Abortion still under control in Poland

And a foetus has never been conscious, as well you know.

They are part of the woman's body. Can they develop a brain without it?


Learn some manners.

Can you develop a brain without sperm?

@jon357

In the specific of what we are talking about, a human fetus in his or her mother's womb, sentience would be about sensory perception. Whether a fetus knows of his or her existence while in the womb has absolutely no objective effect on the reality of his or her existence. There is absolutely no denying the fetus exists and is human, because if it didn't exist the decision of aborting it would be moot because there would be nothing to abort.

Viability, sentience, heart beats and on and on are not about the fundamental reality of a human being existing in the womb of his or her mother. Those things are about developmental stages and conditional quality of a human. So, the question you are really posing is at what stage of development or condition of life is it permissible to end a human being's life.

Does a foetus know of its existence?

They are just cells and part of a woman's body. Hence the decision to continue or not with a pregnancy being the woman's.

Exactly. Philip K. Dick's Pre-persons immediately comes to mind... :-/

It is mind-boggling how many people think that murdering a child is a perfect solution to all the evil in the world (woman being raped, difficult socio-economic conditions, "bad moment" for a child etc. etc.).


Nope. The child is a separate entity. Separate DNA code - inherited just as much from the mother as from the father.

A foetus isn't. Hence termination being legal in most places.

Easily available for people based in Poland too. Just a 25zl train across the Czech border or 10zl on the bus. The passengers are women. They decide. Not the men.

...and who are you, or any woman in fact, to decide when the "foetus" becomes a child? Who sets the limit and on what grounds? AntV is right - it's a question of arbitrarily setting the limit, and in some places it leads to monstrosities like "partial birth abortions" which are nothing short of murder.

And who are you to decide.

It's the choice of the woman who is pregnant. Nobody else.

@jon357

At 24-28 weeks a fetus has the hardware to experience consciousness. So, possibly.

There are theories that state full self-consciousness is developed at 6-7 years old. In other words, self-consciousness is about development. So, again, you are arguing about the stage of permissibility to kill a human being.

We are all a mass of cells, jon. That argument is intellectually silly. The "it's a part of a woman's body" argument, though is sad as hell. It is not only a minimizing of the biological reality that the fetus is a unique living human, but it has also diminishes the uniqueness of women. The ability to bring forth new human life is an utterly mind-blowingly beautiful uniqueness of womanhood. The "it's a part of a woman's body" argument degrades that uniqueness to a type of chattel ownership that rejects and destroys the chattel. It's a sign of the ugliness and disorder of our times.

joun would you please stop with your silly false propaganda.
Prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus.
However, a fetus is characterized by the presence of all the major body organs, though they will not yet be fully developed and functional and some not yet situated in their final anatomical location.

Therefore killing a embryo or fetus is nothing less than killing a human.
You really do need to get over yourself because I am getting tired of explaining this to you.

I'll have to look this guy up and his pre-persons idea!

No. We, the society, decide by voting for the "democratically elected legal representatives". If we allow doctors to abort, they can.


According to perverts, aborting after birth is still OK. See Obama in Springfield.
When he was a state senator, this mfer voted against a bill that would protect a baby who survived a botched abortion.

You may not think so, but embryology begs to differ. The fetus is a distinct being separate from his or her mother. The fetus is dependent on his or her for survival. Just as the 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year ild is dependent on another human for his or her survival.

Does the father have a say? If not, why should fathers then be on the line financially for their children when a part from the mother (regardless of who left whom-it's all about free decisions afterall)?

Fortunately the law of most countries regard the decision to continue a pregnancy as a matter for the woman in question to decide.


One reason that termination generally has a limit.

Fortunately there are plenty of clinics in Ostrava for women who are denied that choice in Poland, and morning after pills available by mail order. This won't change.


So are other mammals. Yet they are killed by the million...

One brilliant bill allows abortions after rape but only if the woman reports it to the police within a day or two. No more of that "he raped me four months ago, boo hoo, and I need an abortion, boo hoo..." crap.


Set by the voters, not the fetus "science". The day when Roe hits the dust will be the day when the meaning of "democracy" will finally be revealed to the screaming bit*ches. If Poland wants abortions, vote for it.

You guys gotta be more PC.... remember, they're called "birthing people" in the degeneracy that is western culture, men can become pregnant too. They now even have their own emojis on the iphone

That at least makes abortion a human right - not just women's.

I think the father should have as much say as the woman... I think it's bullshit that you can have a couple, they want to have a kid, guys all happy to have a son/daughter, then the woman can get an abortion without any input from the man? That's B.S. imo...

That's why there's certain things that are good about muslim culture. If westerns were as protective of their traditions, culture, women, etc. things would be a lot different and we wouldn't have all this degeneracy in society.

Well, hell, jon, this could be the crux of the problem, you see humans on an equal plane as dolphins and rats.


