The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 1,721

Abortion still under control in Poland


Chemikiem 7 | 2,509
11 Oct 2016 #1,291
I don't get what you try to say here Chemikiem.

I was simply trying to point out in response to your statement, " Either we agree that society has the right to dispose/kill a human being or not ", why that should be limited to abortion. I'm not going to go too much into this as I don't want to drag the thread off topic, but if the situation is as simple as you want it to be from your statement, a yes/no answer, then surely for example, the right to kill in self defense should be brought into question when considering extenuating circumstances. You would have to apply that yes/no answer equally to all situations where life is at stake, not just abortion.

if such a pregnancy would be a threat to the mother's life than of course she would be given a choice in that matter.

Honestly Chemikiem it is so obvious

I don't know why you cannot see that this would not have been the case if the new laws had been implemented. The mother would not have had a choice.

I can't make it any simpler other than to quote this doctor:-

"If I have a 32-week pregnant patient with pre-eclampsia, I have to wait for her and her child to start dying before I can take action," explained Professor Romuald Dębski during a debate in Parliament last April. "If there is an ectopic pregnancy and bleeding, I can perform a termination. But if there is no bleeding - no immediate risk to life - I have to wait until she starts dying."

amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/09/a-dangerous-backward-step-for-women-and-girls-in-poland
Englishman 2 | 278
11 Oct 2016 #1,292
so foetus is not alive then yes?

No, the foetus is not alive until it has developed sufficiently to live independently from the mother. Until then, it's part of her body, so she should be able to decide what happens to it.

not bothered by beliefs of women - I am only against allowing them to have abortion except a few kinds of cases

A key difference between us is that I'm very much bothered about women's beliefs. I believe in respecting their right to choose and am against imposing my will, or anyone else's, on women.

Is that controversial? I hope not.
Harry
11 Oct 2016 #1,293
Following complaints from Solidarnosc and ONR about the Black Protest, the prosecutor in Gdansk is demanding to know who organised the protest. The Internet has reacted in an epic way:

secure.avaaz.org/pl/petition/Prokuratura_Okregowa_w_Gdansku_Prokuratura_Krajowa_Prokurator_Generalny_Uprzejmie_donosze_ze_organizowalamem_Czarny_Prot/?cvvylab

Rough translation of letter to the prosecutor: I inform you that I, along with the people who have signed this petition, organized Black Monday in Warsaw and elsewhere, which is or becomes a target of the prosecutor's office.
Ironside 50 | 10,940
14 Oct 2016 #1,294
Prove that fetuses are children by a list of non-genetic features.

Would brain weaves count or a heart bet?

A possible boundary - needing another's life processes to exist.

So people on a life support are not humans anymore, we can harvest them for parts? eh?

why that should be limited to abortion.

It stands to reason that the right self -defence would be the only exception. Do you really question that?

don't know why you cannot see that this would not have been the case if the new laws had been implemented.

For a very simple reason IO know what was in that law because I can read it. In case of pre-eclampsia nothing of the sort would have happened and mother's life would be fully protected.

Romuald Dębski

Who is not a lawyer by any stretch of imagination and who has a vested interest in defending status quo. To put it simple that dude was lying. It possible that our good doctor is unable to read a considerably simple text with comprehension.
jon357 66 | 17,078
14 Oct 2016 #1,296
Kittenkotku, that's pure poetry.
jon357 66 | 17,078
15 Oct 2016 #1,298
Indeed, kitten. Basically an unscientific view of abortion.
Chemikiem 7 | 2,509
15 Oct 2016 #1,299
It stands to reason that the right self -defence would be the only exception.

Of course I wouldn't expect anyone to not try and protect themselves if lives are at risk, but you were talking about the sanctity of human life - Thou shalt not kill, and your comment " Either we agree that society has the right to dispose/kill a human being or not ". I was pointing out that if you agree with that statement, and it's a simple yes/no answer, you have to apply it to everyone and all situations, no matter the extenuating circumstances. You cannot apply it just to the life of the unborn child. Iron, when we were debating gun ownership, your opinion was that you should have the right to shoot someone who had broken into your home, so how can you talk about the sanctity of human life when you would be perfectly willing to take one? That is double standards.

Plus, to all intents and purposes, a woman with a high risk pregnancy e.g pre-eclampsia, is every bit at risk from dying as much as someone in a self defence situation, because as long as there is a foetal heartbeat, no intervention under new laws would have been allowed until she was bleeding to death. That is a threat to the woman's life.

In case of pre-eclampsia nothing of the sort would have happened and mother's life would be fully protected.

