The touchstone issue of abortion has reared its head once again at the centre of Polish politics.
There were opposing demonstrations outside Poland's parliament on Friday as it debated a motion to ban abortion outright. If passed, Poland would join just two other European states that ban the procedure - Malta and the Vatican City.
In this staunchly Catholic nation, the issue inflames huge passions on both sides.
What is the current situation?
Abortion is already mostly banned. The only exceptions are a severe and irreversible damage to the foetus, a serious threat to the mother's health, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
As a result, even by conservative estimates there are far more illegal abortions than legal ones in Poland - between 10,000 and 150,000, compared to about 1,000 or 2,000 legal terminations.
Access to contraception has also been tightened. The only over-the-counter contraception now available is the condom.
Who are the anti-abortion activists and what do they want?
The main group is called Stop Abortion. They demand a total ban with no exceptions even if the life or well-being of the mother is endangered. Their petition calling for a ban attracted 450,000 signatures, triggering Friday's debate in parliament, where their motion was sent to a committee for further consideration.
Stop Abortion argues that human life starts at conception and should be protected from that moment. The government does not officially back its view, but figures such as Prime Minister Beata Szydlo and the deputy justice minister Patryk Jaki have indicated it has their personal support.
Under the proposed new legislation, abortion would be punishable with an five-year prison term. Doctors already risk punishment if they are found to have carried out an illegal termination, but under the new legislation all doctors performing abortions would be criminalised.
Conservative Catholic weekly Gosc Niedzielny quoted Joanna Banasiuk, a university lawyer and activist, telling parliament that abortion is the "butchering of innocent children, hell for women and moral bankruptcy for men".
What is the Catholic Church's role in all this?
The influence of the church is indirect but significant. No parliamentary party has the word "Catholic" or "Christian" in its name, but 87% of the nation declare to be Roman Catholic. If you want to find the roots of the Polish conscience you need to look in the Vatican, say some. And although the ruling Law and Justice part (PIS) does not follow Church teachings blindly, a significant section of its supporters are religious.
Others argue that the Church's influence on the nation is waning. Attendance at Sunday mass has dropped below 40%. More Poles are willing, these days, to challenge the moral leadership of the Church.
Who are the pro-choice activists and what do they want?
The main group, Save the Women, argue that the current law is already extremely restrictive. They are supported by Poland's main opposition party, Nowoczesna (Modern), which argues that current regulations are "medieval", drive abortion underground and deny pregnant women choice - except for more affluent women, who are able to afford to go abroad for terminations.
Coat-hangers representing back-street abortions were a regular feature of protests earlier in the year; recent web-based protests have seen women posting pictures of themselves wearing black mourning clothes, symbolising the death of choice and their own futures.
Save the Women's Barbara Nowacka said that to reduce the number of illegal abortions the state needs to introduce "sex education, state-funded contraception... and [better] access to doctors as well as the right to abortion".
The pro-choice movement also garnered enough signatures (about 250,000) to see their proposals debated by parliament - but it immediately struck the motion out.
Left-wing TOK-FM radio claims the abortion issue is cynically used for political profit.
What about public opinion?
Most polls suggest that between two-thirds and three-quarters of people would prefer to leave the things as they are.
Watch: Moves to ban abortion in Poland are dividing opinion
So what happens next?
Although there are vocal supporters of the total abortion ban in the PIS party, the government itself is facing a dilemma over the bill. It doesn't want to antagonise its Catholic supporters by opposing Stop Abortion's motion. But it could trigger a public outcry if it goes ahead with it.
One prediction is that the government is likely to park the issue for as long as possible with the parliamentary committee which is currently considering it.
But some are taking matters into their own hands - with or without legislative backing. In the south-eastern region of Podkarpackie - where PIS and the Church enjoy unusually high support - hospitals and doctors have signed a "declaration of conscience" and are refusing to carry out any abortions, in effect removing legal abortion as an option in the region.
What's the picture on abortion elsewhere in Europe?
European countries are among the world's most pro-choice when it comes to abortion.
There are exceptions: Malta and Vatican City are among six countries worldwide where abortion is banned outright under law. There are severe restrictions in Ireland, Northern Ireland (where the law differs from the rest of the UK), San Marino, Liechtenstein and Andorra.

 Frazzled wrote:
Their country, their call.

 redleger wrote:
Funny story: Poland is my last name, and I literally initially read that all kinds of fethed up.
Background: in my job we go by last names.

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Funny story: Poland is my last name, and I literally initially read that all kinds of fethed up.
Background: in my job we go by last names.

Any relation to former Megadeth guitarist?

Poland gave us the ultimate underdog resistance heroes, fighting both the Nazis and the Soviets against incredible odds; they also gave us the genre's gold standard game, the Witcher series.

Now this. Poland, you were on such a hot streak...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This law would also only really affect the poorer people of Poland. Those with the income could just travel over the border to Germany or the Czech Repuplic to get an abortion.

 whispered_war wrote:


So, perhaps a narrow time limit on abortion would work, unless there are special conditions involved eg rape victim who was unaware of a pregnancy, or, like in the UK, a child has a disability which will affect the quality of the child's life?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This law would also only really affect the poorer people of Poland. Those with the income could just travel over the border to Germany or the Czech Repuplic to get an abortion.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This law would also only really affect the poorer people of Poland. Those with the income could just travel over the border to Germany or the Czech Repuplic to get an abortion.

IIRC the suggested change would make that illegal too.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

 General Annoyance wrote:

If a couple were careless enough to not use contraception, then they should be denied. A couple that did use contraception that still ended up in pregnancy should be considered.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

Sorry, but you try carrying someone who raped you's child for nine months...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

Sorry, but you try carrying someone who raped you's child for nine months...

It is a question of how much you value a human life. We do not consider it acceptable to kill a rapist, so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child? Do you really value a human life so little?
In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

Sorry, but you try carrying someone who raped you's child for nine months...

It is a question of how much you value a human life. We do not consider it acceptable to kill a rapist, so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child? Do you really value a human life so little?
In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

it's not a few months though, it's a lifetime of punishment on the women. here in the states rapists can get visitation rights and maybe even custody of the children. some will even offer to drop their parental rights if the woman doesn't press charges so the rapist gets to walk free.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's not a human life, it's just a bundle of cells that might not come to term anyways

 whembly wrote:

Really? Which state?

In Missouri, a convicted rapist gets jack gak and prison.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's not a human life, it's just a bundle of cells that might not come to term anyways

Ummmm... you might wanna reword that a bit... at conception, it's by definition a human life.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Really? Which state?

In Missouri, a convicted rapist gets jack gak and prison.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's not a human life, it's just a bundle of cells that might not come to term anyways

Ummmm... you might wanna reword that a bit... at conception, it's by definition a human life.

this article says 31 states have it:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/

 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is a question of how much you value a human life. We do not consider it acceptable to kill a rapist, so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child? Do you really value a human life so little?
In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

Maternal mortality has become a growing public health concern in the United States in recent years, as rates have risen nationally at the same time they have fallen in virtually every other affluent country.

