30 to 40 thousand abortions by Polish girls in foreign countries

There is a huge surplus of unwanted children already.

But those who beat a dog can have a trail and be sentenced. That's my point. It's general rule that from centuries we impose other people some values. That's why pro-lifer have right to impose theit values on whole society as idea pf whole law is that someone is imposing something on whole society even if you have different values and point of view. That was what I was trying to explain you.

The point is that it is available to those who want it. Those that object, don't have one.

Ireland (believe it or not) has a high proportion of teetotallers. Alcohol is of course freely avaialbe - despite a reasonable minority not agreeing with the consumption of alcohol on moral grounds. It's legal and there for those that want it though not everyone accepts it.


I think so, yes, but I don't agree with it.

Yes of children who are in their later years, there is more of a demand for infants, some parents are desperate for kids

Teffle, please tell me when you heard of the Abortion Referendum. Have you ever taken part in one? Lawmakers are just people with their own inbuilt bias and their calling abortion legal doesn't make it right or those that say it is illegal wrong. People often legislate against other groups.

Now, the other matter is one of religion which is but one factor in the shaping of law. Nonetheless, broad social consensus supports the making of abortion illegal and, like it or not, the voice of the people is the hallmark of democracy and law formation. Religion makes the position clearer but as long as the voices of others are heard too.

Guns are products which can kill. Abortion is a procedure which does kill.

Let me be blunt, Teffle. When aborting, are you killing a person to be, assuming that nature takes its normal course?

Can I kill somebody or not? (of course not everyone has to kill somebody if they don't want to and thinks its unmoral...)

There are plenty of unwanted infants as well. Where do you think those toddlers come from?


Like using contraceptives? You're not allowing nature to take its course and thus denying that potential life. Just like when you **** out that blob after taking a pill.

but you don't know if it would come to this potential life.

Likewise, you don't know if the blob would turn into a child. You still can't deny that you are preventing a child from being born, maybe not every time...

Well from what I hear, some people are so desperate and tired of waiting that they are willing to bribe the mothers to skip the Queue+lets not forget the increasing infertility problem.

Convex, you make a decision to have a kid most of the time. At least reasonable people do. Contraception prevents that which you don't want at that time. Is that odd to you? Maybe we should let a baby develop every time we have sex? ;) ;) Come on, convex, think!

Were you once a blob too? Are you happy that you were allowed to go beyond that stage to become what you are now? Do you imagine most people are happy to receive the gift of life?

Contraception is preventive. Abortion is, well, abortive ;)

You have to make the presumption that it will be a child and guide it through to being just that, convex. It isn't the objective to have as many children as possible, that's an extreme argument.

Nonetheless, there are still unwanted children in derelict orphanages. That's just how it is.


Seanus, read that first set of lines, and then the second set.

Were you once a dirty idea in someones loins too? Are you happy that you were allowed to go beyond that stage to become what you are now? Do you imagine most people are happy to receive the gift of life?

It's simple, the argument just depends on where you believe life begins.

Yes.


Potentiality is not an argument if that's what you're saying.


I don't understand this Zeti.

I hope I was never a dirty idea but the result of a well-thought-through process. Yes, I am happy. Yes, I do yet I choose not to speak for most people.

I raised sentience in another debate which kicks in at around 22 weeks into the pregnancy. Also, the zygote has no personhood. However, I have revised my position since that debate and believe that the person to be is the deciding factor. Sorry but whoopsadaisy abortions (all too frequent) just don't cut the mustard. Aborting very early on under normal circumstances provides a glimmer of a justification due to the lack of sentience and clear lack of personhood (against those that say personhood begins at conception) but why did they have unprotected sex in the first place?

Teffle, of course it's a good argument. To say otherwise is to challenge/attack the very biology which has brought us all to being as we are now. What, you don't think that a zygote should be allowed to develop? There is no accelerating process, Teffle, and we can't disrespect a zygote as nothing if we all had to go through that process to get to where we are now. You are denying others that which was given to you.

I agree also.


Justification for abortion generally or only in e.g. the Polish exception cases?


The argument is getting tricky now. "Others" - as in a person/people?

Potentiality should not come into it as you cannot legislate based on potential. If that were the case the justice system would be crazy. But you yourself said "aborting early on ... justification etc" How come the potential aspect doesn't apply here?

I shouldn't have gotten into this...

I am not attacking anybody, yet trying to point out to the real problem. You, on the other hand as you have in the past use personal remarks as a means of argument.

You have not provided solutions to the problem, but merely expressed a personal opinion. Talking in general terms about adoption without knowing the Polish reality is just waste of your precious time. I presume your sexist attitude does not help. Some men just don't like women and that is a sad case of affairs, but something which is not my real concern at the moment. Just an observation.

