Poland to introduce a radical anti-abortion law

[darkwarrior42]

Are you forgetting babies aren't born in a vacuum? The women who carry them have rights too, and if that's the case then intent and cause of the conception matters. It's like spitting in the face of someone who is raped by not being able to abort the baby. In a perfect world no potential babies would be harmed but this isn't a perfect world. Is it a bit hypocritical that the baby has to die anyways? Yeah, a little, but there is more parties involved than just the child.

So, you're pro-choice then.

You've just moved from discussing the life of the unborn child, to talking about the rights of the woman who has to carry her.

And once again, I'm not pro-life. You're talking about me spitting in the face of women that have been raped, but I support that right. My original complaint was that I don't understand how people who claim they're pro-life can also say it's ok to kill a human being because its father is a rapist. If the unborn child is a living human being, and killing it is murder, that doesn't change based on the actions of its parents... if you want to actually argue on principle and remain consistent, anyways.

[Random010203]

It's not. But it still does not prove that this also applies to a fetus, whose intellectual capacity is probably very well rivaled by the previous owner of that tasta bacon you had for breakfast. Are you being sued for killing that previous owner?


Because we were first, and managed to make very sure that noone besides us has a chance of getting there, yes.


Chosen by chance. There is no moral implication to having won by chance.


This goes along with the antropic principle: Any being capable of claiming to have that trait must be a being capable of that trait in the first place. It actually says nothing when comparing to other lifeforms.


And other organisms solve problems we struggle with for centuries. They just don't have a mouth to boast about it.


An emergent property of being the suppressor-champs that we are.


We chipped away rock from mountains to create hole to live in at some point in history. Rabbits dig holes in the ground to live in. Give rabbits a few millenia of unhindered evolution and a good portion of luck, and we may as well see Rabbiton D.C. come into being. (I'm inteltionally silly here, but you shoul dbe able to get my general train of thought.)


I highly doubt that a lack in education is the source of our differences. But claiming so might help you on your personal "chosen one"-trip, so please, be my guest.

You have a very unfortunate view of the human race, I urge you to get out and experience what this world has to offer if you think we "chipped away from mountains to create a hole to live in."

If you can't show me an example of other organisms intellectual complexity, I think we are done here.

[darkwarrior42]

*snip

Fair points.... and I acknowledge that it's all but impossible to not go against someone in a democracy. My ideal has long been to protect freedom for as many people as possible to the greatest extent possible, so long as they don't use that freedom to deny that same freedom to others.

As for what other possibilities there would be... if I knew, I'd be out trying to make it happen

[Random010203]

So, you're pro-choice then.

You've just moved from discussing the life of the unborn child, to talking about the rights of the woman who has to carry her.

And once again, I'm not pro-life. You're talking about me spitting in the face of women that have been raped, but I support that right. My original complaint was that I don't understand how people who claim they're pro-life can also say it's ok to kill a human being because its father is a rapist. If the unborn child is a living human being, and killing it is murder, that doesn't change based on the actions of its parents... if you want to actually argue on principle and remain consistent, anyways.

You cannot separate the life of the unborn child from the rights of the woman, it is her child, and arguably genetic material from the father. The two events are not mutually exclusive.

You are only looking at this issue as the end result, which either results in a dead or live fetus. For some reason you are taking all other variables out of the equation such as the method of conception, which I am arguing; matters.

Does abortion, regardless of reason end in the death of the fetus? Yes. But I'm arguing that the INTENT and way the child was conceived changes the ethics of the situation.

[Mehrunes]

They have a set maxims, mainly that life begins at conception, and the unborn but still human deserve to live and not be killed. You disagree with those maxims. More over there is nothing inherently or objectively WRONG with their maxims, nothing objectively says you can't consider life to begin at conception, its as logical as other positions to hold. Nor is it generally considered okay to kill people, if you understand the unborn to be people.

Your essentially trying to marginalize their intelligence and thus person-hood, ironically while also arguing a fetus isn't a person, and claim their all just knuckle dragging idiots.

Except they are objectively wrong. All morality aside, treating fetuses as persons is simply not practical from the perspective of their rights and their inheritability. Given that inheritability of rights is determined by time of death and that you can't accurately specify the time of death of a fetus for shit, it wouldn't be feasible environment for legal purposes. Which is why even conservative and right wing countries determine personhood by birth. And why even those countries that give some limited rights to fetuses, like the ability to inherit from their family members if they die during the period of the pregnancy require the child to be born alive for it to actually apply.

And life =/= personhood. One can consider life to begin at conception just fine, without succumbing to treating fetuses as people. And it's almost as if not all life was the same, including even human life, considering human stages of growth. And human rights, with right to life being one of them, are weirdly silent about fetuses. And while it's not generally considered to kill people, even ignoring the people part for a moment, this is not a general circumstance of killing.