In the United States, the maternal mortality rate grew by 136% over those 23 years, more than any other country studied.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

 kronk wrote:
Whether I used a condom or not, or my GF was on the pill or not, I just have to say "The condom broke", in this scenario.

That's really not a barrier as you've put it.

 General Annoyance wrote:
In the same way you could claim you were raped if you really wanted an abortion. Perhaps not as morally bankrupt as saying that, but still the same issue. It'd be up to the doctors to determine whether you have a convincing story or not.

 Peregrine wrote:


Except it isn't the same at all. A claim of rape involves physical evidence, an accusation against a rapist, etc. A claim of "we tried, but the condom broke" is impossible to prove either way. There's nothing a doctor can do to determine if the story is convincing or not. Either you accept all claims and grant the abortions (making the ban meaningless), or you abandon the idea of making any kind of consistent evidence-based decision and leave it up to the doctor's personal opinions about the situation, including their biases and stereotyping.

 whispered_war wrote:
However, one person's opinions and beliefs shouldn't stop someone else making their own choice. I personally doubt I'd ever want an abortion, regardless of the matter - does that mean I'd tell someone else they weren't allowed one? Of course not!

 Frazzled wrote:
Their country, their call.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This law would also only really affect the poorer people of Poland. Those with the income could just travel over the border to Germany or the Czech Repuplic to get an abortion.

IIRC the suggested change would make that illegal too.

I don't see how it could be enforced. Someone takes a pregnancy test which comes back positive then hops in a train, rides it across to Dresden or Berlin and gets the procedure carried out and pays for it themselves. Government had no idea they were pregnant and no idea they had an abortion.

Bad law is bad.

nou wrote:
As a Pole, I can give you some insight on what is going on right now: the subject of abortion was a "distraction subject" in polish politics since mid-'90. It is now proceeded in parliament, because of citizen initiative, not goverment action. We had a political shift last fall, so there is huuuuuge agenda by those who have lost the elections to picture Poland in the most bad light possible in the eyes of the international public opinion. We had this recurring abortion hysteria every few years, because citizen initiative requires only a 100k people signing it to be put to vote.

This abortion law has very low probability of being passed, as even most conservative individuals in ruling party (like Gowin for example) are aware, that changing the current law ("the tough compromise" as it is called here) will upset the public opinion more than it does now. We have a near 50-50 split of pro- and anti- aborion minded people here, so in the very unlikely outcome of this new ban passing, the current "compromise" will be restored as soon as the governing party changes.

As I see it (and as many, many others here see it) it is used now as a smokescreen for CETA approval and as a vent for social unrest after last years elections. So realy no need to panic, that we will be a modern Romania with 100% ban on abortion... But of course, there is a slight chance, that this law will pass, as we have indeed a very conservative society, which was forcefully "modernized" over the last decade, with a strong focus on deconstructing any and all patriotic and conservatice sentiments and create a "european society". And the shift after last years elections shows, that (as usual in Poland) this notion had an exactly oposite outcome...

And as a sidenote: this "~90% roman catholic" thing is not true - this is a number of baptised citizens in Poland, an official number used by our catholic church to justify it's influence. Not an actual number of people living by the word of god... We probably have less "faith devoted people" here than UK or US. It's just that we are mono-religious society, so it is customary to baptize children as roman catholics...

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We're having the same debate here in Northern Ireland. The liberal in me says that abortion should always be on offer, and I was baptised as a catholic. It should be left to the individual to decide if it's right for them. Besides, it's useless to ban it anyway because there's too many ways around it. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather it was never needed but exceptions have to be made.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

Sorry, but you try carrying someone who raped you's child for nine months...

It is a question of how much you value a human life. We do not consider it acceptable to kill a rapist, so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child? Do you really value a human life so little?
In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
. People are good at imposing their views on others whilst they don't have to deal with the consequences themselves.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Whether I used a condom or not, or my GF was on the pill or not, I just have to say "The condom broke", in this scenario.

That's really not a barrier as you've put it.

In the same way you could claim you were raped if you really wanted an abortion. Perhaps not as morally bankrupt as saying that, but still the same issue. It'd be up to the doctors to determine whether you have a convincing story or not.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm in the same camp as G.A. A full ban is bad for those who could die during childbirth and rape victims. It makes it even worse for those who have already endured so much hardship. But as a form of birth control...they should do whatever they feel is appropriate.

 kronk wrote:


The bold part I have issue with. If it's legal, you do your job or you stop being an abortion doctor. You don't get to play Morality police.

If you're a government clerk and your job is to give out marriage certificates, and the law of the land states that you have to give them to same gendered or multi-racial couples, you give them out regardless of your beliefs or you quit your job. You don't get to play morality police.

If you're a pharmacist and your job is to fill birth control prescriptions, then you do so, regardless of your beliefs on them or you quit your job. You don't get to play morality police.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
And why should it be down to a doctor's decision based on circumstances at all?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
And why should it be down to a doctor's decision based on circumstances at all?

Can we have a statistic for the ration of abortions vs children put up for adoption at birth? I'd imagine both are a extreme minority of births per year. The whole matter comes across as moral guardians trying to impose their view on a slither of the population.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
And well at this stage, is this a discussion about this act in Poland, or rather just the yearly abortion thread (TM)?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Their country, their call.

This times one thousand and one.

The West needs to stay the hell out of it, both the EUSSR and the United States Government. This is an internal Polish matter.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yep, that's right. Not to derail things but no EU member is a sovereign country. So I'm left wondering how exactly they're going to ban abortion when they not allowed to. Either it's not going to happen or it'll become a big point of contrition between them and the EU.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yep, that's right. Not to derail things but no EU member is a sovereign country. ...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
if someone believes the unborn baby has as much value as it does once it's born for whatever reason (religious, scientific) then I fully respect them for standing up for their beliefs.

I've heard some people argue from the perspective that an unborn baby has no rights, because until it's a member of society it has no value or rights within society.

 Knockagh wrote:
Congrats to Poland, I hope you are given the strength to see this through. Stand against the tide of modernism. Soli Deo Gloria

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child?

Because it is not a child. It is a blob of cells with less capacity for thought/feeling pain/etc than the cockroach that you would squish without hesitation. Or the blob of cancer cells that you would have removed from yourself without hesitation, despite the fact that they are clearly "human life".

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:
Congrats to Poland, I hope you are given the strength to see this through. Stand against the tide of modernism. Soli Deo Gloria

Yeah, go Poland! Get back to the 15th century, refuse to join the modern world! Burn society to the ground and become hunter-gatherers again!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child?

Because it is not a child. It is a blob of cells with less capacity for thought/feeling pain/etc than the cockroach that you would squish without hesitation. Or the blob of cancer cells that you would have removed from yourself without hesitation, despite the fact that they are clearly "human life".

