I’ve written a few articles on the regressive and pro-Catholic new government in Poland (the “Law and Justice” party), and especially its proposed abortion ban, a bill that would ban all abortions (see here and here), even if the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life, involves a deformed or medically doomed fetus, or results from rape or incest.
Many Polish women (and men) rose up in protest at this draconian move, and I’m happy to report that, at least according to the Financial Times, the Polish government appears to be backing off.
Poland’s ultraconservative government this week backed away from supporting a proposal to ban abortion, its first major retreat in the face of public condemnation. Leaders of the ruling Law and Justice party had previously been backing a complete ban, even for women who had been raped.
The party has previously ignored public protest and international ire to push through laws, as part of its stated mission to “fix” Poland after winning a sweeping majority in October. This push has included new rules that give the government power over public media stations and change the working of the country’s top court.
The broadly Eurosceptic and nationalist party has remained defiant as its flurry of legislation has sparked sovereign debt downgrades, criticism from human rights bodies and the first-ever EU investigation into whether a European government has endangered “rule of law”.
Prime Minister Beata Szydlo and party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski told reporters late this week that a proposal by the country’s powerful Catholic church to ban all abortions called for consideration and discussion — a marked change of course from their support for the ban seven days earlier.
Polish women also used a new social-media tactic, one that’s been used in countries like Ireland, and may have worked in this case. The government, after all, can’t afford to lose the support of a substantial part of its population:
After Ms Szydlo said she supported the ban because she cared for female fertility, her Facebook profile page was inundated with messages from Polish women detailing their menstruation cycles, their sexual health and their attempts to get pregnant.
Even if the law remains unchanged in Poland, it’s still not a great one, for Poland, like the Republic of Ireland, currently bans all abortions except in when it endangers the mother’s health, when the fetus is malformed, or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. In other words, the “choice” is severely limited. Such is the power of the Catholic Church in Poland.
What gets me about this in Poland, the U.S. and elsewhere. Is that, not one of these politicians could be elected dog catcher if not for the support of the women voters.
Soooo … incomprehensible though it may seem to you and me, this implies that a significant number of women support these measures.
This incomprehension probably explains why you and I (well I, for certain ; presumably you) are not politicians.
It is the female form of competition (remember:women are not allowed to compete with men in circles much beyond religion! But a woman who aires religious catchwords may get her chance, at least for a soundbit).
I am also baffled by the fact that so many women vote for these people. Then again, in Scandinavia, the politicians who are vocal about being anti-abortion are also almost always women. Also, a great deal of women are anti-choice. Women are also more religious, despite the blatant misogyny of these religions.
Some recent article said “Trump has trouble with women voters”, as a poll showed 67% of women would vote for Clinton, and only 33% for Trump. What I found amazing was the fact that 33% of American women (which is tens of millions of women) would vote for Trump, despite his despicable sexism. What’s going on there? Perhaps it’s the same phenomenom as much of the US working class constantly voting against their own interest? But why? It can’t all be chalked up to stupididity and ignorance?
Yes, always a head scratcher!!
Don’t underestimate the ubiquity and intransigence of stupidity and ignorance.
Or the (marketing) merit of having the “public face” be one you’d “expect to be” on the other side. (Doesn’t explain why the women hold the view in the first place, though.)
The European Court of Human Rights has awarded a Polish woman 25,000 euros ($33,000; £16,000) in damages after she was refused an abortion.
Alicja Tysiac’s eyesight worsened drastically after she had her third baby and she fears she may go blind.
The 35-year-old mother was refused an abortion despite warnings that having a baby could make her go blind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6470403.stm
What amazes me is that in *no* other case (except sending men off to war) would a government demand that a citizen suffer physical harm on behalf of another.
But fetuses are speshul, I guess.
Despite the advances we’ve made in the last fifty years, women still simply aren’t considered equal by many.
We’ve still got a long way to go.
Sure, it’s difficult to be equal if you are treated better, isn’t it?
Women have multiple options every step of the way to prevent pregnancy – from “natural methods”, through various ways of contraception to day after pills, but somehow the most invasive one, is so important that it should be available on demand for every woman?
Not only that, but they still push for it being free because it’s apparently a medical issue and not a choice. While people in favour call themselves “pro-choice”…
Men always thought that no woman would do something like that lightly, that this is a very difficult issue – apparently women think it should be as easy as going to a dentist.
