Abortion still under control in Poland

Excellent point, which brings in test tube babies, without research the way i understand it is that the eggs are fertilized in a lab and then implanted into the womb. Human life created in a laboratory!

I just don't like the tone of this. I said 'bean' because I have seen a scan at this stage (of my daughter, now 4). It was at 6 weeks and no, it wasn't yet possible to see her arms or legs, but what I saw was like a little jumping bean. The consultant commented on how lively she was. But yes, that was my daughter, in the very early stages of her development. It was her from the moment of conception, and any argument otherwise is pure nonsense.


OK ... so say it for what it is: It is ok for the woman to choose to kill the person she has created, for her pretty much whatever reason she chooses, and even for such a reason as that it doesn't suit her life plan at the moment to allow that other person to live, or that she doesn't like the father. In fact, she almost doesn't have to give a reason: it is her right to 'choose' - not to choose what happens to her body, but to choose whether the other person lives or not. That is the real choice here.

Well, frankly, I think that is a bogus 'right'.

Believe it or not this is a grey area too.


Brain death

So after the heart beats and before the brain dies, the central nervous system?


I don't see it as failure, I am just looking for the best results, which seem to be legalization because of self induced abortions and unsafe abortion would be far worse.


There is definitely logic in this argument, the problem arises when someone else is found committing a crime based on a doubt which they doubt a different way. The defense only has to be beyond reasonable doubt if it's set in stone, whereas this starts off with a doubt.


There are people who argue that rape is not a good enough reason to abort the fetus because the fetus did not do any wrong and should not have to pay the consequences for someone else's actions. I am not saying I agree with this, I am merely stating logic arguments that people hold to be truth.


I am going to stray from the topic just a little here, a very interesting definition is going to have to arise when/if humans ever invent true artificial intelligence.

If A.I. is created,


Wiki

Just to be clear I am not trying to say that IVF is a computer or anything like that.

I can understand your opinion but your opinion isn't fact. I'm sorry to break this to you but the biology of situation seems to differ from what you would think. That is the unique and special relationship women can have with the unborn. Is the unborn her body or not? It isn't for anyone else to say but the mother and father. Please stop wasting effort on this because that's just how it is.


I don't even know what it is you're trying to ask me here.


That's ironic coming from someone who can't keep his own thoughts coherent in the same text....moving along....


Whatever dude, I'm not doing that and you know it.
I'm telling you, the idea of you trying to enforce your morality on this particular issue doesn't add up.
You don't know when life begins, you don't know how the mother to be feels about what's in her body and you don't want to help out in raising the child she may not want. So you wanting to tell women what they can and can't do in this unique instance in life is just stupid, mind-bogglingly stupid.


If I was against abortion, I'd be doing something to make it easier for those mothers-to-be who are having very serious doubts.
If you're not doing anything to make choosing life easier for expecting mothers who are considering terminating their pregnancies then you're on the same side I am.

Ok ... but wouldn't the absolute ideal, given the ambiguity (for some) of when life begins, be to make absolute efforts to prevent 'unwanted' pregnancy? Because, to be realistic, a lot of the time we are talking a scenario something like this:

Young woman gets drunk at the time of ovulation, which is a double-whammy as most ovulating women cannot think straight - have only one aim, regardless of whether they recognise it as this or not - and when you add the disability of being drunk, you have the perfect situation for her to sleep with someone - whoever - with absolutely no thought for the consequences. (NB, she doesn't have to be young, or drunk, but quite often is).

[A small note on the ovulating female: women who are on their own hormones rather than taking a hormone-based contraceptive WILL behave differently when they are ovulating. It is a very, very strong instinct - basically, to mate - and a lot of them don't realise it, but those are the few days when they have good hair days, when they feel happy even if if it is raining, when every guy on the street seems to have something nice about him, when their partner or whoever seems particularly delicious, whatever his faults or however badly he has behaved ... They are the days when the neighbour comes over for supper and, seemingly out of character, flirts dreadfully with someone else's husband, even though she only had one glass of wine ... They are the days when other women, not at that moment, look with envy at the glowing one. Do not anybody even attempt to gainsay this, because it is as true as anything ever was.]

