Abortion still under control in Poland

SeanBM,I think it's pretty apparent that I'm suggesting that the procedure is not natural.If you read my prior posts then you will see this.

Your statement contradicts itself.
Our actions can be no more unnatural than those of a raven or a dolphin. Nothing is unnatural in the universe- the word "unnatural" has no meaning as I see it.

This post got me thinking about the beginning.
Not happy with my last post, I decided to put what I know of as people's beliefs (very briefly) about when is termination of a life.

I'll put my own thoughts in italics and brackets at the end of each point.

A) We are here to reproduce.

Eugenics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics,
Gene-centered view of evolution, breeding (women are baby producing machines).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

(I do not approve of setting up farms and focing people to breed, either by misinforming them or indoctrination)

B) Pre-Fertility control.

Birth control, being able either physically or mentally (celibacy or abstinence), vasectomy, tubal ligation, condoms,
Calendar-based contraceptive methods
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods

(I think it is the right of the person whether they choose to do this or not and nobody should dictate to them)

C) Consensual post-Fertility control.

Morning after pill. termination of pregnancy (the timescale seems to vary widely depending on country).

D) Non-consensual post-Fertility control.

One-child policy

E) Infanticide.

Hansel and Gretel. most would agree this to be out right murder but it is not always clear cut:

Crying Baby Dilemma

F) Capital punishment.

I heard an interesting quote that George W Bush is a perfect fisherman, he's antiabortion but pro death penalty, he throws the fish back into the water and gets them later when they are big.

(Personally I have cognitive dissonance with this one, I don' believe in killing killers but I would want to kill the person who killed my loved ones but think it mad that extreme pro-lifers would kill a doctor for the sake of cells.)

G) Senicide (the killing of old people)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide

Although many cultures believe this is killing, it has been in practice for practical reasons in many cultures.

(I used to work in a not particularly nice old folks home, it is comparable to leaving them somewhere to die).


I agree. I could never understand how people thought we were somehow outside of nature.

(right break over, back to studying:)

^
What's that weird video link on your profile all about? Illinois Nazis and black line dancing with ET in the middle. wtf?

These women were giving their permission for something unnatural to be done to their bodies and unborn children, yes. Of course yes.

This whole discussion reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes to me. So much talk about labelling, about what a just-conceived child is or isn't, but the feeling as a person who goes through the process of abortion is quite simply that you have allowed someone to kill something. Very very simple, very stark, and very shocking. And before one has an abortion, there is a lot of talk about how the baby isn't a baby yet, etc etc, but that is all ... bollocks.

A sperm isn't a human life. An ovule isn't. But when they fuse, they suddenly become a life. From the very second they fuse, because from that moment the person is created.

If you have a tiny sapling in your garden, it is a fxxk of a lot easier to dig up and burn than a huge oak tree, but just because it's easier to do, does that make it OK? Do we say that because in the first few weeks of growth, a human life is tiny and easy enough to get rid of, that it is therefore OK to do that? This discussion is split between those who say yes, and those who stick their necks out and say no, even though it is easy to do, we should not allow ourselves to do this - we should not allow ourselves to dispose of human life in this way.

And actually, at 12 weeks, when abortions are frequently carried out, the heart has been beating for several weeks, the baby or whatever you want to call him or her is a boy or a girl, has features, fingers and toes, fingernails and toenails, can feel touch, has other senses, and is a miniature person, 5.4 cm long only, but a little person, folded within his or her mother, for protection. The extraordinary explosion of life, the swiftness with which two cells become millions, is such a force that by 3 months, an unbelievable development has taken place. And by 20 weeks, the baby is perfectly formed.

So you can pinpoint a moment when life begins: the moment of fusion of sperm and egg, when they cease to be ingredients, and become someone.

But you know, the development of the unborn child isn't really the question - the issue is one of protection, and responsibility. The unborn child, as has been said, cannot scream or shout or protect itself - only the mother can do that. And if the mother's natural sense to protect is undermined and compromised by encouragement to 'abort', then hell is come again, really.

And still nobody seems interested in the effects on the mother. The grief of not having seen your child's face ever is far worse that the grief of losing someone whose face you know - because at least in that situation, you have the comfort of memory, and of the knowledge that you were able to show that person your love.

If an institution such as the Catholic Church, or the Polish government, want to make abortion a big issue and advise against it, or even legislate against it, then all strength to them. It is this talk that a human life is not a life, which is the most damaging and perfidious. It is a life, but it is easy to get rid of. At least be honest about what you are doing.

