Abortion still under control in Poland

So why are they so against In Vitro?


bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11605216


Thanks Pgtx but I was thinking more about the argument that ''morality is part of evolution and can be seen in other animals" type of thread.


Years ago I probably would have agreed with you.
That is until I saw what women have to go through to conceive a child.
Now I think that the father may try to convince the woman but it is ultimately her choice.

Everything can be a factor in evolution.
If we accept morality as part of nature which I think it is the discussion about natural and unnatural is valid and we are back at square one.

By saying that "Nature doesn't have morality" I meant that there in not a "moral force" guiding evolution.

What's her choice? To keep the baby or kill it? It's her choice to decide whether she'll sleep with someone or not or whether she'll take a pill or not or tell her bf or whoever she's sleeping with to use a robber. Yes, women have many choices (we do too) but no one has a choice to kill a baby just because he feels like it.

The way I see it is, certain moralities work under certain conditions.
Morality has changed over the years, what was acceptable two thousand years ago would be seen as shockingly criminal today.
I mean evolution has guided morality.


I don't follow how we are back to square one?


To have a baby or not.


I can't think of a legal way to get a woman pregnant without her concent, yet that possibility exists for women.


So when do you think human life begins?

Polonius,I agree.Unfortunately too many guys would talk a good game and convince her to have the child only to leave her holding the bag.I think that if he won't give his consent;then he should have to sign something pledging to take full responsibility of the child under the threat of a very stiff prison sentence should he flout his responsibilities.But the woman should have the right to share parental responsibility and be in the child's life if she were to have a change of heart after the child is born.Only if abortion is made legal for reasons other than drastic.I don't at all feel that to avoid responsibility is a justifiable reason for abortion.

Of course they know that there are ways to prevent a pregnancy. That's why I don't understand why the RCC is so much against contraception in the first place. What's the difference between sleeping together only when you cannot conceive, and popping a pill every day? In both cases you are actively avoiding a pregnancy (although the first option might be a bit riskier).

Don't make it easy to yourself. To have a baby or not is a choice you have before you have sex with a woman. Once you make her pregnant, be a man and stick to it (at least pay for it).

This is not a decision whether you're gonna eat at McDonald's or you'll cook at home, you're deciding about a newborn life.

Well in essence, isn't that child support?


In your view, is the morning after pill the same as an abortion? what about condoms or having the snip?


Exactly when is a human formed, in your view?

you're damn right about that 1

I suppose its a bit of chicken and egg situation.... they evolved together.


Discussing the rights and wrongs (morality) of opinions because they are all part of nature.

@natasia
I completely respect your viewpoint and thank you for replying so politely, however, these are still your opinions and I still ascertain you have no right whatsoever to legislate your moral beliefs onto others, unless you can prove to me otherwise. Why do you think that your beliefs and moral standards should automatically trump the beliefs of others? I certainly don't believe that mine trump yours, and you are free to hold on to your beliefs and live by them, however and I would expect you give other women the same kind of respect, and allow them to make their own personal choices in life.

If you don't believe what you quoted is a justifiable reason for abortion, then don't get one for those reasons. What right would you say you had to tell individual women how to feel about their pregnancy, and what right would you say you had to legislate against their very personal experiences and decisions?


This is the exact kind of misinformation that leads to more abortions. Please be careful because it's an astoundingly bad piece of advice. The fact of the matter is no woman knows automatically when they are fertile, and the fertility period can be anything up to a week, not just one day. If women don't want to get pregnant the first port of call should always be birth control. ALWAYS. If any women are reading this, who think they can magically "tune in" to their body, they'd be wrong. Always use contraception if you do not want to get pregnant.