I disagree. It is a human being. Being a human being is not defined by the capacity to feel pain. Some people suffer a very serious serious disorder where they can't feel pain. Do you think it is okay to just kill those people too, since they can't feel pain?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I disagree. It is a human being. Being a human being is not defined by the capacity to feel pain. Some people suffer a very serious serious disorder where they can't feel pain. Do you think it is okay to just kill those people too, since they can't feel pain?

 Knockagh wrote:
I don't know anybody opposed to abortion who would allow it for rape......

I also know many many people who have had miscarriages and view it 100% a death, many people carry metal scars and trauma as a result of miscarriage.

Opposing modernism is about modern values of intolerance, individualism and self centred lives. It's about promoting corporate societies and family centred lives, about living for others not just ourselves.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I disagree. It is a human being. Being a human being is not defined by the capacity to feel pain. Some people suffer a very serious serious disorder where they can't feel pain. Do you think it is okay to just kill those people too, since they can't feel pain?

I didn't say being human is only defined by being able to feel pain. A person who has a disorder that prevents them from feeling pain still has awareness, a sense of self, higher-level thoughts, etc. Being able to feel pain is just one of the tests for whether a being deserves protection (for example, which animals can we/should we kill for food).

 Knockagh wrote:
Self centred beliefs like, your weaker and more vulnerable than me, I can kill you and create clever arguments to justify it because it suits my individual purposes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Self centred beliefs like, your weaker and more vulnerable than me, I can kill you and create clever arguments to justify it because it suits my individual purposes.

So you would not kill a cockroach in your house because it suits your individual purposes?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Self-awareness and higher-level thoughts are also not found in young infants and many handicapped people. So you would argue those are not human? Tell me, where do you draw the line of what is human and what is not?
In my opinion, there is only one criterion for being human, and that is being a member of the genus Homo. All those who belong to that genus are human.

 Knockagh wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Self centred beliefs like, your weaker and more vulnerable than me, I can kill you and create clever arguments to justify it because it suits my individual purposes.

So you would not kill a cockroach in your house because it suits your individual purposes?

So now you compare human life to cockroaches....

Psalm 14

1The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Self-awareness and higher-level thoughts are also not found in young infants and many handicapped people. So you would argue those are not human? Tell me, where do you draw the line of what is human and what is not?

In my opinion, there is only one criterion for being human, and that is being a member of the genus Homo. All those who belong to that genus are human.

 Knockagh wrote:
So now you compare human life to cockroaches....

Psalm 14

1The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I have a test for all those apposed to abotion.

a. Will you support government support for the woman you have forced to have their fetus become a baby?

b. Are you willing to fun real, practical sexual education (as in not abstinence only bs) and give government assistance to groups that provide contraception?

 Knockagh wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I have a test for all those apposed to abotion.

a. Will you support government support for the woman you have forced to have their fetus become a baby?

b. Are you willing to fun real, practical sexual education (as in not abstinence only bs) and give government assistance to groups that provide contraception?

Absolutely! What great ideas. I would also like to see a funded hospice for unborn children who may not survive the pregnancy, giving care and support to the family through the traumatic events they face with good after care.

Properly funded sex ed is vital from an early age with realistic advice on contraception.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I have a test for all those apposed to abotion.

a. Will you support government support for the woman you have forced to have their fetus become a baby?

b. Are you willing to fun real, practical sexual education (as in not abstinence only bs) and give government assistance to groups that provide contraception?

Absolutely! What great ideas. I would also like to see a funded hospice for unborn children who may not survive the pregnancy, giving care and support to the family through the traumatic events they face with good after care.

Properly funded sex ed is vital from an early age with realistic advice on contraception.

And now I'm completely OK with you

. I find far too many anti-abortion people here in the US seem to care deeply about babies until they are born, and then go defund welfare again. And real sex ed will stop more abortions than any law.

 Knockagh wrote:
i think if we start to think more radically as a society we can come up with more compassionate solutions to many aspects of modern life human life, if we believe that we have a responsibility to each other in society then we should educate, support and care for each other using our financial, physical and mental abilities. Cruel and cheap solutions are the lazy way out, kindness, compassion and true care are radical approaches that require hard work, that if a society puts its mind to it can heal in more ways than one.

 whembly wrote:
Just wanted to point out that the miscarriage tangent of the coversation is classic Strawmanning.

Miscarriage is simply an unwillful natural abortion. There should never be any laws/punishment/scarlette A when this occurs.

 whembly wrote:
There should never be any laws/punishment/scarlette A when this occurs.

1. A critically ill, 27-year-old Washington D.C. woman was 26 weeks pregnant when a judge ordered her to have a Cesarean section. He did so with the understanding that the procedure would very likely kill her. It did. The baby died as well.

 Knockagh wrote:
I'm delighted you feel miscarriages are tragedies, I knew there was a soft centre under that hard man persona. Your just a big softy at heart really.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
I'm delighted you feel miscarriages are tragedies, I knew there was a soft centre under that hard man persona. Your just a big softy at heart really.

And what about you? Do you consider miscarriage prevention to be the single greatest problem we are faced with today, or do you admit that a fetus isn't really a person after all?

Mario wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There should never be any laws/punishment/scarlette A when this occurs.

Like these?

Utah: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/blogs-main/advocates-blog/1568-utah-defines-some-miscarriages-as-qcriminal-homicideq-
Georgia: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia
Tennessee: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/arrested-having-miscarriage-7-appalling-instances-where-pregnant-women-were

1. A critically ill, 27-year-old Washington D.C. woman was 26 weeks pregnant when a judge ordered her to have a Cesarean section. He did so with the understanding that the procedure would very likely kill her. It did. The baby died as well.

There are more examples in the article.

That type of overreaching feticide laws (apparently available in 38 States) can land you in prison on a technicality or somebody's opinion. Another example:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/04/01/three-important-things-know-about-feticide-laws

 whembly wrote:
There are MASSIVE funding and research in ob/gyn field that touches on all the development phases of the fetus AND the mother. Mostly in genetic defects and cancer research. So, I'm not so sure that's a valid argument Peregrine.

The question remains, and will always remain so, that since there's no more denying the humanity of the preborn at any stage... the only thing abortion supporters can do now is claim that a human life only has value if they say so.

 Knockagh wrote:
I would dearly love to see more research into the causes of miscarriages.

 Knockagh wrote:
It nearly midnight here in the old UK and harvest is drawing to an end so I've just turned off the tractor and I'm off to get into bed beside my wife, who's belly has a lovely little 23 week old baby inside it. We see it kick everyday we have had two wonderful scans showing us the little wonder. It's part of my family no matter what happens.

I would dearly love to see more research into the causes of miscarriages. I'm knackered gents.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There are MASSIVE funding and research in ob/gyn field that touches on all the development phases of the fetus AND the mother. Mostly in genetic defects and cancer research. So, I'm not so sure that's a valid argument Peregrine.

