Abortion still under control in Poland

My presumptions are sound. The majority of the "force em though it" lot here are men. You can tell by the icons next to the username. Furthermore it's the Sejm - a bunch of men - dictating and pontificating to women about their actions, consequences and responsibilities whilst ignoring their own. I don't see many of the sejm asking women of child bearing age their opinions on the matter.


Ok! So if it's about facing the consequences I take it you'd be quite happy not to give any medical treatment to a child who has fallen down a cliff, by your logic s/he should have been more careful in playing around cliffs the first place, right? If his/her bones happen to fuse badly, or suffers some kind of mental trauma due to the incident, then he/she should just get on with it. I've got you. Actions -> Consequences. Deal with it.

Furthermore, if I happen to eat something bad and develop tapeworm, I should just let them live in me cos I shouldn't have eaten that tasty bit of pork in the first place... right?


YOU UTTER GENIUS! I've never thought of that before! WHAT A F***ING REVELATION! If *only* I'd thought of that sooner! A round of applause for that man!

Aside from the repugnancy of you actually telling me what to do with my body, and aside from the fact that this thread isn't about my personal circumstances, I've got a bit of news for you... I've asked for the 'snipsnip', In fact I asked two doctors. None of the doctors agreed to it. They said "I might change my mind" and also, it's standard practice not to give any unnecessary medical treatment to women of child bearing age. What's your next bright idea... genius?


.......... aaaaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to the emotive language again.

Baby (from the Oxford English dictionary.....

noun (plural babies)

1a very young child: his wife's just had a baby [as modifier]: a baby girl
a very younganimal: bats only have one baby a year [as modifier]: baby rabbits
the youngest member of a family or group: Clara was the baby of the family
a timid or childish person: 'Don't be such a baby!' she said witheringly

So I'm sorry, technically a foetus is not a child but who cares about one small technicality!!!!

I think I'll just go back to calling foeti parasites. It's just as technically flawed.... but really, who cares about one small technicality.

<<It's not necessarily about "benefit of the child". I am anti-abortion first of all because people should be responsible for their actions...>>

So women should be made to bear and bring up children they never wanted, to punish them for being sexually active? That's unbelievably cruel, both to mother and child, and also unjust, because it doesn't deal equally with the father.

More something along the lines of Communist subversion and a materialist mindset that adores pleasure but ignores the consequences and responsibilities they involve. Here's an example:

I dare you to go and tell that to a rape victim. You know they Sejm haven't ruled out the possibility of banning abortion in cases or rape?

While were talking about actions, consequence and responsibility, would you be happy for your child to forego emergency treatment if he or she falls off a cliff? Yes? I'm sure you know he or she shouldn't have been playing there in the first place. S/he knew the consequences. It shouldn't be society's tax bill picking up the pieces.

If you get tapeworm, I hope you take your own advice, and just let them live out the natural process of their lives. Really, you should think of that before eating pork.

A good parent will make sure the kid doesn't end up on a cliff in the first place and if this were to happen it's the parent's responsibility. The root of the problem is that sex has been separated from procreation and family. When you have sex and especially outside wedlock you know there's a "risk" of getting pregnant and all the duties and responsibilities that come with it. Not to mention spreading STDs, come to think of it. Sex isn't meant to be casual and it is not a woman's "right" to end the pregnancy and dispose of it as if it were mere garbage just because the new life emerging does so in her womb

So you'd be happy for them to forgo the emergency medical treatment then?


Ah ha, so now we're back to dictating one black and white version of morality onto another human. I bet you complain about "barbaric Muslims", without noticing that you are doing the exact same thing which you complain about. I think it's time for a reminder of the old logs and specks quote from the holy bearded one.


Isn't it? Tell me why it isn't. Is it because you said so? Cos your book says so? Are you yet again forcing (just like Muslims do ;) ) one version of morality over another.


I think you're mixing up "new life" with "potential life". I hope you don't masturbate.

Sexual education is very important and should be mandatory in Polish schools.

Abortion should not be treated as a contraception.

The truth is that it is a woman's decision. I'm not saying that a man should't be involved. But, first of all, it's her body and second of all in many cases a man disappear when the problem of unwanted pregnancy occurs in a relationship. Sad, but true.

" If? you can make sure that you will never become pregnant - snip!(at least reasonably sure)!"
Showing your ignorance of Poland yet again IS: sterilisation is illegal here (for both sexes).