Please explain how if a woman has pre-eclampsia and it is a threat to her life, how the woman would be protected if the doctor is banned from removing the foetus? Removal of the foetus is the only cure for pre-eclampsia.

Who is not a lawyer

Why would he need to be a lawyer? If abortion had been banned completely under any circumstance, it stands to reason what the implications of that decision would be for pregnant women.

Romauld Dębski has the title of Head of Gynaecology and Obstetrics at Bielanski hospital, Warsaw. As someone in charge of that department, it would have been his business to know exactly how a change in the abortion laws would affect him and his team on a professional level, and hence what would and would not be allowed, so why would you think he was lying in the statement he made? Are you questioning his professionalism and knowledge?
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
15 Oct 2016 #1,300
apply it to everyone and all situations

And you know who opposed killing in any form: JP2. He condemned abortion, ethanasia, the death penalty and war. Ordinary people usually find some exception that fits their world view and say things like "I oppose capital punishment, but abortion is OK!"
mafketis 24 | 9,387
15 Oct 2016 #1,301
And you know who opposed killing in any form

Including self-defense?
Harry
15 Oct 2016 #1,302
Removal of the foetus is the only cure for pre-eclampsia.

As Po and IS can tell you, the other cure is being male, which is why they can put their principles before any problems.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
15 Oct 2016 #1,303
the other cure

There are some people so revolting/disgusting that even pro-lifers would make an exception to have them scraped out.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
15 Oct 2016 #1,304
Including self-defense?

That aspect to my knowledge was never raised.
mafketis 24 | 9,387
15 Oct 2016 #1,305
So when you wrote that JP was opposed to killing in any form, you were..... less than entirely accurate.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446
15 Oct 2016 #1,306
A pettifogger and nitpicker could phrase it that way if he was desperate to blame someone. In actuality, it never even crossed my mind.
Dreamergirl 4 | 276
15 Oct 2016 #1,307
It's a woman's right to decide if she has a baby or not.
Chemikiem 7 | 2,509
15 Oct 2016 #1,308
find some exception that fits their world view and say things like "I oppose capital punishment, but abortion is OK!"

That is the point I am trying to make with Ironside's statement. If a person believes absolutely in the sanctity of life then that person cannot justify capital punishment or abortion. Exceptions cannot be made for one and not the other. Of course real life is not that simple.
jon357 66 | 17,078
15 Oct 2016 #1,309
That's right - yours.

And most scientists, doctors, nurses...
Ironside 50 | 10,940
15 Oct 2016 #1,310
if you agree with that statement, and it's a simple yes/no answer, you have to apply it to everyone and all situations

You're right of course if you take that sentence out of context. I wrote that sentence trying to make it all simple and clear to you. I guess I should have asked instead - do you Chemikiem believe in the sanctity of human life?

To answer your question.
Not really. There are extenuating cinrcimctenses even if we believe in a sanctity of human. Those circumstances pertain in a one way or other to the issue of self -defence.

You cannot apply it just to the life of the unborn child.

I don't apply it just to the life of the unborn child. I apply it to all the people, except for those whose action put them outside the sphere of protection due to the natural law of self - defence.

That is double standards.

No double standards.

has pre-eclampsia and it is a threat to her life, how the woman would be protected if the doctor is banned from removing the foetus?

Geez, how many times........ OK!
Won't be banned or wouldn't be banned OK? That is a lie or manipulation.

it is a threat to her life

and health and health.

Why would he need to be a lawyer?

I was being kind to him. Maybe he is not a lair but an idiot.

so why would you think he was lying in the statement he made? Are you questioning his professionalism and knowledge?

I question his motivations

And most scientists, doctors, nurses...

Don't be silly, lefties are far removed from science and reason, they use only slogans and BS.

which is why they can put their principles before any problems.

Talking about yourself Harry?
Chemikiem 7 | 2,509
16 Oct 2016 #1,311
do you Chemikiem believe in the sanctity of human life?

I can't answer that in the way you want me to, because my feelings on this are that it is not that simple a question. As I explained, you would have to apply that yes/no answer to every life threatening situation for consistency.

I don't believe in the death penalty, nor do I believe that people should be armed as it just makes it far easier to take a life.

I don't believe abortion should be used as a means of contraception, but neither do I believe that women should be forced to have a severely disabled baby, a rapist's child or worse, a child born out of incest.

If a choice has to be made in a medical emergency, I believe the mother should be saved.

There are extenuating cinrcimctenses even if we believe in a sanctity of human

There always are and that is precisely my point.

