Abortion still under control in Poland

true


I don't have any problems with creating lives, I just oppose killing lives as it is in all unnecessary cases of abortion (other than the cases I've mentioned earlier).

And again we agree, I better quit now before anything changes :)

It's late, night folks.

Ah I see... well that's my point... how do you go about proving who was sensible and unlucky, and who was uneducated, or misinformed, or just reckless? We can't.

If you're going to start handing out abortions on whether or not you think someone took precautions or not there are only two things we can do:

1)Believe all of them, in which case they get an abortion anyway,
or
2)Believe no one, in which case some of the sensible women that took precautions may just be forced through pregnancy.

I think I prefer option 1. But that's because I don't want kids, and I don't want to be forced though pregnancy. I can't think of anything worse. It actually gives me the creeps just thinking about being up the duff.

There may be instances where abortion may be permitted, but as a general rule it is an immoral act and one that is specifically forbidden by God. Liberals 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.

That is generally the underlying problem when a liberal or "progressive" ideal crosses path with a religious principle.

Take euthanasia for instance. The problem with the idea of euthanasia is that the way it is argued by liberals seems almost as if they want to "normalize" murder in the name of individual "suffering". Obviously, once you legalize euthanasia for extreme cases, it wouldn't take long before liberals will start arguing suicide is a "human right".

It doesn't matter, keep your legs together if you can't live with the consequences of your actions, simple as that.

Actions and consequences again... we've discussed this already. Don't make me talk about all the actions you could take and all the consequences I might dictate you live with.

The bit in bold is particularly charming. Where do you guys get off on dictating the private lives of others? Really! I'm kind of flabbergast! Mind your own business!

I wasn't attacking you, was attacking your opinion.

General statement: What I don't understand is how some people have problems with people being killed in a war but don't have any problems with killing newborns.

Too many women have peanut-butter legs. Easy to spread! And then they go cry-babying and whining about their horrible fate.

It doesn't make it any less "charming" to be honest. And it's still dictating your personal morality onto others private lives. And I still don't understand why people get off on it...


No one's talked about killing newborns. Where? Show me?

@polonius
Careful. You're starting to sound like a misogynist.

What would you class as "leg-spreading", and does it count for men too?

GabiDaHun,I'm not suggesting based on that criteria.I'm asking you about a specific situation that needs no proving because they have said it was unprotected.Do you feel that this person or persons should still have the right to choose.Forget about proving anything I am strictly referring to this and not that this be the basis for deciding anything else.It's a point blank question.

you're entitled to express your opinions and we're entitled to agree or disagree with you. It's just the way it is on an open forum.

Now, do you seriously believe, I get off on discussing killing of newborns? Are you serious? I'm the one who's fighting for their right to live while you say, I don't want them, to hell with them.

GabiDaHun,So you know;I don't judge anyone,I may judge what I feel is wrong and may not like what a person is doing,but I don't judge and I don't want to dictate how people should live.On this issue and I have made it very clear that I think it is wrong to have an abortion simply to avoid responsibility and this means being responsible for bringing a child into the world.I also believe that the male partner should have a say as well.I don't judge people for their decisions because I can't honestly know what I'd do in a given situation until confronted with it.

Who is talking about killing newborns?

Orpheus,do you think that perhaps,he might of worded it wrong?

In which case, of course you're going to be pro-abortion. What you don't like about my comments, really, is that I have said pregnancy and children are good things, and you think they are bad, and the idea of getting pregnant by accident and then not being allowed an abortion is monstrous to you ... because then you would have to 'go through' pregnancy and childbirth, and have a child. OK. Now it makes sense. So yes, I can understand why you advocate 'personal choice is personal'. And of course I respect your position, but there are millions of women who feel quite differently to you, so important you make sure your personal choice is just for you. Trust me - who feel absolutely opposite to how you feel.

But everyone's comments here aren't about you, aren't personal - they are just about opinion and morality. When I say 'If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex' - I don't mean you personally, GDH, I mean 'one' - I am using the 'you' in an objective, unpersonal way - a general way.

The question of if someone had risky sex and got pregnant, should they be 'allowed' an abortion because they weren't responsible, they just took a chance - is a good one. Can you answer it?


Yep. This says it. It is this insidious normalisation that is baaaaad.


Yes, yes ... although very often the male partner has a say - freaking out and demanding the woman has an abortion ; )
But agree a million per cent that if he doesn't want an abortion, is a tricky tricky situation.
Nobody wants to force anybody into anything, but the disassociation of sex from procreation is sometimes a dangerous move - gets people into all sorts of trouble ...

natasia,I wish I could get all indignant about your comment in regards to men opting for abortion lol ;)

not necessarily true at all.


I think that's really inferring a lot on another person's behalf i.e. putting words in their mouth.

From what I've read of Gabi's posts, she seems very level headed and well-reasoned in how she's presented her opinions.


I repeat my question for all of you who would tell another person what they can or can't do with their body: How much responsibility are you willing to personally take in the raising of a child which the mother did not want to have? How many of you people pay frequent visits to the local orphanage?


We have a "say" when we agree to have sex with a woman. People don't give that as much weight as they should imo.

