Poland to introduce a radical anti-abortion law

[Random010203]

Great, don't do those things. Stop telling other people what they should do.

Ok, I'll tell people to stop having genetic problems and tell people to stop raping other people.

[Random010203]

When discussing these things, you should generally stick to the topic at hand. Slinging insults at your opposition based on your perceptions of their worldview is just childish and illogical. In doing so you are revealing either a lack of intellectual acumen, or a lack of emotional control. Neither is something to be proud of, so stop it.

Says the person who brought religion into it in the first place, and then continued to debate it for several additional posts, oh the hypocrisy.

- - - Updated - - -

Just like bacteria and viruses are considered living beings and have rights - right?

Are bacteria and viruses capable of higher intellectual thinking?

[Random010203]

Just like bacteria and viruses are considered living beings and have rights - right?
Edit: Or lets get even further. Cattle? Birds (read: eggs)? Cat? No regulation there, still living beings. Where do you draw the line, and why? We either decide to have it all or none. Anything else is pure hypocricy.

Why would we regulate the abortion rights of cats, are you even reading what you are writing. Holy piss.

- - - Updated - - -

Are fetuses?

Yes, they are capable, if you let them get old enough. It's the potential that is important.

[procne]

Says the person who brought religion into it in the first place, and then continued to debate it for several additional posts, oh the hypocrisy.

Trace the discussion back. 10thMountainMan spoke up on the thread's subject, presented his opinion and said that it originates from his beliefs. How is that a problem? Later people started dragging the discussion, as usually, to religion bashing.

[Mehrunes]

Besides I don't see much difference between people murdering other people because they do not follow religion xxx, and murdering people because they do follow religion yyy. Both are "religious war" to me, if anything can be called that, because:

And the stark majority of that is religious people killing other religious people, just choosing to use different side of the coin to describe their behavior. You're not going to find that many atheists killing religious people (let alone following a specific religion), because they are religious, and not just because they happen to be religious and are killed for other reason (like the example you used).

[Random010203]

Trace the discussion back. 10thMountainMan spoke up on the thread's subject, presented his opinion and said that it originates from his beliefs. How is that a problem? Later people started dragging the discussion, as usually, to religion bashing.

It's a problem because he raised the issue of "stay on topic" in the first place.

[darkwarrior42]

In any case the religion is not the heart of the problem here. If religion forbids abortion for any reason, and most citizens follow that religion AND they believe the abortion ban should be imposed then they have all the right pass such a ban.

So... you don't believe in freedom of religion, then.

(If you believe that the majority has the right to impose their religious laws on the minority, you believe that the minority should be compelled to adhere to the religious practices of the majority, whether or not they share those beliefs. That is a direct contradiction of freedom of religion.)


Outside of that, I've always found it absurd when pro-life people allow exemptions in the case of rape or incest. Isn't their entire point that the fetus is a human being, and destroying it constitutes murder? Are children born of rape or incest somehow less valuable or less worthwhile, their right to life not as potent? (I completely understand the suffering on the mother's part, but then, I'm not pro-life).

Edit: To be clear, my second paragraph isn't really directed at you, Procne. And I realize you commented that the majority in the country don't support this position, I just don't see any difference between "this is a democracy, the majority follows religion X, so we'll pass the tenets of religion X into law" and "this is a theocracy based on religion X", save that the former is slightly easier to change.

[Random010203]

Who says that bacteria wouldn't get to a state where they would be able of intelligence by the (albeit arbitrary) standards we as humans conveniantly define, as long as we'd let them thrive with no interference by mankind? For all we know, bacteria are what gave rise to humanity. I'll give you that one is an evolutionary process, the other is the growth of an individual. But in both cases you alter the natural course of what could become to be.

Why is a human fetus (as for what it is, not what it may become) all that different from all other life on thius whole planet? Just answer this one question in a relevant way, please.

Because that isn't how human evolution works.

A human fetus is different because it is one of the few organisms that have the unique ability to change the world through it's actions. Sure it could grow up to be a piece of shit drug dealer but typically humans grow up and achieve some greatness. Denying them that right by killing them destroys that potential.

