The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 1,721

Abortion still under control in Poland


SeanBM 35 | 5,808
19 Oct 2012 #421
You are right and Thankfully I've never had to make such a dreadful decision.

I remember reading divorce rates after a couple had lost a child. it can destroy the relationship.

But does that mean you think it should be standard practice to save the child, if it's a choice between the mother and child?
4 eigner 2 | 831
19 Oct 2012 #422
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.

don't forget, I'm not talking about women and their decisions about themselves, I'm talking about women making decisions about ending a life of an unborn child, big difference.

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.

dude, no one has the right to decide who's to live and who's to die, this is what I'm talking about.

The way you phrased it makes it sound like you've decided raising a child is penalty.

if you have comprehension problems, I'll gladly explain it to you what I said.

And do you honestly think irresponsible people make good parents?

Think about life before technicalities. If parents don't want it, someone else will. Thousands of people are waiting to adopt children allover the world. Anything is better than don't give a child a chance to live. It's easy to talk about taking away someone's life as long as you're not personally involve in it.

General statement: Again, contraception before abortion!
Harry
19 Oct 2012 #423
'm talking about women making decisions about ending a life of an unborn child, big difference.

Actually you are ignoring the point that a thing which cannot live for itself without all the assistance modern medical science can give is not actually alive.

dude, no one has the right to decide who's to live and who's to die, this is what I'm talking about.

As noted above, it isn't alive.
And I see that you are perfectly happy to risk the life of a woman by forcing her to go through pregnancy and give birth (both of which result in hundreds of thousands of deaths per year).

If parents don't want it, someone else will.

Fine: it can be implanted in that person.
Wroclaw Boy
19 Oct 2012 #424
It seems to me that some of us know, and understand, and get it, and some just don't. I could make a list here ...

I think you're on a crusade in an attempt to justify your situation.

I'm talking about women making decisions about ending a life of an unborn child

by now were more than aware of your stance on the matter, but come on say it a few more times and next time dramatize it a bit more. Just like i support Muslims in the cold blooded murder of women (your words not mine) who look at other men.
4 eigner 2 | 831
19 Oct 2012 #425
the point that a thing which cannot live for itself without all the assistance modern medical science can give is not actually alive.

It is alive and you're not giving me a clear answer to my question, Harry
again, what about old people who can't walk and/or eat alone anymore or some mentally ill people, do you suggest to exterminate them too because they're unable to live on their own?

These people are practically "the thing" you described, they can't live on their own too.

As noted above, it isn't alive

it is alive even though it totally depends on its mother, just like the old and sick people who need help to survive

Fine: it can be implanted in that person.

I was talking about a situation after birth, Harry (read it again).
Harry
19 Oct 2012 #426
again, what about old people who can't walk and/or eat alone anymore or some mentally ill people

Asked and answered here: "They can very clearly live when provided with the help which modern medical science can give, so the situation is not similar."

it is alive even though it totally depends on its mother, just like the old and sick people who need help to survive

Show me old or sick people who need to be implanted in an unwilling host and live by sucking the host's blood.
4 eigner 2 | 831
19 Oct 2012 #427
They can very clearly live when provided with the help which modern medical science can give, so the situation is not similar."

Both can't live without any help.

Show me old or sick people who need to be implanted in an unwilling host and live by sucking the host's blood.

What I'm saying is that both, a child (born or unborn) or elderly and sick people need help to survive. there's no difference here and both deserve to be helped.

Did you actually read the whole thread? I doubt it because you'd know how I feel about abortion. From the beginning on, I was saying that I'm OK with it in emergency situations and that I'm against abortions out of convenience. The last is what I have a big problem with because people are taking it too lightly, making decision about it without taking other possibilities in consideration.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
19 Oct 2012 #428
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?

my computer`s gone mad, I'm back on the phone.
PF has thought me a lot about computer and now its gonna teach me a lot about smart phones.
p3undone 8 | 1,135
19 Oct 2012 #429
Harry,the baby can be alive and not survive outside the womb with medical assistance,I don't think what your saying should be used as a criteria to decide if it's life or not.
natasia 3 | 368
19 Oct 2012 #430
I think you're on a crusade in an attempt to justify your situation.