Foreigner4,So we should have a say after the fact as well,because she has a say as to whether or not she wants to have sex just as well.

Foreigner4,If I got a woman pregnant I would intend on taking care of the child.Once again if the woman doesn't want to deal with a child then don't get pregnant,it's that simple.You produce a child you should be responsible for it.Why you seem to think that because someone else doesn't want to take care of a child they didn't bring into the world means that they can't express the opinion that people who do should fulfill their obligations..........You know no one is trying to tell anyone what they should do with their body,just what they shouldn't do with a different one.

Why should we? We don't carry the baby and if we didn't want our sperm in there then we shouldn't have put it there.


It's her choice and certainly not ours. We may not like it but that's reality, that's nature.


You'll forgive me if I'm wrong as it's a bit unclear what you were trying to communicate:
I am not telling anyone what they can or can't say and am a bit annoyed you chose to interpret what I've written in that way. Say what you like but be honest with yourselves and most of all be consistent. If you would like to tell others what they can or can't do with their bodies or children then your a$$es better be ready to take responsibility for that child when a woman who doesn't want to carry it, is forced to do so. If you would like to tell a woman she HAS TO have a baby and also not want anything to do with ensuring that child is raised and cared for in a way YOU would want for your own children then that seems a lot like cognitive dissonance.


Well that's where this gets interesting, isn't it? When is it her body and when isn't it? Is it her womb? Is it her blood? Is it her life? Is it her choice?

You see I am not an abortion proponent.
I have simply noticed the logical inconsistencies from the anti-abortion crowd. These are the preaching one minute and condemning the next types of people who demand no abortions yet won't hesitate to turn their backs on these children when they're in orphanages or raised by mothers who decided they weren't up to task. They want the harshest of penalties for street criminals yet see no correlation between unwanted pregnancies and subsequent problems in the following generations becoming criminals. They seem incapable of imagining anyone having lived a different life and have different life circumstances but their own. They use empty phrases like "it's unnatural" and then try to play the philosopher in the next breath.

I can be against abortion yet also note hypocrisy and empty platitudes coming from either side of the gallery.

Foreigner4,I interpreted it as you saying people can't express themselves because you asked that question under one of my quotes.A baby in a woman's body is not her body though the baby may reside in her body.If the child dies it doesn't mean the woman will;where as if the woman dies the child surely will.The law considers the man responsible for the child therefore this means the child is also his,no changing that.The baby within her body is not her body plain and simple.I don't see any hypocrisy or inconsistency in telling a woman that if a life is created she owes that life a responsibility to care for it or to suggest that if she doesn't want to have a child then don't take the chance.If everyone on this thread have children that they aren't taking care of then that's hypocrisy and even if it was this still doesn't change anything.The only type of abortion that I am against is having it because you decided not to be careful and then got pregnant.Because what I'm getting from the proponents;is that if a woman wants to throw caution to the wind and then abort a life that this is ok.I personally don't believe that this is ok.

I didn't say that. You said:


I'm simply asking who doesn't have a problem with killing newborns? Who has said such a thing?


That's utter rubbish. What kind of a crappy term is pro-abortion anyway? I've said numerous times morality is not a black and white issue of "good" or "bad", "pro" or "anti". What I've said is that morality or "good and bad" "pro and anti" is incredibly difficult to legislate, and there is a morality issue in legislating (or forcing) unprovable moral opinions on another. Is this another of those emotive like "killing babies"? Pro abortion makes me sound like I want every woman to go out and have abortions. I don't, and I'm not going to box myself into any framework of thought by giving myself labels, if you wish to categorise the world, then you do that, but be aware; I'm an individual whom a label might not fit. I've already said that I want people to use contraception, the abortion procedure is (as it should be) a safety net.


Oh my God! Where do you infer this stuff from? I've made clear already in the thread that pregnancy and childbirth are personal and individual experiences, I don't think pregnancy and children are bad. I think pregnancy and children FOR ME would be bad, and by that logic, out of the 6 billion people on the planet, it's not unfesable that some think the same way as I do.. There is a difference, can you see it?

I think I am starting to see how your logic works.

You say:
Pregnancy and children were good for me ---------------------------------------------------------> therefore pregnancy and children are good things for everyone... so I will legislate it, no one must have an abortion.

You *think* I say:
Pregnancy and children are bad for me-------------------------------------------------------------->there fore children and pregnancy are bad things....... so I will legislate is and everyone must have an abortion.

What I actually say is:
Pregnancy and children are bad for me, but they are good for you --------------------------->therefore you do what you want, and I do what I want. Personal choice is personal. I don't force my wishes on to you, and vice versa.


I don't think you understand or respect that. If you did understand or respect my personal choice to fly off to the UK (with British citizenship), you'd also respect the personal choices of women,(young, poor or otherwise) of Poland, who do not have the option or the money, and are effectively having once form of morality forced upon them, who are made to go though pregnancy and labour (against their wishes - because we're talking about one group here), and are then given a choice of a) look after the child or b)stick it in an orphanage.

