Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / UK, Ireland  % width 58

10,000 Poles in UK for free abortions


loco polaco 3 | 353  
17 Dec 2008 /  #31
No.

yes. :D

Responsibility is the name of the game.

right but not everyone is responsible obviously. i am not against any kind of restrictions, in general. that includes abortions. hey, if you want to have one, go ahead, what do i care..
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
17 Dec 2008 /  #32
It's a bit like the drug clinic issue. Strictly speaking, those who get fuc*ed up should bear the consequences themselves but the problem is obviously more complicated than that. I wouldn't want them getting free assistance from taxpayers money. That's my right-wing side. However, I understand the things that push people to drugs. Hence, my left-wing understanding.

The same as abortion and that's why I don't righteously cling to one side at the expense of the other. It's not black and white here.
polishgirltx  
17 Dec 2008 /  #33
no, actually it's about a kid or kids not women or men. think about it, eh?

it changes within minutes... read this thread again...
:)
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
17 Dec 2008 /  #34
Ten thousand Polish women had abortions in Britain last year, it has been reported, in procedures which are thought to have cost the NHS between £5million and £10m.

tut tut it seems that Polish ladies are not up to date when it comes to the 'safe sex' thing :). Then again am i correct in saying the catholic religion forbids the use of contraception??? If so maybe its just a case of the women keeping their knickers on.

As for those who come here just for an abortion, well if the proper checks were in place and the correct immigration procedures in place they would never get in the country in the first place.
Dziady - | 50  
17 Dec 2008 /  #35
catholic religion forbids the use of contraception

It also forbids premarital intercourse, so you see how much the people involved care for religious doctrine.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
17 Dec 2008 /  #36
The hormones and social pressure take over, overriding them
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
17 Dec 2008 /  #37
It also forbids premarital intercourse, so you see how much the people involved care for religious doctrine.

lol, i don't think i've met a serious Polish Catholic yet :). I mean one that does not have sexual intercourse before marriage or even worse, having sexual intercourse before marriage and using contraception :)
Dziady - | 50  
17 Dec 2008 /  #38
Perhaps, but you see how contradictory it is: one breaks with religious doctrine by engaging in intercourse, but upholds doctrine by not using contraception. It's completely nonsensical. The religious doctrine on contraception is intended to be upheld when the doctrine on intercourse is also upheld. It certainly isn't the right Christian thing to do to have intercourse, not use contraception, and then commit, in accordance with religious doctrine, murder when pregnancy ensues. The Church obviously didn't discourage contraception with the intention of increasing abortions. So, I suppose the argument should be blame the idiots involved, not their religion.
tornado2007 11 | 2,274  
17 Dec 2008 /  #39
lol, while i take your point i think it may have something to do with forgetting the contraception and not using condoms because it feels better rather than any guilt felt towards god :)

I've never really been sure about where i stand with abortion, who wants an unwanted and unplanned child? Who wants a child on the planet with parents who are not fit to bring them into this world?? However on the other hand who has the right to choose who lives and dies?? Does anybody have the right to play god?? You see what i mean
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
17 Dec 2008 /  #40
Yeah, what nationality are those women though? Either they are very careless or sticking 2 fingers up to conventional and moral values.

10,000, I'd like that to be substantiated as that's way too high.
Dziady - | 50  
17 Dec 2008 /  #41
yes. :D

No, dumbbottom... [Does that pass the snuff test?]

[By the way, who is the administrator who removes posts with the word dumbXXX (dumbbottom) from the threads?]
plk123 8 | 4,150  
17 Dec 2008 /  #42
The Church obviously didn't discourage contraception with the intention of increasing abortions. So, I suppose the argument should be blame the idiots involved, not their religion.

but the intent must have been to put teenagers and their kids in hardship? is that god's will too?

who wants an unwanted and unplanned child? Who wants a child on the planet with parents who are not fit to bring them into this world??

yeah man and the catholic doctrine doesn't provide for the realities of life; it obstructs actually.

However on the other hand who has the right to choose who lives and dies?? Does anybody have the right to play god?? You see what i mean

that's the conundrum.
Dziady - | 50  
17 Dec 2008 /  #43
but the intent must have been to put teenagers and their kids in hardship?

