14 year old rape victim from Warsaw denied abortion!

This case is no longer an issue, the abortion did finally take place (on the last possible day).

This case seems even more contentious
javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=159403

Geez, controversial stuff. The legal limit of 14 weeks applies to those who got pregnant and want to reverse it. Being raped is a different kettle of fish. Being 11, she wasn't aware of the legal position and, morally, couldn't be allowed to have that baby.

first of all she was no rape victim - media in Poland do have their agendas - being quick to judge by what they claim proves to be yielding to manipulation

Well, it was translated by a Pole, gumishu.

don't get your point Sean


a baby in womb is a concious being - it is a being even before entering the material universe - all life is spiritual - even the material world is built with spiritual energy - most of us have been to this world many times before

there is a BBC series about pregnancy using some quite recent discoveries and footage that would make many of you change your views about the subject - i don't know the title I have seen just one part of the series - what they present is scientific approach not metaphysical of course [

btw I am not saying I know better what the girl should have done - but the choices we make have consequences sooner or later

You said she was no rape victim but a Pole posted the story and said she was.

Aha, so I should be killed when I'm asleep, right? I'm unconscious then :) How about stoners who are unconscious of what is around them? Should we do away with them?

I'm glad that you are prepared to delve into the intricacies of it, gumishu. Abortion is not black and white and I won't be put in anyone's bag by taking an overly definitive position.

Tell me, gumishu, what is sentience and at what stage can it be verifiably proven?

well - you could believe me or her ;)

i'm a Pole too heheh

should I believe Sean you take anything you read in newspapers as beyond doubt?
Gazeta Wyborcza is actually leading manipulatory medium in Poland and for years they pampered a guy who was a secret services informator instrumental in the case of Pyjas's murder as the main editor (TW Ketman)

Sean - during sleep you are temporarily unconscious - and that is not that you are completely unconscious - loud noise can wake you up

the same goes to the stoned - after the stoning stuff gets metabolised they regain much of the consciousness, don't they :)

Sean - i am not sure science will ever be able to determine when a foetus becomes a sentient being (or inhabited by a conscious being) - anyway our being is far more than the material - i won't argue/dispute much on that - don't have enough missionary zeal - if you have your own views that's ok - just what teachings I have had a chance to study make much more sense than anything else - and I could also say I have some experience to back my beliefs but not to argue for them

Gumishu, I respect your opinion on many things!! I am one of the last people to believe national press. In fact, to let you in on something, I can't remember the last time I read a newspaper. So much doom and gloom :( I inform myself in other ways.

I'm not a big fan of abortion either. I was conditioned at university to look at all factors which play a part in deciding which position to take. Therefore, I can identify with your final paragraph.

Calm analysis will often yield the best results :)

I'm sure that the choice faced by many mothers considering abortion is a difficult one - and simply denying them the right to do so (banning abortion) is no real solution (if there is no support from the society) - on the other hand abortion at will is even worse - that most people fail or don't want to notice that it precipitates dear consequences doesn't mean there aren't any

You have just summed up my position in a nutshell, gumishu :)

It isn't necessarily a Catholic thing. Some Evangelical Protestant groups are avowedly anti-abortion too. Even some atheists too.

Abortion is always a huge dilemma and is a serious issue for those involved.

Why doesn't this girl travel to Germany, where she could avail of it more easily. I know people will say she shouldn't have to but it might be the best solution in the short-term.

No it isn't. It is a parasite which can only exist by sucking the blood of a living creature.

Where's your wink mark, Harry?

None needed: I'm being serious. If foetuses are actually alive, they're able to live without sucking the blood of a host. If the host does not want a foetus sucking its blood, the foetus is nothing more than a parasite.

You make it sound like Dracula. Harry, why do you think a foetus would suck blood from its host? Do you imagine the host would object in the majority of instances?

[quote=Harry][/quote]
honestly...

So, your response Harry? There are some important developments to happen inside the womb before the baby emerges. Nourishment is needed and is sought after wherever it can be found. Hardly a leech or parasite, Harry.

That's pretty much the point Seanus: if the host does object, the foetus is nothing more than a parasite. In those cases the host should have the right to free herself of the parasite. If it really is alive, it can live without sucking the blood of a host.

Maybe it's a natural process, temporary in nature, like people claim JSA. I claimed JSA for some time, does that mean I am a parasite or was it merely a transitional phase?

Oh, Harry, enough.

I am sure your foetus was a grave mistake, but leave other fetuses be. Fetus can ONLY be seen as a parasite if mommy ****** every single guy on the block finally saying 'oops, no period' - and abortion is used in THOSE very cases the most.

Rape, health problems - that's another story.

You're a schmuck.

No - read up on obligate and facultative parasites

Harry, God never intended for a foetus to be a leech, ever thought of that? As MrBubbles said, there are different parasites.

No you are not, society decided that it wanted to support you. If a woman decides that she doesn't want a bundle of cells sucking her blood, she shouldn't have to endure it doing so.

Sometimes you have to go through the bad to get to the good, this is one of life's lessons, Harry. Look at childbirth itself, painful but worthwhile for most. Well, you are discussing choice now, Harry. It is her choice, of course, but how many women suddenly decide, 'oh, this thing inside me is leeching my blood, better cut it off?'.

Very often, to get to C from A, you have to go through undesirable B.

The key word there would be "most". No woman should ever be forced to give birth. End of story.

Who's talking about forcing? You said yourself it was a choice, Harry. I went along with that. They don't think about the blood element at all.

