Abortion still under control in Poland

Any procedure which involves any risk whatsoever of miscarriage will be impossible to carry out, as if that risk does become reality, a crime will have been committed. This is going to mean more pain, more suffering and more misery; conditions that can be detected and treated in the womb will go undetected.

OK so that mean amniocentisis.
Scans would still be allowed but if anything wrong is spotted then there can be no further investigation?
that is my understanding of it.

Isn't that biased, hurray-for-our-side sexism? How can the father who instilled the seed of life be so discriminated against and marginalised with a decision taken behind his back?

Incidentally, do you also suppoort post-birth abortion. A normal, well-developed, healthy child is born and then it gets hacked to pieces.

Boy that's an.... interesting example, you sure are obsessed with the idea of killing Jews....

Anyhoo, please give examples of countries making similar laws and we'll talk. Absent that, it's a stupid, irrelevant example.

The question is, at what stage of development do fetuses obtain moral status that those who are born.

For me, that might be around natural viability (the age the fetus can survive outside the mother without massive medical intervention).

If you accept that a fetus acquires full moral status at conception then you have to reconcile yourself with the thought that God loves killing babies since about 30% of all conceptions spontaneously abort (result in miscarriages).

As far as I'm aware, anything (scan, treatment, whatever) which has zero risk of causing a miscarriage will be possible but any action which has even the tiniest risk of resulting in a miscarriage will be impossible due to the fact that a crime will have been committed if that risk becomes reality.

It will also become a criminal offense to have a IUD (as they prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb and under the new law life begins at the moment an egg is fertilised). I'm not sure how PIS plan to prosecute the hundreds of thousands of Polish women who have an IUD; perhaps the doctors who until now have refused to fit IUDs will provide to prosecutors the names of the women they refused

to provide treatment to and those women will have to be inspected to see if they are breaking Polish law.

And all forms of emergency contraception also become illegal due to the same issue as with the IUD. So, if you get raped, you won't even to able to ensure that you don't get pregnant.


He's most welcome to have the ball of cells implanted in his body so it can suck his blood.

Typical ignorant blasphemy. Who said God intervenes in every natrural process on earth? It's like the ignorant blasphemers who said: where was God when the holocaust occurred? He was watching as his children misguidedly exercised their free will. Free will is the core and essence of Christianity.

Again PiS? ( One would really have to be a lazy bstard to forgo the lower-case "i" and type PIS!) The governemtn wants the existing compromose abortion law to continue. It enjoys majrotiy support in Polish society. There were tow citizens' drafts: one to introduce a total ban and another to allow wholesale prenatal baby-butchery on a whim. The latter was so outrageous that it was rejected outright. The former was sent to committee for further study, but when it comes to a vote, PiS will vote against it. Reintroducing the abortion debate is but another way of delaying parliamentary work just as calling for no-confidecne votes in successive ministers which are doomed to failure for lack of votes. But for the poor losers anything to undermine and harm the PiS government is fine. Even when it harms Poland, as the snitchery and calls for sanctions and ratings downgrades have. They don't harm the government, but the country as a whole by scaring away investors.


Indeed, because Catholicism is not relativism. It's you're gang of anything-goes libertines that say: if it feels good, if it's convneient, then go for it! Morality and ethics are outdated concepts.

But no matter what fancy euphemism you use like "termination of pregnancy", "induced miscarriage", "pro-choice", "planned parenthood", bla-bla-bla, the fact is that burgeoning life is hacked to pieces or has its skull crushed and brain sucked out by suction pump or they even wait till the baby is born and then go to work on it.

Then God designed a process that kills about 30 % or so of all babies conceived. That's....... love?????

So you believe God intervenes in everything that happens on earth. He lets a lion devour a baby antelope and a fox kill a cute little rabbit. That is nature. Nature takes its own course. There are some people, like Amreica's creationists who take the Bible literally and believe God is personally repsonsible for everything that happens, but that is not the Cathlolic view. JPII clearly pointed out that faith and science complement one another rather than being at loggerheads. Evolution does not rule out the existence of a spiritual dimension.

I believe no such thing.

But in your view he created everything, including a reproduction process that results in a 30% failure rate.... (in which a third of all "babies" conceived die, usually before their mothers are aware of their existence). If you can square that with the idea of aborting a 7 weak old fetus being "murder" then your mental gymnastics top anything I can come up with...

Who said anything about a decision being taken behind the father's back?
I'm sure it would be discussed with the father and hopefully both can come to a decision the pair of them are happy with, but ultimately it will be the mother who has to carry and give birth to the baby, and do the lions share of looking after it. Sorry, but that makes it her decision in my book. Her body, her choice.

