(10h) Pro-abortion protests in Spain
In Spain,
over the weekend there were major protest and they probably will continue over
the coming weeks and months because the Spanish government intends to change
the abortion laws that were introduced by the previous Socialist government
(partly because the current government wants to reverse policies introduced by
Socialists). There were even protest in other countries such as Belgium because
the changes will reduce women's right as mainly men will vote for the changes.
One may wonder why these people (mainly women but some men) protest because, according to articles in the Guardian, abortion will still be allowed in the case of rape or when there is a serious mental or physical health risk to the mother (two doctors will have to decide) while young girls (less than 18 years old) need permission from their parents (this may increase the relation between parents and daughters when they thrust each other while if young girls have an abortion without talking first with their parents, it can damage the relationship. On the other hand, sometimes secrecy between parents and their children is forced upon them by society when (conservative) societies prevent that children can speak openly with their parents about relations while when children don't fear their parents they can speak about possible mistakes they made (e.g. pregnancy at 15) and find solutions together).
The conservative PM Mariano Rajoy (and his justice minister Alberto Ruiz-Gallardon) probably thought they would receive praise for these reforms in their Catholic country, probably in the hope people may forget the harsh measures he took and may take to save his country from financial bankruptcy. But it seems he was surprised there was such strong resistance, even some opposition from within his own party (and thus it seems he may listen to critisism), although he gets the support from the top (and lower down?) of the Roman Catholic Church, an organisation of mainly old men (and a few women who don't mind being obedient to men) who hardly understand anything of people's problems (including women's) although they think they know it all better than ordinary people. Many even fathered children (while others abused them), then abandoned them to avoid a scandal and thus fleeing their responsibility (while priests who take their responsibility are often placed outside the institute Church. (Although if one wants to join an institute that makes one swear one will not enjoy sex (reason: so priests have time helping others), than I think one should accept this or not join while one should not be surprised if one is not accepted if one breaks an oath)). Concerning the current Pope, I don't know yet what to think of him as he may or may not be different compared with his predecessors.
I think the protests are quite big because the conservatist Partido Popular (People's Party) aligned itself with the Roman Catholic Church, therefore it became a religious decision and not one based upon humanity and science while people probably fear more restrictions may follow. As the current reforms already have support of the Church, they probably are much harsher than what they seem to be during a first read-through (e.g. the BBC-website mentions that foetuses with serious deformities can't be aborted anymore, thus even when it is sure they will die outside the mother). On the other hand, this party received a majority during the last elections (185 seats out of 350), even when they announced during the elections that they would tighten the abortion laws and thus the majority of the voters agreed with these changes (those who didn't vote should not complain).
As I wrote before, I am not in favour of abortion and I think most people are not (e.g. the BBC article describes the difficulty a couple had to decide about having an abortion when the woman became unexpectedly pregnant although probably this struggle is also the consequence of social pressure not to like abortion). Indeed, people need to take their responsible by using contraception (also condemned by the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian sects) so that they don't need abortion to stop a pregnancy (although an accident can always happen) while women need help when they were raped or when the pregnancy threatens a woman's life or will result in unacceptable suffering for the child because of illnesses or when families are too poor to raise a child (then the rich who oppose abortion could sacrifise some of their own wealth to help the poor family although many will refuse helping people who they consider don't want to work). Certainly in the case of rape, abortion removes the reminder of an evil act done by a man (men) and thus it liberates and emancipates women [those opposed to abortion should thus make sure rapists are punished (or treated in case of mentally-ill men) to prevent other men do the same (although in situations such as Congo where men have the choice between raping someone or being raped or killed, one should not judge too easily those who rape)].
And the contradiction is that where people have a choice, number of abortions often falls (as mentioned in the above referred articles but also as described in an article about declining numbers of abortion in the US) because often where abortion is allowed there will also be sex-education as people can speak more freely about sex (although I think that doesn't mean telling little children how to have sex because they may try it).
And thus, when a PM thinks to receive praise because he reduces human rights, he is often mistaken as he will receive opposition, even from within his own party (although a majority may still favour these changes but may oppose others that probably follow (such as reducing gay rights as they are often linked with rights of women)) as long as he links his political party to a religion. And thus as I wrote in another article, these decisions and certainly when they are connected with a religious institute, may result in future schism of political parties and afterwards either the founding of new parties or, as I favour, in the abolishment of parties and the appearance of independent candidates who can vote in Parliament according to their own conscience and no longer as a few party leaders tell them to vote. As a result, democracy will increase (the origin of parties was the necessity to work together against two powerful establishments, i.e. religion and nobility while today many in parties joined these establishments).