Of course it's a valid argument. Is money being spent on something besides miscarriage prevention? If so, we have a problem. Three times as many "people" die in miscarriages vs. all other deaths combined, so no possible investment in medicine/safety/etc could outweigh the need to find a way to prevent miscarriages. Cancer research is a complete failure of priorities, spending money on preventing terrorism is a waste, etc. We need to stop doing all of that and put the resources to better use.

Now, you could easily resolve the problem by admitting that the fetus is not really a person, but until you do you'd better not be advocating investing in anything other than miscarriage prevention.

The question remains, and will always remain so, that since there's no more denying the humanity of the preborn at any stage... the only thing abortion supporters can do now is claim that a human life only has value if they say so.

Define "humanity". And it's not just having no value if I say so, it's having no value if you say so. The actions of virtually all people who oppose abortion clearly demonstrate that they do not sincerely believe that the fetus is a full person, because those actions only make sense based on the premise that the fetus is not. If you support an exception to abortion bans for rape then you do not believe that the fetus has value. If you do not support making miscarriage prevention research the overwhelming #1 priority you do not believe that the fetus has value. If you would choose to save a 5 year old child from a fire instead of a tray of 10 just-fertilized eggs you do not believe that the fetus has value. Etc. Anti-abortion people consistently demonstrate that the only time a fetus is granted full status as a person is when they need that argument to oppose abortion.

 whembly wrote:
I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly....

Personhood has no meaning as it's a crutch to make your argument argument.

It's really the same thought process that justified dehumanizing the Jews in WW2 and slaves in the US.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Self-awareness and higher-level thoughts are also not found in young infants and many handicapped people. So you would argue those are not human? Tell me, where do you draw the line of what is human and what is not?
In my opinion, there is only one criterion for being human, and that is being a member of the genus Homo. All those who belong to that genus are human.

Are you insinuating that infants aren't sentient?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Self-awareness and higher-level thoughts are also not found in young infants and many handicapped people. So you would argue those are not human? Tell me, where do you draw the line of what is human and what is not?

There is no clear line, but that doesn't matter. The gray area exists far, far away from the state of mental development where virtually all voluntary abortions occur. To give a 40k analogy, if your opponent isn't perfectly accurate in moving their models at what point do you call it cheating? 0.0001" of extra distance? 0.5" of extra distance? Regardless of what small number you personally favor everyone can agree that a player moving their models an extra 24" to get into range is cheating.

 Peregrine wrote:

In my opinion, there is only one criterion for being human, and that is being a member of the genus Homo. All those who belong to that genus are human.

Do you support immediate cuts to everything else to solve the urgent crisis of miscarriages, which result in the death of vastly more "humans" per year than any other cause? There are ~130 million miscarriages per year, and ~50 million deaths of people that have been born. So, for example, would you support ending all work on cancer research in favor of trying to prevent miscarriages?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Humanity and life are not something gradual, something is either human and alive or it is not.

It depends. If halting work on cancer research is likely to result in real results in the prevention of miscarriages, and if in that cases more or a similar amount of lifes can be saved, then I would certainly support it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Self-awareness and higher-level thoughts are also not found in young infants and many handicapped people. So you would argue those are not human? Tell me, where do you draw the line of what is human and what is not?
In my opinion, there is only one criterion for being human, and that is being a member of the genus Homo. All those who belong to that genus are human.

Are you insinuating that infants aren't sentient?

Are you confusing self-awareness and sentience?
Sentience is the ability to perceive and respond to external factors of any kind.
Self-awareness is the ability of introspection and to recognise oneself as an individual.
Infants are sentient. They are not yet self-aware (at least not until they are about 18 months old, after which self-awareness starts to develop).

 Knockagh wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Self centred beliefs like, your weaker and more vulnerable than me, I can kill you and create clever arguments to justify it because it suits my individual purposes.

So you would not kill a cockroach in your house because it suits your individual purposes?

So now you compare human life to cockroaches....

Psalm 14

1The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
I don't know anybody opposed to abortion who would allow it for rape......

Sounds like you aren't paying much attention because "no abortion, except in cases of rape or medical problems" is a standard policy argument.

I also know many many people who have had miscarriages and view it 100% a death, many people carry metal scars and trauma as a result of miscarriage.

Yes, of course people are hurt by it. But it's treated as an individual tragedy. Nobody is saying "stop funding cancer research and use that money to deal with the more urgent problem of miscarriages" or "we can't afford that new military project, we have to pay for anti-miscarriage research" or whatever. It's just accepted that some percentage of women will lose a child they want, and very little effort is put into preventing it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I have a test for all those apposed to abotion.

a. Will you support government support for the woman you have forced to have their fetus become a baby?

b. Are you willing to fun real, practical sexual education (as in not abstinence only bs) and give government assistance to groups that provide contraception?

sirlynchmob wrote:
well if you want to get biblical about it, god doesn't count you as a person til you're 1 month out of the womb.

 whembly wrote:
O.o

There are MASSIVE funding and research in ob/gyn field that touches on all the development phases of the fetus AND the mother. Mostly in genetic defects and cancer research. So, I'm not so sure that's a valid argument Peregrine.

The question remains, and will always remain so, that since there's no more denying the humanity of the preborn at any stage... the only thing abortion supporters can do now is claim that a human life only has value if they say so.

So these debates will devolve in expressing this value one way or another. THAT is why it's a challenging and often times heated discussion.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Numbers 5 literally calls for making women miscarry future pregnancies as a punishment for adultery. If miscarriage results in the loss of human life...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
In the USA, the number is much larger. around 700,000 a year, or roughly a 1:5 ratio abortions to live births. The 80's and early 90's in the US had a high rate, around 1:3 ratio to live births or 1.4 million per year at its peak. So in the 30 years from 1982 through to 2012 there were 33.4 million abortions in the USA, at a guess that's gotta average out to something like 1 in every 3 to 5 women of child bearing age?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I have a test for all those apposed to abotion.

a. Will you support government support for the woman you have forced to have their fetus become a baby?

b. Are you willing to fun real, practical sexual education (as in not abstinence only bs) and give government assistance to groups that provide contraception?

 Baragash wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
In the USA, the number is much larger. around 700,000 a year, or roughly a 1:5 ratio abortions to live births. The 80's and early 90's in the US had a high rate, around 1:3 ratio to live births or 1.4 million per year at its peak. So in the 30 years from 1982 through to 2012 there were 33.4 million abortions in the USA, at a guess that's gotta average out to something like 1 in every 3 to 5 women of child bearing age?

When you say the 80s and 90s are "high" is that in the context of the impact of Roe vs Wade?

One of the many interesting topics in the Superfreakonomics series of books is that one of their research studies suggests a link between the decline in crime rates in US and the legal decisions regarding abortion law.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
A: No. On the other hand, I would use the current child-support system to force the sperm-donor to step up to the plate and help support the kid, or face harsh prison sentences. You play, you pay. Period.

