Abortion still under control in Poland

There was one last year. The public clearly voted for parties which support the current "middle" agenda between social liberalism and conservatism.


Most polls suggest that the population support the status quo. Most RC voters have no problems with civil unions, RC voters are pro in-vitro (even Kaczynski has declared that he's willing to look for a legislative compromise!) and they support the current stance on abortion.


And when the conservatives lose the vote?

It is a word.
wordreference.com/definition/guiltiness

The use of it rather than the much more common 'guilt' was deliberate on my part, because 'guiltiness' imparts a slightly different nuance.


I think I need to put this in plainer English for you. You haven't understood my point. As follows:

If there is any reasonable doubt about whether someone is guilty, we don't kill them.

So, if there is any reasonable doubt about when life begins (which pretty much everyone in this discussion has agreed - i.e., that we can't agree when it might start - some think one thing, someone another), then we shouldn't kill what might be a very small human being.

That clear enough?

Foreigner4:
What if you are wrong NATASIA- just think about that. What if you are wrong?

Well, if I am wrong, someone is born and then as most likely will happen, their mother and/or father will realise that they deserve to be loved, and love them (prostitutes also love their kids, I imagine). And if you are wrong, someone gets killed. So I would prefer the former, because that leaves open the possibilities, whereas your mistake would leave someone dead.


No, but I think the institution that allows this, and the doctor who carries out this procedure, have done something wrong, and against the principles of the doctor's oath to support life.

Personally I didn't feel like a murderer, but I felt that I had failed to defend my child against someone else killing them. I failed in my duty, but the doctor/institution (and by that I mean government as much as the organisation that arranged the operation) - they all went ahead with something very, very wrong.

And yes, I'd love to be able to call the police and ask them to arrest the doctor, the assistants, the head of the organisation, on grounds of unlawful killing, because they misled me, and did not adhere to the terms of the 1967 Abortion Act, and therefore, yes, it was an illegal termination of life. Hmm. Good idea. Will call the police. See what they say.

Foreigner4,You know that when I was referring to proof ,it had to do with the way you were misrepresenting what I have been saying and you know it,All's anyone has to do is read what I have said consistently in this thread and there's the proof,nice try though,as for my reasoning that you were doing just that being faulty;well you know better.

nicely said, agree 100%

4eigner,I agree.

The guilty vs. innocent capital punishment thing cannot be compared because we know for a fact that people, whether innocent or guilty are actually alive, and have a personhood and awareness.. you all need to think of a better comparison where we don't know if the person is alive or dead.

If we are going to take it for granted that every possible human is alive - because we cannot measure it where life ends or begins where does that put your stance on the life support machines?

Do we let people on these machines perpetually live forever in our hospitals because we don't know if they are really alive or dead, or because we cannot be certain they they won't eventually recover? Even if brain function signals are zero?

If it's a case of not being able to measure for certain where life/death begins I guess you would be willing to also criminalise all those doctors that regularly turn off all those life support machines of the people in hospitals. They might still be alive after all, and anything other than letting them live would be murder - as they don't have a say either.

but since you can't exclude the possibility that the unborn baby is actually alive at the time of abortion, it's appropriate to decide for its right to live rather than against it.

Well, since we do know that doctors would say to a woman 7-weeks' pregnant, if she had had a scan at 6 weeks showing a heartbeat, and then a scan at 7 weeks with no heartbeat, that ... her baby had died. 'We are so sorry. The baby was ok last week, but unfortunately now we can't find a heartbeat, so the baby has died'.

So, if it has died, then it was alive before.


Life support machines are artificial. If not on a life support machine, those people would be dead. (And don't start some nifty nonsense about the pregnant mother being a life support machine - she isn't a machine, although she performs the function of nurturing the developing child.)


Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?

You haven't been pregnant. I doubt you have seen someone close, such as your father, lying dead. I promise you that if you had had both of these experiences, you would be in no doubt at all what is life, and what is death.

Life support machines to keep someone 'alive' who has little or no chance of recovery are a different thing. In this situation, the body is usually going nowhere, and the mind is unconscious, possibly never to come back. A developing child is rapidly growing, and is on a straight course to birth and being a young person. You cut off someone who will possibly never live again, it is a hard decision, but probably you are only hastening what is coming anyhow. In cutting off a developing child, you are interrupting the rush to birth. You are not hastening the inevitable death. You are intercepting the inevitable life.

But if you are really so stupid that I have to explain that to you, then am not sure why am even talking to you.

Insults..... nice!!! I'd like to congratulate you.

You seem to have missed a few things:


A pregnant woman also keeps a "developing child" artificially alive. Let it develop outside the womb and see what happens. A woman is the ultimate, organic life support and development machines.


WRONG. Life support machines are not just used in cases where the person would definitely have been dead.. at least get your facts straight before you type rubbish, and have the nerve to call me stupid. The people who go on life support machines have a very high percentage of survival. Otherwise they wouldn't be on there in the first place. Doctors don't hook up every dying person to them for a reason.


WRONG AGAIN. There is no guarantee a developing child will ever be alive, as between 50 and 70 percent of all first trimester pregnancies are miscarried, so a pregnancy is no guarantee of life.


