Poland: Popular protests against abortion ban.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Nobody can force them to become pregnant and nobody can force them to bear childs, which will be forced their whole lifetime to care 24 hours a day about a heavy disabled child.

Polish law forces women to become pregnant and care for disabled children for their entire lives? Unwanted children cannot be surrendered for adoption? Surely you have a reason for insinuating this is the case.

This is a personal decision. Taking it away is a human right violation of the European Charta.

Its completely irrelevant what beliefs the US has. Their legal constitution doesn't matter here.

Good thing no one mentioned the US constitution until you did. As was pointed out, the majority of Polish people believe abortion is immoral. Do their beliefs matter in Poland?

If PIS wants a authoritarian Pre WWII Pilsudski-Era-Poland, it must leave the EU.

Simply as that.

But thanks god for polnish women they can find help across the Oder.

So now we get to the heart of the matter. Not abortion, but rather, “Muh Poland bad. Must leave EU.”

[Abdülmecid I]

"individually taken decisions", 90% of babies with Down's are being aborted.
Would you say it to the face of a person with Down's that he should have been aborted?

So, no response, just an appeal at emotion.

Why are statistics on reasons US women get abortions in a context where they are free to do so non-representative of why women get abortions in general? Do people in European countries where abortion on demand is legal get abortions for fundamentally different reasons?

Presumably not, but Poland is not such country.

Abortion in Ireland is free and legal on demand during the first trimester, something you described as a step in the right direction. Thus it can be reasonably inferred you support abortion on demand beyond the first trimester. If you don’t want to answer questions about your position, or why you consider Polish people’s ability to kill fetuses without restrictions a question of modernity, that’s fine. Per your opinion, Poland’s abortion laws were reactionary and wrong before same as now, and your concern about euthanizing fetuses with Down’s Syndrome and other defects is therefore a red herring. There is nothing inherently reactionary or unreasonable about deciding that defective fetuses have a right to life in a country where the majority of people consider abortion altogether immoral. I personally would be in favor of allowing abortion in case of rape, incest, to save the life of the mother, or in cases where it is medically certain that the fetus will be born in a vegetative state or something similar to that, but I don’t pretend there’s anything inherently regressive or reactionary about taking a different position on those points. Killing fetuses is not progressive.

The pro-choice movement has been historically and politically linked to progressive movement of social reform, revolving around feminism, individual's freedom and secularism. On the contrary, the harshening of the abortion laws leads to a return to the previous situation of social, political and religious attitudes, which is the definition of reactionarism. I understand that both terms have acquired positive and negative connotations, respectively, but that's only on a journalistic environment. Similar to how euthanasia and killing might seem a bit inappropriate, given the debate over when exactly a fetus can be described as a human being. I'm personally in favour of liberalising the abortion restrictions, as I don't believe that the fetus gains the properties of a human being during the first weeks of pregnancy or depending on the circumstances of how it was conceived and the familial relationship between the mother and father. The latter also looks like a contradiction: If you are not worried about non-terminal health defects, why are you not accepting the offspring of incestuous intercourse? Anyway, the bigger issue, in my opinion, is that such limitations ignore the reality on the ground and lead to more suffering and poverty, including unsafe births, forced marriages and even infanticide.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The pro-choice movement has been historically and politically linked to progressive movement of social reform, revolving around feminism, individual's freedom and secularism. On the contrary, the harshening of the abortion laws leads to a return to the previous situation of social, political and religious attitudes, which is the definition of reactionarism. I understand that both terms have acquired positive and negative connotations, respectively, but that's only on a journalistic environment. Similar to how euthanasia and killing might seem a bit inappropriate, given the debate over when exactly a fetus can be described as a human being. I'm personally in favour of liberalising the abortion restrictions, as I don't believe that the fetus gains the properties of a human being during the first weeks of pregnancy or depending on the circumstances of how it was conceived and the familial relationship between the mother and father. The latter also looks like a contradiction: If you are not worried about non-terminal health defects, why are you not accepting the offspring of incestuous intercourse? Anyway, the bigger issue, in my opinion, is that such limitations ignore the reality on the ground and lead to more suffering and poverty, including unsafe births, forced marriages and even infanticide.

The dignity and protection of individual human life has also been a historically progressive position. Left wing does not always mean progress, just as right wing doesn’t always mean regress. Scientifically speaking, it is objectively justifiable to say that human life begins at defined “moment of conception.”

