Abortion still under control in Poland

i think you are belittling rape. A friend of mine was falsely accused and the case was thrown out of court. These are the cases that get publicity, but in reality are ten times less common than rape not getting reported, or men not being charged. If you were held down and penetrated, I do not think you would be making flip comments about it afterwards.

cause I think violent rapists and their unborn offspring should be killed?

cause I don't take Matress Girl (look it up) or the Gomeshi accusers seriously? Because I don't agree with the current feminist line (roughly: nothing a woman does or says (including "I consent") can be taken to mean that she consented to have sex?


I'd want the SOB dead.


What have I said that's flip?

that

What's flippant? The idea that consentual sex is sometimes regretted or that some crazy feminists want to redefine it as rape?

washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/?utm_term=.2abdf7b428eb

money quote: "ensuring that sexual consent is always free of pressure is an impossible goal. Consent advocates already fret that even an explicit "yes" may not be given freely enough"

your tone.
And Maf, it was a good thing that rape was redefined. If I am in bed with someone and I say no, it means no.

Enough about the crazy feminist chicks already. Lets talk about the rapists that continue to get away with it shall we?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner

Do you really think that a woman who has been told her child is going to be born severely disabled is going to think about the inconvenience of it all? Seriously? She is probably going to feel heartbroken, shocked and frightened. Then she will want to know exactly how disabled that child is likely to be.

What quality of life her child will have, will that child be in constant pain, long term outcome of whatever disability the child will be born with. Even worse, what the life expectancy for that child will be. Sorry, but inconvenience is not going to be at the top of the list.

It must be one of the most awful things a mother can ever be told.
Then she has to has to make the decision whether to continue with the pregnancy. Sometimes doctors know from scan data etc that the child won't be viable and will actually advise abortion.

There was a case 2 years ago when a Doctor was fired from a Warsaw hospital for refusing a woman's request to abort her child who had been diagnosed with severe developmental defects:-

"The woman ultimately gave birth to a baby boy at another Warsaw facility, the Bielanski hospital. A doctor there, Romuald Debski, tried to paint abortion as compassionate by describing the baby's deformities in uncompassionate detail. "This child does not have half of its head, has a hanging eyeball, its face is split, it has no brain inside," said Debski, according to Reuters. "If Professor Chazan saw the life that he saved, he would have a different attitude." The baby died a few days after birth."

world.wng.org/2014/08/the_doctor_who_refused_to_abort

Now can you tell me in cases like the one above, what possible reason there can be for allowing a woman to continue with a pregnancy knowing that the child will be born with severe deformities and will not survive? Mental cruelty perhaps?, because allowing a woman to go through something like that is nothing more than barbaric.


No of course it is not the child's fault, but in cases of rape resulting in the birth of a child, the mental health of the mother has to be considered. She would be the one looking after the child if she were forced to have it after all.

Iron, you seem to be looking at this as though the mother is little more than an incubator.
What quality of life would that child have if the mother just couldn't bring herself to love it? For sure it would take a better woman than me to be able to do that.

There should be no question of allowing an abortion under these circumstances. It is bad enough that a woman has had to endure a rape, but to punish her even more by not allowing an abortion is cruel.

As we are talking about the right to life, what would you propose if the woman keeps the child, and that child then wants to know about the father? Outright lies to spare how that child would feel knowing it has a rapist for a father, or do you screw up the child's mental health and tell the truth? Just something to consider.


It has happened as in Atch's example, and although it might happen very rarely, you cannot rule out that it might happen in the future.


No it can't but the Church has influence and in power is a government sympathetic to it's views:-

" Poland's ruling Law and Justice party is tightening ties with the country's powerful Roman Catholic Church, as party leaders in recent days endorsed a total abortion ban pushed by the church hierarchy."

politico.eu/article/polands-church-state-alliance-to-ban-abortion


" Her husband Praveen said later that his wife's treatment had been "horrendous, barbaric and inhumane". Dr Peter Boylan, one of Ireland's leading obstetricians, told the inquest into her death that it was highly likely Mrs Halappanavar would still be alive if she had been given a termination when she and her husband had requested one."