? don't even quite understand that, but no, whatever it is ... I just think some people on here understand how precious life is, and others don't seem to understand that.
Barney 15 | 1,477
20 Oct 2012 #431
I don’t like making definite statements about abortion as it’s different for each person and situation.

Life begins at conception statistically it’s usually not successful but that is what the process dictates, life must begin at conception

Where does personhood begin? Not sure if I would say it’s when a foetus can exist without the mother but that is certainly when abortion should be outlawed. Perhaps personhood begins with the mother’s perception about the life growing within her

I believe in the right to life that’s why I oppose the death penalty under all circumstances yet I am not a pacifist and broadly pro choice.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
20 Oct 2012 #432
if you have comprehension problems, I'll gladly explain it to you what I said.

I know what you wanted to say, it wasn't a "gotcha" it was just my way of telling you that you should write that bit differently because the way it was phrased didn't help your case. That's it. You're welcome.

you honestly think irresponsible people make good parents?Think about life before technicalities. If parents don't want it, someone else will.

First of all, you didn't answer the question.
Secondly, your view of the world is not necessarily accurate nor is it the point. The point is whether you should be able to "try" and enforce no abortions/children on other people (enter the shady world of illegal clinics and sketchy doctors). I'm saying that it's a misguided way to reach the place you wish society was at. You have to accept that a woman who is pregnant should be able to choose how to view her child (Yes I believe it's alive too) because at that stage in nature it's biologically her choice.

If it was really society's choice then that woman would never have to think about abortion as an option. If you can prove abortion was the cause of the decline of society then I'm all ears but it seems more like it's a terrible consequence of a greater sickness.

When people start thinking differently in big ways then this won't be a discussion. Until then you're not going to be able to legislate beliefs and, yes, I agree with those beliefs.
4 eigner 2 | 831
20 Oct 2012 #433
You have to accept that a woman who is pregnant should be able to choose how to view her child (Yes I believe it's alive too)

no because in that case, many women will abort out of convenience and not out of emergency.
Just as well, someone could say I'll use my free choice to kill anyone I want and what will you say then? I'm OK with free choice but not when it comes to making decisions about the lives of other people.

OK guys, let's be honest with each other, we ain't getting anywhere with this discussion. We already now our opinions about abortion and any further discussion is nothing but a waste of time.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
20 Oct 2012 #434
Before you ask us to be honest with each other, perhaps it's better everyone be honest with themselves.

Just as well, someone could say I'll use my free choice to kill anyone I want and what will you say then?

Well there are people killing others right now that I know about, you know about it yet here we sit.
I know militaries are terrorizing and murdering people throughout the world in the name of freedom, allah and whatever else they say it's for and I'm not stopping them. There are an innumerable business decisions which are resulting in the killing, poisoning and starvation of people all over the planet. I know about these things yet I'm not stopping them from happening. You know about them but you either pretend you don't or do nothing as well. So ask yourself the same question.

But it seems as though you're passing over a key difference which I pointed out a number of times. It's in the bit you quoted and it's not what you decided to put in bold.

be able to choose how to view her child (Yes I believe it's alive too) because at that stage in nature it's biologically her choice.

Her body, her choice, NOT YOURS. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this.
Secondly, you are not going to be there to care for the children you would force potential mothers to have so ask yourself how much you really care yourself.

