Abortion still under control in Poland

And everybody minds their own business. How simple.

Sin can always be confessed and forgiven.

So if Muslim father or brother decides he needs to kill his daughter or sister because she has brought dishonor upon the family name or prestige, everybody should mind their own business?

Why stop at abortion? Why not also just start killing people?

Killing a human being who has already been born into this world is considered a crime in our Western culture.
Killing pregnancy isn`t considered a crime in our Western culture. Or it is, but only by believers and rightist groups. While others disagree.
And they need to meet halfway coz it is improper that one group imposes their views on the other by force.

As a believer I do my job- we don`t have abortions in our family. I don`t care what others do within their families - it is their business. And I am going to defend their right to make their own choices coz this is what democracy is built on - the freedom of choice.

The same with hunting. I don`t support it, but don`t mind when people do it. It is their business.

But only in the first 3 month.

There needs to be also repentance


People like you are scary. Speaking of which, did anybody mention a problem getting enough oxygen to your brain at birth? I think that is often the biology behind these sorts of ideas. There seems to be something skipping a gear tooth upstairs.

Embryos dream in the womb, which is why they kick their mother in mock physical actions that are practice in muscular control for when they emerge. A fetus is never dead tissue even when signs of life have ceased.

It hints at a basic breakdown in empathy which is often a result of early brain damage. Maybe you are the fetus that should have been aborted.

Do you think aliens or other space monsters possessed me????


Yes, definitely. It is amasing that you are able to guess the things so correctly. I still have this problem in adulthood - I can be so forgetful that I sometimes forget to breathe - only when I start suffocating do I realise the need to breathe regularly. I am desperate - this memory malfunction is really beyond my control. One day I will die of it. I will stop breathing and it will be the end.


Yes, definitely. Your life without me here would be so much easier......... Forgive me - can I offer my most sincerest apologies for not being aborted in time???

Define "HUMAN being", Johnny et al!
While still a fetus, it's barely recognizable as a human at all.

Yet it still has life and you think it is justifiable to take that life which is known as murder.
Like Novi said, "Never try to teach a Libitard to sing".

What this clown needs is the legal definition of "murder".

No, murder has nothing to do with if the victim knows the square root of nine or the alphabet. What a moron...

Quoting:

18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.

The only reason why abortionists do not serve life no parole is that we made this kind of killing lawful. Next time we can make killing people over 70 with cancer legal.

It is in Holland or Swiss legal as I know.

Over 70s? In Belgium euthanasia of children is legal without specifying any conditions with respect to their age...

apmonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/belgium-en-euthanasie-minors.pdf


Oh, so it's OK to kill someone in their sleep as long as they "never even realise what happened" while they are "not conscious"?

With, however, strict conditions about the tragic circumstances under which it happens.

Surely you'd not prefer people kept 'alive' indefinitely, permanently unconscious on life support machines.

With their consent.

The problem with abortions is that those babies inside their mommies never gave consent to be cut up into smaller pieces and sold for parts.

Sure, but minors have parents to act on their behalf.

OK, here is another problem...Nobody ever said that being aborted would have been perfectly OK with them and, since their wishes have been ignored, commit suicide.


That's the consequence of allowing stupid screaming broads to win that non-existent right to abort.
300 bucks later, life is back to normal. For now. Regrets will come later...just is they did to the Roe woman.

Who's talking about killing "someone" in their sleep or awake??
Whether or not it's even a someone is at issue here!

Well, easy for you to say unless you try it.

The part you seem to be ignoring is that the purpose of one's existence is to do good or virtuous work. Obviously, if you are ill to such a degree that you are basically incapacitated from doing virtuous acts of any kind, then why bother keeping up with the charade?

The problem with the idea of euthanasia is that the way it is argued by leftists seems almost as if they want to "normalize" murder in the name of individual "suffering". That is generally the underlying problem when a leftist or "progressive" ideal crosses path with a religious principle. Take abortion for instance. There may be instances where it may be permitted, but as a general rule it is an immoral act and one that is specifically forbidden by God. Leftists will often cite the exception upon which abortion may be permissible as a way to pave the way for a complete normalization of the practice, so that one could get an abortion purely out of personal whim, without any moral consequence of any kind. Obviously, once you legalize euthanasia for extreme cases, it wouldn't take long before leftists will start arguing suicide is a "human right".

Babies are "someone". Since the beginning of time, no pregnant woman ever said: A stranger just kicked me. Or: Something just kicked me. It's always: My baby just kicked me.

There is no issue. Our ability to see what's inside and measure things like the heart rate put an end to this idiotic debate so do some catching up.

What's left for the baby-killing scum is that that kicking baby doesn't not have a diploma in STEM.


This way we can rationalize everything. Take an extreme and write a law that applies to the rest. Or make it narrow and let it grow.

