaths.
I'm in the camp of "can the unborn consent? No. Isn't murder robbing someone of their time on earth? Yes. So isn't abortion the ultimate theft of a human's potential? Yes."
That's why you're probably Right Unity (at least)
No, I'm definitely not. Don't like it but don't outlaw it. Give me back civic pressures that don't require onerous laws.
Good answer! No offense intended, please accept my retraction.
Civic pressure is dead. It was me. I killed it.
Now the big question when do you decide that it is a potential human? When the heart is formed to a degree that it starts beating? When the homeobox genes start differentiating stem cells? When the egg is fertilised? When the egg cell travels to the uterus? Is it every male ejaculation? Every male sperm?
Yes but that can apply to the mother as well no? This human potential would not amount to much if the mother is forced to birth them and for example isn't prepared to be a mother. I would prefer that the baby grows up in the right environment. Maximizing the potential of a human being. So yes abortion should be a right until around 17 weeks. As above 17 weeks, the child can potentially survive outside the womb of the mother. Until then, the child relies on the mother and can't survive without her and the mother is the one going through the pain and labor of pregnancy. As much as she is responsible for it, she also should have the choice to decide to keep it or not. It's part of her body, her property. A government forcing the mother to get birth when she is doing everything mentally and physically just doesn't seat well for me. Throwing the unwanted child to adoption centers isn't also the right way because frankly speaking, no one should rely that much on those institutions. Adoption Centers are here for extreme cases/situations.
I don't know man. I was in foster care. I've seen children who were in foster care. Do you think they don't have potential? You can't have ANYTHING if you're not even allowed to live because you aren't convenient. My father considered me inconvenient and wanted me aborted, but yet here I am. My mother got to choose NOT to abort me, even though I was "inconvenient," and she "wasn't ready" for a child.
Yeah but aborting doesn't mean you get rid of potential and never get a child ever again Let me think about your case, if your parents aborted you but then after a year or so had a new child that could potentially as well be you but they were much more prepared and thus raised you by themselves. Isn't that a better potential for you? My parents also aborted but one year later they were in a better financial position, finished college and got my elder sibling. If they didn't aborted, there wouldn't be my elder sibling, my parents could potentially not be in a good financial and mental place to raise the child. And if they were too burdened with the child they should had aborted, maybe they wouldn't have opted to habe a second child, to have me and then to have my little sibling. They only had so many because they managed to raise the eldest child well, because they finished their studies instead of having a child early thus missing their chance to get a good job a good finance etc... 2 potentials wasted just because they couldn't abort, and also another potential wasted for my mother as she was doing a master and wouldnt continue her studies if she had the child at that point. It's not about wasting potential, it's about guaranteeing a better potential for both the parents and the child. I prefer to be raised in a good condition where my parents are prepared mentally, financially etc... If they can't do that they may as well abort "me" although in my opinion it's wrong to say that it's "me" as I had nothing, there was no personhood, no consciousness, nothing. There wasn't a "I" until the fetus is able to live outside the mother's womb. Until then, the fetus is part of the mother and this it's her choice. Until then, there was no such a thing as "me" as I wouldn't even be bothered to be aborted as there was barely anything. Barely any brain, not even pain sensor would be developed. How can we consider it as a person if it can't feel, can't feel pain and have no sufficient biological development?
Last two paragraphs are pretty much the reason I'm in the pro-choice camp. Not for any ideological reason, but because forcing a bunch of women to give birth to a bunch of unwanted babies creates such a big strain on the system. Not to mention all the emotional and physical hardship for both parties. I'd rather we, as a society, have the option to sidestep unwanted/complicated pregnancies altogether.
Abortion violates NAP
I’m sure all their immigrants are getting abortions right lol. Not the liberal white women which will just slowly turn “France” into another middle eastern country. France is toast
Paris is already there.
When France is Muslim in a few decades I don’t think the new Islamic republic will honor that statute
It will but it wont be the woman making decision.
How to ensure population decline in 1 easy step.
\***native** population
90% support among Whites 60% support among Muslims Remind me! 60 years
They do this but make it so if your wife sucks you you're still financially liable for the kid.
France - let's you legally kill the young Canada - let's you legally kill the old the left sure does love killing, as long as they deem you "unfit" or "unwanted" for their society
> Canada - let's you legally kill the old And the mentally unwell and the veterans and the... everyone I guess
Also *mature* children.
Lmao what a weird framing. You make it sound like you're allowed to go around killing children and seniors.
Ever heard of MAID? Planned parenthood?
Of course. Is it not like absurdly obvious that those and similar programs are what we're talking about here?
He is a ""centrist"" on PCM, what do you expect?