So, the hormone-crazed woman, possibly also young and drunk, making her even less sensible, just has to have it. And gets pregnant. And then maybe it isn't the right time, or the right man, or she and her husband already have two lovely children and don't want another because they've had enough of screaming kids ... who knows. But she is in a fix and needs to correct that crazy mistake. And she finds out two weeks' later or so, when she isn't ovulating, when she is calm and sensible and thinking 'straight', and freaks out.

That is the usual scenario. Tell me any different.

So we are saying, that because of her irresponsible actions, someone has to die.

So ... why don't we bring young women up not to spend most of their university nights in the pub, and then having sex? Or, have very strong anti-abortion laws that really scare people, enough to make them think twice? It has to be one, or the other, or both.

But to say 'it is your right to get drunk / have as much sex with whoever as you like / abort as many kids as you like' - it just an open door. Almost an invitation.

Yeah, basically when a woman cant get enough - sex she is ovulating. I have noticed this.

This i whole heartedly agree with!
No i've never been faced with this choice, two freinds have..they made their choice (husband and wife) based on knowledge of the sever handicaps the child was going to have, both of which included incomplete brain developement...if it had just been physical developement i think both would have chosen to keep the child...

but think of the finacial strain of a severly developmental challenged child, and the fact that most insurrance companies here in the US would drop the child at birth because of a pre-existing condition!

Also adoption is not what folks claim it to be ...there are millions of adoptable children in the world, which means allot of folks won't do this act of kindness.

Our family , while in Poland had several children that were raised within our family group because they were orphaned...
so i think maybe Poland has a good cultural tendency not to abandon it's children...but it is not a common cultural trait.
When you relegate abortion you should also relegate the future of the child?
Children of rape if exposed to the purpetrator are generally exposed to that crime themselves...where is the morality in that?
Don't believe me, volunteer to be a rape crisis counselor, some very ugly truths will present themselves to you.
If you don't want a child is it better to bring them into a world where no one else wants them either?
how many of us have adopted one of these forlorn children? When we 'walk the talk' maybe there can be positive change.
I did not know i was pregnant till the second trimester both times..Doc's said i was extrememly healthy and that i was how it was supposed to be...

By the time i saw an ultrasound there were legs, arms and facial distinctions.
Would i have chosen to abort if something was wrong? it depends..i know the people who have lost children this way have to live with their decission for the rest of their lives, and i still visit the graves of the two children my freinds lost...

Life doesn't begin at conception, it takes a few days for that combination to create 'life'
Still i will never take the choice away from anyone, if you so don't want that child that you are willing to abort....what life would that child have if you wanted it that little?

your view is dangerous, man. Basically what you're saying is, to hell with others as long as it suits me.

even science hasn't determined yet the exact point where the baby is considered alive but you guys seem to already know it better... As Grzegorz said above, since we are not quite sure whether its alive or not, we have to assume it is and act accordingly.

Foreigner4,My thoughts aren't incoherent because you seem to be able to respond to every one of them.You said it's a unique relationship and we must respect that and it's not for us to say anything,which amounts to it's ok for her to do what she wants because of this unique relationship.Why you wouldn't understand what I was trying to tell you.....

Where does science say that a new life is not a separate entity?What do you mean that this is not a scientific fact?If you said I'm against abortion,but it's her right and I have to respect that that's one thing.But if you go on to argue every point to support her getting one,then you can't blame people for thinking that you're pro abortion.

If you believe that the child is alive and defenseless,this is not enforcing morality on someone,this is protecting a defenseless child point blank.You're saying that this is immoral.It's simple if you don't think that we have the right;then you're trying to force you're morals on us...