Also, I fail to see the irony here. If you link personhood with intelligence, then fetuses don't have a lot of personhood.

[Random010203]

I enjoy my life quite well, thanks. But I also fail to see what the one thing has to do with the other. Like, at all. And yes, yes we indeed once relied on making homes in artificial caves at some point in time. You can only question this if you're a creationist, in which case we're about as done here as we could ever be.

From the way you talk, you seem to view the world very negatively. And no, I backed up my claims through empiricism, I'm not sure what that has to do with creationism. It isn't pertinent or relevant to virtually anything we have discussed.

Again, my reasoning was that fetuses can grow into humans which are capable of higher intellectual capacity and learning, that's my point. If you want to debate that point, go for it.

[Theodarzna]

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.

Wow, talk about getting touchy.

The point I made was calling them stupid doesn't help anything and I would argue is simply childish. Their intelligence isn't really a factor, arguing only Smart people come to your conclusions and everyone else is dumb is simply black and white thinking that achieves nothing.

But no, Go ahead and continue to justify your personally fulfilling narrative, you clearly have your reward.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they are objectively wrong. All morality aside, treating fetuses as persons is simply not practical from the perspective of their rights and their inheritability. Given that inheritability of rights is determined by time of death and that you can't accurately specify the time of death of a fetus for shit, it wouldn't be feasible environment for legal purposes. Which is why even conservative and right wing countries determine personhood by birth. And why even those countries that give some limited rights to fetuses, like the ability to inherit from their family members if they die during the period of the pregnancy require the child to be born alive for it to actually apply.

And life =/= personhood. One can consider life to begin at conception just fine, without succumbing to treating fetuses as people. And it's almost as if not all life was the same, including even human life, considering human stages of growth. And human rights, with right to life being one of them, are weirdly silent about fetuses. And while it's not generally considered to kill people, even ignoring the people part for a moment, this is not a general circumstance of killing.

Also, I fail to see the irony here. If you link personhood with intelligence, then fetuses don't have a lot of personhood.

Impractical =/= Objectively Wrong. Impractical =/= Impractical. Something is not wrong simply for being impractical.

[nextormento]

My original complaint was that I don't understand how people who claim they're pro-life can also say it's ok to kill a human being because its father is a rapist. If the unborn child is a living human being, and killing it is murder, that doesn't change based on the actions of its parents... if you want to actually argue on principle and remain consistent, anyways.

There's a very simple solution to this conundrum: the perception people have of prolifers is fundamentally wrong.
As it turns out, they're capable of compromise for utilitarian reasons, and able to hold nuanced views.
Who would have thunk that they can be reasonable. Or people even.

Just like prochoice folks are not some caricature either.
If they are for the absolute rights of body autonomy of the woman , they should be ok with late term abortions. Alas, many (most, probably) are not, and advance some arbitrary notion of personhood.

[darkwarrior42]

You cannot separate the life of the unborn child from the rights of the woman, it is her child, and arguably genetic material from the father. The two events are not mutually exclusive.

You are only looking at this issue as the end result, which either results in a dead or live fetus. For some reason you are taking all other variables out of the equation such as the method of conception, which I am arguing; matters.

Does abortion, regardless of reason end in the death of the fetus? Yes. But I'm arguing that the INTENT and way the child was conceived changes the ethics of the situation.

I have to admit, saying that the value of a human being's life changes based on the intent of their parents, makes it much harder to take any of your other comments about the "unlimited potential" of a human being seriously.

I don't separate the life of the unborn child from the rights of the woman. Again, that has never been my position.

My position is that you cannot simultaneously claim that the unborn child is a human being, and claim that it's acceptable to murder that child if the mother was raped.

Your position is that there is nothing inconsistent about saying the unborn child is a human being, then turning around and killing it because its father is a rapist.

But you want to talk intent? Fine. Are you okay with making the exception in the case of incest as well? For the sake of the argument, assume the mother and father are both over the age of consent, and entered into the relationship with no duress, such that there is no reason for the relationship to be frowned upon outside of their familial relationship.

[Mehrunes]

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.

The court system isn't infallible. They may make inconsistent decision. And since in civilized world laws aren't made by the court system but by the lawmaker elected in general elections, it's not that unlikely for them to be inconsistent.

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

How can you be so sure? The 977 abortions performed in Poland last year could have totally solved the demographic issues of the country and turned it into economic powerhouse.

[Random010203]

Your position is that there is nothing inconsistent about saying the unborn child is a human being, then turning around and killing it because its father is a rapist.