It wasn't and, in effect, it doesn't.

is that god's will too?

No.

that's the conundrum.

It's not a conundrum. One either believes no one has the right "play God," in the words of tornado2007, that is, to decide whether a life should be extinguished or else one thinks people who behaved in such a way as caused their situation have the right to do so based upon anything from their convenience to their station in life to their lack of interest.
plk123 8 | 4,150  
17 Dec 2008 /  #44
It wasn't and, in effect, it doesn't.

wtf? but in fact it does. when you omit paramount information or even go against it, you are in fact adversely effecting those who live under that doctrine. how many unwed mothers do you see nowadays? how many kids end up in a messed up home? better is it? hmm

No.

that was a rhetorical one dziady but thanks for answering anyway.

It's not a conundrum.

alright homesteak:

Main Entry:
co·nun·drum Listen to the pronunciation of conundrum
Pronunciation:
\kə-ˈnən-drəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
origin unknown
Date:
1645

1: a riddle whose answer is or involves a pun
2 a: a question or problem having only a conjectural answer *
b: an intricate and difficult problem

* religion
Dziady - | 50  
17 Dec 2008 /  #45
wtf? but in fact it does. when you omit paramount information or even go against it, you are in fact adversely effecting those who live under that doctrine. how many unwed mothers do you see nowadays? how many kids end up in a messed up home? better is it? hmm

No, it doesn't. The doctrine in question is the prohibition of contraception, but there is also a prohibition of premarital intercourse. In other words, the prohibition of contraception is intended for marital intercourse which, in concurrence with the moral guidance of the Church, has the intent of creating a family. If a person disregards the doctrine regarding premarital intercourse but then observes the doctrine prohibiting contraception and becomes pregnant, it is not a hardship intended by the Church, as you suggested. It's just dumb people practicing one doctrine without the one that actually prevents the pregnancy. That they then choose to murder their own offspring rather than carry him to term is their own failing. That's hardship they brought on themselves with the help of no one else. If someone intends to engage in premarital sex and will have an abortion if pregnancy ensues, they ought to damn well use protection. There is no Church doctrine intended for contraception use during premarital sex since premarital sex is, itself, proscribed.

that was a rhetorical one dziady but thanks for answering anyway.

The answer is still no. If you intended it rhetorically, would you have also answered no? If you would have answered yes, then it wasn't rhetorical to the very large number of people who would disagree.

I don't agree that it applies. Religion might be a great conundrum to you, but it isn't to many people.

homesteak:

lol.. sometin' :)

yet, you ain't sayin' much. what up g?

Hmm, sort of not really "with it" use of certain language...awkward and a little bit contrived. It's not really the words you use, it's the way you use them that leads me to think "50 bucks says this guy is the same person writing in the other thread as crocker2"
plk123 8 | 4,150  
17 Dec 2008 /  #46
No, it doesn't. The doctrine in question is the prohibition of contraception

yes but nature is nature. you're assuming all catholics are perfect, i on the other hand know the reality.

but it isn't to many people.

i'll give you that. but there are plenty of people with whom religion doesn't sit well. religion is on a decline, in general.

If you intended it rhetorically

yes, you do seem to know what it means... puzzling how you think..

"50 bucks says this guy is the same person writing in the other thread as crocker2"

rofl, that's the funnies thing yet tonight. ok, cough up the dough bud. PM me for my addy, you can send me a blank $50 MO. thanks. :D
krysia 23 | 3,057  
17 Dec 2008 /  #47
People should be responsible for their actions, and killing an unborn child is not being responsible. Being responsible is either not having sex in the first place or use a condom or other birth control means. Once a life is created it is not right to kill that "mistake". This "mistake" started before this life was created, and it was by being a slut or whatever the reason and I am strongly against abortion because people should learn responsibility and morality. And this is not only a woman's issue, the guy who did this to a woman should be responsible for his action. Not throw away a life like a piece of garbage.
Harry  
18 Dec 2008 /  #48
I am strongly against abortion

So don't have one. Fairly f*cking simple.

Not throw away a life like a piece of garbage.