How about something called “responsibility”?
At this point I’d like to inform those that didn’t know, that this was not a government’s proposition, but a civic one. And as long as there will be people pushing for unrestricted, on-demand abortion right – basically another, free contraception method, there will be people, who will back proposals like this even though they may not agree with it completely.
One of the banners in the picture says “I give birth out of love not because I am coerced” – an interesting thing to say when you’re protesting in favour of abortion right. Another one says “My womb, not my country’s”.
Is anyone forcing you to have sex without contraception? Is anyone forcing you to give birth? Or are people telling you that you should take responsibility for pregnancy and it is not OK to treat abortion like a condom?
“Take responsibity”
You make it sound as if forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is a just and righteous punishment for having sex while female, which, I might add, is not a morally impermissible act.
Cindy, I think you are absolutely correct. The concept of “punishment by childbirth” is not new. That’s why rape often makes for the only exception in an otherwise strict abortion law. In the case of rape, but not in any other, the woman is seen as an innocent victim who doesn’t deserve this punishment.
Funny how some folks don’t seem to get at all much exercised when their god(s)does “the most invasive one” (around 30% to 50% among all fertilization ends in death of embryo or fetus)but when real live existing organisms i.e. women with concerns which are theirs alone chose to do it these same folks go into paroxysms of pearl clutching, setting their hair on fire and not minding their own business.
Yes, and if you are in Canada, you are treated as a human being only if you are completely out of a woman’s vagina. Otherwise you’re just a useless clump of cells that are part of woman’s body.
Because if you have only 50% chance to get pregnant anyway, and because “nothing is 100% safe”, then why bother even trying using contraception? After all, if you get pregnant, you can get the little shit out any time for free.
Obviously, this is more convenient.
If you’re so concerned about getting pregnant, but don’t want to use any protection, then maybe consider not having sex at all?
After all, it’s obviously a punishment for women.
Just don’t do it then. And then, if you have sex, you’re obviously raped so current law allows you to get abortion and you don’t have to even bother telling people why you don’t want it.
Whose god? And why do you assume I believe in any?
I live in Canada, and abortion is legal up to term however in practise the cutoff date is around 24 weeks – which is when fetuses become viable outside the womb.
Furthermore, your argument is foolish in the extreme. Women who desperately do not want to be pregnant don’t wait until the 8th month to abort. They want to get it over with as quickly as possible. Late term abortions happen due to unforeseen circumstances – usually fetal abnormality or maternal health.
Second, no person is entitled to the body of another. If I can’t use your organs as life support, then neither can a fetus. People don’t have specials rights to other people’s bodies.
You are seriously strawmanning abortion, as if it is something stupid slutty women do for fun. If you want people to roll their eyes at you, you are doing a great job.
FYI, the majority of women who have abortions already have children and are married. Maybe, just maybe, they know their life situation better than *you*.
So maybe, just maybe if they know their life situation and don’t want more children, they could do something to prevent conception in the first place. And as they should know better than I how it works, maybe they should be better at preventing it.
Just a thought.
You know like it’s better to prevent, for example, HIV infection than to treat it.
So you expect a married man and woman to stay celibate their entire lives if they don’t want kids? Not gonna happen. People have sex for emotional bonding, it isn’t just about reproduction.
Furthermore, reproductive coercion is a thing:
Let me guess though, you are going to ‘blame the woman’ for being stuck in an abusive relationship!
Reproductive and sexual coercion involves behavior intended to maintain power and control in a relationship related to reproductive health by someone who is, was, or wishes to be involved in an intimate or dating relationship with an adult or adolescent (1). Reproductive coercion is related to behavior that interferes with contraception use and pregnancy (1). The most common forms of reproductive coercion include sabotage of contraceptive methods, pregnancy coercion, and pregnancy pressure. Birth control sabotage is active interference with a partner’s contraceptive methods in an attempt to promote pregnancy (1). Examples include hiding, withholding, or destroying a partner’s oral contraceptives; breaking or poking holes in a condom on purpose or removing a condom during sex in an attempt to promote pregnancy; not withdrawing when that was the agreed upon method of contraception; and removing vaginal rings, contraceptive patches, or intrauterine devices (IUDs). Pregnancy pressure involves behavior intended to pressure a female partner to become pregnant when she does not wish to become pregnant (1). Pregnancy coercion involves coercive behavior such as threats or acts of violence if a partner does not comply with the perpetrator’s wishes regarding the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy
http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Reproductive-and-Sexual-Coercion
I expect them to do everything to avoid accidents. If they don’t want any more kids there are ways to do that. Permanent, sure, but you don’t want more kids, do you?
