Abortion still under control in Poland

To pander to their own selfish goals, vanity or convenience. Wonder if there's a way to detect and "flush out" a pervert in the making?

No, a fact.


OK Miss Prissy have it your way - the laws that introduced abortion as a part of a state policy. Both genocidal leftie tyrants, and perverts.


No, the difference was that it was introduced as part of the package, revolution, no private property, women as public property, abortion as a part of a method to forge a new soviet man.

While other was a tool in an eugenic project to ensure that a superior healthy race can be breed.


Sure there were always ways to terminate pregnancy. As they're always were perverts and paedophiles or other vices and odd practises. Not to mention all that criminal world of underclass and prostitution.

We are talking about laws in the context of an abortion.
Your problem and problem of many people is that you cannot get your head around that old lie that the law that says that is OK and legal to kill a child is there for the good of a woman. That laws that legalise those practises are actually somehow beneficial and helpful to women. That is the biggest BS there is.

People who are promote those laws, don't give a rat ass for women or they good. Sad thing thought that due to their propaganda there are so many 'useful idiots', goodies two shoes who actually believe in all that crap.

Who are you to say what is benefitial to women? Why aren't we allowed to decide for ourselfs what is good for us? Why this constant 'saving women from the trauma' bs from the pro life side? Let them worry about themself and leave me alone.

It's one thing to say about saving the life from conception and quite another to sell the bs about helping women while in fact taking the right to decide away from them. Especially when you want to eradicate abortion even when the women life is in danger... oh yeah, real do gooders for women.

You Tell me?
That is an argument that I constantly hear that from the lefties. OH! but women gonna get hurt killing children if abortion won't be readily available. Oh they gonna relive trauma unless they'll be allowed to kill a child if that suits them. Boo! What a BS!

Make good choices in your life and probability that you will be faces with such a dilemma is statistically 0.000001! or next to nothing!


what with all that hysteria and crappy arguments? Decide all you want, you're living in a country that belongs culturally to the western civilization. Civilization that has granted so many privileges and right onto women that is unparalleled in a history of the world. Not to mention others civilizations. Yet, freedom doesn't mean one can act as she or he pleases in everything. There are limits and some of those boundaries are maped and regulated by the law.

Your 'arguments' make as much sense as cry that all laws or limits are impending personal freedom of an individual. Some are and some aren't!

In that case is not only about 'womin'! The shyt is serius! Why only women should have a say?


That is BS and you know it!


What are you even talking about? Don't bring stuff from outside our talk here on PF because that doesn't make sense.


The decision time in such a case is long pass if they look for the abortion clinic. Now they can face consequences of their choices or try to wriggle they way out of it.


I don't!
By the way you took it all wrong if you think that is my line of argument. My stance is simple - to kill an unborn child is a wrong thing to do. That all!

Pro-abortion people are talking about good for women or beneficial for women or necessary for women. Not I!

So deseases, genetic desorders and rape are the results of poor choices? Good to know.

Did you read what I wrote? What abortion clinics? We are talking about situation when the doctors say after tests: there is a problem we have to talk about (the pregnancy is dangerous to you, your baby doesn't have chances to survive...here are the options ) and letting her decide. And yes, she will have to face the consequences so she should also be the one to make the decision.

Thankfully she doesn't have to 'wriggle her way out' of anything...yet.


Maybe I did take it wrong but to me it seems that you wanted to say that giving a women the right to terminate the pregnancy even if it endangers her life is in no way beneficial to her no matter what she thinks about it.

Demagogic slogans not worth much. Get down from your soap box and talk to me using arguments if you know how.
--


You sure did take it wrong.

oh stop being such a patronising old twat Ironside, if you can. Yes Lenka knows how to argue and has made points that you have dismissed rather than addressing.

Old men telling women what to do with their bodies make me feel sick.

We all know that certain "concerned" members of PF are not really worried about the mother or the unborn child. It's all about their religion/ faith, and nothing else.

they do not give a f'uk about women and babies.

I think there are tpo many humans on the planet already competing for finate resources so if a lady thinks it's better not to bring another human in I am not going to argue.

You don't really know your history very well do you? Women had far greater freedom in the West a thousand years or fifteen hundred years ago than they had five hundred years ago. Christianity and its reinvention of the female ideal (and yay Christianity, I am soooo a Christian) robbed women of a good many freedoms they had previously enjoyed. For example Viking women had all the independence and freedoms enjoyed by twentieth century women, Irish women under the old Irish system had equal rights with men including the right to enter all professions open to men and served amongst other things a judges under the Brehon legal system.