In contrast, if the embryo comes into existence at sperm-egg fusion, a human organ- ism is fully present from the beginning, controlling and directing all of the develop- mental events that occur throughout life. This view of the embryo is objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other, and it is consistent with the factual evidence. It is entirely indepen- dent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical questions surrounding the embryo: What value ought society to place on human life at the earliest stages of development? Does the human embryo possess the same right to life as do human beings at later developmental stages? A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifi- cally well defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species—human beings.

https://bdfund.org/wp-content/upload...life_print.pdf

Summary of older works:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html

Ethical and civic questions of rights are another matter entirely, and there are inherent moral contradictions whenever the rights of one individual conflict with those of another. I personally favor abortion in the case of incest not because of birth defects, but because incest almost always involves coercion; thus I also favor it in the case of rape or where the mother’s life is medically endangered by the fetus.

Fueled in part by the current emphasis on child abuse prevention, the reporting of incest is increasing. The perpetrator in the majority of reported cases is a male adult, and most often the victim is a young girl.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2726650/

Appeals to consequence can be used on either side of the debate. If the sexual act that created the fetus was indeed consensual, and the mother is medically able to bear the child, there is no reason why convenience should dictate the fetus is eligible for euthanasia. Adoption can be difficult but is always an option as far as I know. In the context of a right to life, it is ethically sound to assert that the individual human life has that right, as long as it does not contravene the mother’s right to life. This appears to be the rationale behind Poland’s decision. My personal opinion, to the extent it is philosophical, that abortion should be permitted in cases where it is medically certain that the fetus will be born in a vegetative state or something similar to that has to do with the capacity of the human life in question to ever be capable of expressing his or her own will.

[Mithradates]

So, no response, just an appeal at emotion.

Oh wow holy you just did that didnt you? haha you edited out my answer so you could claim I didnt respond, unbelievable.

The Gattaca-card.
"individually taken decisions", 90% of babies with Down's are being aborted.
Would you say it to the face of a person with Down's that he should have been aborted?

Yep, hahaha

[PointOfViewGun]

The Gattaca-card.
"individually taken decisions", 90% of babies with Down's are being aborted.
Would you say it to the face of a person with Down's that he should have been aborted?

Would you say to the face of a person whose birth caused the death of his or her mother that he or she should have been aborted?

[Heathen Hammer]

Majority of Poles support the abortion ban, so this I guess this is just another thread where people who pretend to support democracy be angry at democracy working, when decision they disagree with wins.

[athanaric]

Would you say it to the face of a person with Down's that he should have been aborted?

No, because that would be psychopathic behaviour. That doesn't mean one has to be in favour of keeping fetuses with Down Syndrome or other severe defects. I assume you're against (current day, extreme) transgenderism and the many problems it causes, but does that mean you would say to a transsexual that (s)he's an abomination? Presumably not. I don't think you're making a valid argument.

[PointOfViewGun]

Majority of Poles support the abortion ban, so this I guess this is just another thread where people who pretend to support democracy be angry at democracy working, when decision they disagree with wins.

You're confusing simple majority rule with democracy that has checks and balances.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Polish law forces women to become pregnant and care for disabled children for their entire lives? Unwanted children cannot be surrendered for adoption? Surely you have a reason for insinuating this is the case.

Good thing no one mentioned the US constitution until you did. As was pointed out, the majority of Polish people believe abortion is immoral. Do their beliefs matter in Poland?

So now we get to the heart of the matter. Not abortion, but rather, “Muh Poland bad. Must leave EU.”

As usual no arguments against , what the previous poster has said, instead pointless blablabla.

In the real world no one adopts disabled childs, they spent their whole life in public institutions, which personal more or less can care about them. Some institutions are well equipped with personal and money, many not or only average.

The west-, south- and centraleuropean states of the EU share some common humanitarian values. The PiS led Poland is the last years permanent violating EU laws and obstructing a common policy even in the Corona crisis.

If Poland wants "LGTBQ-free zones" and cancel the "Istanbul Treaty against violence against women" and forbid abortion, fine then leave the EU.

It is not acceptable for dutch, belgian and german taxpayers to support an authoritarian country, which get netto more money than paying into EU and is wasting this money for buying F-35 bombers and a massive military armament programm to please american anti-russian warhawks, and gives a about the humanitarian values of the rest of the EU.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As usual no arguments against , what the previous poster has said, instead pointless blablabla.

In the real world no one adopts disabled childs, they spent their whole life in public institutions, which personal more or less can care about them. Some institutions are well equipped with personal and money, many not or only average.

The west-, south- and centraleuropean states of the EU share some common humanitarian values. The PiS led Poland is the last years permanent violating EU laws and obstructing a common policy even in the Corona crisis.

If Poland wants "LGTBQ-free zones" and cancel the "Istanbul Treaty against violence against women" and forbid abortion, fine then leave the EU.