He created everything, including a world in which lions devour zebras if they can catch them. Perhaps He created the world without an "in which something or other was pre-programmed to occur (using Gates IT-jabber)". Perhaps he created a world and let things take their normal course: including dinosaurs destroyed by a meteor, evolution developed the way it did and occasionally animals and human are born deformed.

Are you a theologian? If you were you'd know that there are mysteries of the faith which no mere mortal can ever hope to understand in this life. And that includes why miscarriages occur (according to your claim) in 30% of the cases, but how do you know it's not 23.7% or 52.1%?

Since miscarriages don't seem to bother god, then why would very early term abortions?

And why should a particular, narrow, religious view prevail when the topic is one that there is no general consensus. I'm fine with people trying to convince people to not have abortions, but getting self righteous about forcing particularly religious views into civil law where it affects people who don't follow that particular relgion is a bit much. Very anti-western and anti-civilization.

No-one knows what bothers or doesn't bother God. But the Jew and Christian do have a code of behaviour to foillow, the Decalogue, which says "thou shalt not kill" without ifs, ands, buts or other disclaimers. People received the key to salvation but what they do with it is their own free will. Actually, the only ones truly following it were those like JP2 who opposed abortion, euthanasia, capita lpunishment and war. Lesser mortals say they oppose killing but......try to find loopholes and extenuating circumstances: just a cluster of cells, wars have been waged since time immemorial, putting someone out of their misery is OK, brutal crimes should lead to the death penalty as a deterrent...etc,. etc. ad nauseam.

No one knows if there is a God of not... God is not a justification for civil law. Theft and murder are violations in essentially all ethical systems, abortion.... not so much.

Abortion is the snuffing out of a human life, all your fancy euphemisms notwithstanding. Legalising abortion only panders to the oligarchs of the multi-billion-dollar arbortion industry and teaches impunity, not responsibility. Fornicate or commit adultery to your heart's content because you can always get yourself a scrape job! A great example to young people, eh?

That's exactly what people don't agree upon. A fetus has human dna and is alive (if completely dependent on another) but a fetus's existence is not really "human life" as many or most people understand.

And a blanket ban on abortions will also snuff out some human lives,

thinkprogress.org/11-year-old-chilean-rape-victims-health-is-in-danger-because-she-can-t-get-an-abortion-b101ae85901b#.gxu3qtek7


Old guy yells at cloud!

We get it, Polly. You're furious that not everyone is a repressed sexophobe like you. Get over it.

If you're so against abortion, then don't have one! Work (non-abusively) to convince other people to not have them. But don't cram your religion up the birth canals of women who don't share it.

Not one person on this thread has suggested that abortion should be used as a method of birth control, I thought the discussion was centered around the current and proposed new laws in Poland.

You do yourself absolutely no favours by banging on the way that you do, you come across as some mad old preacher tbh..

I really hate seeing dirty old men trying to tell girls what to do.

Meanwhile other countries are advancing such medical procedures as fetal surgery, while Poland is moving swiftly backwards because of blinkered fools.

As a matter of fact Poland leads in foetal surgery since that is a life-enhancing procedure, not the destruciton of life.

Polly what's the source of your claim that Poland leads in foetal surgery? America leads in this procedure and it's hardly known in Europe. The Americans trained the physicians in the few European centres where it's peformed and although Poland has expressed an interest they are only novices, certainly not leaders in the field. Spain and Switzerland are the European leaders in the field.

How clever of the 18% regime to kill off yet another area in which Poland led the world. Once their new abortion law comes into effect, all foetal surgery will be impossible. That's because all of such surgery involves some risk of miscarriage and under the new law causing a miscarriage will be equal to foetal murder.

Except that, much to your evil-wishing chagrin, no new abortion law will come into effect. PiS and most of the Polish nation favour retaining the compromise abortion law which has served the country well.

That is a moral dilemma right there. Once you gonna decide on someone else behave what constitutes a good quality of life or the very right to existence you, where does it stop! Euthanasia, Nazism, Pol-Pot, Stalin all those deeds that hide behind those names and sounds are based on an assumption, on that leap that you're making right there, that you know better and that gives you the right to deicide about matters of life and death.

A fact that you're driven by a good intentions. What you would term the best intention, doesn't change a thing!
In short is not your call unless you can bring dead to life.
That utilitarian arrogance is a nothing new. It has been know to our pagan ancestors, to the ancient Romans and Greeks as well. In fact it is not an alien idea in many parts of the glob. Where the influence of the Christian civilization had has only left a very superficial markings.

A moral superiority of the European civilization had been confirmed by its global, historical success. Technological and material wealth came only as a distant second.