Also Irony, Susan B Anthony et al are not 'early feminists'. They come very far down the line. The early feminists are women like Mary Wollstencraft. You could also say that some of the founders of the religious orders and the Abbesses of the great convents were also feminists. They managed to get out from under the patronage and control of men to a great extent and forge an independent existence at a time when Christian women were chattels of the men in their families. Also the later ones like Nano Nagle and Catherine McCauley went out into the world from their convents mixing hands on with the poorest and roughest people at a time when women of their class usually maintained a safe distance. Charity was ok as long as you sat at home and sewed garments for the poor or dropped a shilling in a begging bowl but women were not encouraged to involve themselves with the destitute. Those women who abandoned a comfortable middle class extistence to do so went against the social norms of the times as much as a woman who wanted to study science or smoke a cigarette in public.

So you are calling the 3 legal reasons for abortion a demagogic slogan? So how should I call these situations in which a women can have legal abortion without being accused of using demagogic slogans?

We are talking about existing abortion law (with 3 demagogic slogans as circumstances allowing it) vs new proposal making any abortion illegal (including when the women life is in danger) not about selfish, irresponsible women treating abortion as contraception (since they wouldn't be able to abort legally no matter under which law).

I'm calling your demagogic slogans for what they're. Probability that one of those cases actually become a reality is so low that were it a scientific formula we would call it an exception to the rule.

If a woman's life is in danger and there is no other way then by all means proceed, but that is the only acceptable exception. If you don't agree then I expect that you're for the capital punishment for most crimes, even petty, in favour of duels and such. If not then please do no come back with slogans and hypocrisy as you're clearly confused.


I respectfully suggest that it might have to do more with the liquids you imbibe than anything else, 'young woman'.
Just for the record, I don't care what women are doing with their bodies, I'm concerned about children they carry which are clearly not a part of their body.


I'm quite sure that you have no clue what you're talking about.
"
Also Irony, Susan B Anthony et al are not 'early feminists'. "
I don't care, that was only an example that even some radical feminists are not all that stupid.


Sure, jump a lake give a 'good' example. Oh no, you're a hypocrite too! you won't do it.


WTF that's suppose to mean? You're concerned about everything that doesn't cost you a dime! How many Muslim refuges have you installed your house already? eh?

Ironside FYI i do not drink. And as you know I am 51.
Dismissing a woman's arguments with suggestions that she is an alcoholic or comments about her age is just...sad.
I think you might be losing the plot tbh

Exactly what I said: people like you only care about a woman and her unborn child as long as the mother conforms to your religious belief system. The woman could've been raped or would be killed when going full term, or the fetus could be so severely disabled that it wouldn't survive - you would still insist that an abortion is a sin. It's all about your religion. That's only YOUR view though. If a woman decides to have an abortion, you can of course consider it to be a sin, but her decision is still non of your business.


Not that many here in the US...

Correct and my religion tells me it is a sin HOWEVER my religion also tells me it is a sin to judge others.
Everyone sins every day........Everyone ! Only Jesus lived a sinless life here on earth.
Over eating (gluttonous) is a sin too and since sin is sin why is this abortion sin being singled out ?
Thou shall not kill is a commandment but so is thou shall not covet they neighbors wife, thou shall or commit adultery or use the name of the Lord in vein.

Who wants to point fingers ?
Jesus knows a persons heart and it becomes a personal thing between the Lord and the Mother.....NOBODY ELSES BUSINESS !
It is not my job OR YOUR JOB to judge ........... it is the Lords job.


There are more Muslim refuges coming into America then all the rest of the other Nationalities put together.
They just don't go to know Homosexual cities like San Francisco.


How old ?
<Edited>

what you said make no sense.

No sun boy, it is about facts - killing children is wrong. If you believe in a sanctity of a human life. If you don't belief that all human life is sacred then I understand your point of view even if I don't agree with it. We're OK!

What I'm against are lies and manipulations that confuse bejeezus out of people. All that beneficial for women laws, women have right to decide about their bodies blah blah.... trauma for women so they have to kill an unborn child to feel better.. That is all garbage not arguments.

Again, it all boils down to the question how far you want to go. There are medical cases for example where the mother would face certain death if she would continue a pregnancy. Is it acceptable for you to kill the woman just to save a one week old conglomerate of cells? Who is worth more? That's an ethical problem. I know that you said that the above would be the only acceptable exception for you, but for many other conservative or fundamentalist Christians out there it is not. What about a girl who got raped by her own father? What about the pope telling people in some overpopulated, HIV ridden hellholes of Africa not to use condoms? It's an ethical dilemma and you will have to answer for yourself whether the lives of people or following your faith is more important to you.