To be honest Iron, I am not sure why you made the statements you did. I have discussed this with you briefly before and you said then that you felt the current law on abortion was enough.

Restricting it even further will only lead to more misery and suffering for women.

So what does she thinks? ****, lets kill that monster? I would rather say that what she think and what she does depends on an idvidual faced with such a tragic reality.

If she is to have a real choice not a token one, she should be told the truth, even if that hurst. She wouldn't have remained unscorched by that either way. Unless she can do the right thing or not.

What she doesn't need are all those humanitarians that are falling over themselves to help her - over her dead child body.


That was a complex issue that boils down to an illegal action of ideologically motivated politicians and an intrigue.


Do you mean to say that such a woman should be forced to terminate her pregnancy?
The reason is simple, doctors are humans as well and as such they have the right to refuse to 'terminate' a life. I'm sure there is plenty of other doctors that would only to happy to do it. What's the problem?


Do you think that it is the right thing to do? To kill an innocent child?
Frist of all pregnancies like that are an exception to the rule, used as an argument in discussion to further that ideology that claims that it is OK to kill a child and not OK to kill a degenerate criminal. Madness.

From a moral point of view that has no legs, the same goes for a logic, it is illogical as every heretical ideology.
I say only that rape is a crime. Children shouldn't be killed. Both things are wrong.


You should read what I have to say about it. Yes, medical error are nothing new and might happen in the future. Should we ban hospitals or doctors?


Good! Bill Gates has influence and is cosy with a government, same goes for the mass media, celebrities and personalities! Is there anything wrong with havening influce? Is that a crime?

Not to mention politicians and political parties.
So what?
Ultimatly people are voting parties to power or are voting them out......


I mean, so what? I'm sure that it was terrible to him and his wife. Every medical error that leave victims behind is a inhuman terrible thing.

Could you stop using that case as a tool to further pro-abortion propaganda?


I think that at the present the current law is enough due to political circumstances i.e. there isn't a consensus in Poland to change the law one way or the other.

I think that 'abortion' should be an option only if mother's life would be in danger.

The lefites keep giving bizzare examples of pregnancy to convince people that abortion is actually nessary for women well being. Thing is those examples are exeptions: rape, damege unborn, endengerd woman life. Genarl rule of abortion is for example: 10% of female French High Schools had an abortion, same woman having abortion couple times. I don't know what solution should be implemented to solve the proble. And problem does exist people know only one side of story the other one is blocked. Removing real pictures of 'clumps of tissiue and blood' is one of the ways of blocking information on that subject. U advise people to do own research, check youtube, google pictures of unborn but be sure that you know really know what are you talking about.

Because those "bizarre" examples do happen and sometimes the best thing for the woman's health is abortion. Not admitting weakens the arguments for abortion restrictions overall.


Getting rid of the idea that the other side is simply evil and wants to kill babies or is evil and wants women to be nothing more than walking baby-incubators might be a start.

I don't really care about early term abortion (in the first three months or so) at all and no amount of gruesdome pictures is liable to change my mind. I am very against elective abortion after the fifth month or so (natural viability) but I don't think many women actually try to get those either.

In some cases (like rape and/or incest) I think abortion as early as possible is the best choice all around. In all cases I think the ultimate decision should be that of the pregnant woman.

Now, where do we have common ground? If there is none then there's no point in talking (beyond virtue signalling).

Ireland has probably the most restrictive abortion law in Europe. Over 90% of the indigenous population of Ireland identifies itself as Catholic and yet 87% of those polled earlier this year, stated that they want to see our abortion laws reformed. That hardly sits very well with the image of the 'loonie lefties' and 'radical feminists'. It's ordinary, normal people who are pressing for these reforms, not nutters.

I doubt very much indeed whether you have the patience to read the following link, but one can live in hope I suppose. Here's the full report. The survey was conducted by one of Ireland's most highly respected pollsters.

redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/157316-%E2%80%93-Amnesty-International-Feb-2016-040316-Press-Release.pdf

Exactly, which is why the questions I posed in my earlier post need to be addressed, so the mother can decide what is in the best interests of her unborn child. Most important of all I would think is what sort of quality of life would the child have. And, no, the needs of the mother cannot be ignored either, this is something that will affect her for the rest of her life. That is the problem I have with the pro-life debate, it is talked about as if the child is some isolated entity, with no regard given to the mother at all.