(But it is not only in Spain that so-called pro-life groups are gaining power against the will of most people; for instance also in the USA there are a number of states where it became more difficult to have an abortion because of the closure of abortion (and sex-education) clinics, ordered by people who don't mind that the death penalty exist or that children live in poverty.)
One may wonder why these people (mainly women but some men) protest because, according to articles in the Guardian, abortion will still be allowed in the case of rape or when there is a serious mental or physical health risk to the mother (two doctors will have to decide) while young girls (less than 18 years old) need permission from their parents (this may increase the relation between parents and daughters when they thrust each other while if young girls have an abortion without talking first with their parents, it can damage the relationship. On the other hand, sometimes secrecy between parents and their children is forced upon them by society when (conservative) societies prevent that children can speak openly with their parents about relations while when children don't fear their parents they can speak about possible mistakes they made (e.g. pregnancy at 15) and find solutions together).
The conservative PM Mariano Rajoy (and his justice minister Alberto Ruiz-Gallardon) probably thought they would receive praise for these reforms in their Catholic country, probably in the hope people may forget the harsh measures he took and may take to save his country from financial bankruptcy. But it seems he was surprised there was such strong resistance, even some opposition from within his own party (and thus it seems he may listen to critisism), although he gets the support from the top (and lower down?) of the Roman Catholic Church, an organisation of mainly old men (and a few women who don't mind being obedient to men) who hardly understand anything of people's problems (including women's) although they think they know it all better than ordinary people. Many even fathered children (while others abused them), then abandoned them to avoid a scandal and thus fleeing their responsibility (while priests who take their responsibility are often placed outside the institute Church. (Although if one wants to join an institute that makes one swear one will not enjoy sex (reason: so priests have time helping others), than I think one should accept this or not join while one should not be surprised if one is not accepted if one breaks an oath)). Concerning the current Pope, I don't know yet what to think of him as he may or may not be different compared with his predecessors.
I think the protests are quite big because the conservatist Partido Popular (People's Party) aligned itself with the Roman Catholic Church, therefore it became a religious decision and not one based upon humanity and science while people probably fear more restrictions may follow. As the current reforms already have support of the Church, they probably are much harsher than what they seem to be during a first read-through (e.g. the BBC-website mentions that foetuses with serious deformities can't be aborted anymore, thus even when it is sure they will die outside the mother). On the other hand, this party received a majority during the last elections (185 seats out of 350), even when they announced during the elections that they would tighten the abortion laws and thus the majority of the voters agreed with these changes (those who didn't vote should not complain).
As I wrote before, I am not in favour of abortion and I think most people are not (e.g. the BBC article describes the difficulty a couple had to decide about having an abortion when the woman became unexpectedly pregnant although probably this struggle is also the consequence of social pressure not to like abortion). Indeed, people need to take their responsible by using contraception (also condemned by the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian sects) so that they don't need abortion to stop a pregnancy (although an accident can always happen) while women need help when they were raped or when the pregnancy threatens a woman's life or will result in unacceptable suffering for the child because of illnesses or when families are too poor to raise a child (then the rich who oppose abortion could sacrifise some of their own wealth to help the poor family although many will refuse helping people who they consider don't want to work). Certainly in the case of rape, abortion removes the reminder of an evil act done by a man (men) and thus it liberates and emancipates women [those opposed to abortion should thus make sure rapists are punished (or treated in case of mentally-ill men) to prevent other men do the same (although in situations such as Congo where men have the choice between raping someone or being raped or killed, one should not judge too easily those who rape)].
And the contradiction is that where people have a choice, number of abortions often falls (as mentioned in the above referred articles but also as described in an article about declining numbers of abortion in the US) because often where abortion is allowed there will also be sex-education as people can speak more freely about sex (although I think that doesn't mean telling little children how to have sex because they may try it).
And thus, when a PM thinks to receive praise because he reduces human rights, he is often mistaken as he will receive opposition, even from within his own party (although a majority may still favour these changes but may oppose others that probably follow (such as reducing gay rights as they are often linked with rights of women)) as long as he links his political party to a religion. And thus as I wrote in another article, these decisions and certainly when they are connected with a religious institute, may result in future schism of political parties and afterwards either the founding of new parties or, as I favour, in the abolishment of parties and the appearance of independent candidates who can vote in Parliament according to their own conscience and no longer as a few party leaders tell them to vote. As a result, democracy will increase (the origin of parties was the necessity to work together against two powerful establishments, i.e. religion and nobility while today many in parties joined these establishments).
(But it is not only in Spain that so-called pro-life groups are gaining power against the will of most people; for instance also in the USA there are a number of states where it became more difficult to have an abortion because of the closure of abortion (and sex-education) clinics, ordered by people who don't mind that the death penalty exist or that children live in poverty.)
Comments