If you said to pregnant women considering abortion, 'OK, this doesn't suit you, so we can kill the baby for you because it's still tiny' - that would be honest. But of course the numbers having abortion would drop ... so what would also drop? THE REVENUE FROM IT.

It's a money-making business, and totally without morality on the part of those carrying it out - believe me. I had experience of the 'British Pregnancy Advisory Service' - what a misnomer, and a scandal.

So don't you guys all come on here huffing and puffing about when life begins. The facts are obvious. Just be honest about this. It's about convenience, and money.

Thank you, by the way, to those men who seem to get it.

If you take that approach, it means all but natural medicine is by nature "unnatural".

Oh please mate! You have got be on a wind up! I've repeatedly asked you to stop guessing about my personal circumstances and here you are CONTINUING to do so? Why is that? Every time you and your genius have made any kind of ill-informed guesswork you've been wrong - as you are now. I belong to no activist or political groups, feminist, pro-choice, or otherwise. Once again, this thread is not about ME. Stop trying to drag ME through the dirt and instead why don't you talk about your opinions and try to back them up with some kind of factual information? Seriously you are embarrassing yourself. You think you are being much smarter than you are.

All you've been doing on this thread is making stuff up, and then debating this made up stuff as if it were reality.

You continually misunderstand and misread (deliberately or not, I don't know) anything I, or anyone else whose life view you disagree with, says. You continually have shown your ignorance of anything to do with women's reproductive health , and are still somehow trying to blame me for your ignorance. Any experiences that differ to yours you just dismiss as a "moot point" without actually looking at the context. You constantly back-pedal, then change the goal posts. And when presented with cold hard facts you use dirty tactics by either selectively quoting, or you just reply flippantly with more of your "opinion" without backing it up with any form of evidence.

Have you even referenced anyone or academic or philosophical standing yet?

You say you're against propaganda, but then you selectively quote me, use emotive terms, more personal attacks, and more guesswork; "pro killing life" "looking for insults" "victim" "member of an organisation"

Now, finally, when all this hasn't worked you're invoking Godwin's law and banging on about the Nazis!!!!! Really?!? It must be a wind up!


Quite.

Just in case anyone missed my earlier post, I'm sure it was ignored rather than taken into account:

Some would disagree, not me but in my last post I tried to put as many ideas of life and when people thinks it should begin and end.


So are you against in vitro?

wow no why should I be? It is assisted fertilisation - what is wrong with that? Fusion in utero, in vitro, wherever - still the joy of new life.

And for all those who will now say 'but you said unnatural is bad' - yes, it is bad when it means destroying life and undermining the integrity of the mother, but when it is to promote life and health, then good. Unnatural in itself isn't bad - just depends what the motivation/effects are of intervention.


No, you are misunderstanding me. I said that to use medication and/or surgery to remove an otherwise healthy, stable pregnancy was an unnatural act - perhaps more precise if I rephrase: an artificial intervention, designed to interrupt a natural process.

I agree that intervention to prevent disease or death is also artificial, but it is for good purpose. The debate here is how termination of a pregnancy, although physically possible, is for bad purpose. And my additional point was that in the act of interrupting this natural process of pregnancy, you leave the mother with anything up to severe problems in dealing with the shock.

I was just wondering because you say that life begins when the sperm enters the egg, that is when a human begins and if you terminate at that point it is killing a human.

IVF usually entails the creation of multiple human embryos to ensure a greater chance of successful implantation. Therefor some are disguarded and I was just wondering by your clear definition, would you also consider that killing a human?

no, it doesn't at all. Here's an example, reproduction is natural, abortion isn't, simple as that. Natural death is natural and abortion isn't. There are many links online to support or deny this theory. It always depends whose side is supported in these links. As I always say, opinions are only as good as people who have them.


only because we're a part of nature, it doesn't meant that all we do is natural too.


it doesn't mean

As said above. A fused embryo could technically become quadruplets, or an infinite amount of people if given an infinite amount of space. In fact, under 30% of fertilised eggs become viable. Now, if you wish to assign every single embryo, viable, or non viable a personhood, that is entirely up to you but I don't see how forcing "personhood" onto something that may or may not become one, two or ten million people is helping anything. Especially when this possible person will never have anything to do with you, and especially, when you can't possibly for see the effects of the abortion on the mother.