Putting aside rape and health problems

If that female does not want to have that "parasite" in her, than she shouldn't let a device such as the male reproductive system dispel live "parasite" sperm anywhere near her! So let me think... whatever sexual actions this girl is doing there is a mutual agreement of pleasure here. With your logic the male sperm and the female egg makes up 50/50 parasites. Therefore everyone has a parasite inside them... Unless they have their reproductive organs cut out.. Harry do you have your organs cut out? I mean If you have your ball sack on you than you have half of a parasite in you right?

Anyways, so when the couple engages in sexual matters they are dealing with their own parasites (according to Harry's Mentality). When a male releases his sperm, its because the girl initiated this right? Therefore, Mr. harry Your definition of Parasite is Flawed. Because this interaction is a mutual ism, WHERE BOTH PARTIES BENEFIT. Dont forget the fetus is half the mans and half the womans.

If the female becomes impregnated, the 50% of the male and 50% of the woman make up 100%. And alas, (if we continue Harry's thought process) we have a parasite inside the woman! But it was not the fetus's choice to implant itself in the uterus was iT?!?! IT was the mutual agreement of pleasure that both parents had. Therefore the fetus cant be a dam parasite because it never had ambitions to "suck the blood" of the mother. This fetus was put onto this world, if he/she wanted it or not. Moreover, with your ideas Harry, you can very easily say that the mother is being the parasite when it does an abortion. The Fetus is an innocent human being, no choices made. The mother has a choice and her choice is to deprive the child of life, therefore making the mother a parasite!!

If a female engages in any sexual behaviors, (which are natural) than this sexual behavior is not for pleasure at all. This sexual behavior is an action to make Baby's! The final cause or creation of sex is not for pleasure but for procreation! Since society portrays sex as a pass-time, what you have is couples who are irresponsible, aborting babys because they are too stupid or ignorant to understand what sex is. Sorry but if anybody is surprised they get pregnant if they engage in SEX, IS PLAIN STUPID!! You Have Sex, You face the consequences. Without this principle society can never run, because all we would have is immature citizens!

Mateusz

Sperm are very clearly not parasites. Moron.


Yes they benefit by having sex. You should try it sometime.


From what height were you dropped on your head as a baby?


Human beings do not need to suck the blood of other humans.


Go buy a dictionary and look up the word 'parasite'. By the way: if the child was really alive, it could like without sucking human blood.


You really must be a red hot lover! Lucky for women everywhere that you don't have a sexual partner.

Considering a fetus as a parasite is certainly an attempt at cheap sensationalism.
While the definition of the parasite may superficially fit the fetus, there is a profound difference in the functioning of a parasite and its relation to the host.

While there are so called "parasytic twins", this is an abnormality and has nothing to do with using, or abusing the woman's body. I will write about normal circumstances and processes, not aberrations.

What we commonly understand to be a parasite is usually destructive to the host, although some parasites may have a symbiotic relation with the host. A fetus may be destructive but this is abnormality, not a rule. Parasites invade the host and its certain cells which have not been created for the purpose of hosting them. For instance human stomach is not created to feed a tape worm. The tape worm adapted to feeding of its host - be it a human, a dog or a cat.

Unlike a tape worm, a human fetus cannot survive in a dog's or cat's womb it does not enter the body in its defined form, i.e. as a fetus with it 2n chromosomes. What enters the human body is an n-chromosome sperm. Under normal circumstances, which ensured the survival of human race for millennia, the host body, that of the mother does not make any attempts to defeat the invaders. Her body is constructed to accept them. Woman's reproductive organs are there for one, sole and exclusive purpose - to accept n-sperm into n-egg to create a diploid. It then reprograms itself to feed the diploid which we know as a fetus.

That casts a serious doubt whether we should include fetus as an example of a parasite.

Moreover, the fetus, unlike a tape worm, is of the same species as the host and it cannot come to being without the woman's body help. It's not just about survival, but about actually coming to being. All of us have mtDNA which is always received by the fetus from its mother. If the mother's body treated the fetus as a parasite then mtDNA would not enter the biochemical composition of (most) of the fetus's cells. This does not occur with tape worms. No part of the host's DNA becomes a part of the tape worm's DNA - even if some of it is shared amongst species due to evolutionary reasons. A fetuses mtDNA is identical to that of the mother.

Sucking on human blood does not occur either. Neither through the mouth, nor metaphorically, through the fetus's other body parts. Fetuses do not suck mothers' blood at all. They will suck their own fingers though. That blood is being pumped by mother's heart into the fetus's circulatory system, and once there it is circulated inside the fetus's body.

Mother's reproductive organs (notice the name which explains their sole function) can be potentially used many times and they are not destroyed by one, or more fetuses.

The definition of a fetus as a parasite incapable of surviving without sucking the nutrients it needs from another individual is much too close to Nazi idea social Darwinism. After all a newborn is also incapable of surviving on its own - and for quite a few years. If the definition of a fetus as a parasite can be used as a justification for abortion, then the same definition could be easily used to justify the killing of little children to the age of, let's say, 5? 10? Or 50? A 6 month old left to his/her own device will surely die. The cause in most cases will be dehydration.

There are many people who cannot survive on their own and rely on the help of their parents, or the society. Eugenics is the term used to get rid of such people, but since human language is such a wonderful living phenomenon, all it would take is to use the word abortion instead of eugenics and all kinds of monsters could have their hay day.

And yet, the alleged parasite does not destroy its host. Neither before the biological birth, or afterward. In fact he fetus, again - under normal circumstances, will eventually return the favor by growing up, learning most or all the necessary survival skills. It will not only become independent, but it will take care of its former host when that host, otherwise know as the mother, is too weak and too fragile to take care of her own.

That sort of relationship is not parasitic at all. It is symbiosis.

I can certainly understand abortion in rape cases, or the woman's life is in danger. Those whose condom blew up, whose pills are seriously on the wrong side of the expiry date, or who had one too many and exercised an incorrect judgment are a different story.