Correct, that is my position, as I have explained it already. Would you be okay if your daughter was raped and than had to bare the child, probably not. But then again, that's not fair to make that assumption, so I'll let you answer. If your daughter was raped would you force her to have the child?

But you want to talk intent? Fine. Are you okay with making the exception in the case of incest as well? For the sake of the argument, assume the mother and father are both over the age of consent, and entered into the relationship with no duress, such that there is no reason for the relationship to be frowned upon outside of their familial relationship.

I'm not sure what you think my position on abortion is, so I'll spell it out for you. Abortion, should be used as a last alternative, to an otherwise unfortunate predicament. I'm not talking about masturbation or conception, I'm talking about a child that is more than twelve weeks old. After that time I believe abortion should not be allowed. The woman has been given twelve weeks to make that decision based upon these following factors:

1. Rape or (forced) incest. If the woman wants to keep the baby, great! More power to her. If the incest is consensual and they want to keep the baby, great! Again, more power to them, the main fact is when the conception is FORCED, that the mother should than gain the right to terminate the pregnancy.

2. If the baby's birth puts the mother in danger or complicates it to the point of death - No brainer, I'm not going to really explain this one.

3. If the girl is too young (not sure what age is too young atm, 12-15 seems too young) then within the first 12 weeks the woman has the right to abort the pregnancy.

After twelve weeks you should have to keep the child UNLESS the fetus has damage that would result in a sub-standard quality of life, all other babies should not be able to be aborted.

My views are pretty moderate, I lie in the middle of the spectrum I feel.

- - - Updated - - -

The court system isn't infallible. They may make inconsistent decision. And since in civilized world laws aren't made by the court system but by the lawmaker elected in general elections, it's not that unlikely for them to be inconsistent.

Of course it's not perfect, but for the most part I feel they are consistent. Abortion is an exception, yes, it's always been an ethical subject.

[Mehrunes]

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?

I'm rather fond of the "exile the medieval religious nutjobs to Sahara so they can create whatever the fuck Catholic equivalent of a Caliphate is" solution. Plenty of sand, sounds like an adequate environment to re-enact political entity originating from Arabian peninsula. And no people carrying the deadly gene of "national treason" around to ruin their glorious project. In the past I preferred just sending them to Vatican, since they have amazing ideas like making Jesus the king of Poland or making St Mary the Queen of Poland (because incestuous couples are OK when it's dead people ruling a country they never visited), but recently even Pope isn't medieval enough for Polish radicals.

[Random010203]

I'm rather fond of the "exile the medieval religious nutjobs to Sahara so they can create whatever the fuck Catholic equivalent of a Caliphate is" solution. Plenty of sand, sounds like an adequate environment to re-enact political entity originating from Arabian peninsula. And no people carrying the deadly gene of "national treason" around to ruin their glorious project. In the past I preferred just sending them to Vatican, since they have amazing ideas like making Jesus the king of Poland or making St Mary the Queen of Poland (because incestuous couples are OK when it's dead people ruling a country they never visited), but recently even Pope isn't medieval enough for Polish radicals.

Until they harness the raw power of solar energy, having long studied man's simple, protein-based bodies, dispensed great misery upon the human race. Obviously.

- - - Updated - - -

I do, and I strongly believe that anyone that isn't blinded by either ignorance or some other kind of bliss basically has to. But that still doesn't mean that I'm unhappy. On the contrary: It gives me strength, knowing that I happen to be born in the luckier parts of the world, and am mostly in control of my own small insignificant life. (And don't read "insignificant" as a bad thing. It really is the opposite.)


It became pertinent to your credibility or worth of having a talk with. But still: Humans did not ever made shelter in man-made caves? I fail to see why you would claim such a thing.


I already did, but you didn't really take up on it. I argue that while, yes, you are correct in that assessment, this mere potential cannot have any implication for the life form that is present at the time of actually going through with an abortion. What we're talking about is a patially parasitic basic organism, that dwells purely on instinct and is incapable of forming memories or individual meaningful thoughts on it's own. I judge the being for what it is, you for what it might grow up to be. I've decided for me, that weighing a potential against the very imminent and grave implications for parents to be, I'm all for empowering the already matured beings that already are capable of a conscious life, and that experience the impact of a child a million times more than an embryo would experience the loss of not becoming a human being.

Fun fact, the Matrix is my favorite movie, so I am all to aware of the ignorance is bliss situation. My argument for the man-made cave allegory is a problem for me because it represents the human past, what we were, not what we have become. Our views have evolved so has our intelligence, and with it makes a much different argument.

Much as you said, you view the child for what it is, and I for what it could be, while neither assumptions are necessarily right, I believe the latter gives the organism greater potential to thrive. Is that correct from a biological standpoint and survival of the fittest? Maybe not, but I rather have that potential that exists than none at all.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Which would be stupid to think. Why do we have to pretend its not again?