Im pro-choice, but I believe that life begins at conception, its a living organism...but if we look at the statistics of how many women died having back treet abortions in the UK before the abortion Act came in, I believe a safe abortion is better that a coat hanger...I personally believe that the 24 weeks is far too late (my friends daugher has just flown the nest to uni and she was born at 26 weeks), a woman (normally) knows she is pregnant when she's even 1 day late these days...which means she is circa. 2 / 3 week pregnant, so 9 weeks is enough time...unless a woman choses to abort because of a defect or downs which can not be detected until 18 weeks...

The only real answer is education, showing a scan picture at 12 weeks of a fully formed human being to a group of 14 year olds might prevent a new generation of "covenience" abortions...forced inplant contraception is also another option, prevention is better than cure as that they always say...and I personally choice isnt always a good thing...

Really? Are we really going there?
Whether or not I respond to your thoughts doesn't make them coherent. When you manage to e-mumble something and I reply with a "What!?" that doesn't validate anything you've written as more than it is. Capiche?


Are you really asking that? Would your opinion change if the mighty science came in and told you differently than you want to believe? Science "can say" whatever it wants but that's not going to change the biological relationship between unborn and bearer. It's like you're incapable of admitting there's this area of life you have no frame of reference for and never will. We, as men can feel our unborn babies grow in our partners, we can talk to them and feel them kick and we can fall in love with them but it kind of ends there. You've got no business trying to tell a pregnant woman what she can or can't do. If she decides that this baby isn't alive and she doesn't want to be pregnant then whether it's legal or not, whether you give it the ok or not, she'll do what she thinks is best.


What's not a scientific fact? Seriously dude, in your quest for a semantic coup, give special attention to the word unique; I included it for a reason and it wasn't for dramatic effect.

Scientific fact? If our current understanding of science is to be the judge then I would not want to be arguing from your position. However, that being said, if this debate were so easily settled by science then we wouldn't be having this discussion.


That is not the point of the matter; the challenge you have is in defining the point at which something becomes a new life.


The problem is you have made no points in anything but in exceptional circumstances.
You made an astute observation in a legal inconsistency (look to the law as what defines morality and may god have mercy on your soul) and one oddity in terms of the double homicide but apart from those, you've actually made no points. You've argued your opinion and good for you for having one but that is it. I've consistently shot down what I see as flawed reasoning and that's it.

Now, I don't actually care if someone thinks I'm on one side or the other, anyone who isn't in the trenches (going to orphanages, going to boys' and girls' centres, joining the Big Brothers/Sisters Groups) is basically all talk and no action and standing on the sidelines just like I am.


And as I mentioned if you're just trying to force a woman to give birth so that you can feel better about yourself but not help her with those children after that then you've got some questions to ask yourself.

If you're offering support to these women and trying to foster a community that will allow them to raise children that move towards their potential then good on ya and we should admire and emulate you.

But if that ain't you then why are you pretending you care?
Based on your responses to similar questions, it really seems like you're on the sidelines but won't admit it.
But hey, I could be wrong. I hope I am.

Foreigner4,but yet you quote and reply.I show you exactly what I'm talking about and you either don't answer it or deny it.I have only used semantics rebutting your semantics.which I have outlined more than once.I have said other than for mitigating circumstances that I am against abortion.You take away mitigating circumstances and what do you have?Some one wanting the right not to have to care for a life brought into this world,because they were careless.This is what I'm against.

You have no scientific proof that the baby is not a separate body at what ever point it is deemed life.In fact I've never heard anyone suggest this but you and as far as I'm concerned that is semantics.Of course it's my opinion no more than it is your opinion.If your going to use the angle that because your not willing to rear all those children then you shouldn't say anything;if these children weren't being brought about due to carelessness then there would be no need to say anything would there?

Is this your way of begging for the last word?


That is desperation imo.


It doesn't matter how you describe it. Think about why women have abortions. Think of all the reasons they have or say they have. Now wouldn't it be a lot better to address those issues instead? Get rid of the reasons and you get rid of the practice. Changing the legality of it is not the solution in this day and age.