Our civilization by gradually loosing its moral standards. By turning its back on them, is on a good way to lose itself.
A sad part is that some people (even on this forum) would say that is a good thing. Fools!


Don't do it of you're not up for it! No one is telling you to do what you cannot do. Doesn't necessary means that you have to kill such a child.


Hard and convenient, not hard and moral.


I'm sure you do. I call a spade a spade. Notice that I have no objected to you talking about an 'abortion' or whatever other euphemism you chose to adopt. That your choice and your views which I respect. Yet I hold an opposite position on the issue and I will use those terms that best stress my views.


Since when feelings justify murder? By the way - what mother? Ex-mother? That's a conundrum.
If a woman in question doesn't believe that she is carrying a child but some inanimate object a bundle of cells for example, shouldn't be swayed or upset by what others say. Simple!

I wouldn't even stop her from doing what she does. I don't understand why people are sometimes blocking those places that're killing children and for same reason are called clinics.

Each person responsible for his own deeds. Hence if the hypothetical person in question would be sure that she is in the right, what's the harm in listening to opinions that differ?


I just can hear that convo.
"Listen sweetie we cannot afford to give you a life you clearly deserve. Setting for less wouldn't be fair on you - the best solution you have to go. That is for the best, we're doing that only for you!"

Come on!


There is no shame in that. If you can't you can't. No-one would wish to force a child conceived in such a circumstances on a mother. The emphasis is not on questioning the 'ability' of a mother, nor her fitness to be a mother so to speak. That is not about that all women competition deal that often looks like a pretending game.

That is a deadly serious issue of the life and death.
Rapist should be hanged for all I care. A rape is wrong. Killing children is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make it right. Period.

On the issue of children as a result of a rape. That is a standard leftie counterfeited currency they try to circulate. I don't remember exactly how many pregnancies as a result of a rape are out there but those numbers I have checked some time ago were negligible numbers. It is very rare occurrence. Same pertain to children with crippling or life threating disabilities.

What I mean to say, why talk about that?
Let's assume for the sake of our debate that I would agree that killing children would be OK:
if mother's life would be in danger
if pregnancy would be result of rape
Would you conceded to a law stipulating also - No 'abortion' for any other reason?


Surly even in such exceptional circumstances there is no need for an 'abortion'. There're other less radical solutions. In the age that have more understanding for the most vile murder than their victim/s, that instead of eradicating criminals aims at excusing them, such a radical approach to unborn children seems unduly harsh in my opinion.


Well, no machine or doctor is prefect, there were mistakes made in that matter. Chillingly often. If the child die anyway - what's the harm?


I doubt that many people who derive a satisfaction from a misery of others would care at all for unborn children!


Really? Preventing a child from being born is completely moral. Its for its own good. What morality we are talking about?
Hypocrisy?


His educated guess. He is not a prophet and couldn't guarantee of the outcome. Is pretty irrelevant in relation to the past events, flaming even. What happened was simple - she complained, they ignorant it. She lost her life. Would they run complex medical check up on her the outcome might have been different. Did they requested such a check up? I don't know.


What lesson? If a woman complaining about some problems and demands an 'abortion' - medical stuff should be automatically required to do that? That practically an unrestricted abortion. Disgusting!

Or - run complex tests? Lesson learned. Good!


Sure, I'm not a hypocrite.


I would rather call myself someone who 'understand' rather than pro-lifer.
I understand that unborn child is not only a bundle of cells. That is a fact, that has nothing to do with Church, religion or whatnot! Some people don't get it some don't care.

That fact has it's consequences this time that has all to do with a religion and morality. If you believe that - do not kill - is something you're on board with, you cannot condone killing children.

Meaning voting for those people who would amend laws - its simple really.

To address your question. The difference is in the aim of the doctors, in their intention. They aim to save mother's life not to kill a child if in the process of saving her life, child dies that too bad.

If that were me, I would base that decision on information from the doctor. These days they have a very good idea of how disabled the child will be based on scans etc. It would not be a decision taken lightly.


That is the question. I do not think a severely brain damaged child who perhaps will never be able to walk or talk, will have a good quality of life. Not life as I see it anyway.


I am not presuming anything, but if I consider my unborn child will have a very poor quality of life, then it is my decision and I would have to live with that.

I am not advocating abortion on the grounds of being careless with contraception. If I wanted to turn the tables I could equally say what gives you the right to inflict a lifetime of pain and suffering on the child? As well as the parents I might add.