Reproductive coercion is a thing – non gendered thing too. And easier for a woman to get away with, because his coercion is a crime and her is just wanting to have a baby. And we all know that it’s her body and she can do with it whatever she wants. Let me guess, though, you think that a man who wants out without having to pay for a child he never consented to have because his partner lied about protection, is a deadbeat, right?
You don’t have to tell me what that is. I was always clear about not wanting to have children and using contraceptives, but somehow ended without them and with a woman who would agree, but make it very difficult for me to avoid such “accident”.
I will blame the woman if she is the abusive one, just like I would blame the man for the same.
Would you force a woman who was raped, or a victim of reproductive coercion, to have the baby to ‘take responsibility’ for her actions?
Yes or no answers only please.
Ok, I’ll wait until you catch up to my answers.
I have caught up.
It’s a simple enough question.
Surely you think that fetuses have the inalienable right to life, otherwise you would not want abortion to be restricted no? You do in fact support these laws.
No, would you do that to a man?
No, I would not do that to a man.
Men can be victims of reproductive coercion as well. They can also be raped. Women have also been known to steal sperm against the man’s wishes and impregnate themselves.
I oppose *anything* that robs people who have done nothing wrong of their autonomy.
When a man has sex he is no more consenting to fatherhood than a woman is consenting to motherhood.
Telling a man to ‘keep it zipped if you don’t want kids’ is just the same as telling a woman to keep an aspirin between her knees. It’s slut shaming, something that you seem to be engaging in.
Ah yes, the famous slut shaming – requiring people to behave responsibly because – still – your actions have consequences, whether you’re a man or a woman and it would be better to prevent stuff from happening. Consequences as in “a result or effect of something”.
Just like telling people not to take drugs if they don’t want to be addicted. Some people are destructive and irresponsible. I don’t see a problem in a bit of shame.
Which, BTW, is what most comments went for with accusations of “misogyny” and all that nonsense. Sorry, it’s thrown around so much that it lost all meaning.
That said, I do actually think you are right overall. But it’s interesting and useful to play the “devil’s advocate” to test what you believe. Although it may be difficult without giving the subject much thought in the first place.
As I mentioned, I came here after seeing an interesting conversation with the author of this and first thing I see is another piece aimed at our government. Who, BTW, won a democratic election. I don’t agree with many of their policies, but I also am bored of the constant negative coverage after complete media silence when their predecessors were doing similar crap.
Anyway, sorry, you didn’t convert anyone, but thank you for the discussion.
your actions have consequences, whether you’re a man or a woman and it would be better to prevent stuff from happening. Consequences as in “a result or effect of something”.
Yes, and you are using ‘consequences’ as a euphemism for ‘punishment’. We don’t tell Nobel Prize winners ‘Hey there, you had better deal with the *consequences* of your actions and accept that prize”
And you have continually compared having sex while female to criminally negligent acts – such as speeding. Having sex while female is not a criminally negligent act, and you are advocating that women be deprived of their bodily autonomy for doing nothing wrong.
Again, how is it “sex while female”? We already established that fatherhood is enforced by law and the father is required to support the child financially whether he wants it or not, therefore must work to be able to. For up to 24 years in Poland. While a mother can “terminate her parental rights” voluntarily.
But you say that a woman is punished because she’s a woman? Because of 9 months of discomfort (not really the whole 9, though, is it?), that is also different for every woman, and the small risk of death? Time, BTW, during which everyone is tiptoeing around asking how to help. How about 24 years of enforced work for only part of the pay or jail for sex while male? Ever heard of workplace deaths?
And yes, I already wrote that I agree with you regarding abortion laws, but I’m not going to accept your “sex while female” nonsense. It’s such a punishment that it is used for all the free money that come with a child. Apparently, if someone pays you then it’s just another day at the office and not torture.
Pregnancy can kill and maim. It isn’t a minor inconvenience. If forced on an unwilling person it is a gross violation of autonomy. And birth is well known to be quite painful, one might say torturous.
And unless adoption is illegal in Poland *all* fathers are not required to pay until the child is 18. But in such a case, with abortion illegal in all cases, the woman *still* has to bear the physical effects. Your body is not your wallet.
