4 ms·

The article is actually missing the point slightly. The French right wing of the senate has made this seemingly unimportant edit: it's not a right to abortion,

The article is actually missing the point slightly. The French right wing of the senate has made this seemingly unimportant edit: it's not a right to abortion, it's a freedom. This changes everything. If it's a freedom, the job of the government is to ensure that nobody can stop you from doing it, but unlike with a right, it has no obligation of means, it doesn't have to fund free abortion clinics, make sure that hospitals are properly staffed, that every woman on the French territory has actually access to a clinic without travelling long distances or paying an unaffordable price.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
good point! there are news circulating here that the right wing is celebrating, it must be about that.
- hef19898 3y ago
  If you ignore the word "guaranteed" just before freedom, sure. If you don't, well, there is not much pro-live can be happy about.
  - fguerraz 3y ago
    I am not making this up, this is abundantly commented upon in the French press.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      I knowm I also know enough about law to tell that removing a freedom is a far cry from removing a "guaranteed freedom". And of course the press is reporting, the right has to claim a victory, the topic itself and the far right whining guarantee clicks. And we all fall for it. Again.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > If you ignore the word "guaranteed" it simply means that your freedom is guaranteed, not the actual right. legalese is a very sneaky duolingo. In the Italian constitution the catholics replaced the sentence in the first article proposed by the left "Italy is a democratic Republic founded on workers." with "Italy is a democratic Republic founded on labour." which completely changed the intended meaning (it works much better in Italian where workers is "lavoratori" and labour is "lavoro", they look and sound very similar, but are not the same thing). > there is not much pro-live can be happy about but they are, there must be a reason.
throw0101a 3y ago
> The French right wing of the senate has made this seemingly unimportant edit: it's not a right to abortion, it's a freedom. How are 'conflicting freedoms' resolved? If two people have freedom of bodily autonomy, is there a priority? Or taking a step back, what responsibilities (if any) do we have towards other people? > Plenty of philosophers have argued that personhood hinges on rational capacity: that a being cannot be said to be owed the rights and protections promised in the Declaration of Independence unless it is capable of higher-level reasoning or unless it has, among other things, a sense of self, and can desire not to be killed. Personhood understood in this way legitimizes abortion at any stage, since what is killed does not, on this view, have rights. But it also legitimizes the killing of infants and young children, of the severely mentally disabled, and some of those suffering from dementia. > If one rejects this restrictive, ableist understanding of personhood, what are the other options? Some philosophers point out that we do tend to make assessments of moral worth on capacity, but that we tend to make those assessments not on individual capacity, but on the capacities characteristic of the species to which the individual in question belongs. We think it worse to kill a dolphin than an ant because dolphins as a species have more sophisticated rational capacities than ants do. If we understand personhood in this way, then all members of our species — the elderly, the mentally disabled, infants and fetuses — are people. […] > It is possible, of course, to acknowledge the personhood of the fetus and still defend abortion. Half a century ago the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson, conceding that the fetus becomes a person well before birth, famously argued that the personhood of the fetus does not make the mother’s decision to kill it unjust. Killing the fetus is unjust, Thomson argued, only if the mother first agrees to carry it. But this, again, is a philosophical question. Do we owe others only what we agree to owe them? > Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. If the fetus becomes a person long before birth — as even Thomson concedes — and if we can owe things to people simply because they are people, then we can owe things to the fetus as well, long before birth. * https://archive.is/y3DVM https://archive.is/y3DVM * https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/philosophy-not-religion-is-at-the-heart-of-the-abortion-debate/ https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/phi... What is the zygote/fetus/whatever? Is it human? If it is human, is it a person? When / At what point does it/he/she go from being a not-a-person to being a person? Why at that point and not some other? Do we have any responsibilities to the (non-)persons? Is it possible to have "objective" answers to any of these questions, or are they 'simply' determined by "subjective" feelings?
0xAFFFF 3y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. While this is a symbolic victory, this is not going to ensure French women have safe and affordable access to abortion, especially when Planned Parenthood faces funding problems and smear campaigns while practitioners can still exercise a conscience clause to deny abortion care.
almatabata 3y ago
It does not specify any implementation details either. If they change the law to only apply in very specific cases does that go against this article? "La loi détermine les conditions dans lesquelles s’exerce la liberté garantie à la femme d’avoir recours à une interruption volontaire de grossesse." > The law shall determine the conditions in which a woman can exercise her guaranteed right to abortion. Taken from: https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/dossiers/liberte_interruption_grossesse https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/dossiers/liberte_i...

