Skip Nav
Netflix
23 Insanely Sexy GIFs From Orange Is the New Black
Nostalgia
16 Disney Quotes That Will Make Your Heart Melt
Nostalgia
9 Signs You Will Always Be Obsessed With Lisa Frank

Legal or Not, Italian Doctors Say No to Abortion

Nearly 70 percent of Italian gynecologists refuse to perform abortions. Taking refuge in the "conscientious objection" clause of the abortion law, doctors are increasingly denying abortions, making it difficult for women to find a provider.

Abortion has been legal in Italy since 1978; but there has been a recent surge in doctors refusing to conduct them. Between 2003 and 2007, the percent refusing rose from 58.7 percent to 69.2 percent. Around Naples the number is 83 percent, and in Sicily 84.2 percent.

Between 2006 and 2007, the number of legal abortions decreased 3 percent to 127,000, and illegal abortions also went down to around 15,000.

The Vatican, a strong political force in Italy, loudly opposes abortion. According to estimates, around 87 percent of Italians identify as Roman Catholics; but only 36 percent are practicing.

Does the morality clause significantly compromise the law legalizing abortion? What do you think is behind the recent surge in "conscientious" doctors? What sort of pressure does it put on the doctors that do provide the legal procedure?

Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
Captious Captious 7 years
@LibertySugar "But is abortion (which is legal by statute in Italy) a right only for people who can afford it?" YES YES YES. If someone feels that people should be able to get an abortion regardless of their ability to pay and they want to set up a PRIVATE charitable organization that is fine. But NO money from the government should EVER go towards assisting people w/ abortions. This includes the government's health insurance plans for its workers. No coverage. The reason is that government money is EVERYONE'S money and using the money of a staunch prolifer to pay for abortions is beyond reprehensible. This is for the same reason that "anti-choice" is so ridiculous. Most people who are pro-life are pro-life because they believe the fetus is a HUMAN BEING. If you believe it is a HUMAN BEING then abortion is murder. Period. There is no way around that. When one calls a pro-lifer you are degrading their not considering MURDER an option. When you use their tax dollars to pay for abortions you are FORCING them to purchase an ASSASSINATION. Doctors should ALWAYS be able to choose not to perform abortions because to force a pro-life doctor to perform abortions is to force them to KILL SOMEONE. It's really pro-choice people who need to wake up here. It is not reasonable to expect the other side to come to you. Those that believe it is a human being and thus it is murder are obviously going to be impassioned in their cause. You are the ones for whom the position is neutral. Whether a woman chooses to carry or abort a baby does not matter if you are pro-choice because you do not believe the fetus is a human being, you believe it is part of her, what she is choosing to do w/ her body. Like a bizarro form of liposuction. It is important for pro-choice people to take that into consideration, that it is because they have that belief that it seems like so obvious a good, imagine for a minute you believed that was a life and you'll start to get it. Prolifers are rational. Calling them anti-choice is irrational. Government funding for abortions is irrational. Forcing doctors to perform abortions is irrational.
Captious Captious 7 years
@LibertySugar "But is abortion (which is legal by statute in Italy) a right only for people who can afford it?"YES YES YES. If someone feels that people should be able to get an abortion regardless of their ability to pay and they want to set up a PRIVATE charitable organization that is fine. But NO money from the government should EVER go towards assisting people w/ abortions. This includes the government's health insurance plans for its workers. No coverage. The reason is that government money is EVERYONE'S money and using the money of a staunch prolifer to pay for abortions is beyond reprehensible. This is for the same reason that "anti-choice" is so ridiculous.Most people who are pro-life are pro-life because they believe the fetus is a HUMAN BEING. If you believe it is a HUMAN BEING then abortion is murder. Period. There is no way around that. When one calls a pro-lifer you are degrading their not considering MURDER an option. When you use their tax dollars to pay for abortions you are FORCING them to purchase an ASSASSINATION. Doctors should ALWAYS be able to choose not to perform abortions because to force a pro-life doctor to perform abortions is to force them to KILL SOMEONE.It's really pro-choice people who need to wake up here. It is not reasonable to expect the other side to come to you. Those that believe it is a human being and thus it is murder are obviously going to be impassioned in their cause. You are the ones for whom the position is neutral. Whether a woman chooses to carry or abort a baby does not matter if you are pro-choice because you do not believe the fetus is a human being, you believe it is part of her, what she is choosing to do w/ her body. Like a bizarro form of liposuction. It is important for pro-choice people to take that into consideration, that it is because they have that belief that it seems like so obvious a good, imagine for a minute you believed that was a life and you'll start to get it. Prolifers are rational. Calling them anti-choice is irrational. Government funding for abortions is irrational. Forcing doctors to perform abortions is irrational.
