Abortion laws and their application

[Baruch Menachem]

over on another board we had a discussion on abortion laws in different places. It was a huge surprise to me. We were discussing why a character in a Kdrama didn't have an abortion in Italy while she was there. It turned out that getting one would have been impossible for her.

Here in the US we have the easisiest abortion rules. Russia also has rules almost as easy.

In most of the world, abortion is severely restricted by law. In practice, not so much. For example, in Korea abortion is just plain illegal, but no one notices. More babies are aborted in Korea than are born.

Taiwan also has the status of abortion being illegal but common. It is permitted under several circumstances, but counseling is required. Like Korea, more babies seem to be aborted than born.

Israel requires the approval of a three member committee (which will have no less than one female member) and a week long wait.


Italy and france permit abortion on demand up to 90 days or 12 weeks, illegal except in extraordinary circumstances afterward.

England forbids the practice except upon certification of emotional or physical damage to the mom by the abortion provider. Effectively, abortion on demand.

Germany allows abortion on demand for the first trimester, but it requires counseling and a waiting period. the basic rule is it is illegal, but if counseling is provided, and the wait period is allowed, then the provider won't be prosecuted.

In Holland, also, abortion is a crime unless it is deemed an emergency situation. Emergency situations are common.

The US is actually one of the few places where abortion is not only legal, but a constitutionally protected right. From what I can gather from my reading, the US also has the lowest abortion rate.

I am feeling confused by all this.

 

[Laurentos]

Good post!

Statistics are usually designed to achieve the desired end. But the finding could be true. I believe it is the presence of too many laws that people repel and resort to crime and violence in retaliation. This brings me to the idea that the conscience is naturally good. The development of material desires has the self construct overwhelms the conscience to submergence. At the same time, a person naturally feels guilty or remorse on having done wrong generally. Since the conscience is submerged, so is remorse and guilt.

If society is free and individuals exercise and develop their natural inborn faculties, they wouldn’t resort to rebellious measures. But the material self construction is developed from policies targeting behaviour for economic stimulant. And since the mode of maintaining subsistence is materialism, social behaviour is thus dominated by material desires.

Accordingly, the most advanced nations in material wealth are expected to have the least standard of moral behaviour – crime rate is high. Nations with the most laws and most forceful are expected to have the highest standard of moral behaviour – crime rate is low (at the expense of social consequences).

My hypothesis suggests nations with the most material wealth are supposed to have a high crime rate, as with nations with the most laws that are also supposed to have a high crime rate. The former is influenced by material desires, the latter by rebellious. Obviously, both scenarios are not valid and lacking the exercise of Freedom.

If the conscience is naturally free to be responsible, not only the crime is a conscious awareness, but also is economic responsibility. This is true because human survived before Jesus and Karl Marx. People can survive without laws and without the economy, in fact they will prove to do a better job than the current lot!

Freedom is thus a pure principle.