Abortion Remains Illegal in Argentina

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 72

Article Summary:
In June, the lower house in Argentina "narrowly approved a bill allowing women to terminate pregnancy in the first 14 weeks". But it failed in the Senate, due at least partially to the intervention of Catholic Church leaders. Argentina has been distancing itself from the Church; it "became the first country in Latin America to allow gay couples to wed" in 2010.

Argentinian health minister Adolfo Rubenstein, "testified in Congress in favor of legalization and has estimated that some 354,000 clandestine abortions are carried out every year in the country." Supporters are concerned about the welfare of women, as "[c]omplications as a result of those abortions are the single leading cause of maternal deaths in the country, according to Mariana Romero, a researcher at the Center for the Study of the State and Society, a nonprofit organization."

Detractors included the vice president, while the president promised to support the result either way. Abortion opponent Maria Curutchet said, "It was a very emotional day . . . We were out in huge numbers and showed that we will defend the two lives, no matter the cost.”

The bill's failure sparked various riots, demonstrations, and celebrations. Supporters vowed to keep fighting: "'We will no longer be silent and we won’t let them win,' said Jimena Del Potro, a 33-year-old designer who fought back tears as she spoke. 'Abortion will be legal soon. Very soon.'"



Discuss. 
What I'm most interested in:
A) how this relates your ideas about separation of church and state
B) your thoughts about abortion law when its illegality is ineffectively enforced and causes deaths

Keeping abortion illegal poses no challenge to the separation of church and state whatsoever, no more than regular laws outlawing the killing of other people do.
If the 350,000 figure is indeed accurate (though it also sounds extremely sketchy, as Argentina has less than 45 million people, and yet that figure is more than 1/3rd of the number of abortions performed in the US, a country with over 7x the population of Argentina, which would suggest either that Argentina has a very big "abortion culture" or that left-wing hacks are dramatically inflating the number of abortions performed clandestinely to paint the abortion ban in as negative a light as possible), then the government clearly isn't doing its job. It should work to make contraceptives much more readily available and crack down much more harshly on all parties involved in the act of abortion, including the prospective mother.
--> @Swagnarok
Want to elaborate more on "no challenge to the separation of church and state"? The country is overwhelmingly Catholic, and leading Catholic figures strongly encouraged the government to vote no. For instance, "https://www.lacapital.com.ar/la-ciudad/el-arzobispo-local-pidio-los-senadores-que-voten-contra-del-aborto-legal-n1654634.html". Even the pope, who is Argentinian, got involved: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/09/argentina-abortion-defeat-shows-enduring-power-of-catholic-church. Where do you draw the line of separation?

To be fair to the estimate, it's hard to estimate something that's done illegally. Another estimate I saw elsewhere was 500,000. I don't think 350,000 sounds inflated--while legal, contraceptives seem discouraged from what I've read so far. Legal enforcement of Argentinian abortion law seems haphazard. Some women have gone to jail, some doctors operate relatively unperturbed, judging by this article: http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-argentina-abortion-20171029-htmlstory.html. Punishing women for abortions strikes me as extreme and ineffective. Misoprostol doesn't seem extremely hard to get, and women in countries where it's illegal already risk their lives for abortions.


Sure. In mid-19th century America you had religious leaders, especially in the northern part of the country, who denounced slavery, and I'm sure they played no insignificant role in convincing their congregations to be opposed to the practice. Because of course, religious leaders have traditionally been on the front lines of speaking up on moral issues. But slavery was also something that you didn't have to be religious to oppose. Abortion's the same way.
--> @JusticeWept
A) how this relates your ideas about separation of church and state
Separation of Church and State was a mistake, and it was never successfully implemented anyways (until recent times with the rise of secularism)


B) your thoughts about abortion law when its illegality is ineffectively enforced and causes deaths
It causes deaths to those who engage in what those opposed to abortion consider to be causing murder themselves? I don't think that's an incentive to support abortion law at all. As one opposed to abortion, I believe abortion should warrant death to the mother themselves (with the exception of rape and life in danger).
--> @Swagnarok
I don't disagree with your analogy's consequence. Certainly, religious leaders should be allowed to speak out about political issues. But I'm not sure what issue you have to be religious to oppose or support, outside of laws that would increase the power of the church (e.g. appointing many high-level church officials as government leaders, or teaching one particular religion in schools to the exclusion of others, or doing religious tests in the government).