B: The old issue of sex education is nothing more than a deflection. One, teenagers are well aware of the risks and possible results of sexual activity, but they don't care. And two, it doesn't address the problem of adults who play around, and don't want to take responsibility for their actions. A good sex education curriculum is a great idea, one that I'm behind 100%. But it won't make a difference when it comes to out of wedlock pregnancy.

 Knockagh wrote:
Your basing this on the niv translation which is just one translation out of many, and the word miscarriage has been recognised as a ms translation.

The punishment described is a barren womb.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

A: No. On the other hand, I would use the current child-support system to force the sperm-donor to step up to the plate and help support the kid, or face harsh prison sentences. You play, you pay. Period.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Your basing this on the niv translation which is just one translation out of many, and the word miscarriage has been recognised as a ms translation.

The punishment described is a barren womb.

Perhaps the bible isn't the best place to go looking to reinforce your arguments at all. You can't pick and chose psalms considering that a couple of pages later they'll be stating eating a certain animal will make your eyes fall out, or to go kill the scary foreign people and non-believers...

 Knockagh wrote:
@sirlynchmob

That buddy has to be the strangest read of those passages I have heard...... I have no idea were you are getting your ideas from numbers 3:15 is rules for conducting a census..... If children under 1 month are left out it probably has more to do with extremely high infant mortality rates amongs children. We are talking about people who at 5 days of age were C ducting ceremonies to bring children into the communities.
Numbers 5 is about adultry and a judgement that the womb would be spoiled for future use, no mention of abortion........

If you want a bible verse t show you how age feels on abortion look at Jerimah 1:5

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Self-awareness and higher-level thoughts are also not found in young infants and many handicapped people. So you would argue those are not human? Tell me, where do you draw the line of what is human and what is not?
In my opinion, there is only one criterion for being human, and that is being a member of the genus Homo. All those who belong to that genus are human.

Are you insinuating that infants aren't sentient?

Are you confusing self-awareness and sentience?
Sentience is the ability to perceive and respond to external factors of any kind.
Self-awareness is the ability of introspection and to recognise oneself as an individual.
Infants are sentient. They are not yet self-aware (at least not until they are about 18 months old, after which self-awareness starts to develop).

Are you sure? I'd love to see some research on that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Humanity and life are not something gradual, something is either human and alive or it is not.

Life is not gradual, but "alive" is not a very informative quality when deciding whether or not something deserves protection. Cancer cells are alive and human, but clearly don't deserve protection. A person who is brain dead and hooked up to life support machines is both human and alive, but few people would consider it murder to remove life support and allow the process of death to finish. So clearly we need something besides "alive and possesses human DNA" as our test, and the obvious answer is to consider the things that separate us from things with no rights (like cockroaches): self-awareness, capacity to feel and understand pain, higher-level thinking, etc. A fetus at the state of development where virtually all voluntary abortions happen has none of these things.

 Peregrine wrote:

It depends. If halting work on cancer research is likely to result in real results in the prevention of miscarriages, and if in that cases more or a similar amount of lifes can be saved, then I would certainly support it.

Well, that's consistent at least, though I doubt you'd really stick to that belief outside of a forum debate. Remember that most of these miscarriages happen without the woman ever knowing that she was pregnant, so we aren't even talking about the emotionally devastating "my child is dead" kind of miscarriages.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
That doesn't really prove much. There ware many days when I wake up and don't recognise myself in the mirror

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think the idea that people against abortion won't support government aid or sex ed comes from the idea that if you are against abortion you must be crazy right wing and/or crazy religious, I think most people are actually more middle of the road.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yes, I am sure.
The relevant Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness has some links to research on it if you are interested. You can also test it yourself by placing an infant in front of a mirror. Young infants (generally below 18 months) will not recognise themselves.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

More to the point (and something I really should have addressed), I don't really think self awareness should be the issue, but sentience. Fetuses are supposed to gain sentience at around 12-13 weeks or so (If my memory holds up), and that's the point where I, personally, will treat it as a baby and not just a fetus. When it is more than a bundle of cells with potential.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

More to the point (and something I really should have addressed), I don't really think self awareness should be the issue, but sentience. Fetuses are supposed to gain sentience at around 12-13 weeks or so (If my memory holds up), and that's the point where I, personally, will treat it as a baby and not just a fetus. When it is more than a bundle of cells with potential.

An unconscious person is also not sentient. Do you think it is okay to kill people when they are unconscious?
And if not, then why do you still think it is okay to kill fetuses? What is the difference?

Also, what is the difference between a "bundle of cells with potential" and a human being?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

More to the point (and something I really should have addressed), I don't really think self awareness should be the issue, but sentience. Fetuses are supposed to gain sentience at around 12-13 weeks or so (If my memory holds up), and that's the point where I, personally, will treat it as a baby and not just a fetus. When it is more than a bundle of cells with potential.

An unconscious person is also not sentient. Do you think it is okay to kill people when they are unconscious?
And if not, then why do you still think it is okay to kill fetuses? What is the difference?

 whembly wrote:

The legal terms of 'miscarriage' could also fall under, "taken some meds and drinking alcohol to force a miscarriage".

They do make distinctions between a natural one v. a wilful one.

Earlier this month, NPR told the astonishing story with video, of a Salvadoran woman, Christina Quintanilla, who served four years of a 30-year sentence after being convicted of murder at age 17 for giving birth, prematurely, to a stillborn baby.

"The hospital had found no evidence that she had intentionally aborted the pregnancy," NPR reported. "But the district attorney pushed forward anyway, arguing that Quintanilla had terminated the pregnancy because she couldn't support another child."

She was released from prison, NPR reported, only after a young lawyer stumbled across her case and was able to argue that her baby's cause of death was never established.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And just like life is not gradual, humanity is also not gradual. Something is either human or it is not. Cancer cells are not human, a fetus is. The only neccessary test to determine humanity is to determine whether the subject in question belongs to the genus Homo or not. Attempting to use any other qualities to define humanity inevitably leads to weird, hypocritical and very disturbing implications.

Like your conclusion that a fetus who has no self-awareness, capacity to feel pain or higher-level thinking is not human. What about an handicapped person with severely reduced mental capabilities? In some serious cases, those people do not exhibit any of those qualities either. Following your logic, we then have to conclude that those people are not human and can be killed without implications.

The logic used to exclude fetuses from being human is the same kind of logic that has in the past been used to exclude groups of people from being human and justify all kinds of atrocities. That makes it even more disturbing.

Oh yes I would. Not that it would ever be needed, considering the fact that it is an unrealistic scenario.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
An unconscious person is also not sentient. Do you think it is okay to kill people when they are unconscious?
And if not, then why do you still think it is okay to kill fetuses? What is the difference?

Herzlos wrote:


What if the father is either unknown or somehow unavailable for the duration of the childs growth (dead, for example)? Should mother and child live in poverty and suffer?

Except it's been proven that good sex education reduces unwanted pregnancies, as does a good social attitude. In the UK/US, teen pregnancy rates are comparitively high because our attitudes and education regarding sex are awful, whereas they are lower in Europe because their attitidues are generally more liberal (which I'm assuming also results in better education).