That is a lie or manipulation.

How? I know I am being my usual stubborn self here, but as long as a foetus is alive, then a doctor cannot remove it under laws which prohibit abortion for ANY reason. Fact or not? If you disagree, then please explain what your interpretation would be. If you agree with me, then a woman with life threatening pre-eclampsia is at risk of dying without removal of the foetus.

No doubt my stubbornness is now making you hold your head in your hands ;)

I question his motivations

Because you think he is in support of the pro-choice movement? Even if that is indeed the case, when it comes to medical matters he would still need to abide by the law and need to know the implications of new changes to it. If the statement he made was wrong, I am sure he would have been pulled up on it by members of the medical profession. Just because he might be pro-choice, doesn't mean that what he said was wrong.

lefties are far removed from science and reason, they use only slogans and BS.

Hej!!! I've no doubt that you would would probably categorize me as a leftie, but I have a science background, do my best to get the whole picture before making any statements, and my ability to reason is not that bad surely!!! Hate that 'leftie' label anyway, I doubt any person's views are totally to the left or right, that would be BS as far as I'm concerned ;)
Ironside 50 | 10,940
20 Oct 2016 #1,312
I can't answer that in the way you want me to

Fair enough, but your feeling as feelings go are illogical. There isn't any logical explain why would you think that a murder or vile murders shouldn't be executed, but at the same time a child that hasn't done anything to anyone could be simply put into a garbage can, or worse used as parts in some medical cures. Make no sense to me.

If a choice has to be made in a medical emergency, I believe the mother should be saved.

There is no disagreement as long as she is give a choice in that matter.

How?

Because I read that law, because I have listen to what the lawyers they wrote that law said. Because that doctor and other alleged concerned people are doing nothing else but playing political games aimed to hurt the current government. Hence they cannot be trusted.

a doctor cannot remove it under laws which prohibit abortion for ANY reason. Fact or not?

No, a doctor can remove it if the mother's life or health is at stake. Do I need to spell it for you? Geez ... sorry Chem but that I have been telling you this from the day one.

Meaning that in the case of after mentioned affliction, such a pregnancy could be terminated without punitive repercussions.

Just because he might be pro-choice, doesn't mean that what he said was wrong.

I think that he support himself and his profits that wound be considerable smaller if not for abortions he performs or maybe he is only interested in removing the current government from power as they would make his life considerable more difficult. I don't know for sure - your guess is as good as mine. The one thing is clear that dude is either dumb as an ashtray, has problems with reading comprehension or he was lying through his teeth.

I've no doubt that you would would probably categorize me as a leftie,

No, I think you're one of those people who comforts to all those principles, prejudices and beliefs that are prevalent in your circles. although you're a smart, ~(an intelligent woman) with some academic background and you as I have already said, know what a debate means. I can always agree to disagree and remain on a respectfully friendly terms with you. Whereas other people in here are either *****************, ideological fanatics or dicks with a chip on their shoulder which is a size of the Alaska. :) Hash tag - not all!

By the way, pardon my French.
mafketis 24 | 9,387
21 Oct 2016 #1,313
A famous case a few years ago involved dr Bogdan Chazan who purposefully prevented a woman that was legally entitled from having an abortion.

She and her husband have spoken in the media for the first time yesterday, describing the months of mental agony she went through carrying a fetus that was doomed to die shortly after birth and then having to watch it die.

"It was the conscious decision of prof Chazan that our child should suffer and die"

tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-z-kraju,3/prof-chazan-odmowil-im-aborcji-dzis-opowiadaja-swoja-historie,685587.html

There is nothing remotely moral about the actions of Chazan, he broke the law and felt no remorse and forced his patients to conform to his judgement rather than make their own moral judgements. A thoroughly despicable person - probably a sadist.
Chemikiem 7 | 2,509
23 Oct 2016 #1,314
There isn't any logical explain why would you think that a murder or vile murders shouldn't be executed

The only reason i am not in support of capital punishment is because of cases involving wrongful execution, nothing more.
As regards early stage abortion in cases of severe disability, rape etc, I disagree with the term 'child'. It is not a child at that stage of development. I am not in favour of late stage abortion.

As regards logical explanation and your belief in the sanctity of life, I cannot fathom how you can say:

you think you should have the right to shoot anyone breaking into your home?

Sure, why not?

Regardless of whether the intruder is armed.