As usual rape comes up to imply that being anti-abortion is to be anti-female and pro-rape. I have news for you - the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are not the result of rape, rendering this a non-argument. As for abortion in the case of rape, I admit it is a difficult issue, but it all comes down to whether you consider life to begin at conception or not.


When I say the parent is "responsible" when something happens to their children, that sure as heck means they ought also to have them treated. I thought that's kind of implied in the word "responsible".


I don't complain about barbaric Muslims at all. If anything, our materialistic self-centered attitude that has turned sex into something casual and chooses to treat abortion as a kind of contraceptive is barbaric. You don't even have to drag in the Bible or the Quran to know that sex is meant to be restricted to one man and one woman - look up the word STD.


As said earlier, it depends on whether you believe life begins at conception or not. I see no reason to assume it does not. I'd rather err on the safe side.

Not sure what "getting your hole" mean... but If you want to discuss my approach to sex so badly, I am admitting that I'm not perfect enough to follow "no sex before marriage" rule but I do follow (I broke it once or twice but that was long time ago) my own "If it is certain from the start that you won't even try to make any serious relationship with her, don't do "it" " rule. In other words, If I see a drunk, stupid slut in a nightclub, who is giving "signals" that she is "willing", I just don't go for it, hence there is no risk that I will get pregnant a woman I definitely do not want to have anything to do with. I had sex with women I did not know well enough to plan having children with them but they were not some village idiots, If something "went wrong", I would have been ready to marry any of them and bring up the child together.

By the way, I find the "women should have a choice", "we should not force them" line, you male expats are pushing here, really amusing. Let's be honest, you just want to have an easy way out for yourself, so If something "go wrong", you will talk her into aborting and "problem" solved. So much for your "pro-women" attitude.


I didn't follow that case in details but as far as I remember, Breivik claims he did it because he hate leftists/immigrants, who ruin Europe and he would like to see European culture, values preserved etc. My point is that he's totally wrong. Becasue European, culture/values were lost long time ago, this "discussion" is a very good example that it already happened.

wow, you people are sick.


why bother to post if you are just going to repeat the standard non-thinking 'wisdom'?

I am sorry, but I think only those who have been pregnant, and have had children, and also had a pregnancy terminated, are qualified to speak here. An unborn child - well, ok - say an unborn human being, then - is not just a bundle of cells. Well, in that case, we are all just a bundle of cells - just a bigger bundle, and able to breathe on our own and not needing total protection in which to develop and grow, from those who have brought us into being.

I am not any kind of 'god-botherer', and my sense of what this is all about is only born out of experience. When a woman is pregnant, she immediately, and keenly, feels the role of protector. To undermine this is really a most disrespectful, and ultimately violent, act.

Think what you like. I know. It is like people who think they know what it is like to lose a parent when they still have theirs. People just don't know. Ignorance is bliss.

Pregnancy is not an illness. Woman body is able to nurture life of another human being, if you do not want to become pregnant nobody is forcing you to do it. However if you become pregnant than it is entirely different matter. It is not about YOU any-more, your choice really. I don't see problem here nor contradiction - if you do not want children do not become pregnant - simples.


Well, thank you:)


Telling you what to do? Don't be absurd, I wouldn't be wasting my time on such pointless activity. Such hysterical reaction from you lol! Presenting options - how about that?


Is not? It is very unusual for mothers to refer to pregnancy as "a trauma". Anyway that "you" was addressed both to you personally and to all women who are thinking like you.Nothing personal.


Well I can say that you are under the age of thirty, have no children and you haven't convinced two doctors that you are serious and mature person who will not regret that decision. there maybe few other considerations but my guess would be they pegged you immature or unbalanced.

Don't blame me now. You asked!

Nice one IS, way to distract attention from the fact you know nothing about Polish contraception law.

PO is the party that has the most control, right? What are they doing about the abortion issue?

Ironic, given most of the posters in this thread are male and some here are trotting out a point of view on abortion promulgated by celibate men. But then again, you agree more closely with that point of view, don't you.

If someone is against abortion, the don't have to have one. If someone wants to end a pregnancy, given all medical evidence that foetuses are not sentient individuals, the should be no legal impediment preventing them from doing so.

Jon357,at what point is the fetus considered intelligent life?

That's something a doctor could better comment on. It seems significant that the medical profession as a whole do not oppose the procedure.