So what? I haven't been pregnant, but that doesn't mean that I should be silenced? If you're going to hold that point against me I'd like to remind you that neither 4reigner or p3undone have been pregnant either, or any of the other men that support your point of view. I'm guessing you'll be telling them to butt out the conversation, on account of none of them having ever been pregnant.


Now you're just projecting. You have no idea, and cannot promise me anything. You seem very sure of yourself.


You call me stupid but post things that simply are not true. You say yourself that you "aren't interested in research" or what the vast majority of studies show, preferring to rely on your own anecdotes. You bring up some rubbish parallels about people on guilty people on death row like that's somehow relevant, and then call me stupid for talking about life support machines in a bid to redress the emotionality and balance. You are so sure of yourself that you dismiss anyone else as "not knowing the truth" when you haven't been able to prove either way what the proof is either.

Yes I'm stupid, stupid me. Call me stupid again. Go on. You can call me a c*nt too if you like. It won't make you or I any less right or wrong on this issue, will it?

It wasn't meant as an insult. It was just that it felt like you were posing ideas just for the sake of argument. And that felt like deliberate denseness. I don't think you're stupid, but I find it frustrating to discuss with someone who says we don't know when someone is dead.

This whole idea that there is any confusion about life and death ... there isn't. New life starts when fertilisation begins. Death would happen to those not on life support. (That they might be aided by life support and then recover doesn't change that - if they weren't on life support, they would be dead.)


I wouldn't, I don't think you are, and anyhow I wouldn't use that word. I reserve that for people who try to con honest workmen out of money, that sort of thing.


I think the figure is about 33%. And when there is a miscarriage, they say 'the baby died' or 'the baby didn't survive'. They don't say 'the baby was dead anyhow and now it is just deader'. (That's what I mean about stupid ... your arguments unravel and end up in statements that are just plain ... ok. Just daft, let's say.)


: ) Ok. Like zillions of women, I have felt new life growing inside me. Also like zillions, I have seen the body of my father, which clearly wasn't alive, and no amount of me arguing otherwise would have changed that. When you feel a tiny flutter against your stomach around 16 weeks and know that the baby is now big enough for you to feel his or her movement, you are absolutely, yes, certain and sure as anything, that a living creature is inside you. And you know that creature was moving before, but you couldn't feel it because he or she was as yet too small. And if you think I am 'projecting' when I say that when you see your father dead, you, erm, will be very sure that he is dead then ... ok. You think that. I'm not projecting. I'm just telling you how it is. You won't be in any doubt.

I only used that rather personal example to point out that the distinction between alive and dead is really a pretty simple one. And yes, of that distinction, I am very sure. As are, I'm also sure, zillions of other people. This isn't some personal opinion of mine. This is observed fact. Just because I am only talking about my observation of it, doesn't mean it isn't true. I don't need to read research to know my baby is alive when she kicks my tummy. You don't need research to tell you that if you jump off a building, you might not survive, and whatever happens, it will bloody hurt. We don't need research to tell us everything ...


This is of course what I was trying to say ... : )
Since you can't be certain the unborn baby isn't alive, you should proceed as if it is. And therefore not kill it.


No, and I didn't say that. I said that as you haven't been pregnant, you haven't felt a child inside you, so you can't say 'it isn't alive' with as much conviction as those who have felt a live child inside them and know full well it is alive. The guys aren't actually claiming that unborn children aren't alive with anything like your conviction. Look: what is so difficult about this point? If you have climbed Everest, and I haven't, then you are much more of an expert on it than I am. I can say 'oh, the research tells me it isn't very cold up there' as much as I like, but if you were there, and you felt the cold, your voicing of your experience is more true than my conjecture based on research. Basically, you know, and I don't.

Yes, you can.
A fetus isn't 'alive' at the time of termination. For something to be alive, it must have the ability to make couscous logical decisions. A fetus at 24 weeks cannot do this, ergo it's not actually 'alive' It's living, but mush in the same way that a spore or a bacteria is living.

Anyway, this happened in my country yesterday.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

I'm disgusted that she was treated this way. How dare these people, who are supposed to be caring for her, let this poor woman die.

? So is a baby not alive when it is born then? Because it can't make conscious (or even couscous ; ) logical decisions for months, if not years ... come on.

But what happened to that visitor to your country who was not given the best medical care because of the law re: abortion - of course that is wrong, appalling, dreadful. The point there is that the doctor said she was miscarrying and so the baby would die, so OF COURSE she should have been saved.

I have always said that if there is an urgent medical necessity - to save the mother's life, where the baby will anyhow not survive - then if termination is part of saving her life then that is emergency treatment and unfortunately that is what has to happen.

What I think is wrong is when you have a perfectly healthy pregnancy, baby and mother, and because it doesn't suit the mother's life plan at that moment to have a baby, the baby is dispensed with. That is not ok.


mush? An unborn child isn't some sort of blob, you know. Did you think it just existed as a 'state' during pregnancy, then only forms into limbs, etc, and a baby when each bit touches the fresh air????? At 24 weeks it looks like a small version of a newborn baby. There are loads of pics and videos on the net of premature babies born at 24 weeks, who go on to survive normally. These people have pictures of their children because they love and cherish them.