It is not acceptable for dutch, belgian and german taxpayers to support an authoritarian country, which get netto more money than paying into EU and is wasting this money for buying F-35 bombers and a massive military armament programm to please american anti-russian warhawks, and gives a about the humanitarian values of the rest of the EU.

It’s ironic you would dismiss what I’ve said as pointless only to double down on your tangential rants. If you have no answers to the questions I asked aside from more of the same rants, I can only assume your argument is purely rhetorical. If your position is that human lives should be ended for convenience, the onus is on you to justify that, no one else.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

As long as you ignore completely facts that don't fit in your simple minded us-centered worldview ("The Law and Order party tried 2016 to restrict abortion law to the current state. It failed because ten thousands of people protested adainst the restrictions.") and that have already answered your questions("As was pointed out, the majority of Polish people believe abortion is immoral. Do their beliefs matter in Poland?), i don't answer your repeating statements.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As long as you ignore completely facts that don't fit in your simple minded us-centered worldview ("The Law and Order party tried 2016 to restrict abortion law to the current state. It failed because ten thousands of people protested adainst the restrictions.") and that have already answered your questions("As was pointed out, the majority of Polish people believe abortion is immoral. Do their beliefs matter in Poland?), i don't answer your repeating statements.

This is false. My position is predicated on fact; scientific as well as statistical. 65% of Polish people believe abortion is immoral. It doesn’t matter whether or not you think Poland should be in the EU.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

This is false. My position is predicated on fact; scientific as well as statistical. 65% of Polish people believe abortion is immoral. It doesn’t matter whether or not you think Poland should be in the EU.

From 2018:
Thousands in Poland protest stricter abortion laws

https://www.dw.com/en/thousands-in-p...aws/a-43110497

I don't care about your so called study, it won't be the first faked statistic in history from paid scientists.

It would heavily matter, if this study is from rural south western Poland, which is the electoral basis for PiS or the urban centers of Poland.

[Mithradates]

Would you say to the face of a person whose birth caused the death of his or her mother that he or she should have been aborted?

Nope, never.

No, because that would be psychopathic behaviour. That doesn't mean one has to be in favour of keeping fetuses with Down Syndrome or other severe defects. I assume you're against (current day, extreme) transgenderism and the many problems it causes, but does that mean you would say to a transsexual that (s)he's an abomination? Presumably not. I don't think you're making a valid argument.

Im okay with transhumanism so Im okay with transgenderism too, BUT a transwoman isnt a woman, its a transwoman and thats it, nobody should be forced to pretend otherwise.

Here is the part which I dont agree: if its psychopathic to tell someone that he should have been aborted than why is it okay to abort them in the first place? Isnt that psychopathic too?
Its not okay for them to be born, but if they manage to be born, oh well, its okay for them to live their life?

Also, what is a severe defect? Where would you draw the line?
And again, and this is important, nobody is forced to raise them.

In the real world no one adopts disabled childs

Thats simply not true.

[alhoon]

People abort fetuses, not babies.

Fetuses turn to babies. I consider a fetus that has developed organs and brain and can feel pain as an unborn baby, not a mindless constellation of cells similar to a finger.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nope, never.

Do you think abortion should be allowed if the mother's health is at risk?

Fetuses turn to babies. I consider a fetus that has developed organs and brain and can feel pain as an unborn baby, not a mindless constellation of cells similar to a finger.

You don't get to consider when a fetus turns into a baby. After fertilization it takes 8 weeks for an embryo to be classified as a fetus. After the 8th week, it is called a fetus until its born. The tube, that develops into a hearth, starts beating as early as 5th week. Pain, on the other hand, is a very complex feature. It's usually regarded as a feature starting at third trimester but some doctors agree on a 20 week mark. Organs continue to develop throughout pregnancy. Sex of the baby can usually be observed at 4th month.

[fkizz]

Democracy is Democracy. Everyone choose this path, so it is.

The only way to settle this face to face is a Referendum, basically what Switzerland does on a regular basis, trying to aproach Direct Democracy as often as possible.

I also take note of the left wing being zealous defenders of an Eugenics program as long as the method used is abortion, but that's a different matter.

[Cope]

People abort fetuses, not babies.

Sex of the baby can usually be observed at 4th month.

I do love a good Freudian slip.

[PointOfViewGun]

I do love a good Freudian slip.

Not a Freuidian slip but a practical usage of language. Sex of the fetus is sex of the baby. It doesn't change mid pregnancy. Aborting, however, is a particular action that matters which word its tied as it indicates time.

[Heathen Hammer]

You're confusing simple majority rule with democracy that has checks and balances.

Source that Poland doesn't have "checks and balances"? Objectively there is, however, no compelling evidence that "checks and balances" you mentioned aren't there. Just people who are upset with outcome of democratic process for partisan reasons.