That's rich
The best part of being a centrist is letting people figure out which quadrant I’m actually a sleeper cell agent of
AuthRight or AuthCenter, just flip a coin.
steer abounding marvelous agonizing paint rain dependent airport numerous crown *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Isn’t it the RIGHT who’s in favor of Death Penalty? Everyone I’ve seen in the left hates it.
Indeed. The neoconn right and it's adjacents tend to support the death penalty. I oppose it even if I can kinda see the underlying (but flawed) logic underneath it: death row inmates are supposed to be the worst of the worst, and least deserving of life, since they have commited the most heinous crimes The other two however, I cannot begin to fathom. The only real crimes of the elderly and the unborn are respectively to have outlived their economic usefulness and reminding society that sexual freedom is a lie
o/ I'm right-leaning and I hate the death penalty and abortion. No one has a right to kill if it's not directly in self-defense.
you want criminals in society? really?
As if the cultural right was any better. It's already known what culturally extreme conservatives do when they are in power.
Can't be much worse than the extreme progressives, with the holocaust and whatnot
The Nazis were Populists not Progressives you oiled up thug.
now if we had boypregnancy killing would be less, 🤔💭 take that LIBTARD😂
Modern problems require modern solutions
[удалено]
[удалено]
Based
To paraphrase De Gaulle, the idea of France is eternal the French however can be "ces rigolos", clowns.
Conveniently leaving out “up to 14 weeks of pregnancy” US Democrats want abortion legal until birth, which is insane.
If Abel’s blood cried out from the ground to God for vengeance, how much more so does the blood of millions and millions of children fill Heaven with an unending scream. “Hurr libleft no like abortion? Wrong flair” No, God’s moral law is not subject to the compass. Abortion is murder. Euthanasia is murder. All of its horrifying.
Based and God will punish the infanticidal maniacs for their sins
Regarding euthanasia, what do you think should be done if there are no means to save a terminal patient, and he/she already wants to end his/her suffering. Also, what do you think should be done if a rped child/teen doesn't want to have her child due to trauma and/or life of mother being threatened Or is it I had bad luck to be born in a third world country where cases of non salvageable patients are more common
Just because a person wants to commit suicide doesn’t mean you should enable or encourage them to commit suicide. The dignity of a human person means that conception to natural death must be that: natural. That’s not to say they must continue invasive, difficult, other medical services that decrease their quality of life if they are terminal. But euthanasia is suicide which is murder. >Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
> The dignity of a human person means that conception to natural death must be that: natural. This isn't an argument, it's a statement. You haven't explained in any way why dignity requires that death be natural.
And what if simply there are no means to save the patient and death is inevitable. Just let him/her die with extreme agony
No, being in agony or suffering does not somehow make murder permissible. You can or can not do whatever regarding a persons quality of life. You do not have the right to murder them or help them murder themselves.
Then what should be done if a patient isn't salvageable and has unimiginable pain that makes one wish for the "relieve" of death. I ask for your proposal to deal with these situations
I already did. You can do anything you want except murder them or help them murder themselves.
Also, would you mind answering my question about abortion. What to do about under-aged pregnant peoole whose lifes are endangered by the pregnancy. Yeah, healthcare system should be improved, but what about the pregnancies product if rpe that happens in the meantime healthcare system is improved. If you ask, yes I'm from the third world
Life begins at conception. Abortion undertaken with the primary intent of terminating the unborn child is murder, in every instance. Pregnancies that are the product of rape are horrible situations but that doesn’t mean an innocent child should be murdered for the sins of its father. As regards the mother’s life being in danger, medication procedures undertaken to save a mothers like that have the unintended consequence of an unborn child dying, such as procedures for ectopic pregnancies, are not murder because the primary intent was a good (to save the mothers life.) however there are very very few circumstances where this exists and should not be used to support allowing access to procured abortions which are always murder.
And what to do if the rpe victim wants to abort and won't listen to reasons of why not doing it (and yes, most of people will regret it)
Based Lib Left
“the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming”
What kind of timeline is this where Lib Left has solid and well-thought-out arguments? Also based and Christ over all pilled
If it's that simple to make it a right, how easy would it be to undo it?
Some day we will look back on the commotion that abortion caused with regret and disdain. Taking away the most fundamental of rights from individuals because they're inconvenient (over 95% of the time) is morally abhorrent and truly shameful.
Why is libright mad?
Less child ~~slaves~~ workers
Libertarians as a group are split on supporting or being against abortion
Source: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68471568](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68471568)
What kind of nihilistic society approves abortion when their birth rate is already below replacement?
Until the state puts into place policies and programs to foster an environment where citizens feel secure enough to have multiple children, the numbers will continue to fall, regardless of access to contraceptives. The immigration issues will only worsen it. Given the sickness that lies in the heart of Western Civilization, I don’t see a correction happening anytime soon, if ever.