Actually, because I ran with your “punishment” theme, a negative consequence does not equal punishment.
Each time I’m talking about consequences you bring up that contraception doesn’t work 100% – sure, but is 100% of the abortions because correctly used contraception failed?
Am I not allowed to tell people to own their actions, because a percent of them has been responsible?
What Steve said.
I am in favour of contraception, and you seem to be saying that women who use it should be forced to give birth if said contraception fails. And THAT is a punishment. A punishment for having sex.
Many pro lifers use the argument that if women don’t want to deal with the “consequences of their actions” that they should remain celibate for life. Which is an absurd demand. That sex eeven with tmultipe forms of contraception is *always* consent to pregnancy.
Heck, the worst of them argue that being born with a uterus is consent to pregnancy
Anyway, Steve has it right. I think everyone should be using contraception. IUDs are very successful way to lower teen pregnancy, precisely because teens are at that age where it can be hard to say no.
There was a great comic strip in Poland:
a doctor and a nurse stands next to a patient bed, the doctor says “I understand that the death would bring end to your extreme pain and suffering, but please think about the feeling of people who are against euthanasia”
I think that the same apply to abortion and other moral issues.
But that’s just a side note, what I wanted to mention here is that some of this rhetoric reminds me of an observation I’ve made some time ago – when faced with a real issue affecting someone else, some people like to deflect it by fantasizing about a magical world where this issue is simply not present.
This allows to construct a plethora of “solutions”, while there’s still a real person suffering in our reality.
I’ve noticed this by listening how some church officials were answering to a question if an 11 year old girl, who was raped should be denied an abortion (real case)
– first answer – there will be a huge line of people willing to adopt this child
– second – maybe she will discover motherly instinct after the birth
I know one deluded woman who is really struggling with this. She thinks that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, yet she also fears pregnancy.
Her “solution” is to talk about artificial wombs. Yep. Someone just has to invent artificial wombs and women will no longer be forced to be pregnant against their will and the babies will live.
Numerous medical professionals tried to explain to her that it just isn’t possible to safely remove an embryo once it has implanted. That the disconnection will quickly kill it.
Not to mention all of the ethical problems involved in perfecting the technology. And then what to do with Matrix like warehouses of unwanted children?
Pro lifers live in a fantasy land. I consider them to be SJWs. The thought process is the same. An obsession with controlling others and the naive belief that this will create some sort of utopia.
If men could get pregnant there would be drive through abortion clinics.
Here’s the thing, either women have full autonomy over their bodies or they are not equal members of our society.
It’s actually no ones damn business who or when or why anybody has consensual sex with anyone else, a point the Catholic church in Poland specifically and the world generally seems to have missed, treating the rape of children as some sort of perk of the job.
I sure that you would not advocate for the forced donation of organs (although given the almost complete lack of empathy exhibited in your post I have my doubts) and so it goes with forcing women to act as human incubators.
Either through ignorance or malevolence you choose to ignore the fact, as shown in study after study, abortion rates actually go down when abortion is legalized.
So I have to ask you, why do you hate children so much ?
Right-on!! The fact that it is a choice protects everyone’s right.
Well said Steve.
If men could get pregnant then they would behave completely different than they do without that possibility.
Which is also interesting because you seem to advocate for just that. Projection, much?
Funny how I came here from a talk the author of this blog had about evolutionary biology and people who comment here don’t seem to grasp this simple idea.
Full autonomy? Great. Under law in every western country any physical act – sexual or not – without woman’s consent is illegal, therefore no one can force a woman to get pregnant (and if they do, under current law and for the overwhelming majority of the society, including me, she has a right to abortion). That is autonomy.
Autonomy doesn’t mean that you are free from consequences of your actions. If you have sex, you must be prepared that there is a chance of pregnancy.
If you don’t want that, you can use contraception – and don’t give me that nonsense about it not being 100% safe – if everyone thought like that, humanity would die out a long time ago because no one would do anything. You’re using seatbelts even though they are not 100% safe but contraception? Why bother? Your whole life is managing risk.
If you want to avoid that risk completely – don’t have sex. Simple.
If you want to have a clinic that does that for your money and doesn’t take any money from my taxes – knock yourself out. I don’t care about you. But the law requires that this is done by doctors who may oppose this – which is coercion, in public hospitals and for tax-payers’ money – and this is why this IS my business.