A cat is not going to grow up and be a champion of human rights, nor is a buffalo. Human beings can intellectually think at a higher level which gives them almost an unlimited amount of potential compared to animals.

[Stormspellz]

If you are an atheist then you should understand this more than anyone else. If people came up with religion to make other people stupid and rule them easier (that's atheist's stand on religion, yes?), then religion is just a tool. Blame the people who use it, not the tool itself. This is the same kind of people who are pulling the strings virtually everywhere. If you removed religion (and you never will, this is something people will always come up with) nothing would really change.

Atheists stand on religion is that it is incorrect, and there no divine/high power/god(s). That is it, Atheism doesn't have a conformed view on a topic (outside the whole no god thing). If you would ask an atheist's belief on why religion started at first I'm sure a few will think it as "control device" but mostly I would surmise say it was a way to explain the unexplained for ancient man. But that is more a series logical correlations then, We are X so we believe Y about topic Z.

Furthermore it is without question that while religion is often used as tool to incite violence and cruelty, it is also with out question violence and cruelty perpetuates because of religion itself.

[Random010203]

Beyond that, I've always found it absurd when pro-life people allow exemptions in the case of rape or incest. Isn't their entire point that the fetus is a human being, and destroying it constitutes murder? Are children born of rape or incest somehow less valuable or less worthwhile, their right to life not as potent? (I completely understand the suffering on the mother's part, but then, I'm not pro-life).

How does it not make sense to you. If I accidentally kill someone in my car and didn't mean to do it, it isn't the same as deliberately going out and killing someone for a reason. Sometimes abortion is necessary, exceptions can exist, it isn't hypocritical it's actually fairly logical. What don't you understand?

[Stormspellz]

So... you don't believe in freedom of religion, then.

(If you believe that the majority has the right to impose their religious laws on the minority, you believe that the minority should be compelled to adhere to the religious practices of the majority, whether or not they share those beliefs. That is a direct contradiction of freedom of religion.)


Outside of that, I've always found it absurd when pro-life people allow exemptions in the case of rape or incest. Isn't their entire point that the fetus is a human being, and destroying it constitutes murder? Are children born of rape or incest somehow less valuable or less worthwhile, their right to life not as potent? (I completely understand the suffering on the mother's part, but then, I'm not pro-life).

Edit: To be clear, my second paragraph isn't really directed at you, Procne. And I realize you commented that the majority in the country don't support this position, I just don't see any difference between "this is a democracy, the majority follows religion X, so we'll pass the tenets of religion X into law" and "this is a theocracy based on religion X", save that the former is slightly easier to change.

Imagine if they the "pro-life" people cared about Africa with the same passion, or you at the very least not support candidates who champion gutting social safety nets since children and the elderly are the biggest beneficiaries of said programs.

[darkwarrior42]

How does it not make sense to you. If I accidentally kill someone in my car and didn't mean to do it, it isn't the same as deliberately going out and killing someone for a reason. Sometimes abortion is necessary, exceptions can exist, it isn't hypocritical it's actually fairly logical. What don't you understand?

Allow me to make this exceedingly simple for you, then.

1) Murder is wrong.
--This is a stance that pretty much everyone accepts. There are cases where it is acceptable to kill someone, but those exceptions are clearly spelled out by law.

2) Murder is still wrong if your parents do something wrong.
--If your father is a rapist, that doesn't make it acceptable to kill you. Period.

3) Pro-life proponents claim that life begins at conception, or more generally that the fetus is a human being.
--This means that they believe that laws against murder should be equally applied to the fetus, and that the protections for life bound into the laws should extend to the fetus.

So, let's look at a woman who was raped and became pregnant. By #3, that fetus is a human being. By #2, it is wrong to kill that human being because of the actions of his father.

Yes, the woman was forced to become pregnant. yes, she suffered. I will never make light of that (but then, I'm not pro-life). However, we still have a creature that pro-life proponents claim is a human being, that they are saying it is acceptable to kill because of the actions of his/her father, on the basis of making life easier for the mother. Would they still permit that when the child is 1 year old? If not, why is it acceptable before birth, when they claim that life begins at conception?