The argument is: Polish women go abroad to abort the unwanted babies, NOT whether abortion is morally right or wrong.
So the question is: why Polish women have to use the abortion services abroad? Because there aren't any in Poland.

So your personal opinion about abortion, feminists and sluts is not really relevant, since there are still thousands of women in Poland who are left without an option, whether that is morally wrong or not. That's the REAL state of affairs.

olsztyn.gazeta.pl/olsztyn/1,35189,8526009,Dzgal_nozem__dusil__chcial_spalic__Bo_byla_w_ciazy.html

and here is an article from today's GW about 3 Polish men who tried or killed their female partners because they were either pregnant, or refused abortion. Try to blame this one on feminists too. Jolly good situations, aren't they?

Let's assume that I'm a man from a Muslin fundamentalistic country. I was raised in convintion that killing someone (or someone's family memeber if such person is unavilable) in a revange is something ok and a point of honor. Of course if you don't want to, you don't have to kill anybody who has dishonored your family, is that make killing ok?


Do you really believe that such cases are the main reason for abortion?

Well, in the sense of avoiding murder, Teffle. I don't believe that a wider interpretation of personhood leads us to the position that it begins at conception. Yes, the DNA blueprint is there but it needs more than that. However, you are still killing a creation.

The Polish exception cases are radical to far right people as they cannot condone abortion at all. To me, that's disrespectful to rape victims (rape being one of the exceptions).

Others as in those that were innocently made into an entity without their consent (for obvious reasons) and are thus, in all likelihood, a person to be. I know, Teffle, and that's why I made the very same point that you have just made to a guy called Gunslinger on this forum. Legality is one aspect of the wider debate on abortion and we can't ignore it. However, having exhausted that with him, I came to the realisation that we equally and even more so can't neglect biological reality that life is evolution here. I'm with you on this one and I go against the anti abortionists insofar as to say that I don't see full personhood in the eyes of the law as being at conception. However, they have a decent point with regards to the DNA component and we should be under a moral and perhaps legal obligation to guide a zygote through to its first breath and beyond. This is how life comes about and to turn around and say that we should be able to freely abort based on a whim or slack choice is to give license and justification to those that were perhaps (probably) careless and can't stand by their decisions.

As such, there is a dangerous precedent. To get to birth needs care. We cannot view that most natural of processes with reckless abandon.

So you'd suggest punishing them with a child which they obviously can't raise?

what I believe is not relevant. I just look at numbers and facts. Those 2 women would have lived if they were not pregnant.

But it seem thay wanted those babies as they don't agree for abortion... so what's your point? What way legalisation of aboryion would change faye of those 2 girls?

Of course not - but murder is illegal anyway, everywhere. I really don't get the relevance.

Convex, I raised that point above under the heading of a societal issue but didn't flesh it out. It is complicated, yes. Sb called convex said "there is a huge surplus of unwanted children already" ;) ;) Why is that, convex? Adoption should be explored and I think you mention that too. You are making out that another couple had sex and that they pass the burden onto another couple. A couple made that child and it's their fault if they thought about it too cheaply (although it can be more complicated, of course).

my point is that not only women don't want to have children, but there are men who are against having them, like those two men.


if they had an option, they might have lived.

is it? are you sure? isn't it rather that western world despise it?
I just show you how relative and labile are moral values and if you don't agree with something you believe in, you try to impose your values on other and saying "if you don't like it you don't have to do it" doesn't make feel in peace.


no, because they had an option. From the text it's clear that they were killed because their didn't want to have abortion.

Yes!

So called honour killings happen all the time, yes, but they are still illegal ?!?!


Oh the irony!

Look at vulnerability, Teffle. Honour killings are in the hands of those that can reverse course. They make a conscious choice. When you bring those killing forceps down on the vulnerable and defenceless feeling foetus, there is no going back.

Why do so many of you think it is OK to compare the morality of something completely illegal everywhere with something mostly legal? It doesn't make sense.

Maybe they aren't but they are obviously tolerated in some circles. And certainly were tolerated in the past as an ethic right everybody has. We western world have said that it's wrong. So we imposed some values on others.

Btw do you know that in Dubai they cut off a hand of a thief? Whatever you still they cut it off. Is it ok? I think for instance that's barbarian and disproportionate to the crime.

When you see that girl with cut off nose do you think that's ok because they have different values? or do you think its so ugly and how human being can done such thing??? This is the way great part of anti-abortionists think. If you are against you can't say that maybe you are worng and some people have diffrent values so you should accept their choice.

We should think it out. I don't think people take abortion lightly. Those people that have an abortion live with that decision every day of their lives, I don't think that abortion clinics have too many return customers.

But again, realistically, should those parents (or parent in most cases) be trusted with a child that they don't and most often can't take care of?


No they don't.