Yes, some women are coerced into abortion, and of course this is horrendous, and the psychological damage is awful. I also know women who have been coerced into proceeding with the pregnancy and the psychological damage has been equally as atrocious and the morality of it just as horrendous. I also know women who have had abortions and say it's the best decision they ever made.

So abortion is as subjective a thing as anything can be. Why is your subjectivity more "correct" than another's? Why can't it just be left down to the individual?

I agree with you that it's the women who need to be protected in all this, but for me they should be protected in whichever choice they want to make, regardless of whether I think it's right or wrong.

Then the RCC needs to change its stance against contraception, don't you think? Or is preventing the creation of a human life as evil as an abortion for the church?

OK, that's true, contraception should be widely available and accepted.

AFAIK contraception's a nightmare in Poland. Getting the birth control pill is such a palava, and so expensive one has to rely on condoms, which gives women far less control of their own fertility. I haven't tried yet because I was thoroughly put off by the process. Getting the contraceptive pill in Poland (from what I've heard and understood - from a doctor friend of mine, but please correct me if I'm mistaken) consists of a visit to the GP followed by a referral to and an interrogation by the gynaecologist. Rinse and repeat every month. And pay through the nose for it.

OK whatever you say dear! wether im wrong or not about your formal affiliation frankly I don't care.I just used that opportunity to express my opinion about people who give in to all those scientifically proven, modern and liberal ideologies.

I just want to add that whenever I will use you in my posts,you do not have to take it personally. I'm discussing it with you but also with women who are sharing your point of view, so there is nothing personal about my posts. The only reason I was guessing about your circumstances was when you posted information about your personal circumstances. If you refrain from doing so in the future we can avoid much of this redundant typing.


Stop playing a victim here. In our little exchange as soon as it was clear that I disagree with you on the subject debated you started throwing sarcastic darts at me,calling me genius and now calling me stupid and making personal and absolutely off-topic remarks about me. I graciously ignored that for most part making only one little remark about the hysterical way you posted. On the other hand you constantly and without reason are accusing me of calling you names and are talking about lows and dirty which I can attribute only to your own state of mind. I don't want to call you on double standards and hypocrisy and I want to believe that it is all an honest mistake on your part. Please deal with your problems without me.

Please do not read into my post something what is not there.


That is your erroneous interpretation.
I just put a simple question to you. Why women who do not want to have children would not take the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy?

In my understanding we are not debating wherever and when so called body cells become human but what could be done to avoid unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

Why not avoid all that big issue of abortion by ensuring that those women who don't want to will not become pregnant.
Do I make myself clear now?


Just misunderstanding - you are talking about something else and I about something else.


This is a general forum, in here we are expressing opinions which could be baked up or not. I'm not here to learn or study because I can do it myself somewhere else - thank you.

Also so called evidence is just an interpretation of "something" and that interpretation is agreed upon by majority of specialists in a field.


When I choose to debate a subject - when the life beings?- I will take it into account.

Erm, I'm pretty sure they do. No one is saying that precautions shouldn't come first, but accidents do happen. Condoms do split you know? A fair few people I've know have got abortions, the majority those pregnancies were due to contraception failure. I'm sure you know plenty of women that also got abortions, they just haven't told you.

RESULTS: Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception (cited by 33% and 32% of nonusers, respectively).

So the facts are that 54% of women who go for abortions HAVE take precautions and out of the 33% of the people who did no use didn't do so because of misinformation and lack of education.

Again though, don't let the facts stop your "take responsibility" standpoint. 54% of women [guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html ]in this study took responsibility. The vast majority of the remainder were ignorant or badly informed.


When human life begins, is actually the main crux of the abortion debate. That's why it's so divisive.. because no one knows the answer yet everyone seems to have an opinion on it. If you knew an embryo was not a person you wouldn't give two monkeys about what happened. Or, for you is it honestly only about women not having sex?


Yeah. Why facts and published sources get in the way of a good argument?

I will attempt to illustrate to you the contradictory nature of the following statement: we are part of nature, our actions, not always.

Nature, what does it include?
Trees and forests and all that pretty stuff? Volcanoes and acidic lakes? A bird's nest, a beaver damn, a room with a view? Does it include the vastness of space?

Where do you draw the line on what is or isn't natural?
I am confident there is not one person who can adequately do so because if it can exist or if it can happen then it is natural.

We live on this earth, we exist in this universe and anything that happens does so because of an action and consequence series- that's nature, that's science, that's the nature of things, that's a fact.


