As the abortion language represents the sole area of disagreement among lawmakers on this vital legislation, trafficking abolitionists are eager to see a compromise worked out.
Not exact matches
He frequently cites the work of Frank Furstenburg and Arlie Hochschild, two sociologists of family and gender relations whose views are by no means ideologically conservative, and he avoids value - loaded
language, especially when it comes to describing the mainline Protestant churches whose leadership has, by and large, capitulated to the secular - elitist acceptance of extramarital sex,
abortion, homosexuality, and other practices that conservative Christians view
as inimical to moral life and family health.
Furthermore, by removing
language about an «unacceptable pregnancy,» «past Christian teaching» (which seems to be used
as a cover for what follows in the sentence), and what may «warrant»
abortion, some of the paragraph's more pro-choice references have been removed.
Then, once the «reproductive rights»
language is adopted, CRLP and others take that
language back to the legal systems of the participating nations and claim (
as the CRLP did in its own lawsuit) that such «agreements... favor protection of reproductive rights, including
abortion,
as internationally recognized human rights.»
Lastman takes a brave look at the inner forum too: the violation of our conscience, the mental processing involved in making an
abortion decision and the de-humanising
language we often employ
as a society to assuage our conscience.
The infinity of
language as the best hope for preserving the
abortion licence?
And yet these sporadic chinks of light are couched in the context of heavy and unhelpful
language in which
abortion is variously referred to
as an «abomination» (p87), «this moral leprosy», «this savage beast» (p175) or «a violent and soul - destroying act» (p218), to name but a few.
While the report contained (
as a nod to official, if aging, EU policy) a single, laconic line stating that «in no case must
abortion be promoted
as a family planning method,» (Item 31) it is hard to square this with the predominant
language.
This is a bargain that the GOP's libertarians might accept, softening the party's
language on the more exigent
abortion issue while fixing its stance on an issue
as yet politically under - defined.
But it is also referenced in a recent Arizona legislative effort to prohibit
abortions after twenty weeks, which includes the
language, ««Gestational age» means the age of the unborn child
as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.»
According to this Reuters article, «A Senate Democratic aide said Republicans in the House of Representatives were insisting on including policy
language aimed at restricting
abortions,
as well
as prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions.»
Among the most significant criticisms was
language which may expand access to
abortions beyond the point of fetal viability so long
as the procedure «is necessary to protect the pregnant female's life or health.»