Poorly debated abortion law update

As Texas decides to expand a female vulva's ownership to everyone when there is a certain kind of parasite in it[alt] Finland is trying to go the other way. Although, the fetus being parasitic is probably the same as "is zero a natural number". No one educated gives a fuck unless they are drunk. Regardless, how is the Finnish abortion law is being updated?

The Current law[alt] has seen updates over the years (the latest one which passed was 2019) laws has numerous however citizens' initiative now on the table would repeal the law. The main fix is to requirements the abortion had pre 12 weeks. To give the gist, old law one can make abortion pre 12 weeks when 1) childbirth would endanger birthing parent, 2) household troubles like socio economic status, 3) pregnancy was a result of certain crimes (for example rape) 4) under 17 or over 40 years of age, or already has 4 children, 5) when there is reason to think the child would have a developmental mental problem, 6) ether parent has gone insane. And just to be clear I'm pretty sure that household troubles are already interpreted pretty broadly. Not sure there is even modern case law on this as not a lot of people think Finland has this stupid law on abortion.

The new law also would remove a stupid two doctor rule but other than that it pretty much keeps everything else. As such it is a very well written proposal you can not argue about 12-weeks as that is in both old and new (didn't prevent Päivi Räsänen have that fuck up). You can not argue about after 12 week abortion needing approval from Valvira it was pretty much there already. Hell, you can't argue on abortion should be illegal unless one amends the proposal. So how did the preliminary debate go? Fucking garbage is the only word that comes to mind.

Let's start with pro-lets-forget-Ordeal-of-the-bitter-water as I can channel my problems with pro-female-lives from there. One of the problems with the almost immediately obvious is the use of Sari Tanus as an expert above all the other experts (like the Gynaecologist Association of Finland). Päivi Räsänen even forcefully pointed out that Sari is Gynaecologist. My question is why would that matter? It isn't like she used her expertise to explain why only a Gynaecologist should do surgical abortion (where the embryo is scrapped or vacuumed out)? There may be a reason I don't know Sari didn't make the argument. But considering other gynaecologists don't seem to share her argument on this so maybe something else going on.

I would say there is as Tanus said Sairaalaan jätettäisiin edelleen raskauden kirurginen keskeytys, mutta hämmästyttää, että suorittajana voisi toimia jokainen sairaalan palveluksessa oleva laillistettu lääkäri. which translated means Surgical abortion would still remain at the hospital but I'm surprised that any doctor pointed by the hospital could do it. This is not what the new law would say and Tanus knows this or she is dishonest and not read it. Valvira has to certify the hospital. It wouldn't be a surprise if Valvira had some strings attached to that certificate. If Tanus actually has some problem with this then she should argue that the law should mandate it more clearly.

If this discussion wasn't already marked by dishonesty from Christian democrats Mika Niikko showed it could get fucking retarded. Mika Niikko said: ... eikö äidin kohdussa oleva sikiö ole myös elävä olento ja uuden elämän alku. Miksi näin ajattelen? Koska hyvin yksinkertainen asiahan on se, että syntymättömällä lapsellahan on ennen kaikkea oma DNA ja oma tulevaisuus which translates to isn't fetus in mother's womb also living creature and start of a new life. Why do I think that way? Because it is very simple thing is that unborn child has its own DNA and future.

Is fetus form of life. I suppose if we call viruses live and don't use strict definitions I'm fine with it. Does not matter since no one is arguing that anything that is life should have a right to it. A system that would not sustain itself as any Homosapien how gets bacteria (or hell even a virus) in them would most likely "murder" some of them. So from the first sentence, Niikko does not seem to understand what he is saying. But then "because the fetus has own DNA and future". Niikko not every cell in your body share the DNA (Biology 2e check section 10.4). You aren't going to cry over those cells. Even if I would grant Niiko his DNA argument, in the sense that he was generalizing, it doesn't really follow. Why does something having its own DNA imply it has a right to life? Does Niikko give that right to other forms of life? Maybe what follows should answer this but it just raises more questions about Niikko's mental understanding. "Fetus has a future" what the fuck that means. I have a couple of interpretations.

Uncharitable is that god has a plan for that child and by aborting you are soiling the plan. Beyond obvious premises, a god which has a plan begin with, I think that Niikko's god is all-knowing. I don't have evidence for this since he doesn't talk about what kinda god he believes but I don't think Niikko has given it much of a thought and just gone with the simple answer. That has the problem all-knowing god with a plan would know you will soil the plan and would plan around that. Unless god is a fucking idiot. Hence, god's plan for that fetus is to be aborted. Since, Niikko could get out of this one by just saying god can't see the future, an additional problem is that why would the future that god wants be the only future worth anything? There are simple premises here Niikko does not provide evidence for or explain which is exactly what you should not do in parliament... Hint, hint, pro-choice side... more on that later...

A more charitable interpretation is to go to societal diversity. Some two Homosapiens have joined their genetics there is an upcoming member of society with very specific genetics and mutations to some job needed in society. So future here refers to a job in society. My problem here is that it fully ignores are unwanted children are worst off than wanted? If society is the metric here then speaking about DNA does not make sense.

I personally would have hoped to have a citation on unwanted children vs wanted or anything else but I didn't find anything about Finland, or other comparable European nations. I probably don't know some keyword. Chirtians in the parliament did say there are studies on females how go through abortion having an increased risk of depression. But they only said "in Finland" or "in Sweden" which is not a proper citation. I don't know if a real study is cited or Christian propaganda. But the pro-choice side didn't do much better. Although they didn't have the same awful sentence structures as Mika Niikko they still generally cited a UN Commission on the Status of Women. Not the commission's argument. The commission. I don't care. What is their argument? I also don't care about conservatives being against free contraception being an argument why abortion should be made easier. Both should happen if they reduce childhood pregnancies.

Also, the conversation was thrown from the tracks when Hussein al-Taee started talking about Palestine's children. I do understand his argument that conservatives say fetus has rights but support organizations not giving those rights to living children. It is still a different topic. Logic doesn't follow since a hypocrite can be right sometimes. Deputy Speaker should have been harder on Hussein on this.

Now, does the new law pass? Looking at the number from Wikipedia SDP, Greens, Left alliance, Movement now, RKP, and National Coalition Party are for making up 124 of 200 and are pretty much solid votes. Christian Democrats are against it. True Finns probably are against if non-binary wording is used other that they are mixed. Centre Party is mixed and the probably reason why the government didn't propose this. It just shows you that the only people against this are the fundamentalist Christians. As Bella Forsgrén from Greens said:

Minä jotenkin ajattelen, että kaikille kuuluu uskonnonvapaus ja kaikilla meillä on oikeus olla sitä mieltä, mitä me ollaan, mutta sitten samaan aikaan minä mietin, että toisen vakaumus ei voi estää ja tavallaan olla riistämässä toisen ihmisen valintoja ja hänen oman kehon valintojaan. Minä ajattelen, että jokaisella on oikeus tehdä omasta näkökulmastaan se päätös.

I somehow think that everyone has freedom of religion and every one of us has the right to have an opinion what we are, but then at the same time, I think that other's persuasion cannot prevent and in a sense take away from other personal choices and choices about her body. I think that everyone has the right to make that decision from her perspective.