Of course, otherwise how can she make an informed choice? But I think if a mother decides after hearing that grim truth, not to have that child, that should be her right. Most women who undergo abortions do not take it lightly, it is a horrible decision to have to make and painting women that do so as callous and evil is plain wrong.


No I don't. In the case of that particular woman though, I doubt very much that most women in her position who know they will give birth to a baby with severe birth defects and that the child will die soon after birth, would want that pregnancy to continue. To be forced to go through with it against their wishes though, is nothing short of barbaric.


I did read what you said, but it was not just a case of medical error. In my previous post, I mentioned that one of Ireland's leading obstetricians told the inquest it was highly likely the mother would have survived if an abortion had been granted when it was requested.


I think there is when a sympathetic government infuenced by pressure from the Church, could bring into law new legislation which will affect the lives of many women. All to no avail. Women will still undergo abortions as is the case with Irish women getting the Ryanair flights to the UK. It will just make it harder in Poland for those with no money.


I wasn't, but despite the links to the case, you refuse to see it as anything other than a medical blunder. It wasn't. I originally linked to that case to point out that the survival of that woman was highly likely if an abortion had been granted, but I notice you didn't comment on that. Maybe that statement didn't suit your pro-life views?


You are of course, entitled to your views, but I find it hard to believe that you could be so heartless as to agree that a mother should be forced to bring up her rapist's child. Would you advocate that for your wife ( if you are married ), sister, daughter?

the thing is , boys, is that draconian abortion laws will not make abortion go away, it will just drive it underground to be a business in the hands of evil filthy old men and women, using dirty tools and dodgy drugs .

they know that


they're fine with that, if they can't make women into brood mares, at least they have the satisfaction that they're suffering...

it certainly would appear so.
The pro-backstreet-abortion brigade always try to imply they are more moral, despite the fact they don't really care about the 'innocents' they claim to want to save. I don't see them queuing up in any great numbers to adopt, or offering any meaningful assistance to the parents of severely ill and disabled children. They present a very romanticised view of pregnancy, birth and parenting but turn a blind eye to the realities. The truth is they don't believe women are entitled to bodily autonomy and have no problem with forced birth. They must know that they can not completely eradicate abortion, it will just be forced underground and come with risks of serious injury and death. But they don't care about that either.

Who would have thought that, in an EU country, in 2016, back street abortionists would suddenly be a growth industry?

This is still all besides the point of course. Leftists are not advocates of abortion because they have any particular social hill in mind which might be amended by this practice. What we are seeing here is a clash between two different world views which are fundamentally opposed to one another, with one side claiming that human beings are nothing but biological machines who's life and destiny can certainly be determined and controlled rationally if not scientifically, like with everything else in nature, and another that contends there is something "more" to human existence or life in general, and that everything that exists must conform to laws and values the nature and object of which go well beyond that which is strictly and grossly utilitarian in a purely material sense. This "normalization" of abortion is bad precisely because it is predicated on a specific understanding of reality and the nature of life which contradicts any notion of the existence of values and laws of a transcendent kind. The issue is not whether it ought to be permissible to arrest the gestation of a child given certain situations. The issue is whether there is anything sacred about human life at all, and whether abortion ought to be seen as such a big deal to begin with, the answer being that it isn't, according to the average leftist.

The problem is that there is no consensus on the moral status of a 10 week old fetus. Nor is there likely to ever be. A rational approach is to leave this to individual conscience. But a certain segment of the population wants to force their particular judgements on the rest of society.

Note that many pro-choice people would never have an abortion and I don't know of anyone who wants to force women to abort (Chinese communists, yes, but I don't know any and they're irrelevant to the debate in Poland). The pro-choice side (my part of it) is happy to let the other side follow its conscience. The other side is not happy to let others exercise their own moral judgements.