Jon357,I Myself would think that once the fetus has cerebral activity that this would be the point at which it ceases being just a collection of cells.I do feel that if a woman is impregnated;although it is her body the fetus is not just hers and the man should have some say on the issue of abortion.If he doesn't agree and is willing to raise the child then she should not be allowed to abort.If you don't want to have a child then don't participate in sex without contraception.Simple.I would hope that people wouldn't choose abortion,but I don't fault people in mitigating circumstances.I think that to abort because you don't want the responsibility is a sad way to go.I'm not a doctor and I don't know at what point it is actually considered life and because of this;I can't judge the morality of it.

This would possibly mean imprisoning the woman and forcing her to go through with the delivery, including physically restraining her in a locked room. If she were to be very uncooperative about other people's decisions concerning her own body, chemical restraints might be deemed appropriate while preparing to cut her open to effect a Caesarian section. Happy with that?

Orpheus,It would suck I understand that,but you make the decision to have sex and are not careful,it's just like anything in life.If a man is expected to pay for a child should she decide that she want to keep it,then why shouldn't this apply here.Why should he not be allowed to have a say.You play you pay.This is how I honestly feel about it

Should abortions be allowed in any country without the father's consent? It is as much his kid as hers!

Don't be silly, they'll just fine her to kingdom come, with all kinds of clauses for if she deliberately harms the pregnancy. the usual scare mongering crap, social workers for if she gets pregnant again etc.

It's not always as simple as that. But OK, if you're content to imprison pregnant women, and approve of invasive medical intervention against the woman's will, that's your right. I just hope, under your rules, your daughter is never taken away screaming to the prison hospital.

It's a bit of a muddy issue.
On the one hand, if you fancy it your decision to tell another person (not your own underage child for those who just want to argue) what they can or cannot do with their body then you've got a lot of maturing to do.

On the other hand, an unborn child is a life and that is true with or without your notions of God, Allah, Yahweh, etc. Anyone trying to debate that is simply uninformed.

Now, if you are incapable of entertaining the notion that you aren't blessed with some insight that everyone else who disagrees with you isn't, then consider this: why would _________ (insert holy name) have entrusted a woman to bear children if it wasn't _________'s intention to leave such decisions up to the mother?

I find the idea of killing an unborn child to be very saddening, at the same time I must accept others think differently and may have good reasons for doing so.

How many of you, who would tell her what to do would also help her in raising the child properly?
I do not expect honest answers.

Orpheus,You can make it seem so complicated but it's not and how it would guarantee a c section I have no idea.It's not about being happy with it.You didn't answer my question as to why a man shouldn't be allowed to have a say.We can go to extremes with anything,but to say this will always happen;you can't.The woman can be put under and once it's over it's over.Mitigating circumstances is one thing,but to create a life and then decide you don't want the responsibility,if the man isn't on the same page,then it shouldn't be allowed imo.How exactly is it prison?

Foreigner4,Like I said both parties should be on the same page.

It is sometimes very complicated. Child abuse, rape, drunk and incapable of making an informed choice, mentally incompetent, etc.


How else would you effect delivery in a totally uncooperative woman?


Under anaesthetic? Against her will, right? Set aside the morality, do you understand the legal implications for all this?


I didn't. Obviously some women could be persuaded. I'm talking about the hard cases.


If you detain a sane person against their will, it can hardly be called freedom.


Yes, a man is entitled to his say. No, he is not entitled to sign a paper which may give him rights superior to the rights of the woman. It's her body; what goes on inside it is for her to decide. That's where I stand. I guess we'll have to agree to differ.

I didn't say that at all. I said that if people think it's "all about responsibility" try telling that to a rape victim. No one in their right mind would be pro-rape. Don't put words into my mouth.


Sick in what way? I've not been the one that's been saying that people need to suffer in order to "take responsibility" for their actions.


So using correct terminology, in a philosophical debate closely linked to the biological process is now classed as non-thinking? Great.


Pregnancy is personal to a woman. It is whatever she makes it. If she wants to give personhood to the potential independent life inside her then that's her prerogative. If she doesn't then that is also her prerogative. If she wants to eat organic mung beans for the duration of her pregnancy, then that is up to her too, as it is to neck a bottle of vodka week in and out.... it's not illegal, although I would doubt her capabilities as a mother.

Just because one is able to do something it doesn't mean that one HAS to do it. Ability and obligation are not mutual and do not go hand in hand, and whilst no body is forcing anybody to get pregnant there people are forcing pregnancy. See the difference?


You told me, in your complete ignorance, that if I didn't want to get pregnant I could get the snip. Which clearly I can't, genius. I and many other women take the necessary precautions already.


