So, the Youth organisation of our Social Democratic Party (SPD) just announced their plan to abolish two paragraphs from the German Criminal Code: 219a and 218, both regarding abortion and the legal framework it consists of. Now, 219a has been kind of controversial for the last few months, so it's not surprising that a left-winged party would put that on their agenda. It basically forbids any form of advertisement towards abortions. Abortions should not be a service the market competes about, in that regard it is different to surgery. However, the judges have persecuted doctors in the past for only informing about the possibility of having an abortion on their website. That goes too far. Advertising and informing are two different pair of shoes and informing people is necessary for them to understand their rights and how to handle the situation. If 219a encompasses informing, as the judges seem to believe, there are good reasons for this paragraph to be abolished as soon as possible. Especially since even the judges seemed to only pronounce the sentence begrudgingly, as if they themselves don't believe in the validity of the law but see the wording as unambiguous. So, I have absolutely no complains here.
218 is in a completely different ball park though. It basically states that abortion is illegal, though can be committed with impunity if women abort within the first 12 weeks and visit a mandatory consultation, and if the abortion is conducted by a doctor. It also can be committed with impunity if the life of the mother is at risk or she has been raped (218a). It also ensures that those who harm the pregnant women and kill the unborn baby in the process can be sentenced between 6 months and 5 years (218.2) and that women who themselves purposefully commit an act which would kill the unborn baby can only be sentenced for a year at max (218.3). Now, it's not absolutely clear if they only want to abolish paragraph 218 (which would be really weird to abolish 218 but leave 218a, 218b, and 218c) or the entire paragraph as a whole. Abolishing 218 only would make the following paragraphs inconsistent since 218a specifies when an abortion can be committed with impunity. If the act in of itself is granted legal, there is no need for further explanations. In any case, those who attack a women and kill her baby in the process would most likely be sentenced either for murderer or manslaughter since the paragraphs which specify the special case of unborn life would be gone. But not only that, women who commit an act to kill their fetus could also be sentenced by either murder or manslaughter. The problem here is that it could go both ways: acting towards an unborn life will either not be considered a crime or considered a crime equal to a human life. The legal specification would disappear and that in itself is dangerous, even if only 218 should disappear.
If we assume that 218 in it's entirety will disappear, then we face a situation in which abortion is legal up until the child is born, and even if it's not conducted by a doctor. I understand the intend behind not wanting to criminalize abortion but abolishing the paragraph is madness. Abortion is a difficult topic because various ethical standpoints meet each other and their is no definitive agreement on when life begins. Most, Pro-Lifers or Pro-Choicers, would agree though that by the stage of 5 to 6 months the fetus is able to live and thus, is a human being. Also, the intend behind permitting abortion under medical attendance in order to prevent them from seeking out "privat services" which might endanger their life and health, is nullified if abortions can be conducted without doctors. Just to be clear, I myself support the right of women to abort. I do not necessarily approve of them if the woman voluntarily committed a sexual act and hasn't been raped or has any health issues. But I'm no one to judge. It's not my decision and I'm not gonna pretend to know how those who abort their child feel. I can only judge their intent, not their actions but since I can never know their true intent, there's no point in condemning them. They have to live with the decision they make. Now, does that mean I think it's an excessive demand to attend an consultation and abort within the first 12 weeks? No. Those who support the abolishment of paragraph 218 seem to be under the impression that the need to visit a consultation and having a time frame in itself is discriminating against women. To me, it seems as if they just want an easy way out instead of strengthening women rights. The system we have now is a compromise between those who believe that the fetus is a part of the women's body and those who believe that the fetus is an independent person and thus, has it's own individual rights. I believe we have good reasons to maintain paragraph 218 while I do believe that paragraph 219a should be abolished. I also do not believe that our current system discriminates against pregnant women. What is your take? Feel free to tell me but try to remain civil, for I know this is a very emotional topic.
It seems like we share the same opionion on 219a, so I'll keep to 218.
ReplyDeleteI think almost everyone would agree with you that legalizing abortion up until term is ridiculous, and I hope (and believe) that this is not the intent of this proposal.
I have enough faith in our system that just removing 218 is not going to happen. The problems that would cause are simply too great.
But I do think that Abortion, until 12 weeks, carried out by a medical professional, who is certified to do so, should be legal.
Profamilia themself say that most women who come in for consultation have made up their mind, so for the majority of women, this step really is just an extra hurdle, designed to put their morals into question, and potentially shame them out of their decision. If only the women who would come in for consultation willingly anyway are actually changing their mind, isn't mandatory consultation arbitrary?
The 4 day waiting period is even more arbitrary, I agree that consultation and procedure shouldn't be on the same day (if you argue for mandatory consultation), but 4 days seems unnecessarily long. This time is already terrible for the patient, drawing it out like this seems genuinely cruel to me.
I also don't see the point of all this "illegal with impunity". If we agree that it should go unpunished, why keep the stigma of illegality?
I agree that the current systems doesn't discrimante against pregnant women. But Reproductive rights are in a way symbolic for Women's rights and I can see how people could view these restrictions as oppressive.
(Reposted for massive typo)
Yeah I totally understand your point of view. I also agree that the idea of something illegal with impunity is weird. It's clear that it's meant as a compromise but I'd change it to where abortion is legal under giving circumstances, not illegal with impunity.
DeleteAs for the four days, thank you for bringing that up because I haven't even touched on that. I agree that it seems rather arbitrary and unnecessary. If we would seek out to change that, I'd be supportive of the idea.
As for a mandatory consultation or not, I see where you're coming from, I just wouldn't view it as discrimination. I think a consultation in some form should be mandatory, just to inform the women of the risks and to check if this really is the best solution at hand. Now, if we need a state employee for that, I'm skeptical. If you ask me, the doctor could take over that part (as they do prior to every operation). That would probably be easier for both, him and the patient. I agree that having to get a piece of paper for the allowance to abort is a hurdle we don't necessarily need.