Exactly. If a women were to become pregnant, and fall into depression knowing that she had to have the child upon discovery of her pregnancy, and if coming to terms with being pregnant and having a child could cause mental health issues, for whatever reasons, then abortion should be allowed. How do we know if a woman is likely to suffer mental health issues being put through pregnancy and childbirth? We ask HER... that's how mental health practice operates, we ask the patient. Individuals thoughts and feelings need to be respected and woman knows her own mind, and her own capabilities better than any outside parties wishing to dictate morality to her.


Whilst I sympathise with your sentiment, I don't know how this would be workable. I also wonder what kind of man would force a woman he loves through a pregnancy and labour against her will? The consequences could be quite, quite grim.

I just get this feeling that when the "unnatural" argument is brought up about homosexuals, abortions, GM foods etc...

It seems that people are saying we should all be living in a forest eating berries and that whatever is the most common is "natural" and whatever is outside of their "norms" is unnatural.

That everyone should go to school, church on a Sunday, to college, get a job, marry, have two and a half children etc and anything else is somehow 'unnatural'.

Maybe I have misunderstood what has been said but without clarification that's what it sounds like to me.


Well put.

again, when you murder someone, are you gonna call it natural?

My first thought is that right and wrong are a construct of the nature of our circumstances (macro or micro and simultaneously too) but I'll have to mull it over more before I can come up with anything that could be construed as a contribution to the discussion.

For the sake of curiosity, could you flesh out your extrapolation a bit more (everything being natural = right and wrong are nonexistent)?

People (and other aniimals) have been murdered all throughout history, it's nothing new, it's not even unusual.
We have wars for goodness sake.

When do you think a human is formed?

(third time asking but third time can be the charm:)


That's a whole thread in itself.

SeanBM,It's more than child support,because if the woman doesn't want to have the baby and the man withholds consent for the abortion,he has to assume sole responsibility.I don't see snip snip as abortion,nor contraceptive devices.I will not equate that to a forming body.I'm personally talking about inside the womb.I'm not a scientist and I honestly can't tell you when it is considered to be a feeling being with cerebral activity.

Thank you.


I imagine their argument is that it is an artificial leg-up - an intervention - and they are against any intervention, as God is to make the choices. That isn't my position. I think anything we can do to help anything or anyone is cool, but that we have to be incredibly careful how we use that power ... ie, not to use it to threaten or destroy (fragile) life. We have to be very wise.

I am just a simple C. of E. girl, enjoying the legacy of Henry VIII ; ) ... I am not in any way Catholic, although I have to say that over the past few years, I have come to my own conclusions about certain things, and have some admiration for the Catholic Church in the way it will stand up for its rights, and convictions. I think abortion is ultimately a very wrong thing, and I know that the Church of England is so liberal and nice that it wouldn't condemn it, but that the Catholic Church, with its fire and brimstone, would. There is something to be said for that backbone.

But they have to carry through with their logic - so if meddling to remove pregnancies is wrong, then meddling to create them is also wrong.

Not being a Catholic, I have the benefit of being able to be more flexible ...

I would admit this is a bit off... I don't think there should be suggestions being made at all. Although I guess it could be difficult subject to broach as a doctor has to care for the physical and mental well-being of his patient. If the doctor suspects some kind of issue he has to tactically broach the subject, but at the same time I can see how such a suggestion could plant seeds. Tricky.

Seriously - it is actually a question in their list of things to go through with a pregnant woman. I know because I have a friend who is a GP. They have to tick it off the list. 'Check patient is to proceed with pregnancy.' - then they have 'If Yes' and 'If No' paths to follow in terms of how they talk about the pregnancy and what they do next ...

So it isn't based on if they think there might be a problem - it is routine. A routine querying of whether to proceed.

I get you now, thanks for the clarification.

I agree, that's why my understanding is it's more up to the woman.

They say giving birth is equivalent to having a limb severed off.


I honestly can't tell you either.
I don't know.


Maybe, i thought it was because of the fetus' that don't make it because they produce a few to get the one that has the best chances.


I would never like to see abortion being taken likely and yet I know it is to some people.


