[lm28469]

It always existed, what didn't exist is using foreign events to attempt to explain local events.

For example you can't analyse French racism issues using the American history of slavery, the end result might be somewhat similar but the historical path is widely different. You can't use the French abortion history to analyse the American one either

[THX1137]

I can't agree. If you look at the impact of Darwinism and "Social Darwinism" (English ideas) on Continental European politics in the lead up to WWI you would change your mind quickly. You can even go look at Christianity, a near-Eastern philosophy, and note how this form of identity politics is also foreign influence playing a role in domestic politics across Europe.

[hef19898]

Sure. But one can take the occasion, and the fact US pro-life activists are everywhere from Ireland to Africa, and leap-frog this whole thing and ammend the constitution. Like, you know, accepting social and political realities and doing the right thing for once.

[lm28469]

If you go that way you kind of have to admit laws have no power until they're made into the constitution, so everything you really care about and is threatened somewhere else in the world should be constitutionalised, that's not a small pandora's box. vasectomy ? lgbt rights ? same sex marriage ? unemployment benefits ? social security ? pensions ? where do you draw the line

[hef19898]

Funny, a lot of the things you mentioned are either in the German Grindgesetz or enshrined in law. Partially as a reaction to movements trying to curb those laws.

No pandoras box, just reality.

[lm28469]

Abortion in France was already a law, for decades, nothing was added nor removed by adding it to the constitution, and no one in France was questioning that right besides fringe sub 1% parties

So again, either the law is enough, and if it is enough it is enough for abortions, or it isn't enough for abortion, but in that case: which laws are constitution worthy and which aren't ?

[hef19898]

You don't get it, do you? Putting it into the cobstitution clsed the door for something like the reversal on Roe v. Wade happening in the future. That is a good thing, that is what constitutions are there for.

You either don't get it, or want the door for such reversals to remain open. The former has been explained a lot by now, the latter would be disengenious.