Still, say the majority religion wants to ban the killing of cows. There are nonreligious reasons to do so. For instance, you may afford animals a great deal of rights, and say that it is categorically wrong to ever kill a cow because cows have the right not to suffer. Or you may justify it because you believe that meat consumption is wasteful and a threat to the environment. This isn't a hypothetical. In India, where law continually restricts everyone's ability to butcher cows and sell meat, one justification the government provided for closing tens of thousands of meat shops and slaughterhouses was "officials were enforcing environmental norms mandated by the courts in 2015." (1) Their nonreligious claims about the issue go even further in the article. But that case seems to me like a clear violation of separation, despite the fact that there were plausible nonreligious reasons to enact the law. Am I wrong? Or, is there a further distinction to draw between the Argentinian abortion law and the Indian cow protection laws?

I'm curious as to how you actually draw the line, and how you justify that. The difference between the pope lobbying senators in a Catholic country and the pope actually dictating policy, for instance, may have moral significance you can draw out, but it is otherwise pretty thin.





--> @JusticeWept
In the U.S. anyway it should be illegal for a not for profit to preform abortions.  While the claim is that tax payers aren't paying for it, they are.  The time and resources used in an abortion could be used for other things needed by other people.  There is a finite about of time and resources so if you are apply those to an abortion, tax payers are paying for it even if you aren't billing for it.  With that said if any for profit that doesn't receive tax payer money wishes to offer these services at no cost they are free to do so.
--> @triangle.128k
Separation of Church and State was a mistake, and it was never successfully implemented anyways (until recent times with the rise of secularism)
What do you mean by "mistake", "successfully", "recent", and "secularism"? 

It causes deaths to those who engage in what those opposed to abortion consider to be causing murder themselves? I don't think that's an incentive to support abortion law at all. As one opposed to abortion, I believe abortion should warrant death to the mother themselves (with the exception of rape and life in danger).
🤔
Abortion opponents do consider abortion as taking a life, sure. I disagree with that, but there's something more pressing--and somewhat disturbing--in your case I want to take up. Abortion historically was permissible until as late as the quickening, and many major religions have nuanced, diverse, and conflicting views on the issue, within the religions themselves (1). How can you possibly justify the death penalty for abortion? Murder is different--it is an act more or less universally condemned. Discussions of the DP itself aside (though obviously how you justify use of the DP matters to this discussion, and feel free to add that), abortion is an issue surrounded by extreme moral uncertainty. That is, you cannot possibly know when morally significant life begins, because when it begins is subject to what you argue constitutes morally significant. Even defining "life" by itself is a headache and a half. Life as scientifically defined so far can't give a definitive answer; it's a description of things we've observed that signify an individual life, and it faces immense controversy (2). One possible answer is to say that all life is morally significant. Bacteria clearly aren't, so you could refine that to say "all human life". But then we're just begging the question: what is life, and furthermore, what does it mean to be human? Is a clump of human cells "human life"? And if you cede that life does not begin at conception, where can you possibly draw the line? There's a general range of times people believe acceptable--late-term is generally considered life, for instance--but can you pin down the exact point at which abortion stops ending a pregnancy and starts ending a life?

The point of all that is not to say that there is no answer to "what is life?". The point is that to call for the DP for an issue which I don't believe you can possibly claim to have finally solved is, IMO, prideful and harmful. It's no answer to say that we must act upon our beliefs. Witchcraft trials, once upon a time, were the result of beliefs. Those beliefs were well-founded in the religious and scientific literature of the day. And yet, they were wrong, and they killed scores of innocent people. Of course we have to act on our beliefs. But we have to act on them responsibly. Advocating for the death penalty for an issue that not just US citizens, but many people across times and cultures have disagreed vigorously about, is extreme.