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
<em>Interesting that no one was offended by the phrase that said being pro-choice was being "pro-irresponsibility". Seems a bit hypocritical to me.</em>Of course, I have to point out that you were ok with one (anti-choice) and not the other. So, if that's hypocrisy... :shrug:But, it's a :moo: point anyway because I don't see the hypocrisy.Saying <em>I strongly believe that if you are pro-choice you actually are pro-irresponsibility.</em> is a debatable statement of opinion. A fairly harsh statement, yah I agree. But, I think it's comparable to someone saying something like <em>I strongly believe that if you are pro-life you are pro-unwanted babies.</em> or <em>I strongly believe that if you are pro-life you are pro-illegal abortions.</em> Those are all statements of opinion that give someone with an opposing viewpoint the opportunity to argue a point.Relabeling the entire "opposition" so that they are described in terms that are clearly framed through your own perspective is essentially declaring that it's not possible there is another perspective out there.I see a difference there.
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
Interesting that no one was offended by the phrase that said being pro-choice was being "pro-irresponsibility". Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Of course, I have to point out that you were ok with one (anti-choice) and not the other. So, if that's hypocrisy... :shrug: But, it's a :moo: point anyway because I don't see the hypocrisy. Saying I strongly believe that if you are pro-choice you actually are pro-irresponsibility. is a debatable statement of opinion. A fairly harsh statement, yah I agree. But, I think it's comparable to someone saying something like I strongly believe that if you are pro-life you are pro-unwanted babies. or I strongly believe that if you are pro-life you are pro-illegal abortions. Those are all statements of opinion that give someone with an opposing viewpoint the opportunity to argue a point. Relabeling the entire "opposition" so that they are described in terms that are clearly framed through your own perspective is essentially declaring that it's not possible there is another perspective out there. I see a difference there.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
Interesting that no one was offended by the phrase that said being pro-choice was being "pro-irresponsibility". Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
Interesting that no one was offended by the phrase that said being pro-choice was being "pro-irresponsibility". Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
harmonyfrance harmonyfrance 8 years
Stephley, as of 4 years ago the military doesn't perform abortions...or pay for them. They will pay for some plastic surgeries (including breast enhancements), but not abortions.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 8 years
Oh, and while I am staunchly pro-life, one of the most interesting pro-choice arguments I've ever heard is Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Violinist" argument. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it's interesting for people on both sides to read. The basic gist of it is that a world-class violinist needs to be connected to your body for nine months to live. It wouldn't be unlawful to not allow him to connect to your body. Even if you did allow it, it wouldn't be unlawful for you to disconnect him. Anyway, she says it much better; I would suggest looking it up.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 8 years
Oh, and while I am staunchly pro-life, one of the most interesting pro-choice arguments I've ever heard is Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Violinist" argument. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it's interesting for people on both sides to read.The basic gist of it is that a world-class violinist needs to be connected to your body for nine months to live. It wouldn't be unlawful to not allow him to connect to your body. Even if you did allow it, it wouldn't be unlawful for you to disconnect him. Anyway, she says it much better; I would suggest looking it up.
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
