Abortion still under control in Poland

Let's keep to the topic of abortion,there are other threads for the healthcare discusion.

because they're deciding against life and why, because "she doesn't want it".
"Doesn't want" is not an excuse for killing. Try imagine, someone will come to a conclusion, he doesn't want you anymore, would you be OK with it if he killed you?

Besides, why not just use contraception to avoid that problem to begin with?


no one has clearly determined when a baby is alive in the mother's womb. Just because we have a law allowing abortion, it doesn't make it right (unless emergency, of course)


don't you realize that you're doing just that, you're imposing your opinion on me and people who feel like me?


and yet, it doesn't make our society (as such) underdeveloped and this is how you made it sound above. Look Jon, we're totally different people but I would never dare to tell you, you're underdeveloped because of it and this is all I'm expecting from an intelligent guy like you too. Respect if you want to be respected.

Obviously you're entitled to hold whatever opinion you like, but I'll stick with the opinions of the medical profession.


Unfortunately your logic doesn't quite work here. People who are pro-choice are not forcing you to do anything or imposing any opinion. They are not stopping you doing anything; nor are they forcing you to do anything. They are merely expecting that they do not have to follow your particular set of personal rules.

Jon357, so what is the position of the medical profession?Even they are undecided as to when life is established.They constantly debate the issue.

True - but the impetus for legal termination (and for that matter euthanasia) comes squarely from within the profession. The suggestion that there's a financial incentive is bizarre - especially since many performed the operation on women from low income households for free, in the dark days before legalisation; not to mention that in the UK, Scandinavia, Holland etc many, if not most, doctors are salaried.

this is exactly what I was repeatedly telling Jon but he seems not to care. If there was a set point of when a baby is alive inside the mother's womb, we wouldn't have this discussion now.


if mine doesn't then yours doesn't work either Jon, because we're opposing our opinions equally, using different arguments.
I guess, the best we can do is to agree to disagree and call it quits.

Jon357,If you don't think that abortion clinics are not in it for the buck.... or that money is not an incentive.Just as in the case of any medical field,you are going to have people who will give freely of their services.The concept to me is simple and imo,a life should not be snuffed out because it is merely an inconvenience.I can't understand why people defend this.I respect peoples right to see it how they want to see it.I just don't understand it.

Where I'm from they're either run by the state or by not-for-profit organisations.

As for 'snuffing' out a life: doctors are not in the business of murder - a foetus does not think, does not have memories, is not a person. A computer is a computer even before the software is loaded. But can it be used?

Jon357,my point is that if it is deemed life,then at that point you can't call it murder because it is sanctioned.Whatever you want to call it,The life is killed.You are saying that the fetus is not alive,but then why is there a debate about this in the medical profession.At what point during the pregnancy is it considered illegal to abort?

You mean clerical profession. ;)

berni23,No I mean the medical profession.My angle has nothing to do with religion.

Sounds a little antiquated to me.
Care to link me?

care to answer this question berni23?

When is a baby alive in the mother's womb?

There is no set answer to this question yet but maybe you'll be able to answer it anyway, who knows?

Of course there isnt. But for every half thinking human the wellbeing of the mother should be more important.
I am referring to your American friends who wouldnt allow abortion for rape victims or if the mother is under threat of dying.

bernie23,ink you to what.If you go back on this thread a doctor himself says he doesn't know.Please explain how the concept of not taking a life is antiquated,in fact no regard for life is antiquated.

what does the well being have to do with it? We're not talking about abortion out of emergency, we're talking about abortion out of convenience. I'm not opposing the first.


some American friends. I'm not opposing it in emergency situations.

With the premise that a fetus is life.
I am just wondering that in the 21st century educated people still need to debate this.
Thats why certain countries(mostly because of religious motivation) wont allow stem cell research, that could save millions.

As I already said earlier, there is no set answer to when a baby is alive in the mother's womb. Many people believe that the baby is alive at conception. Others believe it is when the heart beats for the first time (about 6 weeks after conception). Still others believe that the baby is not alive until quickening (16-20 weeks after conception), and some don't believe the baby is alive until it is full-term (37 weeks after conception) or even born. This is a matter that, at this point, is debatable and a personal belief, rather than a scientific certainty.

Besides berni, I haven't mentioned religion in this thread yet and my opinion about abortion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

bernie123,agreed,with that premise,late term abortions were acceptable unit recently anyway,when there was no doubt about life,but the medical profession deemed this as ok.They're debating it because it warrants debate.As for stem cell,I'm for it,but this is not the thread for that discussion.

so would anybody care to link me to that discussion of scientists?
i havent read all the 24 pages to be honest.

quit poking, berni. There's a law that allows abortion and we all know it and most of us here, don't oppose abortion out of emergency but we do oppose abortion out of convenience because we believe that adult people should be making adult decisions and not screw around like rabbits, knowing that there will be no consequences for their actions whatsoever. Further, there's no need for abortion if people will be using contraception, right?

i wasnt poking, i really thought there might be some discussion in the scientific community that escaped me.

anyway i dont really care how much sex a person has, the state or some organizations shouldnt be there to forbid things but help if worse come to worse.

afterall we are all adults and should know whats best for us.

OK then let them help by making contraception widely available for everyone instead. (very cheap or for free, even better).

sure, did i say otherwise?
i dont really see your point...

bernie123,I had said in the medical profession.Science claims that life begins in the third week.The question becomes is when does that life become a person.

familydoctormag.com/sexual-health/251-when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue.html

I'm not arguing with you berni, the problem we have is that you don't know what's been said earlier in this thread (I assume). Read it first and then come back and we'll go from there.

Where in our 5000 year old world did you get that from? I learned that life begins after a good shag, when the semen reaches the egg. That was in the 8th grade.

@4eigner
How would condoms help people, who want to tell others what they have to do?

bernie123,LOL,my bad I got that mixed up.Some say this is when the life can be considered a "human".

Berni, I also learnt the same, and certainly anyone who wants to get pregnant also believes that. If they don't want to be pregnant, they say they aren't sure when we can say it really is a human life (as opposed to Martian, I guess) and that means that up until a certain point, if they have an abortion, they aren't killing anything. Cool idea, huh? Great way out. ; )

Its their body and their decision.
I dont understand why you you are so eager to get involved in that