Only to you and a handful of others here on PF, Iron. But that's okay.

So you're advocating that we should abolish all laws and let God sort it out?

I disagree, it is exactly what the battle is about at the moment, the proposed new laws to end abortion for those exceptional circumstances.


I think the only person who has mentioned this on the thread is our rabid preacher, Polonius.
As I said before I am not in favour of abortion on the grounds of carelessness with contraception.


In the case of a medical emergency, the child's life would be put above that of the mother in the proposed new laws, I fail to see how that is making no sense.

It doesn't matter whether this occurs rarely or not, that isn't the issue.

If the new laws are passed, it would mean that women would not be allowed to end an ectopic pregnancy for example. Ectopic pregnancies are quite common, about 1 in every 50 pregnancies, and can be life threatening. There is also no chance that an ectopic pregnancy will result in a live birth as the baby usually develops in the fallopian tube. Of course, if that fallopian tube ruptures there is a high chance the woman could bleed to death. Still think I am making no sense and that the child's life isn't being put before that of the mother?


In the case of a medical emergency under new laws, the life of the mother would be considered to be worth less than that of the child. I am not saying that doctors wouldn't try to save the mother's life too, but if push came to shove, the child's life is considered to be more important. No-one should have the right to make those sort of judgements regarding life and who should live or die.


I am not an expert, but I doubt that many women would want to continue with a pregnancy where it is known that the baby will be born with severe deformities and no chance of life, so yes, forcing a woman to endure that is what I consider to be unnecessary trauma. How many women do you think would want to put themselves willingly through that ordeal, and for what gain?



You might say that but I suspect that it has more to do with it than perhaps you might think. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are a practising Catholic? If so, you will have been taught that thou shalt not kill from a very young age. I think it would be very difficult for you to ignore what has been taught and your beliefs when debating this type of topic. And no, I don't mean this in a patronising way either.

More than anything I find the stance of the Church and that of pro-lifers, as ultimately selfish. The only thing that matters is the life of the child, regardless of what that life may be like. So what is your opinion on a severely disabled child probably spending it's entire life in an orphanage being passed over in favour of a healthy child? Adoption is the only option available to women who are forced to have their babies. I did some reading about this, and those children are rarely adopted, and when they are it is not by Polish families due to prohibitive costs associated with looking after a child with disabilities.

No, I told you that it all boil down to whether or not you believe that human life is sacred. Either you do or you don't.

If you do and have issues with my stance. It is you who have a problem. You're confused and inconsistent.
If you don't - we agree to disagree.
Religion doesn't enter into it. I'm not talking about God or religion. Let it sink in!


Well, said at the moment, step by step, a soft revolution. No thank you! No pasarn! lol.


I'm talking about logical consequences - not about who said what!


No one is advocating such a law. That is just a tool in a propaganda war. That is pure no-sense and I'm sorry but I'm really disappointed that you would buy into it.


Mistakes had been made and prenatal tests are far from prefect. What would they gain? - a peace of mind.


Is it? Sure, I believe that all human life is sacred and that might something to do with my upbringing. Apart from that I don't make any religious based argument or arguments based on religion and my stance is based on purely logical reasoning.

I find it funny to an extent that you fall back to the 'religion' argument a rebus. By all mean tell me how my logical arguments are not logical because my mind have been "contaminated" by a religious upbringing. (wasn't that religious thought) lol!

Good luck with that!


Well, that is debatable. I say that calling for 'aborting' the children that are not 100% healthy is a pure hypocrisy. what more once you decide that you can make such a decision, that is all goes down the hill. Somebody else would decide that kids that are not blue eyed children are a far game too. (eugenic)Why the poor or people on benfits should be given a break they are burden on a society and should be given a 'late abortion' treatment.

As I said, it all boil down to a simple choice - either you believe that human life is sacred or not.

If you do, it is not your call to say who is gonna die and who is gonna live.

Who told you that human life is sacred? That's right, the RCC. Back to square one, Iron.


Because I don't agree with the catholic doctrine?


Yup, but that doesn't mean that we cannot talk about it.

How did the big protest go today in Warsaw over this issue ?
Anyone hear ?

Very well apparently, there's some good footage on the Channel 4 website.