Makes sense, Stephley. It's not as simple an issue as I'm pro-lollipop and he's anti-lollipop. (The sucker. :rotfl: ) People on either side of the issue have such wildly different perspectives, that it makes more sense to frame each side individually rather than pretend they are necessarily on opposing sides of the same coin. I don't believe the woman in the story I mentioned a few posts ago was irresponsible. We can't all have degrees in pharmacuticals and chemical interaction, and I think that a doctor is a credible source of that information. I don't think it is irresponsible to go to a medical expert and follow their advice. I wasn't sure if LilRuck44 was going to come back, so I didn't want to jump in. But, looks like it's an open question at this point. I didn't read her comment to say that the woman was irresponsible for listening to her doctor. I understood it to mean that having sex - with any one birth control method - is already assuming the risk of pregnancy as none of them are 100% effective. So, if you choose to engage in an activity that you know has a possibility of a certain outcome - albeit a small possibility - than the responsible reaction is to accept that outcome. Not saying I'm not sympathetic to that woman.
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
Makes sense, Stephley. It's not as simple an issue as I'm pro-lollipop and he's anti-lollipop. (The sucker. :rotfl: ) People on either side of the issue have such wildly different perspectives, that it makes more sense to frame each side individually rather than pretend they are necessarily on opposing sides of the same coin.<em>I don't believe the woman in the story I mentioned a few posts ago was irresponsible. We can't all have degrees in pharmacuticals and chemical interaction, and I think that a doctor is a credible source of that information. I don't think it is irresponsible to go to a medical expert and follow their advice.</em>I wasn't sure if LilRuck44 was going to come back, so I didn't want to jump in. But, looks like it's an open question at this point. I didn't read her comment to say that the woman was irresponsible for listening to her doctor. I understood it to mean that having sex - with any one birth control method - is <em>already</em> assuming the risk of pregnancy as none of them are 100% effective. So, if you choose to engage in an activity that you know has a possibility of a certain outcome - albeit a small possibility - than the responsible reaction is to accept that outcome.Not saying I'm not sympathetic to that woman.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 8 years
Yeah, I was a little surprised that the AP uses pro-abortion, as well. But, when we discussed it in class, I understood, because the words "choice" and "life" can mean many things, where the word "abortion" specifically refers to a procedure.
stephley stephley 8 years
In newsrooms where I worked, we debated the various terms in the abortion debate and actually tried to use terms that were the least loaded for or against one side or the other. I'm surprised AP uses pro-abortion.
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
lilkimbo - I didn't know that! Interesting. I've always perceived pro-abortion as a loaded term. Guess I'll have to rethink that.
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
<em>Perhaps, if people who used terms like anti choice, tried even a little to gain insight or respectfully disagree with someone who was pro-life, there would be more understanding all around- rather than use of defamatory rhetoric.</em>I totally agree. I'm not saying anyone was <em>trying</em> to be rude. But using terms like anti-choice, pro-abortion or anti-life are pretty clear indications that a person isn't interested in respecting or understanding opposing viewpoints. And, then it's not much of a debate.I don't think the term pro-life suggests that anyone else is anti-life, it simply suggests that their primary motivation is to protect what they perceive as the right to life. Just the same as pro-choice doesn't suggest that anyone else is anti-choice, just that their primary motivation is to protect what they perceive as a right to choice.
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
Perhaps, if people who used terms like anti choice, tried even a little to gain insight or respectfully disagree with someone who was pro-life, there would be more understanding all around- rather than use of defamatory rhetoric. I totally agree. I'm not saying anyone was trying to be rude. But using terms like anti-choice, pro-abortion or anti-life are pretty clear indications that a person isn't interested in respecting or understanding opposing viewpoints. And, then it's not much of a debate. I don't think the term pro-life suggests that anyone else is anti-life, it simply suggests that their primary motivation is to protect what they perceive as the right to life. Just the same as pro-choice doesn't suggest that anyone else is anti-choice, just that their primary motivation is to protect what they perceive as a right to choice.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 8 years
Just a quick note, the terms used by the AP are "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion." While the majority of people who are "pro-abortion" don't necessarily think most people should be getting abortions all of the time, I think the phrases are the most objective because these people are for allowing abortion. Obviously, the AP thinks these phrases are the most objective ones possible, too.
laurelm laurelm 8 years