Unintended pregnancies tend to be highest in areas where sex education is essentially just lectures about abstinance.

What has wedlock got to do with whether a pregnancy is intended? Married couples can get accidently pregnant too, and unmarried couples can raise families.

When we were teenagers there were all sorts of crazy claims made about pregnancy that were widely believed as fact, because no-one knew any better. Some claims I remember being made were:

* You couldn't get pregnant on the first time
* You couldn't get pregnant if you rinsed yourself out with a popular carbonated beverage
* That condoms were re-usable.

Plus, there was usually a trend that the poorer performing school children were normally the ones who dropped out due to pregnancy, but that may be more related to their social life than their educational level.

 Peregrine wrote:


I see. So it's prison sentences for anyone who is unemployed and can't afford to support the child? You are aware that the goal of government-provided child support is to protect the child, right? No matter how much you disapprove of the parents the child is innocent, and I think you should see the obvious problem with leaving the child to starve if their parents can't afford to support them.

Also, why is the father responsible for providing money? Why doesn't the mother share equal responsibility, with an equal threat of "harsh prison sentences" if they fail to meet their required payments?

Too bad the statistics disagree with you. Good sex education makes a significant difference in teenage pregnancy rates.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Like I said to the poster above, that's what government programs and charities are for. They are there to help the child and the parent(s). There is no excuse for it. Besides, I said nothing about child welfare and assistance. My point was about making people take responsibility for their actions. In this case, harsh penalties are needed for the sorry who are willing to do the fun stuff, but don't want the responsibility for the end result of said "fun". Even with government assistance, parents are not absolved of the responsibility for the kid's well being.

You are coming across as making excuses for "deadbeat" parents,whether that is your intention or not.

There is also the fact that with the mother performing the heavy lifting (figuratively speaking) in directly caring for the kid, the father should do his part in providing for his new family, in addition to helping with the child.

Like I mentioned to another poster. There are pros and cons to all schools of thought regarding how to run sex-ed.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

More to the point (and something I really should have addressed), I don't really think self awareness should be the issue, but sentience. Fetuses are supposed to gain sentience at around 12-13 weeks or so (If my memory holds up), and that's the point where I, personally, will treat it as a baby and not just a fetus. When it is more than a bundle of cells with potential.

An unconscious person is also not sentient. Do you think it is okay to kill people when they are unconscious?
And if not, then why do you still think it is okay to kill fetuses? What is the difference?

Sentience and consciousness are two very different things. And you know this. Try and make actual arguments.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Also, what is the difference between a "bundle of cells with potential" and a human being?

One has sentience and the other doesn't. I literally just explained this.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am. Show some effort to understand them.
Consciousness and sentience can be different things (sometimes at least, they are also often defined as being the same), but when there is no conciousness there can be no sentience. Unconsciousness can literally be defined as a temporary lack or severe reduction of sentience. This is basic knowledge...
Unless you are somehow able to feel and think subjectively while being unconscious

That is not a scientifically justified argument, but fair enough. Now where is exactly the border between sentience and non-sentience?

And why is it okay to kill one human being with a temporary lack of sentience, but not okay to kill the other human being with a temporary lack of sentience?

And as a general question, why should it be okay to harm non-sentient beings?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am. Show some effort to understand them.
Consciousness and sentience can be different things (sometimes at least, they are also often defined as being the same), but when there is no conciousness there can be no sentience. Unconsciousness can literally be defined as a temporary lack or severe reduction of sentience. This is basic knowledge...
Unless you are somehow able to feel and think subjectively while being unconscious

That's not how it works. Not at all. Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.* When you are unconscious, you are still sentient. Unless you're suggesting we lose our sentience when we go to sleep.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That is not a scientifically justified argument, but fair enough. Now where is exactly the border between sentience and non-sentience?

As I said, the accepted answer in the medical community is 12-13 weeks. And it's not my place to argue with that, I'm not a doctor.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And why is it okay to kill one human being with a temporary lack of sentience, but not okay to kill the other human being with a temporary lack of sentience?

What? Please elaborate.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And as a general question, why should it be okay to harm non-sentient beings?

Because society has deemed it as such. Otherwise we'd all starve.

Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it?

 Ratius wrote:

Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it?

Umm whats the difference between hurt and harm?

I kick a dog. It harms it (bruise on the leg). I hurt it by kicking it (bruise on the leg).

?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are making a mistake by confusing the popular usage of unconscious with the scientific term. Normal sleep is technically not a state of unconsciousness, but rather a state of altered consciousness because brain activity still continues normally (easy to demonstrate since a sleeping person still reacts to loud noises or other external stimuli and therefore is still sentient).
When you are in a state of unconsciousness however (such as being in a deep coma) you do not respond to any external stimuli. Much like a fetus, you have temporarily (or permanently, if the coma is permanent) lost the capacity to feel and perceive entirely. This is different from being asleep, where we maintain that capacity. Therefore, someone who is unconscious is not sentient as even though the neccessary infrastructure to feel and perceive is there, it is not active. Again, this is much like a fetus, in which the neccessary infrastructure also develops very early, but does not become active until much later.

Why is it okay to kill a fetus but not okay to kill someone who is in a coma?/quote] Well, first people in comas with no signs of brain function are routinely "killed" (i.e. taken off life support).

And is support of society a correct criterion to determine good or wrong?

Slavery was deemed by society to be okay. Does that mean it was good? Because otherwise your ancestors would have had to work themselves?

Let me rephrase my original question to show the problem I want to talk about:
Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it? There is an argument to be made for this when needed for survival of course (like killing plants for food). But what if there is no need for survival?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it?

Umm whats the difference between hurt and harm?

I kick a dog. It harms it (bruise on the leg). I hurt it by kicking it (bruise on the leg).

?

English is a complicated language and the two words have overlapping connotations, however "hurt" is primarily talking about a sensory response, "harm" is primarily about doing damage.

You harmed the dog because it has a bruise (damage) you hurt the dog because the dog felt pain and whimpered in the corner (sensory response). If you can inflict damage without causing pain, you can harm something without hurting it, if you can inflict pain without causing damage you can hurt it without causing harm.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And just like life is not gradual, humanity is also not gradual. Something is either human or it is not. Cancer cells are not human, a fetus is.

 welshhoppo wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it?

Umm whats the difference between hurt and harm?

I kick a dog. It harms it (bruise on the leg). I hurt it by kicking it (bruise on the leg).

?

English is a complicated language and the two words have overlapping connotations, however "hurt" is primarily talking about a sensory response, "harm" is primarily about doing damage.

You harmed the dog because it has a bruise (damage) you hurt the dog because the dog felt pain and whimpered in the corner (sensory response). If you can inflict damage without causing pain, you can harm something without hurting it, if you can inflict pain without causing damage you can hurt it without causing harm.