I'm not looking for such proof but that's not my burden. If a woman wants to have an abortion and you want to stop her then that's your burden. The rest of you post is you trying and failingly miserably to be clever because I'm not advocating abortion.

Talk is cheap- despite all the talk I've heard from you, it still wouldn't be enough to buy a coffee. Have the last word and see if you can come up with enough change to buy one.

Ciao

Foriegner4,LOl,now you can try to belittle me all you like that's fine.If anyone were to read our exchange they would come to the same conclusion as I have.The burden of proof rests on both sides or there would be no debate on this issue.I still say that a woman should not be able to have one because of carelessness and especially if a man is willing to take care of the child,because he should have a say as well.This is what I've said this whole time,but you don't have to get mad about it and say rude things.If you didn't want to directly answer those questions then you didn't have to.

You know, I agree with that. First really sensible suggestion from any of us, including me.

Education is the way. So we should not be showing 9-year-olds awful birth videos, but rather regularly showing them amazing 3D images + films of the developing child in utero. That sounds much more positive, and would presumably build up much more respect for life. And would, in turn, presumably have more effect in making them think twice before having convenience abortions - and/or before having convenience sex ...

Choice, no, is not always good. People talk as if it is, though.

The funny thing is that and PIS and the Polish episcopate lecture us on this one.
1. JK is gay as a maple and such has no idea about procreation (I have no problem with gays, far from it but the hypocrisy emanating from that guy)

2. The Polish episcopate are the last to lecture us on moralities
3. Both are and against sexual education in schools, against selling contraceptives, against in-vitro, against abortion.

Yes, you have, and you seem to me anyhow to have been consistently clear and coherent! The one I find a little hard to follow is F4 ... not quite sure what engendered the attack on you, as you are actually one of the mildest commentators here. And fairest.

Problem with this subject is that being fair means, in some cases, making the woman in particular take responsibility for something some women want an easy way out of. And carrying a child/giving birth is quite a big thing to have to do as a result of what might have been only a few seconds' liaison, shall we say. And people are scared of insisting on this, as it seems heavy-handed. But there needs to be a boundary, at some point.

Foreigner4,let's pick up here and you can respond to my last post on this thread or is there some reason you don't want to?

Foreigner4,as I said before,I have covered every angle of this debate in here,but if you want me to answer those questions again,then respond to my last post here.Do you go out on pro choice rallies?Are you going out and teaching safe sex?If you're not then this makes you just as morally inconsistent as anyone else and would mean that you are not qualified to have an opinion on it one way or the other,this is what you are saying.It has to apply both ways.You could use that same argument to negate everything and every cause.This obviously isn't going to happen.We are still entitled to have our beliefs.We can also pick and choose our battles and how we fight them.

I was busy.


...whoa there fella, you've got yourself all worked up and all for not. I'm not the one who claims to be passionate about the cause but you do- hence my earlier questions.

But really, why reformulate my earlier questions in attempts to turn them on me when you haven't answered the original ones in the first place?

Why would you try and adopt the same questions when you had described the process as "weak" (without any justification mind you) in the first place?

You're not up to this and it shows.
There is no burden on me. You would like to decide for others when life begins. Well when is that and how do you know?

Why choose to ignore the causes of abortion?
Why the inconsistency with what you say you're all about and the inactivity?
Why am I wasting any more time on you?

Foreigner4,You ask me why I said that that it is weak and this is is explained by this'"because you don't go out and catch every thief there is,then you have no justification for saying that stealing is wrong,let alone suggest that thieves should go to jail".So how can you say that this negates one's right to state their passionate belief.Where did I ever say that I was fighting for the cause?And you are accusing me of dishonesty.........I have outlined the criteria on this thread.So I ask anyone who would read this to read what I have already said on this thread and then tell me if he hasn't tried to put spin on what I've said.You will also see how he has flip flopped through this thread and at one point saying that he tended to agree with me on the one point I debated about in regards to fathers.So Foreigner4 you can say that you aren't passionate in your belief,but according to you,you have no right;be it for fighting the cause or not,to comment,then you as well shouldn't be chiming in at all,but I wouldn't be trying to suggest this;or to try to claim that it is an effective argument in stopping you from doing so..