If you're forcing it on people against their will, it aint' morality.

In other words the ongoing culture war -- pro-abortion or pro-life, holiday trees or Christmas trees, homo or normal, anti-clericalism or religious values, the patchwork or otherwise dysfunctional household v the traditonal family, PC jargon v the full, unembellished truth... The leftist-libertine side represents yet another revolutionary utopian view -- turn everything on its head and mankind will live happily ever after. Except that somewhat forgot to remind them that so far all utopias have failed: nazism, communism, eugenics, flower children, generation X, etc.

Why mother? In the Roman times it was father that could decide about fate of his children.
Seriously, do you think it is right to kill someone right off the bat just because you can? Just to save your self some grief later?


Because if she would kill her own child it would not affect her at all! She just shrug it off just like that!


Nobody forces mother to rare her child or to care for it. If she is not up for a task, she can give it up for adoption or whatnot! You're full of drama! :)


Some reverse psychology here, redundant. Killing children that cannot even defend themselves is wrong. Period.


No, killing children is wrong. Once you decide that you have right to kill someone because you can and it is convenient to you when does it stop? Next you know it could be you in that redundant human waste category that can be and should be easy discarded.


No, it is moral and human. You propose something that is clearly a backwoods backlash to the philosophy best emphasised by The Tarpeian Rock!


That the key word here. That what it all about! That case has been used to bring forgather laws that would grant people an abortion if requested.


Highly likely? Meaning, maybe maybe not.


That is your opinion.


That is not an argument, but a logical fallacy! Crimes are still being committed regardless of the laws. Should we abolish laws as they clearly do not prevent criminals from committing crimes?


My views have nothing against an aborcion if mother's life is in danger. The point is they didn't know that because they didn't take her complain seriously, saving money and all that.


Irrelevant!

The error of atheists is that they think consciousness begins with the receptacle. Not that the "consciousness" of the fetus has anything whatsoever to do with abortion being immoral. They are trying to refute the idea abortion is "murder" by trying to "prove" the the fetus is not a human being, except religion has never said anything about abortion being wrong because it is murder, only that it is wrong in and of itself. Its a question of vandalizing a process that is in conformity with a universal law, similar to homosexual marriage, racial mixing and the entire gamut of lefist or "progressivist" aberrations that define modern civilization, aberrations which stem from the moral relativism inherent in materialism and rationalism. After all, if there is no truth, who's to say what is "aberrant" and what isn't? All those attempts at trying to justify moral relativism with science is also a concrete example of how the latter is in itself incapable of dealing with questions of a universal or transcendent nature.

So why are religious people trying to force their specific religious morality on those who don't believe? No one seriously believes that abortion is murder anymore than they believe that spontaneous abortion (about 30 or so % of all fertilized eggs) represent infant deaths.

I'm perfectly fine with letting people decide on this issue based on their own moral judgements. You want to make other people follow your moral judgements.

Just more religious vomit and fairy tales trying to force people to it's will. Same as fpr 1000s of years.

Well, when a woman decides to have an abortion, it hurts the mother, as well as society. But not as much as the notion that people should just do whatever the hell they want, as if there was no such thing as morality, natural law and more importantly, divine law. And indeed, what many people object to in regards to abortion, and this is particularly true for Christians, is the inherently moral relativistic agenda underlying all pro-abortion arguments. The issue is not whether we should allow doctors to perform abortions on women under certain specific situations. The idea is to "normalize" the practice, to act like it is not a big deal, even though it pretty much damn is.

Do you think it is right to have a child who will have a very poor quality of life? One who might be in pain, brain damaged, perhaps unable to walk or talk?

I would not want to raise a child for it to go through life like that. That is not life, it is merely existence.
There would be grief no matter what. Do you think the decision to end that life is one easily made for the parent/s? They will never forget it.


Of course it would, but sometimes hard decisions have to be made. I also object to the use of the word 'kill' in the way that you are using it here, it is typical pro-lifers propaganda trying to make the mother feel as if she is some type of murderer when she has to make a decision that is tough enough to start with.