Everyone wants to be right and no one is willing to admit their own human fallibility on the topic. We are all wrong about many things every day, yet some of you think you know what's best for every one else and would force them to live like you if you could.
natasia 3 | 368
20 Oct 2012 #435
some of us would not choose this action, but who am i to tell someone their choice

So if we are not God, how come we can lock up or execute people for killing someone else? That isn't an argument at all. Of course we, as a society, have to take action sometimes, and have to try to identify the absolutely strongest moral standpoint, and to set an example, support moral actions, and outlaw immoral actions. And this discussion is about how life, once created, should be sacrosanct. About how at the start, human life is, yes, extremely fragile, and should be nurtured, along with the woman whose role it is to protect this tiny life. To offer her the option of extinguishing this life undermines the very foundation of all of our lives. If it is so easy, and so allowable, for this little life to be snuffed out ... then who are we? And to be snuffed out because ... it doesn't suit the woman's immediate plans for her future? Because of money? Because she hasn't had a child before and is scared of childbirth? We should address these issues, then, and not just take the coward's way out, and get rid of the life.

So don't talk about playing God. Nobody is suggesting that. To my mind, it is to play God to intervene and remove a life which would otherwise grow to maturity. That is messing with Nature. Supporting a woman to go through a natural process is not.

Her body, her choice, NOT YOURS. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this.

Her body. Which is pregnant, through her actions. Not anybody's choice any more. Not even hers.
classygirl 1 | 10
20 Oct 2012 #436
abortion is not good we are christian dont forget that. I hate polish people who think like american's or want to be americans. that means that they are not proud of them self.
4 eigner 2 | 831
20 Oct 2012 #437
Before you ask us to be honest with each other, perhaps it's better everyone be honest with themselves.

well, I am, how about you? ;-)

I know militaries are terrorizing and murdering people throughout the world in the name of freedom

true but while there's nothing we can do to stop the wars (no one stopped them for thousands of years), at least it's our responsibility to defend those who can't defend themselves, children (babies to be too), elderly and sick people.

Her body, her choice, NOT YOURS.

it's not her body I'm talking about but you seem not to understand it and that's why I'm done with discussing with you. Really no point to continue it since you obviously don't understand a very simple point, she's not deciding just for herself, she's deciding about the right to live of a baby to be and it's just wrong.

human life is, yes, extremely fragile, and should be nurtured, along with the woman whose role it is to protect this tiny life

agree

I hate polish people who think like american's

I'm an American and I'm against abortion (unless emergency) so what's your point?
p3undone 8 | 1,135
20 Oct 2012 #438
Foreigner4,we are people killing each other right now;so does this make it right?You can argue the meaning out of anything,but it still has meaning.
Ironside 50 | 10,940
20 Oct 2012 #439
Where does personhood begin? Not sure

Exactly, nobody knows and it is still life should we be more cautious as to arbitrary decisions until when abortion is an option.]
I think that such caution and the fact "it is alive" ,should make it clear that the only reasonable way out of the pickle here is to limit abortion only to exceptional circumstances.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
20 Oct 2012 #440
it's not her body I'm talking about

yes it is and whether you admit or fail to it still is her body. It's in her, it's entrusted to her. You're trying to force your morality on other people, accept that others see things differently I.E. FIND A DIFFERENT FRONT TO ARGUE FROM BECAUSE THAT ONE IS A BUST.

If it were a debate you'd have lost on failing to follow logical obligations. I'm sorry you can't recognize that but it's a disservice to your cause regardless that fact.

Foreigner4,we are people killing each other right now;so does this make it right?

I'm not arguing if it's right, not at all. I'm saying if you're really going to take the angle of arguing you're protecting life, then you've got to have a lifestyle and track record of doing that... if you're not doing that then how committed to your cause are you really? Think about the killing and hurting and hurting and more hurting going on in the world today, if you turn a blind eye to it, pretend you don't REALLY know it's happening or accept you can't do anything about it then you're not ready to be pushing your "moral" outlook on anyone.
4 eigner 2 | 831
20 Oct 2012 #441
yes it is and whether you admit or fail to it still is her body.

it's the life inside of her body, this whole discussion is about.

accept that others see things differently I.E. FIND A DIFFERENT FRONT TO ARGUE FROM BECAUSE THAT ONE IS A BUST.