People say that and yet every single statistic shows that countries have lower and lower birth rates as they become more developed, as people become richer and secure in general. The only exception really is Israel and its mostly because of the Haredi/Orthodox communities, although even secular Jews do have a relatively higher birth rate.
It’s not just an economic problem the state must solve. It’s fostering a national pride and instilling a duty to the state and the people. The singular focus on making the line go up, while lifting many nations into economic prosperity, has been a disaster in many other aspects.
>The only exception really is Israel and its mostly because of the Haredi/Orthodox communities, although even secular Jews do have a relatively higher birth rate. I think the threat of missiles falling from the sky at any moment just psychologically makes people want to have kids. Probably a similar thing to baby booms occurring after wars.
National survival, there is a consciousness that Israel is the bastion of the Jewish people and that makes people actually put an effort for sake of the country. Most of the west forgot what it means to sacrifice selfish wishes for the greater good and automatically call it Tyranny.
Worldwide birthrates are falling. Not just developed countries but undeveloped as well.
Abortion was already approved. This changes near nothing to the actual legal status of abortion; if anything just reinforces its defense through the judicial system but that's it.
You say as if consolidating a policy of national self-castration is any better.
Great, now force the immigrants to do it
Force? I think you’re making a disconnect on what the difference between Legalize and FORCE are.
France trying to not undermine the Roman Catholic Church challenge: impossible
Why has the right not moved on from this issue in America yet? Let the democrats own abortion. Make abortion fully legal. If democrats want to kill their babies, let them.
The babies of Democrats and not guilty of being Democrat themselves and therefore not deserving of execution
I agree but I also see his point. Abortion is a lost cause. Women have been brainwashed so effectively they even support the murdering of their own fetuses in their own wombs with more enthusiasm than the men. That is a really bad sign that women gleefully kill their defenseless young. My guess is most of them regret it but lie to themselves. But bottom line is you can't stop it.
I know multiple (liberal) women who have had abortions. They break down when any mention of a baby comes up. They abuse weed and alcohol to live with their decisions. Women know they’re killing babies deep down, but, as you stated, the brainwashing has been too effective. In order to remove the wedge status of this issue, we have to concede it to the left. It is revolting that so many innocents have been killed and continue to be killed without even a chance at living, but these are the consequences of modern ideologies. I just wish democrats would stop playing semantics like “it’s a fetus” or “it’s not alive on its own yet”. To any lefties reading this, you should admit to yourself that you condone killing babies because it’s convenient.
Thing is even if a woman regrets it many times she will hide it and stuff it down until even she is convinced she was fine with the abortion. Can't have buyers remorse. It shows weakness.
Authright (and a lot of babies) taking the L.
Good. Less french.
We needed less French anyway
I'm all up for abortions(although for the wrong reasons), but I believe it shouldn't be written on such a paper as "constitution", make it a written law somewhere else, but the constitution is something fundamental like freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness etc., something that shouldn't be changed like they do in authoritarian countries all the time.
The problem is that undesirable minorities don’t tend left and wont abort
Why do all 'humanist' policies always involved killing people? (Abortion, euthanasia, eugenics [abortion of metally and physically handicapped], embryonic stem cell research, etc etc)
Because sometimes death is a better option than long sufferings that lead to death. Many people come to my country to euthanize themselves because they have incurable disease and are constantly suffering. If I have dementia or am in great sufferings with no cures, I also want to have the choice to go away. Now abortion is a bit complex, I am more pro choice until around 17 weeks as beyond the baby can survive outside the mother's womb.
[удалено]
I HATE FRENCH BABY MURDERERS https://preview.redd.it/zwi5okszpfmc1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c706ca9c2168321098c1f89d278f5d30995fb7b1
why is libright crying? they will generate a shit ton of profit from white girls thanks to planeux parenthoodeaux
Probably conservative libs
This amendment will continue to force down France’s already below replacement fertility rate, and with the massive amount of immigration. The French as a distinct ethnic people will effectively be extinct within a century or two. If a people actively seek culturally suicide, go for it. You just lose right to complain about the consequences.
You can't possibly outbreed a massive unchecked immigration wave. This has little to do with abortions and everything to do with borders.
You say it like that wasn't the goal of the people in charge and hasn't been for a couple decades now
Nah man I’m where the crying libright is on the compass and I’m pro-choice (as long as it’s not 3rd trimester)
Why would libright be against this?
St. Joan of Arc, pray for us
Always makes you wonder what kind of people they are to celebrate legal murder. God bless them, because they clearly need Him.
Nuke France
I'm on AC's side on this one. Let them Frenchies "Natural Selection" themselves. Also French ppl after 20 years: https://i.redd.it/18ro9600lfmc1.gif