Doctors in the US are not required to give an abortion if they choose so, I do not see the difference. "What's with the anti-choice? Do you think it's reasonable to substitute pro-abortion or anti-life for pro-choice? Let's be respectful." I have had this same disagreement before on a different post. It is a disrespectful term and just goes to show how people who say it, have no insight whatsoever in why someone is pro-life. I would never say someone was pro abortion or anti life, because even though I disagree with pro choice, I know they come from a different viewpoint, instead of believing "oh,they just want to kill babies", whereas when you are pro life, I guess it boils down to, "oh, they just want to take women's rights away..." Perhaps, if people who used terms like anti choice, tried even a little to gain insight or respectfully disagree with someone who was pro-life, there would be more understanding all around- rather than use of defamatory rhetoric.
laurelm laurelm 8 years
Doctors in the US are not required to give an abortion if they choose so, I do not see the difference."What's with the anti-choice? Do you think it's reasonable to substitute pro-abortion or anti-life for pro-choice? Let's be respectful."I have had this same disagreement before on a different post. It is a disrespectful term and just goes to show how people who say it, have no insight whatsoever in why someone is pro-life. I would never say someone was pro abortion or anti life, because even though I disagree with pro choice, I know they come from a different viewpoint, instead of believing "oh,they just want to kill babies", whereas when you are pro life, I guess it boils down to, "oh, they just want to take women's rights away..." Perhaps, if people who used terms like anti choice, tried even a little to gain insight or respectfully disagree with someone who was pro-life, there would be more understanding all around- rather than use of defamatory rhetoric.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
Lil, you made a good point. I think that the big pivital point with abortion is how people's views differ on when life begins. Judism believes that life begins with the first breath. Some people think that it begins when "thought" occurs. I do agree that most pro-choice people would believe that aborting an 8 month old fetus is wrong. I think it is dangerous, however, to not include medical exceptions for the mother's health. There can be cases where either the baby dies, or the baby AND the mother die. I don't think it is fair to force that on someone. I don't believe the woman in the story I mentioned a few posts ago was irresponsible. We can't all have degrees in pharmacuticals and chemical interaction, and I think that a doctor is a credible source of that information. I don't think it is irresponsible to go to a medical expert and follow their advice.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
Lil, you made a good point. I think that the big pivital point with abortion is how people's views differ on when life begins. Judism believes that life begins with the first breath. Some people think that it begins when "thought" occurs. I do agree that most pro-choice people would believe that aborting an 8 month old fetus is wrong. I think it is dangerous, however, to not include medical exceptions for the mother's health. There can be cases where either the baby dies, or the baby AND the mother die. I don't think it is fair to force that on someone. I don't believe the woman in the story I mentioned a few posts ago was irresponsible. We can't all have degrees in pharmacuticals and chemical interaction, and I think that a doctor is a credible source of that information. I don't think it is irresponsible to go to a medical expert and follow their advice.
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
Thank you Jennifer. :)
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
Thank you Jennifer. :)
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
could you clarify then what the SELECTED SERVICE is for, and what my brother had to register for when he was 18 if there is no draft? Selective Service is a contingency plan. If the country were to decide to reinstate the draft, it would likely be in a time of crisis and too late to start from square one. The Selective Service requirements have been ongoing for almost 30 years without a single draftee. There is no draft currently in this country.
jennifer76 jennifer76 8 years
<em>could you clarify then what the SELECTED SERVICE is for, and what my brother had to register for when he was 18 if there is no draft?</em>Selective Service is a contingency plan. If the country were to decide to reinstate the draft, it would likely be in a time of crisis and too late to start from square one. The Selective Service requirements have been ongoing for almost 30 years without a single draftee. There is no draft currently in this country.
Woman Writes to Newspaper About Men's Comments on Abortion
How Italians Drink Coffee
Women's Reactions to the Supreme Court Abortion Ruling 2016
Things to Do in Italy
Women Who Get Abortions
Lottery Horror Stories

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X