I’m not paying for your irresponsibility.
Autonomy doesn’t mean that you are free from consequences of your actions. If you have sex, you must be prepared that there is a chance of pregnancy.
Consent to sex is no more consent to pregnancy than consent to getting into a car is consent to an accident. We don’t leave people to bleed to death by the side of the road because they ‘implied consent when they got in the car’.
And you are using ‘consequences’ as a euphemism for *punishment*. Pregnancy is a possible result of sex, and the woman can refuse to gestate. Having sex is not consent to 9 months of gestation, any more than it is consent to suicide in the case of an ectopic prengancy, or to STDs.
Autonomy means that no one can use your body against your will without you explicit and ongoing consent. Especially if you have done nothing wrong.
Tell me caseinlne, when a woman has sex, has she done something wrong? Has she committed a crime? Because we only deprive people of their autonomy if they have committed a crime, and even then, we don’t use their organs against their will. The fetus uses the woman’s organs against her will, and birth itself is akin to torture.
I don’t care about you. But the law requires that this is done by doctors who may oppose this – which is coercion, in public hospitals and for tax-payers’ money – and this is why this IS my business.
I’m not paying for your irresponsibility.
First off, doctors who do not want to do abortions are not forced to do it. However, some Catholic hospitals will not even perform an abortion if the woman is dying, as in the case of Savita Halappanavar.
And in fact you do pay for people’s ‘irresponsibility’ when they have all of those unwanted children. Your taxes go towards this, and abortion is way cheaper than the cost of unwanted children.
BTW, you sound really angry.
“We don’t leave people to bleed to death by the side of the road because they ‘implied consent when they got in the car’.”
I would if they broke speed limits and were driving like idiots…
“The fetus uses the woman’s organs against her will, and birth itself is akin to torture.”
You must love children…
You keep accusing me of somehow wanting to punish women for having sex… Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a man needed to make a woman pregnant? Isn’t it also true that a man is held responsible for the child even if he didn’t consent to it? Both culture and the law that is based on it are clear that the man cannot simply reject fatherhood.
The responsibility is on both, though women have more options to avoid it and should therefore have more responsibility placed on them to use these options.
And I wrote before – I don’t care what you do with your body as long as you do not burden me with the bills for repairing it. You (and your partner) pay for your accidents. But in countries with nationalised health care, like Poland, it is not possible. Therefore I am ok with current law.
I would if they broke speed limits and were driving like idiots…
Having sex while female is not a criminally negligent act, and the fact that you would frame it as such is rather disturbing.
You must love children…
People like to plan their family size. Pro choice women have babies. You are arguing a giant strawman – that anyone who does not want to be pregnant automatically hates children. Women can choose abortion because they love their current children and do not want to bring in extra mouths that they cannot feed. Quality over quantity.
You keep accusing me of somehow wanting to punish women for having sex… Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a man needed to make a woman pregnant? Isn’t it also true that a man is held responsible for the child even if he didn’t consent to it?
Yes, I do keep stating that you want to punish women for having sex, since you keep using terms like ‘take responsibility’ and ‘consequences’ all used when someone has done something morally impermissible.
And since men don’t suffer the physical effects of pregnancy – no man has ever bled to death from post partum hemorrhage – your point is moot.
The responsibility is on both, though women have more options to avoid it and should therefore have more responsibility placed on them to use these options.
And those options fail. Even a tubal ligation can fail. Did you know that women who have had hysterectomies have become pregnant? Yep, as long as there is an ovary to release an egg, that egg can become fertilized if a sperm finds it’s way up the cervix. It has happened at least twice in recorded medicine.
And you ignored what I said about reproductive coercion. I guess you blame the women for that too?
I don’t care what you do with your body as long as you do not burden me with the bills for repairing it.
We all pay taxes. The world doesn’t revolve around you and your specific wants, needs and desires.
Besides, *I* don’t want to pay healthcare costs for unwanted children. So why should what YOU want matter more.
So if I follow your logic, such as it is, if I wanted to avoid the risk of an automobile accident, I should avoid it completely and never drive a car – simple.
But if I did drive a car and had an accident, as long as I went to a clinic that took only my money and none from taxes you would be OK with that.
So presumably you have a list of risky actions that you are not prepared to subsidize with sex (but only for women) being one of them.
I assume from your seat belt analogy you are not willing to pay for the medical care of people involved in automobile accidents either.