Look, abortion for medical reasons - ok. Abortion because you fxxxxd up and aren't sure you want a baby now - not ok.

If the foetus is 'unborn', it isn't a child.

Like, even if it's one day away from birth? So what makes a "child" - it is the lack of an umbilical cord?

Quite true. abortion is always going to be a very contentious issue. Pro-life campaigners need to realise and respect that women can have many different reasons for terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Having an abortion is not a pleasant experience either. It's not like taking a 'morning-after pill'. It's a unpleasant process and can leave the woman with a lot of feelings of guilt. Complications can lead to infertility. Also, she has to live with the stigma that is attached to it. Abortion is not a 'soft option' and is not a decision to be taken likely. However, IMO, it should be a woman's right to choose.

Exactly. Emotional language helps nobody and just pours oil on troubled water.


+1

For myself, I think we should let the medical profession decide what procedures should or should not be legal.

Err...they make logical conscious decisions after they are born, that's obvious *rolls eyes Maybe not of your level, maybe you should look up what logical means. Baby sees something, baby thinks "what's that" baby reaches out hand to touch it. That's conscious logical decision making tight there. At 24 weeks, unborns cannot do this, so it's not 'alive' in the sense that pro-lifers believe it to be


haha, opps, spelling mistake, shoulda wrote "much"

I think you're really mixing up your terminology there. And an unborn child / foetus is alive, in the most basic, biological sense of the word. Are you or are you not alive when asleep, or (God forbid) in a coma?

I find this whole live/dead argument silly. Without fertilisation there is no possible chance of a living child. Conception is the moment life starts if life starts at a later point I would love to hear when.

Yes, of course. Brain activity is very high during REM sleep. The issue is about a woman's right to choose. If you don't like the idea of abortion, then nobody is forcing you to have one. If another woman wants an abortion you shouldn't force her not to have one. Being a woman you should be able to understand this very simple concept. It's called 'choice'.

I do understand this simple concept. I am simply pointing out to smurf that an unborn child is indeed alive. I am not a great fan of abortion myself, but I would never have it banned outright either. It's a very complicated issue and one I hope never to encounter in my own life!

Nope


Indeed it is, just like a spore or bacteria, like I've already posted.


Herein lies the main argument. Life indeed does start at conception, that's hardly even up for argument. But the question is when does this life-form become aware? For me it is after 24 weeks, for most doctors it is the same, that's why abortions are carried out up to then.


I forgot to put 'alive' in inverted commas. It is a life-form, a living life-form, but it's not a conscious life-form. Terminating it cannot therefore be seen as murder. It's really that simple.

Back to this Irish case, more info is coming out and it seems that doctors in the hospital in Galway wouldn't allow termination because, even though she was mis-carrying, they could hear a heartbeat and legally if they hear a heartbeat then they cannot terminate. This is fookin ridiculous. the fetus was going to be a miscarriage yet they wouldn't save the life of the mother.

Ashamed of my country today, very much so.

Hmm.. I totally disagree with the whole abortion thing, in my opinion it should be banned. This one very famous video about the abortion topic:

youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg&feature=relmfu

Cheers :)

That is when life begins it cannot be at any other point. The legal limit (where allowed) is usually the point where the baby can exist outside the woman. Neither of these points are anything to do with awareness.

A woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, to continue with the pregnancy or not is her decision. To argue that it’s not really a baby or it’s not alive or other such things are nonsense with no grounding in science.

Barney,why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman that they are charged with a double homicide?

Because they ended two lives, a pregnant woman however has the right to end the life inside her preferably with help.

Barney,But if it is acknowledged as a separate life,then why should she be allowed then to kill that life.You could say that since she had given birth to a child that she be allowed to end the life of said child since this child came from her body.We are talking about a separate life at the point which you and I are discussing.

I believe the woman has the right to end the life within her it’s her body.

The size of the child or baby etc is usually only a factor when a condition is discovered I believe this would be murder as the woman almost always made the decision to keep the child earlier. I am opposed to eugenics in practice and philosophy.

Where late term pregnancies are ended its usually to save the woman’s life and no right thinking person could be opposed to that or to kill a baby for aesthetic reasons. The rest usually have terrible back stories attached and that is why I said at the start of this thread that there are no concrete rules here.

And how prey tell, do you think they came up with 24 weeks?


No, it's not. You're quite wrong I'm afraid. I would love to spend my free time googling research figure, but alas I'm far too busy and I'm sure since you have time to post here then, like me, you have time to be wasting so you can do it yourself.

I'm showing that a fetus is not a living, conscious entity, therefore terminating its life is not murder. Something pro-lifers have trouble with. If you kill an animal it's not murder, if you kill a fish or a group of cells it's not murder.

Barney,the problem that I have with it is for people using it for birth control.I'm not going to reiterate my points because I've already done it quite a bit on this thread.You can read some of my prior posts if you wish to.