Instead of asking how one would draw the line, I think a more fitting question is how to know when a line is being crossed. Is it when *only* religious people hold a certain standpoint? In these instances, is it possible that nonreligious people are influenced by an anti-religious bias (not saying at all this is the case with abortion) or by something similar? Is separation of church and state a one-sided thing, something that only religious people can violate?
--> @Swagnarok
Instead of asking how one would draw the line, I think a more fitting question is how to know when a line is being crossed.
I think that's mostly the same question, but it does raise an important difference. It allows that there are certain cases we know are clearly wrong, and some that are more questionable. I think that in a case like this, it's important to remember that the right to religious liberty (assume for the purposes of this discussion that whenever I say "religious", it includes atheists) is a negative right. It stops the majority from doing certain things to the minority. And if there's a circumstance in which a religious majority legislates on an issue drawn largely by religious fault lines against a religious minority, I think that clearly crosses the line. It becomes harder to distinguish when, as in the case of India, the religious majority obfuscates the issue. I'm not sure how to make the distinction between obfuscating the issue and mere coincidence, though. And "drawn largely by religious fault lines" is also pretty fuzzy.

Is separation of church and state a one-sided thing, something that only religious people can violate?
In case it wasn't clear in my answer above, my answer to this is no. Separation of church and state is separation of state and church.
--> @JusticeWept
Is separation of church and state a one-sided thing, something that only religious people can violate?

In case it wasn't clear in my answer above, my answer to this is no. Separation of church and state is separation of state and church.

Could you give us one real life, recent example of when nonreligious people violated this separation?
Abortion opponents do consider abortion as taking a life, sure. I disagree with that, but there's something more pressing--and somewhat disturbing--in your case I want to take up. Abortion historically was permissible until as late as the quickening, and many major religions have nuanced, diverse, and conflicting views on the issue, within the religions themselves (1).
Historically, technology for abortion did not exist. However, it existed in another form - infantcide. The two are more closely related than pro-abortionists would claim them to be, as the only difference is that the baby is in the womb and is slightly less developed.

Infantcide was common in the entire world, with its rate being up to 50% in hunter-gatherer or nomadic societies. Civilization reduced its rate, but didn't prevent it. For the case of Europe, infantcide was permitted with no reprecussion under Roman law. Only until the Empire converted to Christianity was there legislation to prohibit the practice and punish partakers.

So, you can thank those Abrahamic faiths for valuing the gift of life as to oppose its unjust violation as the case of abortion.


How can you possibly justify the death penalty for abortion? Murder is different--it is an act more or less universally condemned. Discussions of the DP itself aside (though obviously how you justify use of the DP matters to this discussion, and feel free to add that), abortion is an issue surrounded by extreme moral uncertainty. That is, you cannot possibly know when morally significant life begins, because when it begins is subject to what you argue constitutes morally significant.
It isn't moral uncertainty from the conservative or religious perspective. For they, definitely, declare life to begin at conception. As to why it is a moral uncertainty is due to the devaluation of life caused by secularism - which introduced widespread abortion programs and practices under eugenics programs. Eugenics might be (partially) gone, but socially based abortion is still abortion.

From our perspective, it is the same argument of the 4th century Roman Empire with regards to infantcide. Our opponents may not see abortion as murder, because they justify it as a "moral uncertainty." It is not. Rather, it is a justification to value hedonism of a woman over the value of life. The convenient benefits of abortion delude people to re-define life.

This difference, as I mentioned, is analogous to the Roman-Christian perspective that believed infantcide is a bad thing while the Roman-Pagan perspective believed infantcide to not be an issue as their worldview didn't value life. In other words, pro-abortionists place less value on life than anti-abortionists.