That is illegitimate reasoning
It perhaps, makes sense to you but I assure you, you've made no sense at all.
Let's begin with the cotter pin.
"I am passionate about preserving (or saving) life."
That's what you wrote. Do you see the consequence of stating that for the record? When that is proven to be untrue then the contraption of an argument you've tried to construct simply falls apart.

You see, I'm passionate about sport and active living- I volunteered my morning to help others with their training.
I didn't say I'm passionate about preventing theft, if I was then I'd be doing something to actively prevent it.
I am pretty honest in my dealing with people so for that I get a gold star. If I said preventing the murder of unborn children mattered a great deal to me and I did nothing to prevent it well then we'd have a discrepancy between words and actions.


It seems all you do is talk about something you claim to be passionate about- it means you're all talk, no action and no passion.

It means you're full of sh*t.
And the cotter pin has been pulled.


Who are you writing to? Unless you've got legions of fans, it'd be best if you got over your ego there buddy boy.

I didn't flip flop (your use of such euphemisms further confirms my assessment of you). I agreed with your point and have been completely open about it. You made a good point in that regard and this only shows I do acknowledge reasoned arguments. Grown ups do that when they see someone has made a good point and they can concede ideas and reason without damaging their ego.


I've written this numerous times: Believe what you want, say what you want but don't protest when you're shown the inconsistency of your thoughts, words and actions.


Gee, thanks for the permission but I already gave myself permission to do just that.


I'll bet that's probably the best you could word that....sad. I'm not stopping you from doing anything, you seem to be terribly confused on this matter but that's your problem. I can chime in if I want to because that's what this board is for.

Sorry if it hurts.

Foreigner4,It is not illegitimate reasoning and the fact that each new post you write is filled with insulting and vitriol proves it lol.You didn't acknowledge you said I tend to agree,Now it's I "acknowledged."I have the right to chime in,just for the same reason you do.

It's not about my ego,it's about you presenting what I have said in a dishonest fashion.I am passionate in my belief and when I debate it is with that passion.You keep playing this game and to anyone who reads what you're saying. they will see this.I understand that you are angry,but I don't hold it against you.

Oh but it is my good fellow, it certainly is.


I don't think it does at all, but I'm game show me your reasoning!
This does prove at least one thing though, and that is my disdain for your inability to grasp some relatively simple chains of logic....but why do you feel insulted? As you as much stated, it isn't insulting if it's true...so why you mad?


Oh that's just silly. I have stated my agreement with the reasoning you provided on that one issue at least 3 times on at least 2 threads. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you just need to see it in writing again and again to feed your ego.


If one does nothing to stop something one declares they are passionate about stopping then that forces the rest of us to determine that person has, at best been pretentious in their declarations.


I don't care though. That's the difference here- you're appealing to an audience you hope is there while I don't have to.


Well that's another thing to add to the list of things you've been wrong about, isn't it?


^...ah-ha so it's you who's angry...okay then, I understand...why don't you give it some time and think it over and come back with something more well reasoned? If you need some questions to help you along let me know.

Foreigner4,You keep playing the game all you like,but the proof is in what I've already said in this thread.You've passionately argued how pro choice is the only way..You have made yourself clear on this.I can only assume that you are angry because you have been insulting ever since I put the question to you.I and anyone else on this thread have the right to voice our beliefs.

That's not how proof works though. You see, simply because you've stated something doesn't make it so. I've explained to you why I've responded to your limited replies. Whether or not you accept that is your issue to deal with.


So then I'm passionate about arguing, so what?


You do too much assuming and not enough reasoning.


What question?


Yes, you do have the right to cognitive dissonance. Good luck with that.

Foreigner4,Cognitive dissonance lol,you are the one who has pancaked through this thread.People are smart enough to decide what proof is.I've made myself clear in my debating.And like you said,so what if I debate,my point exactly.Too much assuming lol:).I'll leave it at that.