Good parents will always put the welfare of their child first. In a decision like this, those parents will be considering the sort of life that child would have, and if they feel there would be little quality of life, especially after listening to doctors who will also have a very good idea of how disabled a child is going to be, they are making the decision they feel will be in the best interests of their unborn child, so no, Iron, a mother is never going to forget the grief she will go through.


And you are doing exactly what I said!! Yes, adoption is one option, but who do you think would rear the child if the mother goes ahead with the pregnancy?

Children are not born in isolation, they are totally dependent on someone to look after them, and it is this that the Church ignores, as if women were nothing more than incubators. It is not me being 'dramatic', it is a fact, and so consideration has to be given to the mother's mental health. As for 'not being up for a task', if I had had to go through the trauma of rape, and then told I would have to have the child, no I would not 'be up for the task', and I'm sure many other women wouldn't be either. It is not a question of ' just get on with it dear, everything will be ok'.


Iron, I am not advocating anyone having their pregnancy terminated for convenience, no-one on this thread is advocating that. We are talking here about exceptional circumstances, which is why the law currently exists in the form that it does.


It is anything but and if you can't see that then we are having a pointless discussion. The baby did not even have a brain, there was no chance of survival, so what possible reason was there for the pregnancy to continue? For the satisfaction of those pro-lifers who clearly do not have the best interests of the child at heart in this particular case. If anything it is completely immoral to force a woman to go through that.


Meaning highly likely. That Doctor's opinion was required so that lessons could be learned from that tragedy to stop something similar happening again.


I think it's completely relevant seeing as though throughout this post you have said that killing children is wrong. I can take from your words then that if someone female in your family was unfortunate enough to be raped, you would want that person to have the child, regardless of your family member's feelings.

Plus, from the pro-lifer's point of view, if all abortion is wrong, how can you justify saving the mother's life over that of the child? One out of the three circumstances is acceptable to you, but the other two aren't?

If a given country introduced Jew-killing rights (or similar rights affecting any other nationality or ethnicity for that matter), the backers would say it is a pro-choice situation -- no-one is forcing anybody to kill Bolivians, Norwegians or whomever. But don't you think there are people who would not want to live in a country where such "rights" existed? That is how pro-lifers feel about prenatal baby-butchery. Legalising abortion means normativsing criminal behaviour.


A question that has yet to be broached here is the following: There are extreme childbirth situations in which the life of only one side an be saved: the mother or the about-to-be-born child, and let's add a fully normal child. Which should it be? I think I know how most PF-ers will respond, but let's see what you and others think about this and why.

And another issue: unless there's been a repeat of the Immaculate Conception, how can abortion be performed without the consent of the father?

Quite easily.....it is the woman's body and the woman's right to choose.

I have already broached this in my last answer to Ironside:-


He has yet to reply.

My own point of view is that the life of the mother should be saved. It is a terrible situation for the mother to be put in, but you have to consider all the circumstances. If that mother dies, what about the rest of her family, who is going to look after other children she may have? Maybe she is a widow and if she has no family to help, there is a real possibility her existing children may be placed for adoption and separated. The loss of the mother is going to have a far greater impact on her family than the loss of her child. This does not mean I am uncaring, and for the poor woman in such a desperate situation, she will never get over it either.

Doesn't really matter what I say though, to you all women who abort for whatever reason, are murderers. There is a reason why Poland has the laws it currently has, they cover extreme situations only. No-one is suggesting Poland returns to the days of Communism, when abortions were freely available.

I would like to ask all the male pro-lifers if they would be willing to look after a severely disabled child 24/7, or bring up a rapists child as their own, irrespective of the views of their wives. And yes, it is predominantly the mother who would be providing this care.

What does everyone think about the "no prenatal testing thing?" All of the doctors I know are strongly against banning it and are worried that Poland is going back to the dark ages.

It's clearly going to lead to more misery and suffering. However, as misery and suffering are things that make people vote PIS, the 18% regime are just fine with that.

so no pre natal scans? surely not? or are we talking about more invasive procedures?

Nothing that would identify if the fetus is ill, malformed etc. I just don't understand what is going on here anymore.