Take the think out. If it can live by itself with all the help modern medicine can offer, it is alive. If it can only survive by sucking the blood of a host, it is a parasite and people have the right to decide whether they allow parasites to carry on sucking their blood or not.
djf 18 | 166  
18 Dec 2008 /  #49
unborn child

Not officially a child until after 23 weeks. Thats why abortions in the UK are allowed before this period comes to an end.
ShelleyS 14 | 2,893  
18 Dec 2008 /  #50
Abortion in the UK is as easy as making an appointment for a dentist (actually it's easier to get an abortion than a scale and polish), a friend of mine who works in the NHS said now a person doesn't even have to go to their GP there is actually a "hotline" number where they can ring and be given an appointment at a hospital that is convenient to the caller!!! Abortion is not another form of contraception, but I am not anti abortion, if a woman wants one fair enough, it's her that has to live with the guilt for the rest of her life, there is always a price to pay!.

If it can only survive by sucking the blood of a host, it is a parasite and people have the right to decide whether they allow parasites to carry on sucking their blood or not.

Lol, Harry that's a bit strong !

Not officially a child until after 23 weeks.

23 weeks

My friends little girl (now 16) was born at 26 weeks - I personally think a maximum of 18 weeks is long enough for a woman to decide to get it done -
moonlight 6 | 103  
18 Dec 2008 /  #51
Abortion is a personal CHOICE, its not an easy choice and it is not an easy thing to do...Religion????? how many children have been fathered by Catholic priests??? who do not support their children now,Im sure they would have been pro abortion at that time! How many men run as fast as they can when they find out their partner is pregnant??? It takes two to make a baby.

Recently,my friend went to the UK for an abortion, I went an supported her...why did she do it, the "man" in question wanted nothing to do with her, her family would disown her, she had no support! We got a flight from Dublin in the morning and returned on the same day.... On the return flight I seen 5!! other women on the flight who I had seen in the clinic that morning...I think its a disgrace that woman have to travel to avail of this choice, that a so called Catholic country can inflict its moral views are every person who lives there....I am Catholic but I think this religions teachings have been eroded and do not reflect the time we live in! for example young boys being sexually abuse, beaten. Using religion as a reason for not having an abortion is a weak point.
Dziady - | 50  
18 Dec 2008 /  #52
yes but nature is nature. you're assuming all catholics are perfect, i on the other hand know the reality.

I haven't assumed anything of the sort. I don't think you read terribly well. Go back and try again.

but there are plenty of people with whom religion doesn't sit well.

There always have been.

religion is on a decline, in general.

I know this is "popular knowledge," but it's also not correct. It's based on the false premise that unaffiliated religious people constitute the same confessional group as atheists, which, obviously, they don't. Statistically, diversity of religions practiced, including agnosticism and the unaffiliated religious, is expanding in most Western countries, but the number of believers in all three Abrahamic confessions is also increasing. In some places, certain denominational numbers have dropped of late, particularly among Protestants, but that does not hold true for the breadth of religions present.

puzzling how you think..

Hmm, yes, puzzling that you might write something, and someone who disagrees with it based on the evidence at hand says he disagrees. Very, very puzzling...

It's so puzzling.

rofl, that's the funnies thing yet tonight. ok, cough up the dough bud. PM me for my addy, you can send me a blank $50 MO. thanks. :D

Perhaps. However, the evidence may be judged by anyone so inclined, from (a) the particularly awkward use of colloquial language by both you and crocker2 as though it were written by someone not used to speaking using the terms you each were using, (b) the juvenile nature, though crocker2 with a phony and contrived direction, of the messages posted in the same time span but never at the same moment (that is, unprovoked attack messages), (c) the identical session sign-in time of both you and crocker2 when neither had been logged in during the hours before, (d) the same being true with the exception of the sign-in time (no longer available) in the only previous appearance of crocker2 at this forum, and finally, (e) I tend to notice when someone calls me the very dated term "homie," as crocker2 did, and then only a couple minutes later, someone else calls me the similar, equally dated, and awkward term "homesteak," as you did in this thread.

haha, dude, u look lik one those fake businessmen. gurls go 4 da blak men anywayz, so who u foolin, foolio?

som funny sht brah. rofl

ye plk, u kno were it at bra, hahaa
dzady, dude, man, u gotta man up, nd fase da fact. al da gurlz want da blak choco!