You mean abortion on request I presume?
Very unlikely to happen in Poland. In fact the " Save the Women " pro-choice group collected 250,000 signatures, far in excess of the 100,000 needed for parliament to debate their proposals, but their motion was immediately struck out. In contrast, the " Stop Abortion" pro-life group also collected in excess of the signatures, 450,000, which has triggered the current parliamentary debate, and their motion has been sent to a committee for further consideration.


But it isn't. If a change in the legislation does go ahead that is exactly what will happen.

Let's take ectopic pregnancy as an example. About half of those end naturally, but for the ones that don't, an operation is needed, usually a laparotomy is performed when the foetus develops in the fallopian tube. Under new laws, that operation would be denied, even though that foetus cannot reach full term. If a woman is denied the surgery to remove the foetus, then the almost inevitable consequence is that the fallopian tube will rupture, and the woman risks bleeding to death. It is a known medical emergency, and if the woman is lucky enough to escape with her life, then almost certainly she will lose her ovary and fallopian tube. That is just one example, don't get me started on pre-eclampsia.

So no Iron, it is not a tool in a propaganda war, the example I have given is a very real possibility, and is a very clear example of the child's life being put before that of the mother. How can you say it is not?


I'm really disappointed that you can't, or won't, see what I am talking about ;)


I'm actually quite staggered that you can say this!! So a woman forced to go through a pregnancy with a known outcome, severely disabled baby who will not live, would actually gain peace of mind from being forced to carry the baby full term? How do you figure that then? It is certainly not how that poor woman who gave birth in a Warsaw hospital felt was it? The one whose baby was born without a brain and severe deformities. In my opinion the last thing she would have had was peace of mind.


It's pretty hard not to, as it is only the religious on this thread who seem to be pro-life. TheOther made a valid point when he mentioned the RCC teachings in response to your talking about the sanctity of human life. I'm not suggesting that your mind has been 'contaminated' by a religious upbringing lol, only that maybe the teachings of the Church are more deeply ingrained than perhaps you realise.


I am not talking about minor disabilities here, but severe ones that would greatly affect the quality of life for a child, or those so disabled that they have been given no chance of life.


Neither is it that of the RCC.

And just to cheer you up a bit, here is a link to the all out strike by women which is going ahead on Monday to protest the proposed ban on abortion.

Enjoy ;)

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/polish-women-strike-abortion-laws-restrictions-changes-economy-a7339141.html

Who told you that is not? That is another BS from you. What matters is what you believe in as an adult. In this case you either do or you don't. That's all that matter here.

Hey, I protest I have nothing to do with you habit of running around in circles. That is your problem.


No, because you make no sense.


I don't know what will happen. We're talking about opinions here, not about legislations.
It means that I'm telling you my take on the issue. Other than that nothing much to tell. We can only debate future legislation after the fact not before.


I can say that is not because all you talking about is only a projection of your views. You cannot judge a book by its cover and you cannot express any meaningful opinion on a law before legislation process is completed.

Putting the child's life before that of the mother would be wrong and illogical as going against sanctity of life. If you really believe that anyone would support such a law you must have been brushing elbows with the wrong crowd.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody forces no one in Poland to have children. I fail to see the point of you bringing some pieces of an unrelated info up.


She'll know for certain that there was nothing she could do. That there were not a medical error at play and that she is not responsible for killing her own child. I would say that a real woman would be given a peace of mind after a mourning period.

On the other hand she could be a confused mess with a "modern" mind but then there is already too late and nothing would bring her mind back. Lost in action.

The real question you don't ask is what about a choice? what if a woman doesn't believe in sanctity of human life? What if she doesn't care? That is the real issue to tackle and very complex at that.


I don't care about her feelings. Sorry, but if she need to kill a child to "feel" better she shouldn't ask for my compassion.

My reasoning is purely logical and consistent. We all need to take a stand somewhere, embrace some belief (well those who matters). What does it matter? Sanctity of human life is a simple concept, easy to grasp with which your either agree or not, or either you share or not. Why Bring the Church into it? Because we share the same concept?

Hell, to be even I should bring in Lenin and Hitler and the 20th century eugenics. Asking where from you got that notion about abortion. Who is closer to your hearth Commies or the Nazis? maybe racists and so on and on ....you got the idea.

Those are childish games I dislike.
Make your argument if you can, if not give it up.


If there is one change on 1000 that those major disabilities are just a medial error and are not that major that it is in itself worth to be cautious and go easy with applying an 'abortion' as 'cure'.

Hell, you and the RCC are of the some mind. You got it right.