[Zenotetsuken]

Man, from what some of you have said about the things the government in Poland has been doing, it reminds me a LOT of the Nazi rise to power.
Sorry to hear that you guys have such BS to deal with. Our government here in the US is basically just a huge crime syndicate, which I guess is a little more tolerable than having a zealous government consolidating power to gain obedience from their citizens.

[Random010203]

Is human evolution suddenly different from all other life's evolution? Any evidence for this?


WHAT!? I'd love to see the, on it's own account, all-world-changing fetus

{quote]Sure it could grow up to be a piece of shit drug dealer but typically humans grow up and achieve some greatness. Denying them that right by killing them destroys that potential.

Wow, where to begin.

Human beings have higher intellectual thinking, that isn't up for debate it isn't something you can deny. It sets us apart from other organisms. In an evolutionary/biological sense, humans are the "chosen ones" we can adapt to virtually any environment, we can solve complex problems that no other animal/organism can. To my knowledge we are also the only organism that can increase/extend our lives voluntarily through medicine and changing external factors.

When do cats and whales build cities, when do they compose sonnets, when do they paint a beautiful fresco? They don't.

If that doesn't answer your question I highly suggest you pick up a sociology or geography book and learn about the world.

[Mehrunes]

In any case the religion is not the heart of the problem here. If religion forbids abortion for any reason, and most citizens follow that religion AND they believe the abortion ban should be imposed then they have all the right pass such a ban.

The problem here is that majority of citizens doesn't want this ban. There are religious people who do not believe this ban is a good thing. There are religious people who do not believe they should be pushing their beliefs on others, as long as the law allows them to keep those beliefs. But the government is going to push it anyway, because they have ultimate power and because the church is playing politics (church played a huge role in current government's victory and has some nice profits because of that).

And yet, the law was drafted by Catholic organizations. Had signatures required for submitting it to the parliament gathered by other Catholic organizations. The signatures given most likely by Catholics as well (if only because of statistical probability caused by Polish demographics). Is being pushed by Catholic church itself. And is supported and will be voted on by Catholic politicians who use their Catholicism as justification for their support. If religion is not the heart of the problem, then I don't know what is, because it doesn't look like a coincidence. If it's not a coincidence, then following the premise of it not being the heart of the problem, the other most probable option is a conspiracy. Given the location, Putin is most likely to blame if that assertion is correct.

And no, religious people should shove their religious nonsense up their collective ass where it belongs instead of forcing their superstitions on the part of the population that doesn't share in their totally reasonable beliefs. Polish constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Now, if they still want to ban it on non-religious grounds, they are free to try. But the moment they mention religious justification, they're back to the ass shoving. That is, until abortion is finally protected by human rights, in which case, welcome ECHR.

Also, only 13% of Polish population is in favor of abortion outside of the scope of the current law. Coincidentally enough, that's the official number of non-Catholics. Coincidents aside, stark majority of Polish Catholics is very much in favor of pushing their beliefs on others. The religious people against such pushing that you were talking about are a teeny tiny minority. The majority is just not completely asinine about it.

[Random010203]

Allow me to make this exceedingly simple for you, then.

1) Murder is wrong.
--This is a stance that pretty much everyone accepts. There are cases where it is acceptable to kill someone, but those exceptions are clearly spelled out by law.

2) Murder is still wrong if your parents do something wrong.
--If your father is a rapist, that doesn't make it acceptable to kill you. Period.

3) Pro-life proponents claim that life begins at conception, or more generally that the fetus is a human being.
--This means that they believe that laws against murder should be equally applied to the fetus, and that the protections for life bound into the laws should extend to the fetus.

So, let's look at a woman who was raped and became pregnant. By #3, that fetus is a human being. By #2, it is wrong to kill that human being because of the actions of his father.

Yes, the woman was forced to become pregnant. yes, she suffered. I will never make light of that (but then, I'm not pro-life). However, we still have a creature that pro-life proponents claim is a human being, that they are saying it is acceptable to kill because of the actions of his/her father, on the basis of making life easier for the mother. Would they still permit that when the child is 1 year old? If not, why is it acceptable before birth, when they claim that life begins at conception?