The other end of that is making it law that they have no choice if it is illegal.

again SeanBM, will you call it natural when YOU murder someone?


There is no set answer to this question. Many people believe that the baby is alive at conception. Others believe it is when the heart beats for the first time (about 6 weeks after conception). Still others believe that the baby is not alive until quickening (16-20 weeks after conception), and some don't believe the baby is alive until it is full-term (37 weeks after conception) or even born.

What do you believe?
You have some very strong opinions about it, I just thought it would help me understand when you thought a human is and why then.

Some people believe women are baby making machines, others that every sperm is sacred, I tried to go though a few of the beliefs people have earlier.


I don't plan on killing anyone, if I ever did, it would be for a very good reason.
And natural, yes.

Wikipedia states - with references - that the first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week.


Interesting. I had no idea. Have you any idea why the check-list is there in the first place? I have an inkling it may because the doctor is under obligation not to assume anything, and as such acting "chirpy" when the woman has doubts could be seen as coercion on the part of the doctor. It's tricky and I really don't have an answer for it.

Well, that is a bit sci-fi ... in a bad way (tanks of strangely-coloured liquid housing half-recognisable life forms, etc.) ... it is bad.
I thought they put some back in and kept the rest in the freezer. I don't think they should trash them, if that is what they do. It is all very tricky.

I already answered it above.


I wonder if all of those who murder people, feel the same way about it as you do and if they do, it must be much easier for them to live with it.

Btw. I'll never agree with you here. The reason for us to be here is to reproduce and not to murder.

To be fair, only 30% of all "traditionally ;-) " fertilised eggs actually become viable attached embryos and 70% are rejected by the "mother" as they have too many chromosomes. As far as I remember the viably of IVF embryos are lower than 30%, but I have to check that.

Just checked. Of IVF embryos only 7.5% become viable.

Perhaps process and ethics may be a better way of explaining what I'm trying to say.

Some may describe what they view as an unethical process as unnatural.

You edited your post, do you mean you believe the part you put in bold?
This part:


If so, then do you consider it not an abortion before 6 weeks?


I am sure that people who were forced to murder someone do not have it easy.


Everyone? even Nuns? :)


You never have to agree with me, we are discussing different points of view.


That makes much more sense in this context.

But again, ethics vary and change considerably (I get the feeling I am might start a thread on this in which I'll be the only one to have posted:)

Well, I know for example that to rape is wrong. If a rapist tells me that he believes otherwise, I would feel that my belief should take precedence over his. Why? Because his involves violence and pain inflicted on others.

And my point is more subtle and delicate: I believe that women are not told the truth before abortion, and that therefore a lot suffer in a way that they shouldn't have to. So yes, I do think that my beliefs, born of experience, should be given more credence than those of women who have not yet had the experience. Make it a level playing field. Take two women of equal experience, and then say their views are equal.


With respect, are you a woman? Of course I know that the fertile period is more than a day. Of course I know that the body can ovulate almost on demand. But I also know that in an uneventful month, I can tell you with absolute accuracy exactly when I am fertile, and I am right (have checked it, with ovulation kits - I am always right). If a woman does not want to get pregnant, she should not have sex. Very simple.


So tell me, because I am very interested: how does a woman know, if she has never been pregnant and never had a child? And don't load it with 'put through' ...

And mental health issues mean a seriously undermined psychological balance, that leads to pathological disorders such as extreme anxiety, depression, etc. More women suffer this post-abortion than as a mother of a child. And how do we know if a woman is likely to suffer these issues if she has an abortion? Can she know? Should we not help her understand? We who know? Doesn't it work both ways? Shouldn't we be considering the risk to her of PUTTING HER THROUGH an abortion??

Sorry to sound heated, but really, some balance is needed here, in all of this.

I have to say,being that this is such a touchy issue which often evokes anger and nastiness towards one another,that I'm impressed with the level of civility that has been displayed on this thread thus far.My thanks to all the participants..