Abortion still under control in Poland

for abortions not to take place in a country with zero abortion hipocrisy it is enough for the doctors to be punishable for performing them - no need for women to be punished - and it is about saving precious lives and not about the need and urge to punish anybody

I still don't know your stance on when human life begins

you want to compromise on something you supposedly regard as murder?


beats me I'm not going to pretend to you, my gut feeling is that the beginning of human life is a process and not an event

conception, implantation, various stages of fetal development (with viability being a very important point), birth, post natal development.... IIRC human babies are born before they're really ready (in comparison with other animals) because of the size of the female pelvis.

My own feeling would not be about absolute moments and abortion regulations would be oriented around natural viability (the ability of the fetus to survive outside the mother naturally).

My proposal would be that abortion should be easy early on and harder later. But no one wants to discuss that.

what is a moral agent to you - is a freshly born infant a moral agent to you - does it have enough consciousness to make moral choices?

if it is not a moral agent according to some definitions why aren't we allowed to kill it - it can't live on its own, can it?


punishment for crimes should not be a vengance - it should have preventative value - to prevent people who are criminals from offending more also to prevent those who consider turning criminal from choosing that way - in case of abortion the threat of doctors to be punished is enough to save lives

Better to listen to the doctors. On medical matters, y'know...

oh doctors are infallible, no?

and what do the doctors say about when human life begins - you are clearly avoiding the issue

what do doctors have to say about an infant being a 'moral agent' - why can't we kill already born babies - can they live on their own?

Who's infallible? Nobody. Ever. On medical matters however they are a far better authority than clergy or conservative politicians.

I recently have heard a story about a doctor encouraging parents to have an abortion because the twins in question were not very developed - the parents decided otherwise and the mother gave birth to two healthy even if petite girls - that's how infallible doctors are

So what? If their doctor had said nothing they'd ended up with very damaged kids the story would be different. On medical matters, doctors are the experts, not clergy.

Anyway, I've got a strange pain in my leg so I'm off to see the vicar - maybe he can cure it.

you clearly don't understand the implications of what I said - and I never said clergy are the most competent on the issue - it just takes some thought

and of course you still avoid disclosing when you think human life starts

There aren't many at all.

Essentially, it's a woman's right to choose, as the women of Poland made very clear last week.

not in Poland according to the current law

Laws change. The abject failure of PIS attempts to turn the clock back suggest that in 20 years the law may well be very different. Right now, Polish women are happy to cross the border for medical procedures that are currently unavailable at home.

Children are no moral agents but they have a kind of protected status.

Birth is the rubicon upon which a fetus gains the rights of personhood, I'm willing to partially grant personhood rights to viable fetuses (that can survive naturally outside the womb) and make abortions at that stage difficult to acquire (only in cases of the mother's health being seriously threatened).

But I simply cannot understand the concept of embryos or fetuses in the first half or so of pregnancy as possessing personhood since they are essentially parasitic in nature and you can't grant them rights without grievously impinging on the rights of women.

why not unborn children then? because someone decided so? on what grounds?
as I said if a freshly born child is a person why not the child 10 hours before birth


are infants not parasitic - can they survive on their own?

Well during the labor process (which can last much longer than 10 hours) if a choice has to be made I'm in favor of choosing in favor of the woman. After birth no such choice is ever necessary.

And after 6 months or so I'm personally very against abortion except in cases where the mother's health is jeapordized.


Infants are socially parasitic not biologically. they're very good at convincing adults to take care of them but they don't requie a human host to breath for them (for example).

you cannot have an abortion at 6 months and even countries with relatively liberal abortion laws rightly legislate against this.
I suggest that if it is not done in the first trimester then (normally) the woman should go through with it and then be able to give the child up for adoption or foster care.

what difference does it make they can't survive on their own - why can't we kill them if they stand in our way?

btw you know that if someone intentionally hits a woman and causes miscarriage they face charges for killing a child

That's kind of a dumb law (and at what age of development?)


There's a difference between needing care (even lots of it) and needing to essentially feed off of someone else's body and life processes for survival.

probably in your mind only


why can't a pregnant woman go through the whole process in all cases (say except for when the pregnancy is a threat to the woman's life or health or in case of the pregnancy being a result of a rape) - and then give up the child for adoption if she doesn't feel like or can't raise the child

Yes, that's true. And even a world of difference between that and those very few desperately unfortunate babies who even if they weren't aborted as foetuses before delivery have only a few days or weeks of extreme pain and distress to look forward to before an agonising death.

But hey, maybe that's "part of God's plan".

And they say that those of us who would end those wretched lives painlessly and with dignity are the bad guys.

well IDK but that is how it used to be in the UK until relatively recently.(say 50 years)
I guess it is to do with the de-stigmatisation of single motherhood among other things.
It used to be that there were so many children born out of wedlock that special homes were created where they could be raised to do low class jobs, be abused and punished for their mother's "sins". I am not sure that was a good thing tbh.

When there is a constituional majorits, efforts will be made to enshrine in the constitution that the Republic of Poland protects human life from conception to natural death. That would rule out both abortion and euthanasia.

Rotsa ruck on that, your party has already destroyed the constitution and rule of law in favor of PRL style rule of party leader.

It's interesting that Polish TV doesn't even bother with Duda or Szydło and now just asks JK what's going to happen.


hey women, just do your job and have babies and if you're not good at it then just die (message from Polonius to women).

well that is easy for a single old man to say, after all it is the women who will do the work of looking after disabled children and elders, not you. YOU can spend your time drinking and manifesting your woman hatred, so have fun with that.

Most people now would say it was a very bad thing indeed. When looking back at the 'good old days' it's easy to forget that they were in fact very far from good for a lot of people.

he doesn't even hide it anymore.... they let him down by refusing to be on-demand baby delivering machines

I am not 100 per cent sure but Polish constitution seems to already have such articles


there is nothing in the constitution that says women SHOULD have children

Indeed, the good ol' days were good for average families, for youngsters who had male and female role models in their homes and for normal people in general, the overwhelming majority of society. They were not good for a fringe of pervs, advocates of dysfuncitonal households, anarchic "anything goes" types and other freaks and weirdos.

No such thing, Po, as you of all people should very well know.

Yes, I know -- divorces were rare, so was shacking up, complete nuclear families were the norm, families went to church together and did other things as a family. Atomisation had not yet occurred, and pop culture was not peddling long hair, cacophonic rock, drugs and freaky hippy stuff which the parents' generation would disapprove of. The tight-knit, integrated family was the norm. And guess what -- people left their cars unlocked, even with the windows rolled down and the only danger was a sudden downpour. I know -- I was there!