Abortion still under control in Poland

Look how PiS treated families with disabled children who protested in the Sejm....

tvn24.pl/najnowsze/cdn-zdjecie9adf9b7e3d326392c00811a4f98ee756-material-magazynu-polska-i-swiat-z-8-maja-4599433/alternates/SQUARE_1280

I would agree 100% it should be up to the women alone, without outside interference.

I remember how sad it was when women travelled from the Irish Republic to UK for an abortion, does that still happen?

Is that another tale from the lefties propaganda leaflets?


There no such a saying just a vulgar slogan copied from aboard.


Why?

Because its the women's body and the women's state of mind.

If a women does not want a kid from a rapist or a a$$hole it should be up to her.

So consequently you support no state help or 'dad' doesn't need to pay anything IF she decide to have a kid. AM I right?

You need to catch up on my posts about universal child and health care, you can look it up.

I don't blame a woman who decides not to have a kid especially if is via a beta/rapist/looser male.

I know some loser blokes who got their partners pregnant in the hope that it would guarantee/ fix their relationship, it never works .

IF there would be universal child and health care system it doesn't make sense to say that it is up to do woman. It is up to a state or a society then.


Well, Why would you make a kid pay for his/her mother bad taste or wrong life choices. In time of contraception a woman who gets pregnant by a mistake or change her mind after the fact is no better than 'a beta looser male'.


You need two to tango.

And I won't either so there.


Yeah but when it goes wrong its the women who is lumbered with a life of struggle and $hit while the beta/loooooser bloke is free to go root elsewhere.

Actual doctors.


There is such a saying; and very topical right now.


You Socialist, you!

Doesn't she knows about it? I mean choices and consequences. Still, if you face a hardship go and get some kids killed. Oh its mine that make its OK, Ethically going back to the paterfamilias law. Harking back to 12 tablets law, Roughly 2470 years ago. Progress lol!


who never heard about painkiller and such? I doubt they qualifications then.

I can understand the reasoning behind banning abortions for healthy babys. I don't agree with it but I can see why people would see it as wrong.

However forcing mothers to carry baby's to term who might have severe birth defects seems wrong to me. Because in the end, this is not just a question of convenience. Having healthy children is a large commitment, but it is one that can be calculated and usually has a happy ending once they move out when they are old enoguh. Depending on the kind of birth defect, this is far from guaranteed for children who are born with them. They might remain in need of care for their entire (hopefully long life) which often falls to the responsibility of their parents. The problem is in my opinion, that often people who are against abortions might do so on sound principles, but don't have any experience what it is like to raise a child like this. They have no idea what it may mean for everyone involved. It can become a rewarding experience, but it can also utterly destroy a family.

I'd like to share a personal story regarding this.

Two friends of my parents - who were very religious - decided to have a baby that was predicted to have severe birth defects. The doctors told them that children like this one have an average life expectancy of 10 years, but they nevertheless wanted one. The conditions were seemingly good. Both were teachers, thus had a secure job, and one son already. The mother decided to stay mostly at home for a few years and care for the child. The first months were rough, the baby needed several surgeries, but it recovered and developed decently (under those conditions, it still needed around the clock care) for the first few years until it was old enough to go to school. The parents had hopes that it might have a relatively normal childhood, and thanks to medical advances, it might even become an adult. But than it started to regress. The parents had to watch as their child declined steadily, it stopped walking, speaking, became almost blind and so on. It spend the last two years in a hospital until it finally died before its' tenth birthday. It was a horrible time for them. I've met them only a few times, but as their boy grew worse, so did they. Especially the mother looked at the end as if she had aged twice as fast, and the father developed an alcohol problem. Their older child became troubled, partly because their parents were forced to divert their attention almost exclusively to their youngest child, and partly because it was also horrible for him watching his younger brother slowly die. He managed to turn it around and now goes to university, but he lost his faith in god and e.g. refused to have a confirmation ceremony. He supposedly told his parents when asked "There is no god, because why would a benevolent god make my poor brother suffer like this? And if there is one, he must be pure evil and does not deserve my worship." An understandably point of view from his perspective if you ask me.

