Poland considers banning abortion...

Source

Poland is considering legislation that would completely ban abortion in the EU member state country.

The proposals – criticised as “medieval”- would mean abortion would be illegal even in cases of rape or if the foetus has a severe health issue.

Poland currently has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe but allows terminations where rape or incest is involved or if the child would be born severely ill.

The ban has been promoted by bishops of the Catholic Church and politicians at the highest level have voiced their support for the proposals.

The ruling conservative Law and Justice Party, which has only been in power since October, has close links with the Church.

Thoughts?

*Please keep discussion civil. This is a very sensitive issue that both sides are passionate about.*

•

If you were to ban abortion, would you ban it to an extent? (Excluding cases of rape, incest and deformity)

•

If you're against a full ban, why?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

DiddyDec01

What a bunch of ****ing morons.

This is why religion should be cast aside. It is regressive.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2

Black Cobra

lol at this. Most of Eastern Europe is about as culturally progressive as the Stone Age

Reply 3

Ladymusiclover

The Catholic Church. :rolleyes:

Reply 4

BaconandSauce

The Catholic Church needs to back of from this

They have lost the argument and need to move on

Reply 5

Ribenas

Original post by Joel 96

•

If you were to ban abortion, would you ban it to an extent? (Excluding cases of rape, incest and deformity)

•

If you're against a full ban, why?

Do they plan on taking away the other 26 human rights as well? :unimpressed:

Reply 6

Olie

'The ban has been promoted by bishops of the Catholic Church' says it all, doesn't take a genius to work out that the church should be nowhere near government in the 21st century.

Reply 7

User1333171

Original post by DiddyDec

What a bunch of ****ing morons.

This is why religion should be cast aside. It is regressive.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't think all religion can be classed as regressive. Much of society's progress and development in the past has been due to religious organisations, and I would still argue that religious organisations now are present in situations where a lot of other people/organisations have minimal presence.

Having said that, to ban abortion in this day and age would be stupid. Religion should never be used to make political decisions. It's difficult to understand why, with all the access to history that we have, someone could think that banning abortion would be a good move. No matter what you personally feel about the act of getting an abortion, you have to look at what happens when legal abortion isn't available - death, infection, suicide, and serious injury. The alternative to a society with legal abortion is much less life-preserving.

Reply 8

DiddyDec01

Original post by mscaffrey

Much of society's progress and development in the past.

This is the key part of the statement.

This is the present and religion only takes us back to the past. It is regressive.

Posted from TSR Mobile

lol, slags btfo

What about in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life - and obviously the foetus' life too? Surely they must make that exception.

Reply 11

anosmianAcrimony

Personally I have no problems with abortion early in a pregnancy, but have serious reservations about abortion late in a pregnancy. Even for the latter, I don't think a complete ban is the way to go.

Reply 12

User1333171

Original post by DiddyDec

This is the key part of the statement.

This is the present and religion only takes us back to the past. It is regressive.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But I also said that 'I would still argue religious organisations now'...because I do believe religious organisations are still involved with parts of society that other organisations ignore or put limited resources into. Christians in the UK have been at the front of the fight against cuts to disability benefits and housing benefits, they have also set up many of the food banks people are reliant on now because of the regressive policies that the government have put in place as well as the attitudes much of society has of people on benefits. I think it's pretty progressive to back up the poorest and most vulnerable members of society and to fight for the rights and respect they're still fighting for even in the apparently developed Britain of the 21st Century. Of course the attitude of anti-abortionists isn't progressive, but my point was that some religious organisations are still more progressive than certain areas of society and politics.

Reply 13

mojojojo101

Right wing government looks to limit personal freedoms, colour me surprised... not.

Reply 14

loveleest

I disagree with this so much. Women should be able to do whatever they please with their bodies.

Reply 15

the bear

Original post by DiddyDec

What a bunch of ****ing morons.

This is why religion should be cast aside. It is regressive.

Posted from TSR Mobile

OP asked for a civilized discussion.... :redface:

Reply 16

MrsSheldonCooper

I'm not normally for abortion unless the mother's life is at risk or the baby won't have a good quality of life once it's born. Banning abortion is a stupid move though.

Reply 17

Duck10101

Original post by Joel 96

•

If you were to ban abortion, would you ban it to an extent? (Excluding cases of rape, incest and deformity)

•

If you're against a full ban, why?

It doesn't matter. Anyone who wants an abortion can go to another EU country for an abortion. But I am totally against religion having any say in a country's legislation. Ideally, a Government should be entirely subjective about its legislation.

Reply 18

Fenneko

Original post by DiddyDec

What a bunch of ****ing morons.

This is why religion should be cast aside. It is regressive.

Original post by BaconandSauce

The Catholic Church needs to back of from this

They have lost the argument and need to move on

Original post by Olie

'The ban has been promoted by bishops of the Catholic Church' says it all, doesn't take a genius to work out that the church should be nowhere near government in the 21st century.

Original post by mscaffrey

Religion should never be used to make political decisions.

What if I told you all that I'm non-religious and want abortions to be banned? Would you still disagree with me then? If so, why?

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

What about in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life - and obviously the foetus' life too? Surely they must make that exception.

Yes, there is a very popular position among the pro-life movement that the mother's life comes first in the rare occurrences where the mother might be suicidal, or where her life is threatened to the point where there is no other option but to carry out the procedure.

Original post by loveleest

I disagree with this so much. Women should be able to do whatever they please with their bodies.

If you believe in individuality and one's own right to life, how come you oppose the rights of an unborn child? A woman isn't what is in her uterus, that is a separate living being. You're effectively saying the same thing slave owners said in the 17th century; "If he/she's on my land, they'e my property".

Original post by MrsSheldonCooper

I'm not normally for abortion unless the mother's life is at risk or the baby won't have a good quality of life once it's born. Banning abortion is a stupid move though.

The trouble with that argument is that you have no right to carry out a procedure that threatens one's life when they haven't given you their consent. I believe in euthanasia because the consent is there, however, the foetus has no way of giving you any form of consent. Therefore, you're imposing your own will on them.

Reply 19

User1333171

Original post by Joel 96

What if I told you all that I'm non-religious and want abortions to be banned? Would you still disagree with me then? If so, why?

I disagree with preventing legal access to abortions because I know what happened in history when abortions were not legally available. Women know what they can cope with and what they can't, and a pregnancy is physically and mentally demanding. When women who do not feel able to carry a pregnancy to term are denied access to abortion it does not make them able to cope with the pregnancy. They may seek out illegal abortion, or try to abort at home. That can cause infection and even death in the mother, and I personally would have to value the life of a mother over the life of a foetus - even a lot of pro-lifers value the life of the mother more than the unborn baby, as shown when they allow a baby to be delivered early even when it's likely that it will die once delivered so that the mother can get medical treatment, but they wouldn't approve of abortion in such a case. That seems cruel - to make both mother and baby go through premature labour with almost certain still-birth or premature death for the baby, when it could be done as a surgical procedure if the mother felt that was best for her.