Poland has 80,000 children in orphanages - the highest in central Europe, housed in about 350 orphanages. With limited staff, the amount of attention these kids receive must be close to zero.

activechildaid.org/statistics


I asked this on page one. There still hasn't been an answer.


I am grateful that you would take on the child, and for some women you are right, the child and responsibility is the issue, in which case, more men should be as you are. There are far too many man that do a runner. However, for some women the issue around the whole "pregnancy thing" is the pregnancy itself, rather than the child or the responsibility.

If you got a girl unwillingly pregnant, and you wanted the child to look after the child, but for her pregnancy was the issue, would you also be willing to go through hormone replacement treatment for 9 months, have your body slowly contorted, and at the end of that 9 months have one of your orifices expanded to the size of a saucer and have a watermelon pushed through it? In solidarity obviously. Because if being pregnant is to be an issue for someone, I don't see how anyone would be willing to force the mechanics of it on anyone.


Thanks. I'm happy for you being here. I feel like I'm blowing against a sandstorm, putting up with all this speculation, and inferring is quite irritating. Thankfully, I realise that my opinion, whilst seeming to be a minority on these message boards it isn't that isn't that of the minority in Europe.

Just for balance.

I think nobody answered? As far as I know abortion is illegal in Poland and Ireland only (EU countries). For example, in Lithuania abortion costs from 50 euros and the health system is similar to Poland's. Women only need passport and EU health insurance and they can have legal abortion in Lithuania. I think it is similat ro other EU countries.

Yes, Spain changed its law in 2010. think it costs more than 50 Euros, because EU health insurance is only limited to emergencies, and it's not seen as an emergency procedure. I'm not sure.

I think emergency treatment would be free of charge. 50 eu is maybe too little, while converting I didn't include medical tests and consultation from gynecologist. 70 eu is more correct.Of cource it can get more expensive if one chooses a private clinic.

GabiDaHun,my body isn't designed for it.If I were a woman I believe that I would because I wouldn't want to ditch the responsibility.It's the responsibility that I am referring to,I'm sorry I don't believe that a woman should be allowed to throw caution to the wind get pregnant then decide because I don't want the responsibility or because I don't want to have to deliver the baby that this is a good reason.A woman doesn't have to get pregnant.Faulty contraception if this is the case is one thing,but deciding not to protect yourself and then having sex;then I say that the woman should have to deal with it.I wouldn't like it but I would realize that my bad decision brought this about,because I knew full well this could happen and to not go through with it is selfishness at this point.But we can agree to disagree and that's cool,I'm just being honest as to how I feel about it.Ether way I don't judge anyone,I just hope they would do the right thing by the child.

A misinterpretation sir.


While not breaking any new ground with this, I can see you're working towards a conclusion to this...so please continue towards one, it's getting interesting.


Good point.


You don't see hypocrisy in telling others how to live while rejecting their voice?
You don't see the hypocrisy in telling another person what to do with their body if they don't want a baby in that body?

I agree with you that they shouldn't have run that risk but it's still their body and if they're really determined not to have a child, they'll find a way to kill it. But what would you propose- making sex illegal if intentions weren't pure by your standards?

Making murder illegal hasn't prevented it from happening and making abortion illegal hasn't stopped that either. At least with it legalized you won't have some idiots drying to drink and smoke it to death only to cause severe brain damage to their children.

Foreigner4,Sorry for the misconception,I don't think it's hypocritical,unless people didn't expect it to apply to any of their female friends or a former girl friend.I am only referring to the case of not wanting the responsibility and where the male is willing to take care of the baby;that's it.You're making it seem as if there would be no reason as to why they would be told to carry the baby.I'm not talking about some one being forced to get pregnant and carry the baby as well.I'm talking about someone willfully throwing caution to the wind and getting pregnant and then for strictly selfish reasons,decides this baby would be a nuisance.I'm not talking about moral superiority,but I am talking about what I believe is right and I believe that a life is more important.Like I said I wouldn't judge anyone as horrible,I would only hope that someone would do the right thing in this situation.You can suggest that I'm talking about taking away sex or this that or the other thing.Nothing like that.I'm not saying don't have sex,I'm saying realize that you could be expected to raise a child if because of your lack of care you bring forth a child.If people want some sexless utopian society that's on them.If I were suggesting a sexless society then you could call me the biggest hypocrite in the world lol:).I can't be any clearer than this.

newborns to be if that suits you better.



look how much it means to some people to get rid of a child. It's not a matter of life of a human being, it's a matter of convenience and expenses.

"I slept with a guy, had fun ... oh crap, I'm pregnant ... no prob sis, all it takes is 50 Euros and you can screw around again"


I'm rejecting their right to kill. It's not about these people themselves, it's about people they carry inside.

That's true, and logical, excepting perhaps for women who are raped.

However, it portrays a world in which neither women nor men can have sex unless they are in long-term relationships and willing to bring up and able to afford to support children. This seems to me to be a rather grey, loveless, joyless life, in which people repress their sexuality because they choose not to take advantages of the medical advances designed to make lovemaking for emotional reasons, without pregnancy, possible.

It doesn't suit me better. It's just more of the same boring, groundless emotive language - it's kind of dull now.