My advice is to never use the God argument since this opens you up to the counterarguments that derail the debate from the basic biology and sustainability of the tribe into personal beliefs.

Stay with numbers like fertility rates. Or how many abortions a tribe can permit to survive. No abortion rights fanatic wants to answer this question because even they know that "let the tribe die" is not acceptable to normal people.

Except the point was never to explain why I believe abortion to be wrong, but whether beliefs of this kind can be held to be absolute. There's no point for me to be explicit about my beliefs if i cannot get you to accept the very premise upon which those beliefs are predicated upon. Of course, it bears repeating that the main issue in those polemics is not abortion as such, but the relativism pushed by the pro-abortion camp, against which religious fideism, which is lacking of a fundamental metaphysical underpinning, can only partially refute.

It is the same deal with the issue of homosexuality. What troubles the religious person is not homosexuality as such, but this idea that there's nothing inherently "wrong" about the homosexual act in principle as in fact. Since the religious exoterist only has faith and dogma to rely upon, any attempt to defend an idea which he can only perceive instinctively without any true conscious participation will automatically degenerate into an "hardened" absolutism which is lacking in nuisance and can even degenerate into a crass literalism and a petrified and suffocating fundamentalism which often ends up vandalizing the good it seeks to protect by perpetrating a greater evil (such as in the persecution of homosexuals). Basically, in order to defend himself from the relativist error the religious fideist errs in the opposite direction. In a sense, I even agree with many of criticisms regarding the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the religious right. But then, if both sides of the argument are inherently full of sh*it, how do we determine what is true, and what is false? From a metaphysical point of view, the error of homosexuality can be explained thus:

sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw12_editorial.html

"The homosexual error is, among other things, that of isolating one pole of a binary cognate and treating it as an absolute, which does violence to the imperatives of the cosmic order"

Anyone who understands the metaphysical underpinning of this argument will not seek to extirpate homosexuality in fact, particularly considering such a thing is basically impossible, but will attempt, as best as can be hoped for in this world of corruption, to uphold the norm and respect the natural equilibrium of the cosmos, the specific object of tradition being that of recreating this equilibrium in our earthly existence as well. This is what makes marriage a sacred rite, this institution being merely an attempt to recreated on earth what exists eternally at a divine level. Hence, why the "normalization" of homosexuality (and not homosexuality as such) is seen as a threat, since it seeks to subvert the norm directly while rendering the entire concept of marriage redundant in the process. I don't need to point out that the the same argument can be applied to the issue of abortion as well.

I read your post and I am impressed. Just don't take it an anti-abortion rally. You would lose your audience before the end of the first paragraph.

A short silent video showing the procedure would make half of your audience vomit and the other half scream. That's why the pro fanatics will never, ever allow them on TV.

They don't mind open-heart surgery, colonoscopy, and everything else but not abortion. Just like executions, we are not supposed to see abortions from the inside.

So Godek, our chief of abortion law changes, now wants to also ban informing women about those.

Projekt przewiduje zakaz publicznego propagowania jakichkolwiek działań dotyczących możliwości przerwania ciąży w kraju i poza jego granicami. Zakaz dotyczy także publicznego nawoływania do przerwania ciąży oraz publicznego informowania o możliwości przerwania ciąży w kraju i poza jego granicami.

Will an article describing abortion laws in different countries fall under that?

Ridiculous.

Please don't post Polish text in these threads, without a translation

Translation:
The bill provides for a ban on public promotion of any activities regarding the possibility of abortion in the country and abroad.
The ban also applies to public calls for abortion and public information about the possibility of abortion in the country and abroad.

propagating crime should be banned, you are ridiculous if you think there are something wrong with it.

But it's not a crime in other countries. Nobody is going to get prosecuted for saying you can go to The Netherlands and smoke pot.

And this bit "The ban also applies to public calls for abortion" also bans debate, activism and expressing opinion. This is perhaps the disturbing part of the former neo-Nazi Godek's proposal.

I doubt China or North Korea have such restrictions on free speech.

Fortunately the proposal. has zero chance of passing.

and? is that some kind of argument in your mind?


lol! BS.

And that means there are no grounds not to tell people about what is available there under their laws.Which means there is no crime to propagate

Eloquent of you, though the question is why you think (or pretend to think) that "The ban also applies to public calls for abortion" isn't a restriction on free speech?

It's a foolish proposal, which fortunately has no chance of being taken seriously.

Once again, the woman decides what she does with her body.
The definition of murder under US law has grey areas as well!

is that so called women logic? It doesn't make any sense. In Poland it is a crime and that ban is about Poland. What other countries do or not do not matter.


So what? There is much of those restiction and you are fine with them, only in this case you seems to mind. So rather than pretend you are defender of free speech, just tell honestly as it is - you are for killing children you dehuminase calling them featuses.


man we need to decide to give you same new brain yours seems to be malfunction.