I appreciate your honesty. This is the reality of the abortion issue: do we subscribe to will of power, ie the power of a mother over her child to end the child's life, or do we subscribe to protecting life at all its stages. All of these other arguments about sentience, viability, etc are nonsense. It's all about whether a vulnerable human life will be subject to the will of another without impunity.

Aren't all animals the same? Are dogs not aware of themselves? Are we 'higher' than chimpanzees and if so, how?


Foetus.


Why? Many lives are lost daily. Actual living people, not foetuses or embryos.

We don't ban IVF and that results in embryos being disposed of. Is there a difference in discarding unused embryos after IVF and terminating a pregnancy?

Extremists say that life begins at conception, yet the morning after pill is a routine issue.

@jon357

We are indeed higher beings-we are not merely instinctual like all animals, we have a free will and rationality. Exponentially greater developed modes of language and socialization than other animals-such greater complexity it's not the same type of thing.

And, no, not all animals are the same. Compare a gnat with dog with a dolphin. The ganglia of a gnat is completely different and lesser developed than the brain of a dog which is less developed than the brain of a dog. Nature has a hierarchy of development.

A fetus is a human being, a human being that has a mother and father, ergo it is a child.


Modern embryology is then extremist. Hence, the immorality of the morning after pill. Just because society accepts something, doesn't make it right, does it?

Really. And hard to know how nationality comes into it.

Not that foetuses or embryos have free will, nationality or any of the other things you erroneously mention.

Interesting you think that brain development and language come into it. Does that mean you're ok about terminating pregnancies where the eventual child would be very severely intellectually disabled but not ok if they're not?


Yet they are accepted, available and normal it isn't about clinical 'life'. It is about a woman's decision.

Again, human beings go through stages of development. Regardless of the stage a particular human being is in, does not diminish the fact that he or she is a living human being.


You are either being disingenuous or obtuse. You asked what separates humans from other animals, and I offered examples. You took those examples and transposed them onto a different argument.


It's a decision, but a decision to kill another human being. But, again, I appreciate the honesty of thecrux of the matter--abortiuon is about allowing another to decide to take anothe human beings life--not some happy horseshit about sentienty or viability.

At one time, it was accepted and on the law books to arrest and imprison homosexuals--I suppose you'd be okay sitting in a jail cell because it was accepted and available? Or what about slavery? It was widely accepted and available throughout the world?

Which is which is why early termination is generally permitted.


Ones that don't fit all humans. Or your argument.


And at one time abortion was illegal. In developed countries it is not now.

Next you'll be saying you believe that souls are relevant.

How doesn't it fit?


Again, you're missing the point: it appears your claim is that the zeitgeist rule what is right and wrong. If that's true, if you were in America a mere 20 years ago, would you have been content with sitting in a jail because you are gay? The zeitgeist rules, yes? Today abortion is illegal and homosexual marriage is legal. Will you accept abortion as right if it's ruled illegal and homosexual marriage illegal tomorrow if a developed country deems it so?

Uh, I meant to say "today abortion is legal...yada yada yada"

The problem with right-ists is that they treat rights as if those came down upon us the way light comes from the sun and reject the idea that "rights" are man-made. As such, rights can be given and taken away. "Rights" are no more permanent than the will of the majority. And so are court rulings - including a man-made phony "constitutional right to abortion". That "right" and its evil twin - the right to privacy - are legal tumors and lies.

But by your philosophy the right to abortion and privacy are indeed legit rights because they are rights handed down by men, no?

How is your philosophical view any different than jon's?

BTW, speaking from a purely American perspective, your belief that rights are man-made is contrary to the Declaration of Independence. It says rights are inherent to man as part of the laws of nature and nature's God.

That's a nice way to start the first draft of the constitution but totally useless in litigation. Never tell the judge that your right to be happy has been violated. He will ask you to cite specific laws, not poetry.


We only differ in where the partition - "fetus" protected vs not protected - should be set. His position, I think, is that the right to abortion is a woman's right and that she can abort all the way up to the moment when the umbilical cord is cut and the baby is no longer part of her system. If the legal system is different, then the system is "oppressive" and men are the oppressors. Feminazism 101.

My position is that there is no such thing as the natural right to have an abortion because it's "her body". This logic is flawed since it applies only to abortions but does not apply to me demanding the "safe and legal" removal of any of my body parts just because I don't want to have them anymore.

The "right to privacy" is total bs so I will not even try.

It's not poetry, it's the foundational philosophical principle on which all of our laws are spring. In litigation, it is useful, especially if you're before a judge who adopts an originalist approach to American jurisprudence.


But, it could apply given enough societal pressure to accept it. There's no difference philosophically other than you see the fetus as a child to protect and he doesn't. It's simply opinion and clumsy poetry. :)

Right to privacy is complete and total BS as an American constitutional right, agreed. It simply doesn't exist, except for the opinion of the zeitgeist.

Agreed. That is why voters, not judges, should have the last word on the subject. It's too existential and the results in the US are devastating. Poland is smart to resist this form of "progress".