Welcome to the original English language Poland and Polish discussion group board. This message forum is a place where English-speaking Poles, foreigners (expats) living in Poland, and anyone with a genuine interest in Poland can discuss and read the views of others concerning Poland. Subjects include: Polish news and current affairs; Life in Poland; politics; genealogy research; Polish culture and history; advice and tips on visiting Poland; Polish property and investment issues. The aim of our group is to increase awareness of wonderful Poland using the English language and allow and foster the honest debate and exchange of opinions on anything vaguely related to Poland and Polish - positive, negative and/or neutral! To state the obvious: all opinions and views expressed on this site are solely those of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of anyone else! Messages consisting of ads will be deleted.
Perhaps Polish politicians are right to fear giving Polish women wide legal rights in this area, as women in the UK aren't using them responsibly.
Whether you are pro or anti-abortion in principle, these numbers are horrific. (As is the maternal suicide rate in the year after an abortion.)
I'm sure each woman has her story varsovian. The alternative of banning it is far worse. Desperate people will find a way and that way is dangerous and life threatening. Touchy subject.
With these figures I think I'd prefer to bring back drink-driving, lower the voting age to 13 and elect Gordon Brown as president for life.
Individuals do as they will, but this is absurd.
"Desperate people will find a way and that way is dangerous and life threatening."
How many is desperate, and how many does it because what is not banned is O.K.?
Abortion means ultimate "danger and life threat" for the child.
I could never do it Lilka but I mean statistics like this do not take the reasons into account. Some are performed because the mother's life is in danger, others because the foetus is not viable but does not miscarry. I know someone who carried an unviable foetus through her pregnancy because she did not believe in abortion. Of course the baby died immediately on birth as the brain had never developed. It was her choice.
On the other hand there are plenty of women who have abortions arbitrarily as lifestyle choices and however they feel to start with I cannot imagine they do not go through mental anguish as a result.
When you start getting into the ethical debate you end up with the question "when does life begin?".
You also have to look beyond the women on this debate. Why do so many women feel that they cannot bring up a child? What are their circumstances. What about the men who are fathers to these children? Anyone ever see the film "an officer and a gentleman"? How many of these abortions do you think are paid for by men who support the idea?
I'm afraid the majority of "freak behaviours" in human sexuality (from the interest in skinny models to pedophilia) may begin with the deep fear of responsibility for a child that could be born in normal circumstances.
What do you think?
I think whatever is happening in our society is nothing compared to the way pregnant women are being treated in China.
Perhaps it is time to consider alternatives. I would suggest that any woman desiring to obtain an abortion sign an affirmative document that she declines an offer of 10,000 pounds to carry the pregnancy to term and offer the child for adoption.
Even if only ten percent opted for remuneration there is ample evidence that there would be willing adoptive parents.
“there were 21,495 adoptions in England and Wales in 1971. The number fell rapidly during the 1970s and steadily over the 1980s and 1990s. The rapid decline in the number of children available for adoption followed the introduction of legal abortion in the Abortion Act 1967”
(I'm sure each woman has her story varsovian. The alternative of banning it is far worse. Desperate people will find a way and that way is dangerous and life threatening. Touchy subject.)
Couldn't have put it better.
What - can we have touchy subjects? Veeery English.
What lovely weather we're having today!
" I would suggest that any woman desiring to obtain an abortion sign an affirmative document that she declines an offer of 10,000 pounds to carry the pregnancy to term and offer the child for adoption."
I am sure that if the Catholic church were to consider this option it may lead to far fewer abortions. However, it would also lead to far more pregnancies qualifying for such funding.
A woman should have the right to decide. Anuone, can make a mistake. However, serial abortionists should be sterilized. Three strikes and you are out.
And the men Hans? Should they be castrated?
Ultimately, the responsibility for contraception is a womans.
I'm in favor of castration for rapists, pedophiles, long-term welfare scroungers, and the seriously retarded.
See seperate thread about chemical castration for sex offenders.
"Ultimately, the responsibility for contraception is a womans. "
Oooh....and what is your basis for such a view?
"Perhaps it is time to consider alternatives. I would suggest that any woman desiring to obtain an abortion sign an affirmative document that she declines an offer of 10,000 pounds to carry the pregnancy to term and offer the child for adoption."
It was tried in Scotland - the Church put the money up (which along with the full care package cost a small fortune). It didn't work.
"I would suggest that any woman desiring to obtain an abortion sign an affirmative document that she declines an offer of 10,000 pounds to carry the pregnancy to term and offer the child for adoption."
Your suggestion is that women be given 10,000 pounds for not having an abortion?
10,000 quid for offering the child up for adoption. Most would not take up the option but the alternatives for those who do accept the transaction are; 1- abortion; 2-disinterested parenting.
Might it be expensive to encourage domestic birth rates? I suspect the cost is lower than importing Turkish guest laborers.
I would like to learn more of the Scottish example. It is important to determine whether there was an inherent flaw or whether the implementation, communication or even duration of the program were issues.
Adopting a child is a serious problem - I know 3 people who went through the system. 2 succeeded (in Poland) - the third is going through hell in California, as the drug addict mother wants the child back now from the only parents he's ever known.
Meanwhile, healthy babies get slaughtered by the thousand by uncaring women annoyed by the hassle of it all.
Yes when you compare the ease of abortion to the difficulty in adoption it is extremely unfair that people who want to adopt are treated almost like criminals even though they have the right attitude and really want to care for a child. At the same time there are many orphans around the world who could benefit from the care and love denied as a result.
Institutionalised children are a big risk - you can end up adopting a monster who, when he gets big enough, might turn horribly mean in the way an adopted baby wouldn't.
Families are minefields at the best of times, but adoptive parents nned to be given a decent chance of success.
Stop it at source.
That sort of puerile argument won't convince anyone - it's absolute bo#ock$
Vasectomies are a lot less invasive than some of the stuff women have to go through, and are reversible. Maybe no such a bad idea.
My brother wouldn't recommend them.
"The fact that I have caused him injury will live with me forever. I am in no way a violent person."
No, dear, you sound perfectly normal!
Still, doctors do worse things.
A ball in the hand is worth two in the bush.