Bottom line, the decision to have this baby not only caused the child a lof of suffering, it also destroyed their family and marriage. Again, this was not even a matter of finances, but the stress and emotional pain to have a child and watch it suffer and die. If a family has the courage to take on such a burden, they are deserving of any praise and assistance one can offer. But nobody should be forced to do so.

Seems to me that you got it wrong too. The problem lies with imprecise law in Poland which has been misused to carry out abortions of babies whose defects had been potential. problematic or even nonexistent. Still a mild dawn syndrome is not a cause for killing.

You all seem to be missing the point here - a sanctity of a human life. Seems to me that on a philosophical and ideological ground left just lost it. They don't know what is what, take things for granted and create more problems that they solve. Hell lately they don't solve any problems they only create them There are a reason they are called a regressive left.

Even here, you divert attention towards issues that concern statistic minuscule of the cases. Same goes with those cases left talk about all the time i.e. when pregnancy is a result of a rape. Those cases are few and between and that is not really the crux of the matter here.

Don't tell me that IF I would to concede that an abortion should be an option if it is a result of a rape and when there is not doubt whatsoever that a child will be born with severe deformities, you would support in turn a ban on all other abortions? Of course not!

So the problem and disagreement runs deeper and has littlie to do with those cases you regressive left like to bring up to show that you CARE. No you don't! You pretend to care to use it an a tool to spread your ideological dogmas - as it has been aptly demonstrated.

I would in Poland, as the majority of the population supports those laws. The majority of the population however, do not support these further restrictions.

Let`s be pragmatic - the case is elementary. The right wingers did what they had been expected to do for years - since the very day they took complete power in Poland. Now, if Polish women are really against the ruling, they will have the chance to voice their objection at the next elections in 2023. Demos and protests today won`t help cause the matter got too far so rightwingers won`t back off. The only way to change the drakonian law is to show PiS and Konfederacja a red card in 2023. I hope it will take place. All women of Poland, unite! We will see how many of you there are, ready to fight for your rights

@pawian
I hope you understand my position of being against rights and privileges for a certain group within our society.

As it would again lead us towards a dark path in our history.

One should always be willing to help those in need, wether they are rejected, poor, unprotected or without options. Creating laws that make the assumption that a man can't be trusted to take care of a family only nourishes that thought further.

I for one am not going propagate irresponsibility towards others. I have been quite irresponsible most of my life, I am willing to turn that around now.

Anyone is free to voice their opinion, either on the street, a forum or newspapers. To think it won't have consequences is folly however.

Here's an idea. How about a register of volunteer adoptive parents who are prepared to take on the raising of one of these disabled children as their own? Who wants to bet that such a register would be spectacularly bare of names, including those of the posters here who applaud the tribunal's ruling.

People say 'Poland is a Catholic country'. That's a meaningless statement. Poland is a secular state in which the majority of inhabitants are baptized Catholic and practise the faith to varying degrees, each in their own way. That's the reality of Catholicism in the twenty first century. Following the teachings of the Catholic church is voluntary and up to the free will of the individual. Religious instruction makes that very clear. One's own conscience is the ultimate guide for Catholics. That's why such emphasis is placed on 'examining the conscience' on a regular basis.

When the state starts legislating for matters of conscience and starts trying to enforce the teachings of the church on all Catholics, regardless of their individual practises, you end up with a theocracy.

@Atch
What a remarkable proposal, I have been pondering over creating an orphanage actually. I would support it wholeheartedly, let's see how many in Poland would sign up for it

What one is trying to avoid is placing children in institutional care. Why an orphanage for a child with parents?? If children are born, they should be raised in a family and if their own family does not want them or cannot provide a good home for them, they should ideally be adopted by a family who wants to include them. It is possible to care for quite a severely disabled child, with the right level of support. If the government provides that support to the family be it the biological or adoptive family, it can be done. Of course, it's not just financial or medical support that would be needed, but psychological too. The services of mental health professionals who can give counselling and help to parents and siblings struggling to cope would be ideal.