Presumably you have an complete list of human activities that you deem risky and which you are unwilling to have your tax dollars (hard earned I’m sure) subsidize.
You should share this list with us as soon as possible as I’m not sure that the health system can limp along much longer without your wisdom.
Your concern for the poor doctors being coerced is touching and most likely faux, I suspect that your outrage is religiously motivated and based on a early childhood conditioning heavily steeped in misogyny and homophobia with a dollop of Ayn Rand tossed into the toxic mix of nonsense that spews from your mouth.
You certainly parrot all the usual libertarian talking points accompanied by the whiny background bleating of a men’s rights “activist”.
As Cindy wrote earlier:
“And all forms of contraception have known failure rates.”
This is the same as saying “seatbelts and airbags can fail so I won’t use them”. Then I don’t want to pay your medical bills if you do crash.
And women have more options. If two people drive head on and one can only stop, while the other can also turn in all directions – who is more responsible if they do collide?
That is actually true – I do not want to pay other people’s bills. I don’t care whether you drove into a lamp post or someone rear-ended you. I wasn’t there – why am I supposed to pay for you?
Now you quickly turned to insults. A quick sign of having nothing useful to say.
Thank you for your valuable time, then.
No, caseinline, it means to say that women can get pregnant even if they take absolute precautions.
And you still have failed to answer my question if having sex while female is a criminal act for which the woman must be denied her bodily autonomy?
Because we only deny people their autonomy and subject them to torture if they have done something really really really wrong, and even then, if a criminal stabs someone in the kidney, we don’t take his kidney to save the victim.
You are advocating that women be treated worse than some criminals. Pregnancy can kill you know. Do you really think the death penalty is fair just because a woman had sex?
to caseinline and cindy:
From my reading up to this point, Caseinline thinks that Cindy is saying “Since birth control methods can and do fail, then they are not worth using or that’s why women don’t bother.”
Caseinline:
Cindy is not and never has implied this.
She is simply stating that EVEN WHEN birth control is properly used there is a known failure rate, so even if “women are taking responsible actions” (birth control) then they may still get pregnant. Caseinline: What’s to be done with your argument about responsibility then?
Caseinline –
you seem to be misreading Cindy (If I may speak for Cindy)
Heart transplant or brain surgery are also extremely invasive, high-risk procedures, and yes, they are available to those who need them. What medical procedure a woman gets should be decided by her and her doctor.
“Men always thought that no woman would do something like that lightly …”
The misogyny in that comment is exactly what I’m talking about. Men “gave” women limited rights over their bodies, but we clearly couldn’t be trusted, so they’re taking them back.
In Poland, women are currently able to get an abortion if they’re raped. The proposal was for that to be changed. You speak as if all sexual contact is consensual and planned. Perhaps you believe women’s bodies have “… ways of shutting that down …” so they don’t get pregnant if they don’t want to.
I note you make no comment about a man only indulging in sex if he’s willing and prepared to be a father. Perhaps you think that should be a mitigating factor in rape? “I just wanted to be a father.”
You seem to think contraception is solely a woman’s responsibility. If men and women were equal, not women better treated as you contend, you would realize that contraception is an equal responsibility.
And the very people who want to force women to be incubators against their will almost always consider day-after pills abortion. Even in many countries with much more liberal laws than Poland, they’re not as easy to get as you think.
And all forms of contraception have known failure rates.
I have debated some of the most ignorant people. They seem to think that making abortion illegal in the case of rape is legit because ‘Plan B exists’, which ignores the fact that many women simply won’t have access.
Then there are the idiots who believe that pregnancy starts at fertilization, and that the woman is obligated to let the widdle blastocyst implant. Yet, they think that it is morally permissible to prevent the violinist in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s thought experiment from attaching to your bloodstream, and furthermore, to detach him, even if he dies.
So, what I would like to know, is what makes a blastocyst so damn special that it has the RIGHT to drill into a woman’s artery but the dying violinist does not? Why should it be granted rights that they would deny the violinist? Oh, and preventing the violinist from attaching to your bloodstream along with detaching him is ok because it is ‘letting die’ but Plan B (which they say prevents implantation) is always MURDER and RU-486 which forces the embryo to detach from the uterine wall is also MURDER.
Abortion is always murder most foul, because women lose the right to bodily autonomy the moment a man ejaculates, but letting violinists die is totes ok because they aren’t brainless embryos.