You're going to have to come up with something more compelling than "that's stupid."

- - - Updated - - -

Somehow religion always gets a pass.

Except when it doesn't.

[Betelgeuse]

So if you yourself admit that it has to become a baby, i.e. is not a baby from the get go, how is preventing it to become one killing a baby/child and not a gamete/zygote/whatever? Semantically, you are not consistent. Not that your assumption is correct, because miscarriage happens and so do stillbirths.

Sadly, you are incorrect. Grasping at straws will not exempt you from the reality of being a baby killer. Any rational person would understand I was not referring to miscarriage or stillbirths. Abortion is not those things.

Conception is the possibility of a child, here are the logical conclusions:
1. A live baby is born ~ 9 months later.
2. A miscarriage occurs.
3. A dead baby is born.
4. Woman takes a pill which removes the baby from her womb.
5. Doctor goes in with a sawzall and a vacuum cleaner, removes said pesky inconvenience.
6. Your drug addict boyfriend punches you in the stomach until the baby comes out.
7. Any other random possibility you can dream up where the dead baby occurs.

Of these, #4, #5 and #6 are killing a baby willfully and with full knowledge that you are doing so.

When I stated it will become a baby, I meant that when it is BORN it will be an alive baby. Oh the ignorance!

I feel stupider for having to explain basic logic and semantics to one such as yourself. One would think the school system would touch upon such a simple subject with a reasonable success rate, but alas, all some people can understand is if it doesn't look like a baby it can't be one, even though it WILL be a live screaming baby if you keep your knife to yourself.

So to clarify your misconceptions I will agree that a sperm combined with an egg is a baby. Anything that prevents that occurrence is the death of a baby. It doesn't matter when it happens it is still a dead baby. You must surely be intelligent enough to grasp such a simple concept? Once again, I don't care if you want to abort every baby you can. It doesn't bother me in the least, but stop pretending that you aren't killing a baby. Your rationalization for baby murder is ignorant and willfully stupid. Just say you don't want the hideous little thing and wish to kill it, it's too much trouble, you're not ready for a baby, etc. I won't forgive you, nor will any possible supreme being if that person has an opinion on such a thing or even cares. Nobody cares that you kill babies and you like it. It is totally legal for you to do so, so kill away and wallow in the moral gutter you have created for yourself.

Baby. Killer. <3

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I find their views stupid precisely because I understand their reasoning. Morality and superiority do not come into the equation. They feel something, and because they feel it so strongly, people who aren't them should be denied their rights. That is stupid.

You are all over the place here. You need to focus in on one aspect at a time. Are we talking about peoples' rights, or their faculties for reasoning? The reason discussions like this always devolve into hysterical mud-slinging is because the combatants start doing what you just did here. They use ad hominems, appeals to emotion, and various other fallacies as though the volume and intensity of their fallacious arguments will win the day through sheer force.

[Mehrunes]

Wow, talk about getting touchy.

Wait, was I supposed to be thankful for you projecting inane bullshit on me or something? Sorry, didn't get the memo.

The point I made was calling them stupid doesn't help anything and I would argue is simply childish. Their intelligence isn't really a factor, arguing only Smart people come to your conclusions and everyone else is dumb is simply black and white thinking that achieves nothing.

Saying that pro-life people are stupid (very specific subset of them as well, from what I recall) is not saying that only smart people come to your conclusions. You are now living proof that you can use black and white thinking about black and white thinking. Congratulations on reaching new heights of being meta.

But no, Go ahead and continue to justify your personally fulfilling narrative, you clearly have your reward.

Go ahead and learn to read. At no point have I said they are stupid. That was Boomzy. You know, the poster with the Dragonite avatar? Also Babzidu, had a black and white Warhammer 40K Ork avatar I think. I only said that your argument on how they aren't stupid is wrong. Quoting you: go ahead and continue to justify your personally fulfilling narrative, you clearly have your reward (now that would be something ironic).

Impractical =/= Objectively Wrong. Impractical =/= Impractical. Something is not wrong simply for being impractical.

Personhood in this context is a legal concept. Applying it to fetuses would create a legal environment that can't be worked with. A legal environment that doesn't work is wrong. Also, saying that impractical =/= impractical makes zero sense.

[Garnier Fructis]

Killing a potential baby is killing a baby.

Ok. Not really.

[Random010203]

So to clarify your misconceptions I will agree that a sperm combined with an egg is a baby.

Baby. Killer. <3

You're using the word baby incorrectly, the term should be fetus.

[Deleted]

What else do you expect than stupid shit like this from religious country?