Your belief in the sanctity of life seems to apply only to an unborn child, which if you do believe to be true, doesn't make any sense to me.

that doctor and other alleged concerned people are doing nothing else but playing political games aimed to hurt the current government

Coincidentally, Professor Dębski was the doctor who spoke out condemning Bogdan Chazan, who as we know, refused to grant the woman carrying a severely deformed baby an abortion, and who gave birth in the hospital in Warsaw where Dębski is Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. He was publicly vocal about his feelings then, and that was in 2014...........when PO were in power. Was he trying to hurt that government too?

one of those people who comforts to all those principles, prejudices and beliefs that are prevalent in your circles

My circle also includes Polish friends who have the same thoughts as you regarding abortion. I don't pick my friends on the basis that they will all agree with me :D

dr Bogdan Chazan

He's already been and still is being discussed! Thanks for the Polish link though. I had a quick look but the article is long and will take me a bit of time to translate!
Chemikiem 7 | 2,509
24 Oct 2016 #1,315
According to this article, it's not all over and new demonstrations are planned for today.
A new bill is being planned and this time it's coming directly from the government.
Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of the governing Law and Justice Party (PiS), has said his socially conservative party is working on a new restrictive bill.

In an interview on 12 October (in Polish), he said: "We will strive to ensure that even in pregnancies which are very difficult, when a child is sure to die, strongly deformed, women end up giving birth so that the child can be baptised, buried, and have a name."

bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37745693

Back to the dark ages.
mafketis 24 | 9,387
24 Oct 2016 #1,316
to ensure that even in pregnancies which are very difficult, when a child is sure to die, strongly deformed, women end up giving birth

The irony of course is that he probably doesn't care at all about the issue (it's not like he ever did or would reproduce) but was trying to reassure the more religious part of the PiS base (and the church and church media) that they're thinking of them.

Unfortunately he bunged the job (as usual). He should have delegated that to people that no one cares about but since everyone know by now that PiS c'est lui he has to weigh in on more issues publicly himself (and he's a poison pill).
Ironside 50 | 10,940
24 Oct 2016 #1,317
Your belief in the sanctity of life seems to apply only to an unborn child,

It pretty simple. There are people who by their own action stop being protected. If they attack someone or break into a home thereafter can be killed - simple. Basic concept of self-delence.

An unborn child is unable to act hence cannot be excluded from the protection due to its deeds. The only exception being if by her/his very existence engagers a life of the other - mother's.

consistent and logical.

Coincidentally, Professor Dębski was the doctor who spoke out condemning Bogdan Chazan

No conscience there - all is clear that all is politically motivated and he was talking as a part of political performance not as an expert. That tells you lots about what kind of a person he is. eh?

According to this article

That is misinformation.
In Poland at the movement there is a huge political battle, a low profile but ongoing.
A general outline:
Minority of post-commies and co. Mostly connected by all kind of sahey deals and money isues that interwix wioth polocial power, are organizing not very popular staged demistrcions. Protesting against being ousted for the first (second) time for that last 27 years.

Kinda post-commie, opportunistic, financial, mafia, politicians mix that created a kind of establishment in Poland after 1989.

Now, they are not in power anymore and they don't like. They don't have popular support - just some. For the moment majority of Poles (those who vote) are OK with PiS government.

The other side grap any opportunity to cause unrest they can. Because unexpectedly many women turned up for those protests against something that have been lied about in the opposition press.

The same circles are trying to milk it for all its worth by lying some more.
There is no new laws brewing. In my opinion there'll be any more laws on that issue in the foreseeable future. If JK said something its typical political double talk to placate some of his supports who are in favour of change of those laws.

A big no story.
jon357 66 | 17,078
24 Oct 2016 #1,318
For the moment majority of Poles (those who vote) are OK with PiS government.

The Poles' polls currently show otherwise.

Because unexpectedly many women turned up for those protests

Not exactly unexpectedly.
Ironside 50 | 10,940
24 Oct 2016 #1,319
The Poles' polls currently show otherwise.

Phew!

Not exactly unexpectedly

Oh, unusual as to KOD's demonstrations, usually in attendance on those events there are a three paid stooges and a dog. There are more actors every time they're to be filmed - not great many people either.

So yes - public interest in those street performances risen from usual none (zero) to ten in the case of the proposed changes of the abortion law.

Accidently, the details of proposed changes have been massively misinterpreted and lied about to the public by the usual suspects in the media.
jon357 66 | 17,078
24 Oct 2016 #1,320
KOD's demonstrations, usually in attendance on those events there are a three paid stooges and a dog

Been to one, have you? No. No you haven't.

And yes, PIS have been totally wrongfooted and outsmarted (not hard) over their attack on women.

Great that the protests are continuing.


Home / News / Abortion still under control in Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.