Then there's the question of what happens, even within an adoptive family, when the disabled child grows into adulthood and loses their parents. What then?

Rather than an orphanage, far better to put funds into some kind of supported living for those disabled adults who are capable of it. But the problem is that it takes vast amounts of funding to provide the right kind of support for a disabled child or adult.

The answer of course is an additional tax on the salaries of the able-bodied/minded portion of the population. But, once again, people's high moral ground gets very shaky when you put your hand in their pockets. One poster here who wants to see severely disabled children born to families on the poverty line, pays for private education for his two children. Would he be happy to sacrifice that and pay the money saved by doing so, into a fund for the disabled? I really don't think so.

And the bottom line is still that women should not be forced by law to give birth to disabled children.

The only one that bring religion into it is you. Well, maybe some others too, but I have never argued about issues here using an argument from the Bible. So there is it.

What you saying in fact that since something is practical and easier for adults they should have it their way. Even if that includes killing children.

You say this you say that add Catholicism to the mix and vole! Where is your Catholic stance I would like to know? Why are you even bring into it religion? Just to go contrary to its dogmas and teaching?

Well, your country isn't exactly famous for its unwavering respect for human life, is it?

Anyways...

The recurring motive in the messages posted by the pro-murder crowd is the focus on the future "quality of life" of the unborn children (still, we have to remember that about 50% of children suspected with Down syndrome, who are allowed to be born, are born perfectly healthy). They care about the "quality" of life of the children so much that they are willing to murder them to help them avoid "low quality". How generous of them!

The only thing that springs to mind is the nazis and their eugenic programs, with slogans like "lebensunwertes Leben" (life not worth living) or "Ballastexistenzen" (burden-existences).

As Iron rightly pointed out, the issue is not even religious but a moral one (whether one can have sound morality without reference to God is a matter for a separate discussion). You simply don't kill children - not if they're sick, not if they're from poor families, not ever. The weakest have to be protected, not killed. The whole point of human civilisation is protection of the weakest, not survival of the fittest.

I would like a source for that.


This is easy to say from a position of someone who never faced the consequences of doing so, or ever will.


Indeed. Religion should not have any place in setting laws since not everybody believes in it and expecting non-believers to carry a baby becausw of religious sentiments is wrong. In question of moral, it depends on whether someone believes that a lumb of celle can already be considered human and whether it is justified that the state gets so much power over the female body. In my opinion, forcing women to carry children against their will is only befitting a dictatorship.We allow contraception, we allow people to prevent sperm and egg from meeting each other, but immediately after they do it this is supposedly a different story?

Banning abortion is wrong, both ethically and practocally (nvm cases where it should be available without discussion e.g. rape or birth defects). It allows the state control over womens' bldy to an undue degree and it forces women into illegal abortions that may endanger their life.


Wait, this is debateable in your opinion? I mean even Aristotle pointed out before the birth of Christianity that this is indeed possible.

Couldn't be arsed. It's common knowledge (I read about it in so many sources, that I'm quite sure you will be able to find something in English or German). Cases of children diagnosed with the possibility of Down syndrome, whose parents didn't succumb to the pressure of killing them, who were born perfectly healthy are numerous.


How do you know? I have two children and I may have more, if God wills.


You haven't been reading this thread very carefully, have you? Eugenic abortions in Poland were conducted in 24-25th week of pregnancy, when the child is able to survive outside its mother's womb.


Yes. It is indeed a different story, because that's when a separate human life begins. It is no longer either the man or the woman, but a new being. The topic of this thread, however, is the ban of eugenic abortion in Poland, not the issue of abortion in general.


Yes, I understand that this is your opinion, you made it quite clear. The tactics of repeating it over and over again is rather unlikely to make me change my mind though. :)


Yes. I am a presuppositionalist, pretty much in the spirit of Cornelius van Til, Greg Bahnsen or John Frame (even heretics get some things right sometimes :) ).

