Abortion still under control in Poland

I would not like to be a gynecologist and obstetrician in Poland.

I'm not a doctor, I don't know whether oligohydramnios (bezwodzie) is enough for the mother to develop a septic shock, whether the baby has to be dead or whether it's enough that it's dying already.

The doctors knew the baby is going to die and they waited for it's death because of the new abortion law. This is not the same as with aborting a healthy pregnancy - when you know that the child will live. That's why your accusations, Cojestdocholery, that we don't care about life and we're for killing are inappropriate.

Btw, have you wondered what kind of death it is for the baby? It sounded like the doctors waited for quite some time. What if the baby's dying was long and painful?

@Cojestdocholery
When a mother dies leaving behind another child after the child she is carrying is already determined to definitely not survive, the person making the laws allowing for this death should be charged with murder. The doctor who did not have the balls to save a life should be charged with murder. And religious zealots who think it is ok for the government to mandate what is right or wrong in this issue should be forced to endure this exact type of situation with their mother, daughter or child.

We don't know IF the law has anything to do with it.
What about pro-abortion zealots?
Maybe mother was determinted not to survive too?
Why all you pro-abortion freaks are sure that an abortion is a nice solution, why do you think that an abortion would save that woman?

Should all those people who take [part in an abortion where life is not at stake be charged with murder too?


You are a very stiupid woman and I will not spar with you online. Stiupid women are very stubborn.

Women are hardly 'zealots' for very reasonably wanting the same rights over their own bodies that they have everywhere else across this continent.


That really is clutching at straws. Nasty straws too.


Of course not. What a silly suggestion.

Your hatred of women beyond their capacity as breeding stock is.... noted.


You're making more strawmen than a wizard of oz convention.... abortion should be safe, legal and rare. At times it's the least bad option and simple across-the-board bans are incredibly nihilistic and anti-life.

I am not stupid. Btw, I may not be a doctor, but this guy is - why don't you "spar" with him:

kobieta.wp.pl/pacjentka-zmarla-bo-czekano-az-obumrze-plod-ginekolog-komentuje-przerazajaca-sytuacje-6699751802096512a


Actually, we do - read what that doctor has to say:

"- Aktualnie ciąże z bezwodziem, nawet kilkunastotygodniowe, pomimo fatalnego rokowania, obejmowane są opieką i przyjmuje się postawę wyczekującą, bez możliwości jej przerwania. Pacjentki podlegają między innymi ocenie pod kątem powikłań zapalnych. Sytuacja, w której dochodzi do zakażenia wewnątrzowodniowego z powikłaniami septycznymi, jest stanem ciężkiego pogorszenia zdrowia i zagrożenia życia ciężarnej. Z informacji, które posiadamy, wynika, że to właśnie z taką sytuacją mieliśmy do czynienia u pacjentki - tłumaczy dr Socha."


You're not only stupid, but clearly also some f*cked up freak. Why don't you read about the case first, before you start throwing accusations at people.

Please provide a translation for Polish text in this section of the forums

@Cojestdocholery
Not pro or anti abortion. I am an intelligent thinker who can easily see that no one person has any right to decide what another person does or does not do with their body. I am particularly pro life when it comes to the life of a mother with another child and husband who are now a widower and motherless because of this ignorant law. A law founded in the belief of a zealot who has never been married and never had children. WTF is anyone doing following this kind of person who speaks on things with zero life experience in those things?

If it is to be valued enough to be given legal protection, why should it be rare?

Where is it legal and rare? Even Bill Clinton, who coined the phrase, didn't actually mean it; he phrased it to unify abortion supporters.

You like spining the yarn? Don't you? You are an extremist, you think you are all good, and right, balanced and impartial while your oponent the opposite. In fact you are a sad psycho. Noted.


:D
You don't need to like the truth about yourself but try to control your emotions.


I don't need to spar with him. Any professional should be able to make a sound decision and stick to it. If a doctor cannot do that becouse he is 'worring' about some law, it means he is fraud not a doctor.

It means it was his call and he should have been acting on his medical knowledge . IF he did, it is all good if he didn't he is a fraud.

Having a meldown over some law or being a proabortion freak is not helpful. There are always some external circumctances.
Doctors should act like doctors. If they don't we have a bigger problem than some law some people dislike because they are stiupid like you or like to kill children as it makes them feel they have some power and control.

That all good but a child is that another body somebody what to do away with. What now?


Assumption. What now?


I think you got it all wrong. In Poland a one person doesn't rule.
Not talking about JK now. Just to refute something I have heard many times:
If you have a cancer do you look for a doctor with a cancer or for someone who is the best in his field but who hasn't expirced that thing firsthand?

I do control them - I simply stated a fact :) I guess you don't like the truth about yourself :)) Btw, it was you who first wrote that "I sound stupid", so maybe instead of offending people stick to using arguments and other people will do the same for you.


Then "frauds" were working for years in that hospital. Btw, I'm afraid your musings won't comfort the dead woman and her family. I'd rather I didn't have to worry myself about what laws doctors at the hospital are worrying about when they're deciding whether to save my life or not. Laws should be as reasonable and as clear as possibile, especially if a human life is at stake - no matter what doctors are like in a given country. Because the world isn't perfect, doctors are people too and they aren't perfect either.

@Cojestdocholery

I say this as an attempt to help with more productive conversation:

I'm pro-life and I can tell you that to make pro-life arguments by making it into a personal attack (whether the attack is mild or wild) rarely works and nearly always is counter-productive. Always keep in mind that even pro-aborts have the same human dignity and free will as a pro-lifer.