And I forgot to sub.
Article in question is behind a paywall, so I cannot verify it, but there was no mention of any backing off in polish media.
Szydlo previously said that this requires a dialog, but in her what this discussion was lacking was a “reasonable voice of the church”. She might use a different language after all the protests, but I’m sure she is being pressured by the church and she has to pay off the debt of support during last election, so the battle is not yet over. There is a strong “pro life” group that keep pushing this bill every few years and even if they fail again they will try again and again.
To make things worse I don’t think that opposition (so called “liberals”) did much about this, most protests were either organized by feminist groups or political parties and groups that are not in parliament. So when it comes to the vote on this bill it’s only a question if the government is willing to risk passing it despite all the public outrage.
I believe draconian is the correct description on this matter. Additionally, in Indiana, with already the most restrictive laws in the nation, we see even more coming through the legislature. Limiting reason for abortion on the motivation of the woman for terminating the pregnancy. Would be illegal if fetus is diagnosed with Down Syndrome or other disabilities. They are extending discrimination protection to the womb.
It is so bad, they say some republicans are even against it.
“… so bad even some Republicans are against it” — you might have coined the next new internet meme there, Randy.
The ultimate mark of opprobrium. How bad is it? … so bad even some Republicans are against it.
Presumably, in the event of a banned abortion for … severe microcephaly … then the state of Indefensble will be paying for the womb’s care, and for the medical bills of the unaborted foetus? Or does the state force the adult victims of their laws to pay these additional fees themselves?
Has anyone tried contesting these laws on these grounds? Some of the “small government” people might not be too happy about the government making multi-million dollar commitments like this.
I’m not supporting this course of action over fighting the laws. But as one of many tactics, it might repay consideration.
I remember Poland when abortion was legal and available practically on demand – one of the few positive aspects of Communist rule. Of course, the official stand of the Catholic Church was firmly against abortion, but that issue was raised in church homilies and in confessionals – in the society as a whole, there was no interest in it.
The Church is indeed very influential, and since the change of the political system in 1989, it has managed to turn the attitudes towards abortion 180 degrees. Even if the majority of women in Poland will not support the latest proposal of a total ban on abortion, the society has been already brainwashed to regard the current draconian law as a “sensible compromise”. There is also a widespread belief in the so-called “post abortion syndrome”, i.e. severe psychological trauma that is supposedly experienced by every woman who has undergone the procedure. Anybody who would now propose “abortion on demand and with no apology” would be considered a thoughtless barbarian.
As for the supposed backing off on the part of the government, my impression after following the news from Poland lately is that the government has been sending mixed signals from the beginning. Some conspiracy theorists maintain that the whole issue is a smokescreen intended to divert the public’s attention from other government initiatives. This is the first time I wish conspiracy theorists were right.
The church invented so many of these syndromes by now, there’s the in vitro “survivor syndrome” (people born thanks to in vitro method suffers from depression because they’re the only fertilized eggs that survived), there’s “abortion survivor syndrome” and I’m pretty sure they will invent some more, for the purpose of whatever next ideological debate they will be involved in.
I mentioned this on another thread, but a young pro lifer said that anyone who destroys a genetically defective embryo – the kind that won’t even implant – should spend life in jail for murder.
Her reasoning? If the embryo *was* healthy, it would be a thinking feeling person someday. So since it can be healthy in an alternate reality, we must pretend that it is healthy in this reality.
Another compared destroying these genetically defective embryos to going around and murdering sick toddlers.
I guess it is consistent if you really believe that embryos are really tiny people and that minds are of zero value. Which means that it is human DNA that is valuable, not our capacity for thought. So let’s fast forward into the future where h.sapiens has evolved into mindless lumps of human matter. Humans, by this time, are essentially mindless biological machines. The only “value” would be in the DNA. Human DNA is valuable because it is human. Circular logic. And if a human zygote is equal in value to a 40yo man, because it *might* become a thinking feeling human someday, if potential = actual, then can we not go back in time and state that it would murder to kill one of our ancestors from millions of years ago, since the potential is there to eventually develop a human mind? What if millions of years from now e.coli bacteria becomes sentient and sapient? Are we under an obligation to protect it now because of its potential?
While the church is keen in general to have every future potential sheep brought to term regardless of circumstance to stock up their dwindling flock, especially valuable are those (and their parents) rendered vulnerable by congenital defects whose salvation the church specializes in, you see.