It's actually the other way around (or I am misreading you). Hurt is physical damage, harm can be anything. Like psychological, breach of contract or loss of reputation are all ways of harming someone without hurting them.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And there are studies that sing praises of all three methods.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Traditional families, with married couples, tend to offer the best chances for a stable family life, even in this age of high divorce rates. While there are exceptions, this is generally a good "rule of thumb".

 dogma wrote:
Well, yeah. You really didn't need to go beyond "traditional". Kids that are the product of tradition don't have to explain things to people, won't be harassed for being different, and will generally have an easier time of things. Same goes for the parents, arguably even more so.

It is possible to have a stable family life without marriage, or even civility between the two parents. I mean, it isn't like married couples don't have spats that impact their kids. The problems arise, generally, due to negative social pressure.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are making a mistake by confusing the popular usage of unconscious with the scientific term. Normal sleep is technically not a state of unconsciousness, but rather a state of altered consciousness because brain activity still continues normally (easy to demonstrate since a sleeping person still reacts to loud noises or other external stimuli and therefore is still sentient).
When you are in a state of unconsciousness however (such as being in a deep coma) you do not respond to any external stimuli. Much like a fetus, you have temporarily (or permanently, if the coma is permanent) lost the capacity to feel and perceive entirely. This is different from being asleep, where we maintain that capacity. Therefore, someone who is unconscious is not sentient as even though the neccessary infrastructure to feel and perceive is there, it is not active. Again, this is much like a fetus, in which the neccessary infrastructure also develops very early, but does not become active until much later.

Then maybe say you are using that sort of usage before you ask a question, hmm?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Why is it okay to kill a fetus but not okay to kill someone who is in a coma?/quote] Well, first people in comas with no signs of brain function are routinely "killed" (i.e. taken off life support).

Second, a fetus never had those functions to begin with. That's sort of the point. A person in a temporary coma, had those functions, they are just not in use. (This has been explained to you about two times).
Morally, they are an established creature in the world, where if a fetus that has yet to develop dies "nothing" is lost.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

And is support of society a correct criterion to determine good or wrong?

That's a pretty personal question, because each person's morals are their own. It all depends on whether or not you agree with that society.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Let me rephrase my original question to show the problem I want to talk about:
Is it okay to harm a creature as long as you do not hurt it? There is an argument to be made for this when needed for survival of course (like killing plants for food). But what if there is no need for survival?

That's up to your own moral compass.

 dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And just like life is not gradual, humanity is also not gradual. Something is either human or it is not. Cancer cells are not human, a fetus is.

Yes, humanity is gradual. Simply because lay people approach the concept as binary does not make it so.

humanity
hjʊˈmanɪti/
noun
noun: humanity; plural noun: humanities

human beings collectively.

human being
hjuːmənˈbiːɪŋ/
noun
noun: human being; plural noun: human beings; noun: humanbeing; plural noun: humanbeings

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

 dogma wrote:
Also, cancer cells which exist in a human are human. Cancer isn't like some magical dust that wafts down onto people, it is the result of damage to existential cells within the body.

 Korinov wrote:
I wonder, if an one-week fetus can be considered a human being, why sperm and egg cells should not be considered half-human (or at least, beings with the potential of becoming human), and therefore male masturbation and female menstruation become half-murder.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

noun: human being; plural noun: human beings; noun: humanbeing; plural noun: humanbeings

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Go and tell the biologists, will you?
Humanity is pretty much binary

 Iron_Captain wrote:

"Human" is a member of the species Homo sapiens (or in biological and archeological circles also any other member of the genus Homo). Nothing more. That is pretty damn binary. Member of H. sapiens? Human. Not member of H. sapiens? Not human.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Calling a cancer cell human is like looking at a wheel and calling it a cart. Cancer cells are part of a human, but parts are not the whole.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

So when we strap you up as an involuntary blood donor to save someone Mad Max style we won't hear you complain?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

So when we strap you up as an involuntary blood donor to save someone Mad Max style we won't hear you complain?

 Knockagh wrote:
Downs people being exterminated by abortion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189

Comparison

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/non-jewish-minorities/disabled/#.V_F9UjR4Xv4

 Knockagh wrote:
Downs people being exterminated by abortion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189

Comparison

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/non-jewish-minorities/disabled/#.V_F9UjR4Xv4

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
I wonder, if an one-week fetus can be considered a human being, why sperm and egg cells should not be considered half-human (or at least, beings with the potential of becoming human), and therefore male masturbation and female menstruation become half-murder.

Because sperm and egg cells are only parts of a human organism. It is not until the fusion of gametes during fertilisation that these human parts are transformed into a new whole human being.
So yeah, on their own, before fertilisation, sperm and egg cells really are not much more special than any other cells of the human body.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Like I said to the poster above, that's what government programs and charities are for. They are there to help the child and the parent(s). There is no excuse for it. Besides, I said nothing about child welfare and assistance. My point was about making people take responsibility for their actions. In this case, harsh penalties are needed for the sorry who are willing to do the fun stuff, but don't want the responsibility for the end result of said "fun". Even with government assistance, parents are not absolved of the responsibility for the kid's well being.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Downs people being exterminated by abortion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189

I don't think you understand what "extermination" means. Nobody is going around killing people with Down's syndrome, they are simply declining to have more children with that flaw.

Comparison

http://www.theholocaustexplained.org/ks3/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/non-jewish-minorities/disabled/#.V_F9UjR4Xv4

No, that is not a comparison at all. There is nothing at all similar between deciding not to have children with a serious genetic disability and murdering people who already exist.

tneva82 wrote:
Anyway moot point anyway. Ultimately decision is mothers. Her decision, her's alone. Nobody else has any right to intervene.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Given the context I find it ironic to quote from a book that advocates killing on several occasions, even if the quote sounds nice.

 Knockagh wrote:
More children with 'that flaw' nice one, you my man are a tough and hardened heart.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' - Matthew 13:15

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Anyway moot point anyway. Ultimately decision is mothers. Her decision, her's alone. Nobody else has any right to intervene.

Except in Poland.

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Anyway moot point anyway. Ultimately decision is mothers. Her decision, her's alone. Nobody else has any right to intervene.

Except in Poland.

Which is stupid. Pushing morality from up with absolute laws is STUPID and idiotic beyond belief.

Good job stupid lawmakers who ban abortion do. All they manage to do is cause death of tens of thousands of women per year and condemn many children into misery. GG.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's really not simple though. You can say it's the mother's choice and whatnot, but people who are against abortion are against it because they think that life has value. Therefore it would be immoral for them to not take a stand against it, they don't believe it's the mother's choice, they believe the life should be protected the same as any other person.

TheMuumio wrote:
However, it's also a question of are you allowed to force your beliefs upon others.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

TheMuumio wrote:
However, it's also a question of are you allowed to force your beliefs upon others.