No, it could be put up for adoption instead. What chance do you think a severely disabled child will have of finding a home? Close to zero I would think as the child is overlooked for a healthy baby. So a lifetime of living in an orphanage where that child will probably will not receive the best of care or attention is preferable to you? I don't know what Polish orphanages are like, but I do hope they are nothing like Romanian ones.


How can you come up with that answer in response to " Good parents will always put the welfare of the child first"?
I was not for one moment thinking of monetary cost if that is what you meant. I am talking about a severely disabled child Iron, no need to be flippant about it.


But when I asked you if you would want a member of your own family to have a child that was conceived as a result of a rape, you said


Wanting and forcing are of course not the same thing, but from that answer, I would infer that you would do your best to persuade your family member that the child has a right to life, rapist or not for a father. Anything else would be murder would it not?


Yes, both are exceptional circumstances, but that is what the law is there for, to take account of these situations no matter how common or uncommon they are.


You omitted severe abnormalities. If you meant to not include that, then my answer would have to be no I wouldn't. As it stands I think the 3 situations on which abortions are granted are enough.


Such as? I have already discussed adoption.
Iron, you are like the rest of the pro-lifers, putting the life of the child above that of the mother no matter what. Who gives you the right to say that a woman should have to give birth to her rapist's baby or a child so disabled that it has no chance of life once it is born? Why should the life of the mother be worth less than that of the child? No-one has the right to make those judgements.


Possibly the unnecessary mental trauma that poor woman went through being forced to carry a baby that she knew would die?


Which was still 'highly likely', meaning chances are, she probably would have survived.


Problems? She was dying for god's sake!


Of course I don't condone killing children, but I cannot look at it the way you do. I am not Catholic, religious even, so we are going to see things very differently.


OK, I can understand that.

We are not going to agree on this I'm afraid, it is a subject that forever we could go round and round in circles on.

Yes, on medical matters a doctor is certainly a more appropriate authority than anyone else.


Indeed. Supremely selfish.


Remember religious people are usually convinced they're right no matter what. Until it happens to them of course...

Sure, that was clear to me from the start. We're not talking to agree or to convince one another to our point of view but to exchange our opinions.


I think that life is better than death.


Me? Nothing. I don't have that power. I just think that people don't have the right to kill children just because they can or because law says that is all right for them to do that

As I said two wrongs doesn't make it right. The only justifiable kill is in a self-defence.


You clearly got this right.


Regardless what you think those exceptional circumstances are not what the battle is all about. Its about promotion of 'abortion' on request, as that is the end game of the neo-Marxist and these other radicals, you know - scared of crowds.

Once you say that there're exceptions in a protection of the sanctity of the human life. Floodgates are open to different interpretations. Moral guidance need to be clear and to the point. Free of ambiguity - either all the human life is protected and sacred or not.


Nope, no one is doing that as far as I know. You make no sense.


Do I need a special permission to express my opinion on a very important matter or any matter at all? I don't think so. Maybe in the North Korea that is the case.


Again, you make no sense. You sound as if a mother would slathered in some strange ritual after delivering a child. I assure you that it is no what I have in mind. Never heard about such a practise. Needless to say the Spanish Inquisition has nothing to do with it either.


Unnecessary? What makes you an expert on what is necessary and what is not? You could have at least add - in my opinion.


It is immaterial as in fact they failed to run medical tests. You seem to be in denial in that case as to the reality.


Sure you do and that has nothing to do with religion. Once again as you most likely skipped that part. Religion has nothing to do in my assessment whether or not an unborn child is a child or not.

Religion came into it only as a moral guidance about sanctity of the human life. If you don't share that view on the sanctity of the human life then I understand your stance even if I don't agree with it.

If, however, you agree that human life is sacred and yet you advocate 'an abortion' for whatever reason bar saving its mother's life. You inadvertently condone killing children and your stance cannot be defended. Its lack consistency and logic.


You're being absurd.

By the way - "The early leaders of the feminist movement were against abortion.

The radical feminist Susan B. Anthony referred to abortion as "child murder" and viewed it as a means of exploiting both women and children."

"Alice Paul, who drafted the original version of the Equal Rights Amendment, referred to abortion as "the ultimate exploitation of women.""

Abortion - First introduced by Lenin, followed closely by Hitler.

That's bollocks. There were always ways for women to abort even including herbs. No one 'introduced' it because it was always there. The difference was that the methods were not as reliable and more dangerous.

You are free to have your opinion but talking about abortion as something that appeared only in recent times is simply wrong.

This is true. Women have been using Pennyroyal and Ergot for centuries to flush out foetuses and both are still used in countries with primitive laws on terminating pregnancies. Both can be very dangerous yet still women are prepared to risk that.

It would be a tragedy if that returned to Poland.