In vitro? Breeding animals for specific features? Engineered pollination? Interspecies copulation? Spore germination? Pathogenic reproduction? This list can grow and grow exponentially greater than your ability to classify what is natural reproduction unless you consider all reproduction to be natural.


What's natural death?
Is a miscarriage natural? Do the circumstances in a miscarriage matter in defining something as natural or unnatural?


That and a nickel will buy you five pennies.


It does, it really does. It's uncomfortable for a lot of people to accept this but it's true. We may not always like what nature has for us, we may even hate it but there's not a damn thing you can do about it. We're on this blue-green-brown rock in this part of our galaxy in a universe which may be expanding, contracting or something else but if it can happen then it is natural. Accept it and begin your journey.

Beautifully put. :)

since you obviously have a problem with understanding my point, I'll try to make it clear and short. Yes, death is natural if one dies due to natural causes. Believing that just because we're a part of nature, no matter what we do must be natural too is nuts, my friend but believe what you want, I really don't care.

Really no point to continue this conversation. There will be always people who are pro abortion, just like there will be always people against it.

I'm only gonna ask you one question, when you murder someone, will you call it natural?

Define "natural causes."


Why do you think so?


I care what you believe because if you changed the way you thought then there'd be just that much more reason and balance in this world. I think this is very relevant to the conversation as people seem to tout the "It's UN-NAT-UR-AL (in a shrill voice)" as some kind of tenant we should accommodate- it's empty and in that sense a non-sequitur to this conversation, just like your last question.

exactly, if you change the way you feel, there will be more reason and balance in this world ;-)

foreigner4,so you're saying that there is no such thing as unnatural.Interesting,you may as well say that there is no such thing as right or wrong either.

There's the flaw.......
If everything from nature is natural as we are part of nature that includes morality nature doesn't have morality.

Absolutely, but what concerns me is not the obvious coercion in to abortion that happens in some cases (the 'usun to, kurwa' school of support), but rather what we have in the UK, which is a not-so-subtle leaning in favour of abortion in a lot of cases of unmarried, younger women and pregnancy. Abortion, if the 'time isn't right', is suggested as the sensible alternative. If a young or unmarried woman goes to the doctor and says she finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, the doctor will say 'Have you decided whether or not to keep the baby?' ... which seems to me to be a question which immediately undermines the pregnancy and suggests that it is a decision still to be made.

I completely sympathise with those in a situation where it would be dangerous or involve awful hardship to have a child, such as when the pregnancy is as a result of rape, but I don't believe that just because you hadn't planned to have a child now, and would have to make changes in your life such as moving home or having less disposable income or being embarrassed to be an unmarried mother, are sufficient justification for terminating a pregnancy.

I suppose what I am saying is: abortion should be considered only in situations where to continue with the pregnancy would result in severe mental and/or physical damage to the mother - i.e., only in extreme situations. And what do you know, but the wording of the 1967 UK Abortion Act calls for two doctors to verify independently that this is an extreme case, and only allows legal abortion on the following grounds:

a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

(d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Which is not how it is applied. So if Poland wants to make sure things are under better control, then that is good, surely?

I think it does, I think morality is a process of evolution.

I don't want to stray too much off topic, I was going to start a thread about it some time ago but never got around to it.

Without making a big song and dance about it this is a simple way to explain it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evolution



Perhaps this is a matter of semantics?
By "unnatural" do you mean "man-made"?

If not then there seems to be a predictable 'life' that does what it ought to and anything else is not usual (could I use not usual instead of unnatural?).

yes, women need to be protected but it's not your decision to erase another life, just because you feel like it. I agree to abortion in certain cases (rape, incest etc.) but not because it's your choice.

It's like killing Franek but not Bolek, just because you prefer Franek to be killed.

I think that what the RCC is saying is that we should give life the chance to be created, and that if it manages to make it, we should cherish it.

To be honest, as a woman in a close relationship, I know damn well that we can make a child if we choose, and not if we don't choose. I am not fertile 30 days of the month ... we know automatically when we have the potential ... and if we don't want a baby, we control ourselves. That is the same for everyone. Being in touch with oneself is the way, and the RCC is I guess just saying that they have to support procreation, but they know that in reality, there is flexibility if we are only a little careful and mondre.

No?

Natasia,well put.

Terms such as equality, justice, fairness or balance are just empty words in any country where abortions can be performed without the express written consent of the father. It's his unborn baby just as much as it is the mother's!