Have you encountered many trolls in this forum that attack forum-goers and then, seemingly without precedent, complement a forum-goer?
And how many conversations happen on forums where both people call each other "brah?"

Well, perhaps you're not the same person, little guy, but anyone participating in this forum may be the judge of that for themselves.

If it can only survive by sucking the blood of a host, it is a parasite and people have the right to decide whether they allow parasites to carry on sucking their blood or not.

Right, another very mature take on this issue.
Mister H 11 | 761  
18 Dec 2008 /  #53
Agreed, for any country, that is. It's a different topic, though.

I agree that immigration is a different topic but it is connected to this one, in that it is being said that some Polish women are travelling here for abortions ie. they had got themselves knocked-up before they even bought their plane ticket.

Therefore, if access to the NHS wasn't so easy for foreign nationals (be they from the EU or anywhere), then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

It's a bit like the drug clinic issue. Strictly speaking, those who get fuc*ed up should bear the consequences themselves but the problem is obviously more complicated than that. I wouldn't want them getting free assistance from taxpayers money. That's my right-wing side. However, I understand the things that push people to drugs. Hence, my left-wing understanding.

The same as abortion and that's why I don't righteously cling to one side at the expense of the other. It's not black and white here

I agree. I'm glad I'm not the only person who can have both a right and left wing perspective on things !

As for the pro-life / right to chose debate, I find them very hard to take part in online. They can be difficult enough when you're face to face with someone.

Responsibility is the name of the game.

Yes, but sadly as with many things in life, people that don't want to face their responsibilites don't have too. Welcome to life under Labour !
moonlight 6 | 103  
18 Dec 2008 /  #54
Everyone has a right to an opinion.... but do we have the right to critise others decisions? I wonder how many people with anti abortion opinions would feel the same if they were faced with the prospect of an unplannned pregnacy, or if were a member of their family? Most people who have an opinion on this topic have never had it at their own doorstep, its amazing how that can change an opinion!

As for the free aspect...is it about it being free or about the kind of service it is? there are plently of other services which are availed of by many people...is this a problem?
Harry  
18 Dec 2008 /  #55
Right, another very mature take on this issue.

If something can not live by itself (with all the help modern medine can provide), it is not alive.

To people who say that a pregnant woman must allow a bundle of cells to suck her blood, I always ask if they have two kidneys. If they do, they should obviously give one to somebody who needs a kidney transplant.
Mister H 11 | 761  
18 Dec 2008 /  #56
As for the free aspect...is it about it being free or about the kind of service it is? there are plently of other services which are availed of by many people...is this a problem?

For me, it's about it being free.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
18 Dec 2008 /  #57
You know, Mister H has a point here. Cost is a major factor. Not everyone has the financial means to go splashing out on abortions. I've tentatively discussed this with many Poles and there seems to be a consensus that 1000PLN is not that expensive given the nature of the procedure and long-term effect. Wow, that's effectively 330 pounds (in real terms). No wonder they are swarming to get the operation done if it is free. 1000PLN, you can get 2 return flights for that, easily (Pyrzowice - Prestwick). This procedure should NOT be free.
Lodz_The_Boat 32 | 1,535  
18 Dec 2008 /  #58
Is it a better solution to an unwanted pregnancy? You'd have a hard time gaining support from reasonable people that it isn't a better solution.

The concept of unwanted pregnancy.... is in itself a very unwanted concept.

The love and moral support....the warmth of the heart....that can radiate from one true parents are priceless and irreplacable. Those compose a shield....a shield against most material negativities and also spiritual.

Now ... what we are talking about are reckless people and their behaviours. Yes, perhaps you are right... the orphanage is for their children. I mean what better can they give to a human soul....the next best thing from killing him/her...is to throw away or give away... I dont suppose even a bird would do it to her child....perhaps not even the snake.

However, I am in favour of a strong society which takes care of such children and pay for all their expenses. Search their parents and penalise them (monetary) as much as possible. These children are faultless...they should be given all respect, but not placed at a slot to which they do not belong.

I am also not in favour of people from Rich western countries coming in and adopting... maybe I sound harsh...but I have my opinions.

Archives - 2005-2009 / UK, Ireland / 10,000 Poles in UK for free abortionsArchived