I get the feeling you might be more passionate about the act of arguing than about whatever issue is at hand.

Can you factor this into your argument:

In the same way that if there were a genuine question of doubt, a point of debate, over someone's guiltiness of a crime that would carry the death penalty, one would err on the side of caution ... is it not the same where there is, freely acknowledged by most in this current discussion, a point of ambiguity and subjective interpretation over the point at which life begins? Should we not err on the side of caution, respect those who feel life begins at conception, respect and listen to the views of women who have had abortions and later regretted this hugely, and say ... abortion is not a thing into which one should enter lightly? It is not something that we can leave to 'choice'? It is something that should be taken so seriously, that a society says: we would rather not go there. And then does all it can to discourage abortion, and to support women in other ways, so that abortion is not so frequently sought?

If you are wrong, F4 - just think about that. What if you are wrong? What if life begins at conception, and you are saying it is ok for the securely living to extinguish those who have just a feeble grasp on the very beginning of their life ... what if you are saying it is ok to snuff them out, in the interests of 'choice'? Are you ok with that?

Because I wouldn't be. Just because something is small, but distinct, doesn't mean I can trample on it.

Mind you, I would avoid treading on a daisy. Why destroy?

I didn't want to say it but I had the same feeling for quite some time now. He deserves to be complimented for his word choice though, no doubt about it.

well then professor, show us your proof, are you smart enough to do that?


Repeating faulty reasoning has made it clear you have yet to adapt your ideas to the reality around you.


Guiltiness is not a word. However your point on the death penalty stands (imo) if you can define one thing: "a point of debate." What does and doesn't qualify as a point of debate as to someone's guilt, in your opinion of course?

"Freely acknowledged by most in this discussion?" Is that an objective source? When, according to most in this discussion, is it that life officially begins. Do tell.


And should we not err on the side of caution and respect those who feel life doesn't begin at conception and listen to the views of women who had had abortions and later have not regretted it? Why are WE to decide for others when life does or doesn't begin in their bodies? Who the hell on this thread is advocating "entering" abortion lightly? I'm against the practice myself but it is not for me to decide for a woman when the life inside her is human and when it is something else.


(I'm assuming that's not really a question) Then as I've been LOUD AND CLEAR ABOUT: ELIMINATE THE REASONS FOR THAT CHOICE. Making it illegal won't solve the problem, eliminating the reasons for considering that choice will. What can you not understand about that? Seriously?


What if you are wrong NATASIA- just think about that. What if you are wrong?


What if life doesn't begin when you say it does and you are saying it's okay to for women who don't want to become mothers to have children what if you are forcing those children to be born into the hell that will be their world (and don't pretend life is smooth sailing for the children of drug addict mothers or prostitutes or those who simply don't want their children). You're a caring person but you're failing to understand that many women aren't. People see the world around them differently than you, they live different lives and I don't think you know what a hard life really is.


I'm perfectly fine with that BECAUSE what I say is not forcing anyone to or not to make that choice.
People say they aren't "ok" with this or that and continue to do nothing about this or that. Well actions speak louder than words- what have your actions been?

And this is where it falls back on the shoulders of you and those in your "camp." If you are not "ok" with abortion, if you view it as murder and you are not doing all you can do to prevent it then, I'm sorry to inform you, you stand on the same side as I do. If you are doing nothing to eliminate the reasons women have for choosing to have abortions then you're on the same side I am. Are you okay with that?

If a woman has had an abortion, is she then a murderer? Are you "ok" with locking up all these women?
Think about this, if you view it as murder then the doctors and women who have done this are murderers and you CANNOT logically be "ok" with them going unpunished like you'd punish any other murderer.

Leave the choice there.
Eliminate the reasons for making that choice.
Problem solved.

In my opinion, there should be a nationwide referendum like the one in Lithuania, just ask the majorily Roman Catholic population do they approve gay marriage/abortion and all other leftist topics out there.

Case closed

Cheers