Mexico’s Supreme Court has recently given green light to ultra-conservative anti-abortion laws passed in the states of Baja California and San Luis Potosí. These states have altered their constitutions to hold that life begins at conception, which means that abortion is now illegal –a murder- in virtually all cases. After 2008, when Mexico City passed new pro-choice laws which consider abortion up to 12 weeks into pregnancy, many other states have passed strict anti-abortion laws, to equal reactions of joy and dismay. Mexico City has also approved gay marriage and it is planning to regulate prostitution, something inconceivable for its neighbour states. This dispute underlines the big difference between Mexico’s liberal capital and its countryside.
Abortion seems to be the never-ending debate in many Western countries, like ours, nowadays. In Mexico, laws and measures taken in its politically liberal capital are counterbalanced by more conservative laws in its peripheral states. Whereas Mexico city is in touch with liberalism and other countries’ ideas, rural areas are pretty much influenced by tradition and religion. It seems quite obvious, though, that these anti-abortion measures are taken in an overwhelmingly catholic country. Regarding these strict anti-abortion laws, to what extent are they a step backward or a step forward? Are women in these states unprotected? Wouldn’t it be more fair to regard different cases instead of “abortion yes” / “abortion no”? Is there a “happy medium” between conservative and progressive ideas in which both the woman and the would-be baby are protected?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/09/abortion-rights-mexico
I really like your article in the sense that it shows that it is possible to adopt conservative’s laws in a country related with liberal policies in its capital. It is a very complicated issue that generates controversy and is therefore very difficult to choose one position or another.
ReplyDeleteAs the question given in your title, I don’t think it can be considered a step forward or backward. It shows a country where there are many different opinions about laws and regulations. However, in this case and in others that you also comment in your article show it is very difficult to fairly resolve the problem. Since opting to one side or another will leave a large proportion of the population dissatisfied, finding a middle ground would be the key. I think, anyway, it would be much better to analyze the different cases and not impose completely rigid “yes or no” laws which don’t fit all cases that are given.
The problem of this kind of measures in a federal state is that "legally" break the law is very easy; you just have to cross a border a hundred miles away from home. Whatever the moral inspiration of these norms may be, the effectiveness will probably be very reduced.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David in the idea that having different laws allowing and banning abortion or any other controversial law is like "having no law" because you just have to drive a little bit further from home to get what you really want, no matter the law that has been passed in your hometown. I also advocate for freedom of choice but there is a limit that should not be crossed in extreme cases. This new can be regarded as a claim for that freedom of choice within territories of the same country as a result of the exercise of a democratic regime but it also means that such controversies may divide a country and create legal loopholes.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe what David just said: relating laws with moral inspiration will be always complicated. However there must be some regulation on this issue and even more when there're human lives in between. By contrast with Manuel said, I do think the position of the government should be clear. The "excuse" we always want to believe is "depending on the case or situation we would say abortion yes or abortion no". Abortion is abortion, and maybe, there are more difficult cases but, for my point of view they are normally exceptions, and I would focus on the prime and fundamental cases ; what they have to be clear with this is the act of abortion itself. So the controversy here is that some places, states or governments does not have very clear the concept of what abortion is or at least do not want to make it as a major issue for the society.Freedom of choice, but freedom for whom? Nevertheless it will be very difficult to clearify controversies like that in the same territory...
ReplyDeletevery interesting article though.