As I said, pregnancy is whatever a mother perceives it to be. If she wants to see it as the most wonderful thing ever, then that's up to her. If she doesn't, well I'm sorry but that up to her too, not up to you.


Erm, as Harry pointed out:
1) You can't get the snip in Poland
2) Doctors will not perform unnecessary, expensive, and painful medical operations on women of child bearing age unless there is a real necessity. It's in their code of ethics. I'm not the only person who's been turned away in the "liberal" UK. I suggest if you don't like it, you should take it up with the doctors and stop trying to find flaws in my personality in an attempt to make things personal. Is there no depths to the lows which you will not go? Also, before suggesting people in Poland "get the snip", a vague idea of the actual law might be a good idea.


Quite.

So far we've had a whole host of ill thought out and straw man arguments as well as personal attacks from the usual suspects:

1) We've had personal insults, and dehumanisation - "quasi-human", "hysterical women", and "immature" being a few.

2) The ascertation that in order for society to stay moral people need to "face the consequences" of their actions, and then U-turning when tapeworm and childhood accidents come up. It seems this "moral rule" is therefore only applicable for pregnancy, and more to the point, only for women, cos men don't get pregnant. It's do as I say, not as I do hypocrisy.

3) We've had emotive and incorrect language; "baby" and "murder" from one side, but when other incorrect and emotive terms are used such as "parasite" suddenly the tactic is no longer acceptable! Moreover, using correct terminology is now called as "non thinking". So whic is it to be? Incorrect emotive language? OR correct non-thinking language? Goalposts are constantly being shifted, but only as long as it suits the anti-abortionists.

4) We've had some people trying to say that it's all about the welfare of the child, but yet these same people actually deliver no help, physical or monetary, to unwanted children in Polish orphanages, or any struggling mothers, and actually do nothing to make the situation that they wish to implement on these vulnerable people any better for them. More do as I say, not as I do.

5) We've had people projecting their personal views of a morality, on to others, and then demanding that only their version of morality is acceptable and should be legislated. So.. totalitarianism then.

6) We've had people wanting to force dogmatic views taken from their own religion on to others. I think that called religious fanaticism.

The ONLY and I mean ONLY reasonable response we've witnessed so far is actually this one:


Which is fine and dandy. Should really be having a discussion about where life begins. Or more importantly where you consider individual human life to begin and therefore at which point do you consider life to become huiman life to become "sacred".

There can be five possibilities for this:

1) Metabolism. - Cellular activity. Such as respiration and metabolism. This includes skin cells, and sperm cells.

2) Genetics - A complete genome, in other words a fertilised egg. It is an independent "being" from its parent, but is still not viable. We must also think of some paradox's when talking about this. A a single ferilized egg can give rise to twins, triplets or quadruplets, in fact theoretically with infinite space, a singe fertilised egg could give rise to a million monozygotic twins. So is this fertilized egg a life, a million lives, or still just the potential to become whatever it pleases?

Here's a scientific view on some common inaccuracies and untruths:

- The Embryo is Safe Within the Womb. Modern research shows that 30% or fewer fertilised eggs will go on to become foetuses. Many of these early miscarriages are because of abnormal numbers of chromosomes. The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

- There is a Moment of Fertilisation when the passive egg receives the active sperm. Again recent research has shown that the previous commonly held view that the fastest sperm races towards the egg and, bingo, we're up and running is wrong on many levels. Fertilisation is a process taking up to four days. As such there is no magic moment, rather there is a process.

- There is consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception. There isn't even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there's consensus. However, Scott Gilbert's paper lists embryologists who support each of the major view points belying the common and oft repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.

3) Embryology - This places the start of life at gastrulation, where the uncertainties of the genome become fixed. Twins will now be twins, viability becomes much more likely (but not certain), at this point however all embryos are female, and we still don't know for certain what it will develop into. The stem cell argument hangs in this stage.

4) Neurology - Or brain activity. Death is usually determined by brain activity, so most people consider this to be the start of life. It's the point at which we decide to switch off the life machine. It's much a much more reliable indicator of life than a heartbeat, which is actually just involuntary muscular activity, and is not really that much different to the metabolic process described in 1).

5) Ecology/ Technology - The point where a fetus can sustain itself outside the womb and becomes viable. As technology progresses, this moment is pushed to an earlier time.

6) Self awareness - Which actually comes after birth for us humans.

Scott Gilbert (a developmental biologist) says:


So if we're going to talk about where life begins, it's always going to be a matter of opinion, and opinion alone. It is not something anyone can say for definite. What we do know for definite is that a woman IS a living being, and an embryo "might possibly be one", so I'm of the opinion that we should be giving far more rights to "definite life" than "possible life".