Intent matters in the civilized world, you don't have to accept it, but it's a fact in rational countries. The court systems seem to agree with my sentiment.

[darkwarrior42]

Intent matters in the civilized world, you don't have to accept it, but it's a fact in rational countries. The court systems seem to agree with my sentiment.

Yes, intent matters, but you are deliberately ignoring the context here.

If I accidentally kill someone through no fault of my own, I may or may not be punished depending on the circumstances. But the fetus is being intentionally terminated for reasons that are completely beyond its control. If you believe that the unborn child is a living human being, killing it because its father is a rapist is little different than killing the mother for being raped.

In the examples you provide, intent is used to determine whether or not someone should be punished for what that person did. In the case of abortion, the one being punished (again, if you believe the fetus is a human being with a right to life) is a complete innocent.

Because before birth the child-to-be is not an independently living creature. And also because 9 months is a reasonable time span to decide wether I'd like the child to exist or not.

Once again, I'm not pro-life. This isn't my position. I'm not the one claiming it's wrong to kill a human being unless that human being's father is a rapist.

From the perspective of the pro-life standpoint, the child already exists, but they're fine with killing it for reasons it had no control over.

[Mehrunes]

Considering I'm the one who is speaking, and elaborating on my meaning, I think I know more accurately what I said versus what you think or desire for me to have said.

Now you are being obtuse, You know perfectly well what I am saying but are choosing to ignore it.

I can read what you said just fine. It's out there, available not just for me to read, but for the entire human race. As such, yes, I know what you said. So what you said is not questionable here. What is questionable is what you meant to say (which is further supported by your claim that your knowledge of the problem somehow affects it). The thing is, I don't care about what you wanted to say. I care about what you actually said. Not my fault that the wording you chose to use to describe how the people in question are not stupid backfired in your face. Phrase yourself better the next time.

[Mormolyce]

My popcorn is ready.

And I don't even like popcorn.

I'm not opposed to abortion per se, I do not believe a fetus is a human being, but then again population decline is a real thing and abortion certainly doesn't help. At some point you gotta ask yourself what's more important? Irreponsible women or your country's wellbeing?

Abortion has no real impact on population growth rates. And the human race is growing exponentially.

We've been on this planet some 200,000 years, we hit one billion in the 1800s (AD) and in recent times we've been adding another billion roughly every twelve years.

If you were born in the 70s, the world is twice the size it was when you were born.

[procne]

So... you don't believe in freedom of religion, then.
If you believe that the majority has the right to impose their religious laws on the minority, you believe that the minority should be compelled to adhere to the religious practices of the majority, whether or not they share those beliefs. That is a direct contradiction of freedom of religion.

It's more about democracy - the majority makes the law. I can try (and do) to convince people to be more tolerant etc. but if they don't want to then what right do I have to stop them?
Sadly, if there are 2 groups of people whose beliefs just cannot come to a compromise then indeed the smaller group would have to go :/
It'd would be best if they could come to some agreement but if that's not possible - then either they go or a civil war starts. What other possibility is there?

Edit: To be clear, my second paragraph isn't really directed at you, Procne. And I realize you commented that the majority in the country don't support this position, I just don't see any difference between "this is a democracy, the majority follows religion X, so we'll pass the tenets of religion X into law" and "this is a theocracy based on religion X", save that the former is slightly easier to change.

Well, the difference is that in theocracy there's no elections and usually you have a very small group of people ruling.
From my point of view, I see very little difference between
"this is a democracy, the majority follows religion X, so we'll pass the tenets of religion X into law"
and
"this is a democracy, the majority thinks X is right and Y is wrong, so we'll pass this into law"

In case of Poland it's more like
"this was democracy, we gained majority in last elections, so we have the power to pass any law we want. Our core voters are religious and we cannot afford to lose them, because if things go wrong it's them who will take baseball bats and hammer our enemies, so we have to keep good relations with the church. The other groups won't do much except for protesting, but all is fine as long as they don't take arms"