Common knowledge is rubbish in the world of today's medicine. It was good and prevalent in the 18th century when people believed that inoculation against smallpox is against God's wishes and even one of the greatest minds of the epoch, Benjamin Franklin, refused to inoculate his second son in the result of which the son got smallpox and died (his father bitterly regretted his decision for the rest of his life). Today, I have been watching an interview with a professor in gynaecology, obstetrics and perinatology from a clinic in Wrocław, and he said on the number of aborted Dow's syndrome foetuses that there is no reliable statistics in Poland. He also said that the country with reliable medical statistics on the causes of abortion is the United States. So please don't hide yourself behind "common knowledge" as it is rather pathetic even for a religious fanatic like you.

Post a link to your sources with data worked out by independent professional medical bodies rather than organizations like the one of Kaja Godek, another religious fanatic ready to hide the truths which are uncomfortable for them.

Again, another murderous fanatic calls 6-months-old unborn babies (able to survive outside their mothers' wombs) "foetuses".

You can dismiss the statistics, but even if the diagnoses were 100% accurate (which they aren't) then still it wouldn't justify murdering the Down syndrome babies. It's amazing how the nazi ideas of "lebensunwertes Leben" and "Ballastexistenzen" are well and alive today.

However, no matter what the nazi, murderous fanatics say, the fundamental thing to remember is that nothing justifies slaughtering innocent, weak and helpless children - especially if they are sick. Once again I would like to stress that the whole point of human civilisation is protection of the weakest, not survival of the fittest, despite what neo-nazi eugenic sickf*cks are trying to tell you.

Sadly there are still people pushing this myth.


Quite. Actual science and the consensus of medical opinion is always preferable to religious ideology when legislating about the human body.

Up to 20,000 people out on the streets of Warsaw about this last night, most of them women.

Not really. I mean that argument doesn't carry any weight. After all from a democracy perspective majority sets rules, so if majority decide what is right and set it as a law, the law it is. Unless you argue against democracy.

There is another perspective ethical one that claims our civilization is build on certain ethical/moral dogmas/cornerstones that shouldn't be touched unless you don't aim at destroying what it is now.

The really interesting question arise when those two presuppositions clash. Whilst majority would like to vote on something that would have undermined certain ethical cornerstones of their civilization. I digress.


Are you for the right to own a gun, dismantle of a welfare state, low taxes and a small government? If not your concern for an alleged control of a state over women bodies (whatever that means) reeks of hypocrisy.


That argument could have been made about any law and any criminals. He/she should be allowed to take other people position otherwise it force him to rob a bank and endangers his/her life and the life of other in the process. Hell, I have made even a stronger case for a bank robber using YOUR 'logic'.

Is that a flower of the regressive left mind? A silly slogan?

Anyway... to quickly sum it all up:

The ruling of the Constitutional Court - wise and just.

Lives of the innocent children - saved.

Smile on the face of Saint Virgin Mary Queen of Poland - radiant.

Foam at the mouths of neo-nazi eugenic sickf*cks - priceless... absolutely priceless. :)

Poles expressing their disgust last night at the ruling. They will win this battle.

• 
  Webp.netresizeimage.png
  

First let them pay for breaking covid-19 restrictions. ?Then given them brushes while out there should clean streets.


Well, Ok then, let have abortion anytime anywhere provide I can cut off your head or anyone's without any legal consequences. I would rather prefer regress into a tribal and barbarian world than life in some neo-Marxist slave state.

Ah you say 20 000 it must have been 2000 knowing you and your sources. Warsaw has about 3 millions in that say 1,5 millions women. Wow a whooping 0,1% or if we take your phantasy for a real number whooping 1,3% women of Warsaw took part in that corvid spreading event.

Where is Ziemowit to condemn them? Except he is another soviet hypocrite and he won't .

Ain't gonna happen.


Of course, why not.