Very well thought out and factual writing Jacob.
Not a mention of religion though? Should humans whose religions basically forbid contraception have to forgo sexual pleasure and use the act purely as a means to procreate? We are human after all.
The scientific and legal arguments are great but this debate is so much more than that which can be boiled down to legalities and case law.
The question of what defines life must surely raise its head. Is life really a small clump of cells without any form of consciousness? If this definition is applied then let's ban bread as yeast is also a small clump of cells without discernable consciousness.
According to the information I found online, the brain does not even start to appear until week 5 and not until weeks 6 or 7 is it actually doing anything.
https://www.healthline.com/health/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-brain
This has to be an important stage in the argument of the definition of 'life'.
I'm not really interested in the finer points of US Federal and State law, there is too much law and basing any decision on whether laws were broken or trampled upon in error or not is ridiculous in such an important human debate.
I notice very few (if any) women in this thread but it is they who ought to have the final say as it's their body and ultimately right to decide.
As for anyone, politician or anyone else who wants to ban all forms of abortion yet advocates the death penalty. I find that abhorrent. Life is life by definition not by action. Its just the definition that needs concensous.
I left out religion deliberately because it was not my intent to use that line of argument.
If someone's religion forbids contraception, odds are abortion is already out the window, too.
Does development of a brain affect your measurement of humanity? Why not the process prior to that benchmark?
The entire point is that it is not just the mother's body in this discussion.
I am anti-war, and the government is absolutely the last group I would consider worthy of deciding life and death for anyone. However, this case just removed a federal mandate, so I call it progress.
You mentioned that you notice few (if any) women on this thread. I am one :) I left a comment above and you can read some of my notions there, if you are interested.
If an unwanted pregnancy is something a woman theoretically decides upon (pro or against), she might change her stance when the matter of fact indeed happens.
As much as of an opinion I might have, I never was in the situation to make this decision. I call myself lucky, this cup never came into my direction. And it won't; I am past the years.
I did read your excellent and in depth response about the situation regarding the law in Germany and your more personal opinion.
I disagree with Jacob vehemently as attempting to solve such an emotive and personal issue using rigid law is ridiculous, especially when it is debated and argued in law by mainly men. The issue of abortion being a mainly woman's choice is important simply for the fact that it is the woman who has to make the final decision and her who has to live mostly with the possible emotional consequences.
Outright bans written into law are wrong. Guidance within a legal framework is better, such as it seems the law stands in Germany.
Apologies for missing your gender and thank you for your reply and calm opinions :-)
Thank you very much for reading my long comment on this.
As far as laws are concerned, I think they are suitable for extreme cases. Existing laws and appeals to the courts are always only the very last resort, or should be (whereby I make an absolute distinction between natural persons in dispute with each other and disputes between natural persons and organs of another legal form).
However, where laws are rigorously exploited to have disputes settled by the courts, they are, in my view, used too early. Some laws, because they are anchored in criminal law, have a high fear potential. But it is interesting, as with this abortion law in Germany, that although it is a criminal offence, the custom and acceptance of abortion is nevertheless high. The large loophole that this law offers is used by the majority, I think. Therefore, and although it is criminalised, the legislation seems less threatening, at least in this country.
The tendency to use the courts too early is one that I think has increased. Alternatives, for example, such as preliminary talks, dispute mediators, therapeutic and other services, etc. seem useful where they are properly applied and work towards the mediating outcome.
... Sometimes I think the cries for "there should be a law!" are an expression that shows that people indeed don't know much about the fact what written law actually means, and what long term consequences it can have, once a law has finally been passed. It's very hard to get rid of it.
It is true that the women who have had an abortion are usually more emotionally and psychologically burdened than the men involved (although I think the men can have equally intense feelings of loss and I am not denying that to anyone).
Good bye to you. ... Oh, where are you located, may I ask?
I'm English but have been resident in Thailand for 11 years now.