Even defining "life" by itself is a headache and a half. Life as scientifically defined so far can't give a definitive answer; it's a description of things we've observed that signify an individual life, and it faces immense controversy (2). One possible answer is to say that all life is morally significant. Bacteria clearly aren't, so you could refine that to say "all human life". But then we're just begging the question: what is life, and furthermore, what does it mean to be human? Is a clump of human cells "human life"? And if you cede that life does not begin at conception, where can you possibly draw the line? There's a general range of times people believe acceptable--late-term is generally considered life, for instance--but can you pin down the exact point at which abortion stops ending a pregnancy and starts ending a life?
Is a clump of human cells with human organs, a functioning brain, a human-like body, a heart, blood, etc. You can't make the case of "drawing the barrier," because anti-abortionists have drawn the layer with a chisel-thick Sharpie. The barrier is conception. 

Based on the view of considering a fetus to be life, and the advocation of the death penalty for murder, I do boldly claim that the punishment for abortion must be death. The only exceptions could include life in danger or rape (even so, a C-section is a potential alternative). 

If we consider a fetus to be living and part of life, suddenly - the death penalty for abortion doesn't appear radical or asnine in one bit. 
Abortion Remains Illegal in Argentina

Yaaaayyy!!!
--> @ethang5
Could you give us one real life, recent example of when nonreligious people violated this separation?

Trump's travel ban against Muslims.

Trump's travel ban against Muslims.
Really? I don't see it. How was that a violation?

--> @ethang5
You don't see how a travel ban based on religion violates separation of church and state?
--> @Stronn
No, I do. What I don't see is Trump's ban being based on religion. It was not.

First, the countries on the ban list were from an Obama list not compiled using religion. Second, the courts allowed it to go into effect, proving it was not a violation.

If it was a violation, why did the court allow it?
--> @ethang5
The first two versions of the ban were struck down because they violated separation of church and state. The third version squeaked by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.
--> @Stronn
So was Obama also guilty of making a list based on religion?

Tell us the part the court struck down that would have been a violation. Can you?

The version the court upheld was version #1. And squeak or no, it was no violation of the constitution.
--> @ethang5
I don't know the details of Obama's list, or how it actually caused any restrictions on travel. I don't think it was ever challenged in court.

The court struck down the first two versions of Trump's ban because they only applied to Muslim-majority countries. The latest version squeaked by because two non-Muslim countries were added: Venezuela and North Korea. And even this version was unconstitutional in the opinion of four justices. 
--> @Stronn
I don't know the details of Obama's list, or how it actually caused any restrictions on travel.
Cop out. It was the same list. If it was a violation for Trump, it was a violation for Obama too.

I don't think it was ever challenged in court.
Of course not. Irrational bias works that way.

The court struck down the first two versions of Trump's ban because they only applied to Muslim-majority countries. The latest version squeaked by because two non-Muslim countries were added: Venezuela and North Korea.
Listen. The version under review by scotus was the first version. That is the version that was found to be constitutional.

And even this version was unconstitutional in the opinion of four justices. 
Untrue. Scotus ruled on the first version only. And thank God activist judges were not allowed to railroad the constitution into their politically correct image. The supreme court ruled that Trumps ban was constitutional.

Your moaning about the 4 dissenting judges only shows your contempt for our democratic system. You would gladly violate democracy if it meant you could get rid of Trump.

--> @JusticeWept
The thing that caught my attention was that if ANY Latin American country was going to green light abortion during the 1st trimester, it would definitely be Argentina..... The fact that it got halfway through their version of Congress is noteworthy by itself, but the continued erosion of the authority of the catholic church in the country makes me think abortion will eventually end up legalized int he country. If I had to guess, I would think it would be sometime in the next 10-15 years. 
54 days later
Argentina has no separation of church and state, mostly because their weren't enough weirdo Freemasons in positions of power when the country was created. It has always been influenced by Catholicism, and that influence has grown over time, not waned.

I don't think that murder should be legalized because people sometimes get killed trying to murder people.

Abortion is only a 'medical procedure' when it is saving the live of the mother. Even then I don't think that it's good to do. Pray for us, Saint Gianna.
--> @triangle.128k
As your post shows you are happy to kill anyone who disagrees with you but claim to be antiabortion. Can you spell hypocrite?