Posted under Europe & Pro-Life
From the BBC:
Spain’s existing law, dating from 1985, allows abortion in cases of rape and when there are signs of foetal abnormality.
Currently, Spanish women can also end a pregnancy if their physical or psychological health is at risk. In practice, the last category has been used to justify the vast majority of abortions – of which there were 112,000 in 2007.
I know “pro-life” Americans who hold a similar stance on abortion to what’s already in Spain, and yet it looks like a psychological health loophole is abused there. With the loophole’s closing, I’d like to believe the number of abortions would be greatly reduced.
The primary cause of the protests is a new bill that fully legalises abortion:
The bill, already passed by parliament, introduces abortion on demand up to 14 weeks into a pregnancy.
Human Life International‘s letter to King Juan Carlos I, who in 2005 gave his Royal Assent to a law legalising homo marriage. Apparently the king approved this abortion bill as well.
Weaver on 08 Mar 2010 at 9:52 am #
I found this most interesting because so many in America call for the laws Spain presently has, and yet there’s a major loophole.
Kirt Higdon on 08 Mar 2010 at 11:15 am #
Who in America is calling for this type of law? This is the type of law which California had under Reagan prior to Roe v. Wade and made California a Mecca for abortion tourism. Since Roe v. Wade, abortion is available for any reason or none at all, so the pro-aborts are not calling for this type of law and pro-life people would like to either see abortion outlawed altogether or at most a life of the mother exception. I’ve been active in the pro-life movement since well before R v. W and have never met even one pro-life person who favored this type of law. Prior to R v. W, this type of law was promoted by pro-aborts, who were well aware of the loophole and how they would use it as a stepping stone to all out legalization.
Weaver on 08 Mar 2010 at 11:42 am #
I’ve spoken with many who say they want exceptions for when the mother’s health is threatened or for rape. It seems to be a very common position, albeit perhaps not among pro-life activists.
I discuss abortion on occasion – whenever someone mentions it.
Weaver on 08 Mar 2010 at 11:47 am #
Reg. the history of abortion laws, I’m admittedly not all that familiar. Maybe this is something I need to learn more about.
Weaver on 08 Mar 2010 at 12:22 pm #
Constitution Party platform:
According to wikipedia, there’s division among Reformed groups… Also according to wikipedia: Aquinas and Augustine were pro-choice and were near Aristotle’s view – that’s startling.
My humble position: I’m generally pro-life, but in cases of rape or where the woman’s life is threatened (e.g. a 14 year old), I’m open to the possibility abortion is just. I don’t have a firm stance because I haven’t fully studied the issue – one can’t develop an opinion if lacking all of the information. If a life threatens another life, it might be just to defend, and imposing a baby on a mother (via rape) seems possibly unjust.
Kirt Higdon on 08 Mar 2010 at 3:29 pm #
I’m in agreement with the platform of the Constitution Party – no exceptions. As to the position of Augustine and Aquinas, both held abortion to be gravely sinful at all stages of pregnancy. Aquinas agreed with Aristotle’s position on ensoulment, meaning that abortion would not be considered homicide for the first 40 days of gestation, but would still be gravely sinful. Augustine took the position that abortion was a form of contraception and hence gravely sinful. Neither had the advantage of modern embryology which clearly shows the existence of a distinct individual human being from the moment of conception. That does not mean that they approved of abortion or were “pro-choice”. Ironically, both were more correct than they knew in equating early abortion and contraception, since most modern contraceptives work as abortifacients at least some of the time.
The Western Confucian on 08 Mar 2010 at 7:06 pm #
Regarding Aquinas and ensoulment, here’s article in which Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk explains that “the wrongness of destroying a human embryo does not ultimately depend on when that embryo might become a person, or when he or she might receive a soul from God” — Do Embryos Have Souls?