Because where life begins is a matter of opinion, can we really, in a moral sense, legislate an unprovable philosophical opinion over the real feelings, emotions, and experiences of a definite provable living being? Do your unprovable opinions on this subject, trump an actual human? If a woman, or a living being, is that an unwanted pregnancy seen to completion would be the same as torture, and wishes to do something at say, stage 3 of the process where there are still many uncertainties about what this embryo will become, would you force her through that torture, on nothing more than your opinion?

I guess the answer to those questions would be yes. We've already witnessed dehumanisation, projection and name calling, so I don't see forcing someone through torture that for from the dehumanisation process. It's very easy to ignore the feelings and wishes of someone who we no longer seem as human. It's how we get soldiers to kill the enemy, and it's how the governments win us over with propaganda. I wish to be no part of it, which is why you will never see me dehumanise anyone, no matter how much I disagree with them.

Personally, when it comes to morality I prefer to go on definite truths and leave the rest up to personal choice of a provably living human. Anything else on my part would be arrogant and cruel. Why should I be forcing my opinions on to others? Where does legislating opinion stop? Do we make heresy illegal? Do throw people in jail for eating meat, I mean, animals are sentient aren't they?? If my morals dictate I don't do something, then I don't do it. What other people do with their lives is none of my business, and neither is it yours.

You don't agree with abortion, then don't get one.

Orpheus,That's fine we can agree to disagree.When a woman gets pregnant it 's no longer just her body we are talking about.It's not imprisonment because she decided it,I'm talking about a specific situation.The legal ramifications are what ever the law would be.It is very simple don't take the chance,just like anything in life;if you are mature enough then you understand what the ramifications are.Your answer is that a man doesn't have a choice if he would like to have a child he partook in creating.It's not superiority because if that decision is made he takes the child;very simple.She gets to go on with her life without the responsibility which in that case would be not to face the responsibility.That is eliminated.if you're going to use that criteria,then he shouldn't have to own up to the responsibility should she decide to keep the child against his wishes.Which I don't agree with either.We'll have to agree to disagree,because I will no more convince you than you will me.

p3undone: Paragraphs are your friend.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say there is an imbalance in the laws surrounding such things or if you're trying to say, we men should be more selective of who we copulate with, or, more plainly speaking:

If daho be all tretenin-like to kill ya baby cells den ya shuda not got all up in-a b*tch inafusplace...

Which one is it? Maybe you're saying neither, this wouldn't be the first time I've wandered into a thread completely lost...: /

What his say is worth then?Nothing! If you think that women alone can decide whether or not they want children why men should pay anything at all on children? eh?no say no pay that is only right.


Well, I was talking about majority there.


That is what I have been trying to communicate to you all along. You don't have to to become pregnant- simple enough.


I'm not getting your point if that what you mean. I think it is a moot point anyway, all I say that for women like yourself who do not believe in a sanctity of life, the best solution to avoid finding yourself in the place you don't want to be is to avoid pregnancy altogether. Nowadays it is not difficult there are other solution than sterilisation as well you should know.


Says you, there are few reasons why would you possibility be refused sterilisation, and I guessed few, no need to use it as a weapon against me.


It is moot point as well, all you can relate to is your personal experience to gain an upper hand here, all I can say that a quite few mothers didn't report their experiences as a trauma..


You said in this thread if you ever become pregnant in Poland you will take flight to the UK and fix it. You should assume that I'm reading your posts.


I named few possible reason what you were refused. If you weren't so busy looking for insults you would be able to notice it. Maybe not, you would rather play a victim.

As I have said already there are other methods to control your fertility. So I simply do not understand the issue here. You don't want children, you prevent it from happening.

Unless you are an activist of pro killing life organization.
I believe that to be so because of your post and because the way you "debate".
I'm just humble poster with a sensible attitude who believe in practicable solutions and in a honest debate. I detest propaganda of any sort and manipulations of any sort. I think that people who are trying to force issues which need not to be forced are not valuable people. They are that kind of people who are attracted to "causes" to "improve" humanity and they are the same kind of people who worked their way into the ranks of the Nazis and Bolsheviks, dutiful forging a new "better" world by mass murder and destruction. Thank you - no!


How is that dehumanising? i would say that those are very human features. Would be rather described in mechanical terms?


should we?The moment of conception is precisely the moment when a life begins.