“I remember Poland when abortion was legal and available practically on demand – one of the few positive aspects of Communist rule.”
I can’t fathom why some folks on here keep trotting out the dead horse of communism, as if it were some kind of guardian of human rights and individual freedoms!
“one of the few positive aspects of Communist rule.”
It would seem that you did not read or not understand the above part. “One of the few” meaning “not many” so, no, not “some kind or guardian of human rights and individual freedoms with the possible exception of abortion being legal.
I hope the backing off is real. This absurd law mustn’t pass. And I really want to hear some good news from Europe, after the devastating Apr. 6!
The lord our god must have fresh souls stacked up like cordwood inside the pearly gates, spend His days zapping them into new zygotes at the instant of fertilization. Of course, He gets a return on half of ’em faster than high-deposit soda bottles, since they don’t implant in a uterus. A good chunk of the others will be back in no time at all, flushed out of the host-woman’s body in due course. As for the rest … well, like Mick & Keith, He’s got time on his side. No wonder the Stones’ sympathy lies with the devil.
Another matter where it would be good if the Polish government backed off:
There seems to be going to be logging in Bialowieza! See:
http://www.nature.com/news/polish-scientists-protest-over-plan-to-log-in-bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa-forest-1.19428
Ecologists versus wood exploitation? Or the present Polish government against nature conservation?
This is very good news indeed (if true).
Polish government should focus instead on making the punishments for the murderers, pedophiles, and other such criminals more severe, and that’s what I’ve heard they will now proceed to do. Needless to say, they have my full backing on this.
The women in Poland would prefer to vote for draconian abortion laws as it helps keep the population ticking over. And thanks to the conservative values of the polish, it will also be one of the last countries in Europe swamped by Islam.
Dawkins was right when he said Christianity was a bulwark against something worse. Put up with the draconian abortion laws, it’s a small sacrifice to make for the greater good.
So the solution to religiously inspired misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia and just plain old bigotry is even more of the same ?
What a dismal world you live in.
I’m reminded of a scheme set up by Pope Benedict XVI where English Anglicans that were opposed to women bishops were welcomed with open arms by the Catholic church. Because there is no one too bigoted or ignorant for the Catholic church. What is especially ironic is that the defecting Anglican bishops who had wives are allowed to keep them in their new role as Catholic clergy.
Seriously, you just can’t make up stuff more ridiculous than what religious bigots pull out of their backsides on such a regular basis.
If it wasn’t so patently poisonous and anti-human it would be hilarious.
Have you looked around? The world is pretty dismal, Christianity has survived for thousands of years in this world because it adopted ideas that are successful at keeping the populations of Christians ticking over, and with it, Western Civilization. The memes that come with Christianity compete with the memes that comes with Islam. When you tear down all the memes that have been absorbed into Christianity, you’re breaking down the barriers for something worse.
Most pregnancies in history probably weren’t planned, they just happened and everyone dealt with it. That’s how humans evolved to breed. Every generation is a link in the chain. Feminism, abortion laws and the breakdown of traditional families are breaking that chain.
Progressive secular values are an experiment that is doomed to demographic failure. That’s anti-human.
Actually, women have been aborting unwanted pregnancies for thousands of years.
One herb went extinct in North Africa because it was used as an abortifacent
Humans have always manipulated population levels
I see overpopulation as a bigger threat. Resources do not exist in infinite supply.
From your comment though, I get the idea that you want there to be more white Christian babies so that we can “win” the war of ideas by outbreeding Muslims.
I’m not against abortion, it happens, it’s just that mass abortion and contraception are not proven concepts when we’re looking at the survival of a people, culture, and civilization.
I’m interested in preserving this culture and civilization because it’s the best one yet. Looking around this should be obvious.
Overpopulation is a big issue, but it’s not a problem in the West. The lopsided demographics from the cultures and continents doesn’t paint a pretty picture.
Why does it matter what skin colour the Christians are? Why bring that up? Middle eastern Muslims are Caucasian, as are the middle eastern Christians who are dying off. The Muslims, they’ll take over Europe, drag everyone back to the iron age, the forests will grow back and they will evolve whiter skin anyway.
All because a few generations of people gave up on the values of their ancestors, all because these ancient values were recorded in a religious context, and they all must be destroyed.
TLDR:
Why Demographics Is True
Fertility Vs Fact