So? They have the right to express their views. The point is too many activist and politicians trying to get their interest going with their meaningless slogans. Hard on ears. On the other hand there were one or two women who made sense - talking about choice.

I'm always happy if there is a good argument to be had or a valid point to be made.

I don't understand why you are putting up a smoke screen here, Iron, and pretend that nothing of what you said has to do with your faith. That's simply not true, and you know it. Just have a look at what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had to say about the "Life and Dignity of the Human Person":

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/life-and-dignity-of-the-human-person.cfm

"The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred..."
"In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia."

This is exactly your position in this whole discussion.

Why are you debating with someone whose sole tactic is repeating "I'm right and you're stupid!"?
Debating a sack of grapefruit would be a more productive use of time.

I'm not. I only say that it doesn't matter. You insists it does. Would you care to explain why according t o you it does?


No the point of this discussion is to make our position clear. You told me that you don't believe in SOHF. Fair enough, we agree to disagree. What is a matter?


Would you kindly FO from Chemikiem? She is one of those rare posters on PF that doesn't take debates personally and actually is making a good argument and is a joy to debate with.

Jealous? Take a hike!


Never said that you're stupid maff. You're one of these people who actually have a brain but hesitate to use it.


Hey your 'debate' with Polonius is like a kindergarten play - you say your part and no, no, no to all P say and he is doing the same, it is so boring, I don't see nothing interesting in repeating the same argument over and over again in more innovative ways.

Your defence of PO boils down to two points - either you have a vested interest in them.(or)
Your limited knowledge of Poland and the lingo lead you to a conclusion that somehow PO is a liberal force in Poland.
If that is the former you are a hypocrite, if that is the latter you're a fool. I personally don't care either way.

Funny that you care enough (while refusing to debate me, and considering that I by the large leave you alone on this forum) to barge into somebody else convo that has nothing to do with you, in such a low demining manner just to insidiously try to insult me.

I would say maf that that indicate a very serious flaw in your character, you sneak.
Is that a cry for attention, perhaps? I might be able to help you with that.

I cannot say whether that law will be passed or not, my personal feeling is that it won't be, but if it is, the writing is on the wall. All abortion for whatever reason will be banned. Therefore an operation to remove the foetus in an ectopic pregnancy would be banned, and the lives of women would be put at risk. That is not my opinion, that will be a fact, and it is why all these demonstrations are taking place.


The case I linked to earlier about the woman who gave birth to a severely deformed baby without a brain. The baby died a couple of days after it was born.



Not sure whether you read the link I supplied before concerning this woman, but I will outline the case, and prove that this woman was indeed forced to have her baby, and that her child's life was put before that of herself.

The woman concerned after being told by her own doctor that her child would be born severely deformed, contacted a doctor, Bogdan Chazan, requesting an abortion. He refused on the grounds of a conflict of conscience. Now in Polish law there is some leeway for this, but the law also requires the doctor to direct the patient to a doctor who will perform the termination. Instead of doing this, according to the subsequent inquiry after his sacking, he also failed to inform the woman that abortion would be illegal after 24 weeks, and ordered unnecessary tests which made the woman miss that deadline.

He was fired from his position by the Mayor of Warsaw.

I can understand the conflict of conscience and his not wanting to perform the abortion, but no-one was forcing him to do that against his will.

What he did was to force his will upon her, his deliberate actions ensuring that abortion would be an impossibility after that deadline was missed. So yes, Iron, she was indeed forced through total lack of options to have that baby, and that doctor certainly put her child's life above that of her mother.

That doctor was playing god when he has no right to do so.
Additionally, that child took 2 days to die, a prolonged death, but that's unimportant so long as it was born in the first place, right? Unnecessary suffering for both child and mother.

world.wng.org/2014/08/the_doctor_who_refused_to_abort

It also brings into play whether people in his position should really be doing that job. If he felt due to his faith that he could not perform an abortion, then clearly gynaecology was the wrong specialisation for him to have taken. He signed the Hippocratic Oath, part of which states that, " above all, I must not play at God ", yet that was exactly what he did.

Incidentally, the RCC condemned his dismissal.


It is, but that sanctity of life doesn't seem to extend to the mother in the same way that it does to the child and it is this I have issue with.


I understand what you are saying, but doctors know through scans etc when a child is going to be born severely disabled these days, they would not want to give a mother false hope and wrong information. Their knowledge comes from data not guesswork.


If he thought I was stupid he wouldn't say


even if he doesn't always agree with what I say.


Some of what I write is sinking in then ;)


Thank you!!