When those beliefs relate to whether it has the same rights as a human. If it does, then it's no different to forcing your belief that murder is wrong. When it came to wiping out millions of people in a genocide because they are deemed less than human we don't say "well that's just what they believed and we aren't going to force our beliefs on them".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The problems usually arise when there isn't a stable relationship between the parents.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

So when we strap you up as an involuntary blood donor to save someone Mad Max style we won't hear you complain?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Korinov wrote:
I wonder, if an one-week fetus can be considered a human being, why sperm and egg cells should not be considered half-human (or at least, beings with the potential of becoming human), and therefore male masturbation and female menstruation become half-murder.

Because sperm and egg cells are only parts of a human organism. It is not until the fusion of gametes during fertilisation that these human parts are transformed into a new whole human being.
So yeah, on their own, before fertilisation, sperm and egg cells really are not much more special than any other cells of the human body.

So its ok to kill human cells then. Which means its ok to kill a fetus.

There's two parts to this argument and most of the discussion focuses on if a fetus is or isn't human. My vote is on it isn't, but lets say for a moment that it is. I know that in the US (especially Texas) we are allowed to kill other humans, even fully sentient ones walking around fully conscious, if we feel it is in self-defense. So why can't a woman kill the fetus in self-defense? Certainly it poses a threat of bodily harm in multiple ways.

 dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Go and tell the biologists, will you?
Humanity is pretty much binary

Why? They already know it isn't. If you want another example, look at the debates regarding the classification of species.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

"Human" is a member of the species Homo sapiens (or in biological and archeological circles also any other member of the genus Homo). Nothing more. That is pretty damn binary. Member of H. sapiens? Human. Not member of H. sapiens? Not human.

So a blastocyst is not human?

At any rate, you're getting really close to creating a false choice. There is a hell of a lot of philosophical, and scientific, consideration involved in determining what a human is.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Calling a cancer cell human is like looking at a wheel and calling it a cart. Cancer cells are part of a human, but parts are not the whole.

The word "human" is an adjective, as well as a noun.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is completely different. If someone is dying, and you do not save him and he dies, then you have not killed him. If someone is perfectly healthy and you kill him, then that is murder.
Abortion falls into that last category, because the fetus is not already dying in any way.

The classification of the species H. sapiens is pretty much set. There is no relevant debate around it, so don't try to make one up. The only debate regarding H. sapiens is to whether there are subspecies within it (H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens idaltu) and if so, where exactly to draw the border between those subspecies. For the purpose of determining what is human however, that debate is irrelevant.
I am not creating a false choice. Try finding any scientist or philosoper who argues that not every specimen of H. sapiens is human. Good luck, but I think you won't find a lot of support for your claim that a human is gradual.
Let me ask you a question. If humanity is gradual, that means there should be something that is half human being and half something else (as well as variations all along the way from 0% human to 100% human). Can you show me a non-mythical, scientifically supported example of a half human?

And no. A blastocyst is not a human being. It is human only in the sense that is part of a human being.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's really not simple though. You can say it's the mother's choice and whatnot, but people who are against abortion are against it because they think that life has value. Therefore it would be immoral for them to not take a stand against it, they don't believe it's the mother's choice, they believe the life should be protected the same as any other person.

I don't really have any problem with Poland's current laws and it seems to have the desired effect of reducing abortion rates compared to other countries that have more relaxed abortion laws. The proposed changes I think would overshoot the mark and probably end up doing more harm than good.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Here is my question: How old are you? Because if you are close to my age, I can validate this 100%. You would hear this kind of crazy teenage "conventional wisdom" back in my day (late 70's to late 80's).

Herzlos wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Here is my question: How old are you? Because if you are close to my age, I can validate this 100%. You would hear this kind of crazy teenage "conventional wisdom" back in my day (late 70's to late 80's).

I'm 32, so I was in high school from 1996-2002.

I suspect teens these days know a lot more about it than my day too, since it all seems less taboo now, which is a good thing.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The classification of the species H. sapiens is pretty much set. There is no relevant debate around it, so don't try to make one up. The only debate regarding H. sapiens is to whether there are subspecies within it (H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens idaltu) and if so, where exactly to draw the border between those subspecies. For the purpose of determining what is human however, that debate is irrelevant.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I am not creating a false choice. Try finding any scientist or philosoper who argues that not every specimen of H. sapiens is human.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Let me ask you a question. If humanity is gradual, that means there should be something that is half human being and half something else (as well as variations all along the way from 0% human to 100% human). Can you show me a non-mythical, scientifically supported example of a half human?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And no. A blastocyst is not a human being. It is human only in the sense that is part of a human being.

nou wrote:
If anyone in this thread is still interested in the original OP question:

A brain-dead person on life support machines still belongs to the genus Homo, yet we recognize that they are no longer a "person" in any meaningful sense and do not have the same rights anymore.

tneva82 wrote:
What you, me or anybody else thinks is irrelevant though. Only person that matters is the mother.

And desired effect? Women DYING is desired effect? You don't realize that banning abortion leads to women getting killed? That's fact proven by statistics. Tens of thousands women die EVERY YEAR because of these stupid "I'm holier than thou in deciding morality" laws.

 Frazzled wrote:

A brain-dead person on life support machines still belongs to the genus Homo, yet we recognize that they are no longer a "person" in any meaningful sense and do not have the same rights anymore.

We do? The law might kick your ass for trying that.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

A brain-dead person on life support machines still belongs to the genus Homo, yet we recognize that they are no longer a "person" in any meaningful sense and do not have the same rights anymore.

We do? The law might kick your ass for trying that.

If someone is correctly diagnosed as brain dead, which means there is zero chance of recovery, then there is no law which would prevent a doctor from turning off life support. I think it kinda goes without saying that once someone is dead they no longer have the right to life.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
What you, me or anybody else thinks is irrelevant though. Only person that matters is the mother.

Until you consider the unborn baby a person with rights, then it's a human rights issue.

...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But it's also not really relevant. One is a person at the end of life with no chance of recovery, the other is is an organism that may or may not be human and is just starting life (or about to start depending on your opinion).

sirlynchmob wrote:
yes it's not as big of a scandal now days, Which is largely due to abortions being decriminalized.

but being a unwed mother in america puts you in one of the most attacked groups in the country. They'll need government assistance and that makes them a "wellfare queen" and the lowest form of scum, demonized by an entire political party.

 sebster wrote:
But if I believe that life develops over time, I need to pick some other point where upon it becomes life and gains all the protections we grant to all human life. This is impossible, because life develops over time. It is even more impossible because we have no good standard for when life begins. People talk about things like consciousness or awareness, but having raised a kid most of that stuff isn't there for months after birth, but no-one is going to suggest it is okay to murder a 3 month old.

nou wrote:
If anyone in this thread is still interested in the original OP question:

Exactly as I predicted earlier, polish parliament threw this ruling out of the window a moment ago. Those of you, who picked up this thread thinking that Poland will be the next Salvador and needs urgent international pressure "to remain modern and liberal" got drawn into, and used for, internal polish "powergaming" of our compromited ex-goverment party...

Next time be more critical about what you read about Poland, especially in left-winged media.