I'm not trying anything, I'm defending the right of newborns to live while you're bitterly defending the right of irresponsible mothers to exterminate them and you're the one who needs to "find a different front to argue from because yours is a total bust".
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
20 Oct 2012 #442
it's the life inside of her body, this whole discussion is about.

Notice the two are inseparable, because of that biological feature, it is, in fact, her decision. How you can fail to recognize that is a mystery.

I'm not trying anything

Well you're not doing anything either so that brings you to 0/2.

I'm defending the right of newborns to live

No, you're not. No one is talking about killing newborns, that brings you to 0/3

while you're bitterly defending the right of irresponsible mothers to exterminate them

No, I'm not. No one is defending the rights of mothers to kill newborns. That brings you to 0/4
And I'm not bitter, I'm simply amazed you're so convinced of yourself even when you're logic is proven faulty and your statements false. That takes you to 0/5.

You need to reflect more on your own thoughts. Good luck.
p3undone 8 | 1,135
20 Oct 2012 #443
Foreigner4,It's not that simple,we really don't have control of what our government does when it comes to military action,as much as people might think,I myself don't agree with every thing militarily that my government does.It's still not an excuse not to try and take care of something that is in your control.If we were to go by what your saying;then no one should speak out against anything.It would be a bad reason not to speak out against something like that and furthermore that would be a foolish reason not to stop it if you could.

It's interesting to me that if someone kills a pregnant woman;they are charged with double murder and the law doesn't really define when the baby is considered a life in this case.I'm not insinuating that people who have abortion are murderers,but this speaks to the contradiction.
Foreigner4 12 | 1,769
20 Oct 2012 #444
If we were to go by what your saying;then no one should speak out against anything.

The idea's been around long before me, let's not pretend here.

if someone kills a pregnant woman;they are charged with double murder and the law doesn't really define when the baby is considered a life

Again you raise a great point. But you're preaching to the choir to some degree here; I agree an unborn is a life but while it's in her body then it's her choice as to how she sees it. It's a unique relationship and we must respect it's not for us to say what's what.
p3undone 8 | 1,135
21 Oct 2012 #445
Foreigner4,So you're saying that as long as it's in her body it's ok to end that life because of a special relationship.How does this relationship end after it's out of the womb?It's either a life or it isn't.She should not be allowed to terminate that life that was created when the baby is also the fathers as well,because they were careless.They can hide behind "right to choose",when it's really snuff out a life because the life is a hindrance.Then call it that and don't pretend that it's something else.
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,007
21 Oct 2012 #446
p3undone
Cmon on man, really? thats ur argument?
p3undone 8 | 1,135
21 Oct 2012 #447
dtaylor5632,if you read through this thread you will see that it's more than just that,that is one aspect.What is the argument for "right to choose" either it's a life or it isn't.If you have someone who is willing to raise the child and she wants to abort......You have taken away any other reason as to why she would want to.Except other than mitigating circumstances I don't think it's an acceptable option,especially if it's because people were careless and then decided they wanted an abortion,though someone is willing to raise the baby,you take away that responsibility;so then what reason would there be?Just say it's the right to choose to eliminate a body that is not your body,though the baby may reside in her.
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,007
21 Oct 2012 #448
It isnt life. life only starts when those cells make enough to think for themselves. It will always be and only be up to the mother to decide.
p3undone 8 | 1,135
21 Oct 2012 #449
dtaylor5632,and at what point is that?I also think that if the male has to help support that child;then why shouldn't he have a say?Anway if you read my posts I go into much greater detail.Please read them if you would?Then you will have a much better understanding of where I'm coming from.
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,007
21 Oct 2012 #450
How can a male support something that had not been born yet?


Home / News / Abortion still under control in Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.