Abortion still under control in Poland

I see it slightly different but being a provocateur, I guess that can be expected :) There's a grey area.

I could be wrong about this, please correct me if I am.

A) We all seem to agree on education and contraception (condoms, morning after pill, the snip etc) before abortion, unfortunately the religious aspect of Ireland and Poland have staunch ideas against these.

B) Extreme for or against. Kondzior and Delphiandomine (why would we not use the equipment and medicines we have?)

C) In Vitro for or against (I presume most are for, with the exception of Kondzior)

D) if an abortion must take place, after would be killing:

1) At the heart beat stage. (natasia and 4 foreigner)
2) At the central nervous system stage. (Me)
3) At brain function stage. (Gabi)
4) When the soul enters (but most of us don't know when that moment is) (WB)

E) If the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, she should be forced to give birth. (p3undone)

F) It is the woman's body and it should be her choice. (Gabi, me, Delphi, Pgtx)

G) If abortion were made illegal in all countries, a shocking amount of people would die from either Self-induced abortion or unsafe abortion. there has been a lack of response to this one but I'll put (myself and p3undone) here. Correct me if I am wrong p3undone.

I know I left out a lot of the people and ideas you all included but I hope I covered the basics.


Facts can be very cold, hard and too objective.
People like me need to hear people's emotion experiences to get more of a balanced outlook.
The fact that I wrote this down in point form is proof of this :)
That's why in most things there are theory and practice.

You can put me down for point G as well.

As for when it becomes killing. I'm still undecided, but for me it's somewhere between the development of the central nervous system and before the start of higher brain function.

I think those of us who are undecided lean more for personal choice for the simple reason we don't know, so how could we force it upon someone.


1) At the heart beat stage. (natasia and 4 foreigner)

There is a logic to the heartbeat too and again I would not force my idea onto them.

I could argue that a heart (in physical terms), is just an organic pump.
There is an emotional value to the heart that should not be over looked too quickly.
But if I started with that "logic", all we are is carbon and water :)
So I am back to I don't know.


Yeah, I thought G was pretty compelling too.

When there's a medical problem during childbirth and only one or the other can be saved, the so-called 'modern' secularist view is to save the woman. Catholic teaching holds that newborn should be saved. Why?

Because the woman has already experienced life for better or worse. She has had stories read to her, cuddled a teddy bear, watched butterflies and puppy dogs, seen Father Christmas, got her first doll, started school, learnt to ride a bike, been taken on holiday and obviously gone on her first date...

All those things still await the newborn.

Abortion is never right. I am not basing my thought on religion, but i believe, that yes a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body, to the extent in which she doesnt harm anyone else's RIGHT TO LIVE. Therefore, just like murder, abortion should be illegal. On the contrary, i do believe that if a woman is raped, she should have the opportunity to have one- this is the issue that should be discussed. Doctors are too afraid to do this, which is a problem i cant figure out how to fix

she is already an established citizen and contributing towards the economy?

The woman should absolutely be saved, if it was your wife would you choose the newborn to be saved?

That's a really tough question. Probably the automatic human reflex would be to save that which is known and loved. However, I merely indicated what the official Magisterium is. I hope I am never faced with that dilemma!

Under Polish law, abortions are legal in the following cases:
1. rape
2. incest
3. seriously damaged foetus
4. Threat to woman's life.

The recent Sejm vote has sent to committee a draft to eliminate point 3. It is unlikely ever to become law. Even good Catholics support the current compromise abortion law.

Education and stiffer penalties might decrease rape - such as mandatory castration after one rape conviction. Also a ban on free Internet prn would help. If everything has to be paid for, púrn consumption would decrease considerably. Don't say it's technically infeasible -- where there's a will there' s way.

Is there a link between púrn and rape?

I thought rape was more about power than sex and púrn more about voyeurism than power.

I am not going to start 'defending' púrn but I don't think you can blame it on increasing rape.

On another thread we were discussing rape and there has been a huge downturn in rapes between 2003 and 2010, at which time internet púrn would have been available.


A adult has hopes dreams and ambitions has left thier mark on a hundred or much more people.

Think about the family if the baby were to be saved first over the mother, the grief stricken father would have to be the sole provider and look after all the kids alone.

I would definitely choose the woman over the baby.

The Catholic Church and Abortion (for dummies)

That's why it takes courage and determination to be a Catholic consistenty defending the Magisterium of the Church.
Conventional garden-variety wisdom, supported by today's PC ideology, takes a purely biological view of man, hence panders to his baser instncts, egoism, pursuit of comfort, convenience and pleasure here and now. And the majority of go-with-the-flow types eagerly swallow all that is nice, easy, pleasurable and fun - hook, line and sinker. It is far more difficult to win people over to higher values such as a sense of sacrifice, altruism and the common good.