peoplefromibiza 3y ago

good point! there are news circulating here that the right wing is celebrating, it must be about that.

hef19898 3y ago
If you ignore the word "guaranteed" just before freedom, sure. If you don't, well, there is not much pro-live can be happy about.
- fguerraz 3y ago
  I am not making this up, this is abundantly commented upon in the French press.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I knowm I also know enough about law to tell that removing a freedom is a far cry from removing a "guaranteed freedom". And of course the press is reporting, the right has to claim a victory, the topic itself and the far right whining guarantee clicks. And we all fall for it. Again.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > If you ignore the word "guaranteed" it simply means that your freedom is guaranteed, not the actual right. legalese is a very sneaky duolingo. In the Italian constitution the catholics replaced the sentence in the first article proposed by the left "Italy is a democratic Republic founded on workers." with "Italy is a democratic Republic founded on labour." which completely changed the intended meaning (it works much better in Italian where workers is "lavoratori" and labour is "lavoro", they look and sound very similar, but are not the same thing). > there is not much pro-live can be happy about but they are, there must be a reason.

throw0101a 3y ago

> The French right wing of the senate has made this seemingly unimportant edit: it's not a right to abortion, it's a freedom. How are 'conflicting freedoms' resolved? If two people have freedom of bodily autonomy, is there a priority? Or taking a step back, what responsibilities (if any) do we have towards other people? > Plenty of philosophers have argued that personhood hinges on rational capacity: that a being cannot be said to be owed the rights and protections promised in the Declaration of Independence unless it is capable of higher-level reasoning or unless it has, among other things, a sense of self, and can desire not to be killed. Personhood understood in this way legitimizes abortion at any stage, since what is killed does not, on this view, have rights. But it also legitimizes the killing of infants and young children, of the severely mentally disabled, and some of those suffering from dementia. > If one rejects this restrictive, ableist understanding of personhood, what are the other options? Some philosophers point out that we do tend to make assessments of moral worth on capacity, but that we tend to make those assessments not on individual capacity, but on the capacities characteristic of the species to which the individual in question belongs. We think it worse to kill a dolphin than an ant because dolphins as a species have more sophisticated rational capacities than ants do. If we understand personhood in this way, then all members of our species — the elderly, the mentally disabled, infants and fetuses — are people. […] > It is possible, of course, to acknowledge the personhood of the fetus and still defend abortion. Half a century ago the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson, conceding that the fetus becomes a person well before birth, famously argued that the personhood of the fetus does not make the mother’s decision to kill it unjust. Killing the fetus is unjust, Thomson argued, only if the mother first agrees to carry it. But this, again, is a philosophical question. Do we owe others only what we agree to owe them? > Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. If the fetus becomes a person long before birth — as even Thomson concedes — and if we can owe things to people simply because they are people, then we can owe things to the fetus as well, long before birth. * https://archive.is/y3DVM https://archive.is/y3DVM * https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/philosophy-not-religion-is-at-the-heart-of-the-abortion-debate/ https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/phi... What is the zygote/fetus/whatever? Is it human? If it is human, is it a person? When / At what point does it/he/she go from being a not-a-person to being a person? Why at that point and not some other? Do we have any responsibilities to the (non-)persons? Is it possible to have "objective" answers to any of these questions, or are they 'simply' determined by "subjective" feelings?

0xAFFFF 3y ago

Thanks for pointing this out. While this is a symbolic victory, this is not going to ensure French women have safe and affordable access to abortion, especially when Planned Parenthood faces funding problems and smear campaigns while practitioners can still exercise a conscience clause to deny abortion care.

almatabata 3y ago

It does not specify any implementation details either. If they change the law to only apply in very specific cases does that go against this article? "La loi détermine les conditions dans lesquelles s’exerce la liberté garantie à la femme d’avoir recours à une interruption volontaire de grossesse." > The law shall determine the conditions in which a woman can exercise her guaranteed right to abortion. Taken from: https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/dossiers/liberte_interruption_grossesse https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/dossiers/liberte_i...