That's my public service announcement for the day. :)

Are you an extremist too? Looking for justfictions, some moral high ground, while vilifying an opponet.
I don't care about all that, nor I'm phazed by your nonsense. It is clear who is stupid and just leave it at that. I see you try to spar with me even I don't wnat to. I was right you are stubborn.


Your nosense will? Yes, sure. Add delusional to the list. :D


Maybe, that is a worring factor if you are right.


OK.

Because it's an invasive procedure that does involve risk for the woman getting it and it does involve ending a human life. The need for an abortion is a signal that something has gone wrong.

And, in some cases it's the least bad option.

I'm pro-choice but that doesn't mean I approve of some women who get abortions, just that it's not my call to make.

It's my understanding that in this type of case (loss of amniotic fluid), there is essentially no way to save the fetus but waiting for it die can put the mother's life at risk (and the mother's life counts more than the fetus).

OK, leftists and feminists, here is your opportunity to design your pro-choice act.

1. Unconditional or for a specific reason?
2. How many weeks into pregnancy?
3. How many abortions in 5 years for each woman?
4. How many abortions in a lifetime?
5. Who will pay?
6. Is sperm donor's consent required?
7. Should there be a nationwide limit on abortions?
8. If yes to 7, what is the limit in percent of all pregnancies?
9. Who will pay if there are medical complications?
10. Who will pay for psychological treatment?
11. What is the impact on society if the answer to 7 is no?

I am assuming that the average leftist pro-choice brain is capable of more than just "I am pro-choice".

Very much yes. It's a matter for tha woman who's pregnant and nobody else.

Topic for another time.

What, with what is known of this case should the doctors have done.

A. terminate the unviable fetus so that the mother can be treated more quickly and have a greater chance of recovery?

B. what for the fetus to die 'naturally' (knowing that the longer that takes the greater the danger to the mother)?

C. (something else - be specific)?

A.

Of course. If a foetus is unviable, why carry it further?

That's what you started doing in your post #1,764. And that's why I reacted to what you wrote.


You? :D


It's you who's stubborn by pretending that this case isn't about terminating a healthy pregnancy, but one that would end (and ended) in the baby's death anyway.


What I write is not "nonsense". And if it's the case that this woman died because of the new abortion law, then changing this law into something more realistic and humane could prevent the future deaths of pregnant women in similar situation.

I wish I had more time to go deeper, but my boss has the audacity to expect some production out of me today.


Is that true, though? You acknowledge it's a homicide, so we do make a call on it as members of a society by determining if it's a criminal or non-criminal act.


Why do you shut the man out? Why does the father not have a say? When I child is born we expect a father to share some responsibility of caring for the child. I can attest that a father can love a child as deeply as any mother.


When is a human being viable? At birth? One week? A month? A year? Those little babies seem to depend on others to keep them viable after birth.

Do men have rights over womens' bodies?

Yeah, it is the woman who has to go through the agony of pregnancy and labour and who ends up with all the possible health risk. While I do support more rights for fathers (especially when divorced) in general, that is a call they have rightfully no say in. Woman can not prevent a man to e.g. get a vasectomy either.

I think what mafketis meant was that it wasn't possibile to sustain the pregnancy and the baby wouldn't survive outside the mother's womb (especially that it had congenital defects). If it wasn't the case the doctors wouldn't just wait for the baby to die.

@jon357, the problem is that it's not just the woman's body in question anymore - a baby is another "body" made up from mother's and father's genetical material. It's not just some another organ in the woman's body.

So, I think the father should have some say too.

However, it's a different matter when the woman's health and life is at risk. Then it should be her decision in the end, imho.

The issue is more that men and women can't have complete equality when it comes to pregnancy because women carry the foetus and men don't.

In terms of evolutionary biology, women are/were stuck with it for 9 months inside them, and several years around them being fed and looked after whereas men are free to (and often do) go off and impregnate other women (or enjoy themselves with other men if they're good-looking and stylish enough).

I was referring to this particular case... and not the general question of viability. Personally my idea is that natural viability (the age at which the fetus can physically survive without the mother) is an important (if fuzzy) boundary. I'm fine with restrictions after that point (somewhere around the sixth month IINM) to cases like this where the fetus cannot realistically be saved and its continued life endangers the mother).

to put it more clearly I'm fine with readily available abortion early in the pregnancy and restrictions kicking in later.


If you believe abortion is murder then you want every woman who's ever had an abortion behind bars. There is no statue of limitation on murder.


True and irrelevant in this case.

Writing laws by copying the four words on a screaming woman's top is as stupid as it gets. Sure, it's your body and your choice - not to fu*ck around drunk. If you get pregnant, consider this as a natural consequence.

Rape changes things a bit but not much unless she reports it to the cops and immediately goes to the nearest ER. "He raped me four months ago" = tough sh*it. There are many couples waiting to adopt.

That leaves incest and detectable defects. Abort as soon as possible.
Physical health of the woman - priority one and nothing else matters. Her feelings - zero relevance.

A lot of people are deflecting from this case, which seems to be the direct result of the PiS driven ruling by the constitutional tribunal last year.

What should the doctors have done?

A. terminate the unviable fetus so that the mother can be treated more quickly and have a greater chance of recovery?

B. wait for the fetus to die 'naturally' (knowing that the longer that takes the greater the danger to the mother)?

C. (something else - be specific)?

Only one person has answered so far. I'm not interested in screeds one way or the other, just what should have been done in this case (in your opinion).

Do EVERYTHING to save her life. Cut, drill, remove, and abort. No exceptions, no waiting, no howevers, and no yeahbuts.
I cannot be any clearer.

My answer is "A".