On that part I can agree with you.
I just prefer to use logic than blind faith.

But throwing everyone who doesn't believe in the Roman Catholic Church, into some lazy immoral gullible egoistic fool group is lazy immoral gullible egoistic and foolish

There's a Chinese saying, that if you have a choice between saving your mother, child, or wife/husband you shoud always choose the mother. You can get another husband, you can have more children, but you will never get a new mother. It's quite close to the reason that you state above.

I told this to one of my Jewish friends and he said it sounded like a Jewish joke.

i would even beef up that statement to read 'nearly all go-with-the-flow-types'... Beacuse a go-wtih-the-flow type is the opposite of a thinking, conscious human being. He will go along with most everything that is trendy, cutting edge or which most other people think, buy or do.

Since most everything in life is possible, it is not impossible for someone outside the Judaeo-Christian or Buddhist fold to do good for its own sake, but it's a hell of a lot harder and far less common.

Are you serious? That's offensive, distasteful and completely untrue.

Prove it.

I could say the same about some religious people, not all of course.

Basically, some people like to take a life long vacation from thinking and follow others.
They are not specific to any belief, culture etc and they can be found in any group large enough to support them.


There's that us and them mindset you seem to enjoy.

SeanBM,I agree that if abortion were made illegal that there would be a lot of unsafe abortions and result in a lot of death.

SeanBM this is why this is such a tough issue when talking about abortion.I'm not for abortion,but that is a valid point.

it's not really about making it illegal, it's about raising criterias for abortions so people won't be able to abuse it.

4eigner,I agree,this is what we have been talking about here this whole time;criteria.

A clear NO to that 1 as she's not deciding just for herself, she's deciding about the right to live of an unborn child.

None of us has the right to decide who's to live and who's to die (unless emergency).

She is not deciding that: she is deciding that it will not live inside her and will not live by sucking her blood, it is quite welcome to live outside her.

how is gonna live outside her if it gets aborted before that?

If it can't live with all the help that modern medical science can give it, it is not actually alive and therefore cannot be killed or denied right to life.

Harry,it's the mother's body that keeps the baby alive..If they take the baby out too soon,after having established that the baby is alive,they can't remove the body and keep he/she alive,it's only after the baby has been alive for so long in the womb that they can remove the baby and he/she can be kept alive.

Abortion still under control in Poland

here we go Harry, a pretty similar situation where some old people and some mentally ill people also can't live on their own and I'll ask you what I asked your friend DD before (he never replied though), "do you suggest to exterminate them too because they're unable to live on their own?"

Harry, the strange thing about your point for me is that technology and medicines change.
so 30 years ago the stage of termination would be a lot sooner than it is today and 30 years from now it'll probably be a lot longer.

I think your main point is about the woman and her body.
so does technology and medicine determine "life", in you view?

Another problem with the time criteria we are discussing, is we are assuming that the woman knows she is pregnant, that can take a very long time 7/8 weeks (especially if she mistakes some bleeding for a period)

They can very clearly live when provided with the help which modern medical science can give, so the situation is not similar.

I'd say, after having sex, it's a smart thing to check it out whether she's pregnant or not before it's too late, right? and even much better, before having sex, use all possible means of contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy.


not necessarily Harry, it all depends on when they perform it.

(will return later to answer all possible replies)

Yes, but people don't.

I always thought free contraception and pregnancy tests would be a great idea but then the church says that's promoting promiscuity, which I disagree with, especially when you think about sexually transmitted diseases.

OK, before I'll leave, I'll answer this 1. Well, if they don't, they have to live with the consequences of their actions and raise the child., To allow people to abuse the right for abortion is like telling them, you guys can screw up anytime you feel like it and there will be no penalty for your actions whatsoever. People need to learn to be responsible and that's why abortion YES but only in emergency situations and not to support irresponsibility and let them do it anytime they feel like it.

agreed! When men can give birth they can tell us what to do, some of us would not choose this action, but who am i to tell someone their choice? I did not wake up as God this morning and neither did any of these men.

Dude, it's not a right you've given anyone so it's not for you to dole out consequences to anyone one way or the other. The way you phrased it makes it sound like you've decided raising a child is penalty.


And do you honestly think irresponsible people make good parents?



Neither of you two have any idea what you're talking about, if you did it would mean you've had to make that call. If you've had to make that call then you'd feel like life sh*t-kicked you either way. When you lose a child, that child is dead and having more children doesn't "make up" for it.

Based on the abortion practices of the Chinese, I'd say that's about the last cultural reference I'd be making in this thread.