epronovost
Well-Known Member
Isn't that exactly why women abort? They have a embryo/fetus that's causing them trouble?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poland: Abortion ruling and mass protests
- Thread starter Yerda
- Start date
Isn't that exactly why women abort? They have a embryo/fetus that's causing them trouble?
epronovost
Well-Known Member
You have more chance surviving a standard round of russian roulette than surviving from fertilisation to childbirth. Should I be allowed to force my baby to play a game of russian roulette and than claim I'm completely blameless because I didn't want him to die in the event of his death? That's ridiculous. I was reckless and killed my child. I'm a murderer. Sure I knew it could happen, but I did it anyway. Fetal and embryonic death isn't a remote chance. It's one out of four. Your bridge example is thus completely inappropriate.
Yes, you have the right to intend to have a baby. Every instance of a human being's existence could be potentially fatal. No-one is taking this as far as you are.
PureX
Veteran Member
It's a difficult issue. It pits an individual's right to be born against an individual's right to control what happens inside her own body. These are both very elemental human rights that we all feel very strongly about, and yet we have no convincing way to delineate for us where one right would end and the other begin.
In the United States, the courts finally determined, years ago, that the most logical factor in determining where the mother's right ends and the child's right begins, is at the point when the child could survive outside the mother's womb (22 - 24 weeks). So that after this point, the mother can no longer choose to terminate the pregnancy (unless medical circumstances warrant it). This is logical, in a very sort of matter-of-fact way, and yet not very logical, overall. Yet. barring any better reasoning for making the determination, this is what was decided, and what we still hold to, to this day.
Other people and their respective courts in their own countries have made different decisions regarding this difficult question. As was their right. And I don't feel compelled to 'throw shade' on their decisions.
In the United States, the courts finally determined, years ago, that the most logical factor in determining where the mother's right ends and the child's right begins, is at the point when the child could survive outside the mother's womb (22 - 24 weeks). So that after this point, the mother can no longer choose to terminate the pregnancy (unless medical circumstances warrant it). This is logical, in a very sort of matter-of-fact way, and yet not very logical, overall. Yet. barring any better reasoning for making the determination, this is what was decided, and what we still hold to, to this day.
Other people and their respective courts in their own countries have made different decisions regarding this difficult question. As was their right. And I don't feel compelled to 'throw shade' on their decisions.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
The law never considered an embryo or a fetus as a child like you do. In fact, as far as the law was concerned, embryos and fetus aren't human person, have no rights, no privileges and no place in society. Only children, teenagers and adults do. If you want to say killing a fetus or an embryo is murder you have to accept that pregnancy is reckless endangerment of a child since it's even more dangerous than russian roulette. The law doesn't say humanity must reproduce at all cost either. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's not how the law works. Your morality might make it work by applying some double standards and making some hoop jumping. Laws can't do that. They are by their very nature stiffer and subject to precedents.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
But you overlook the fact that the Council of Europe was formed precisely to provide common legal and humanitarian standards across all of Europe, in order to stop individual nations falling under the spell of of autocrats, populists and police states. That was the whole point. And the war-weary nations, with Auschwitz seared into their consciousness, realised the trade-off in national sovereignty was worthwhile.
In any case, what's so special about a country? Take the UK. Who says it is the UK government, at Westminster, that is uniquely "sovereign" over all the citizens of the UK. The Scots, Irish and Welsh take a dim view of that.
National borders are arbitrary creations, usually of the outcome of the last war to be fought over the territory concerned. Where does Alsace belong? All the places names, the architecture, the food and drink etc are obviously German. But it's in France. Now. Before that it was in Germany. And before that, France. And before that Germany......etc: Alsace - Wikipedia
Everywhere has some sort of hierarchy of belonging, from town government to state or county government to national government and then, via treaties and alliances. Each level trades some of its autonomy to larger groupings in exchange for mutual benefits.
That's how it works everywhere. There is no law or principle that says this principle stops at nation state level.
Nations are recognised entities and have been for thousands of years. Nations usually form where language, religion and culture are the same or broadly intra-related. It makes sense for a government to have governance over a people with whom it has these commonalities of culture, faith, history &c. rather than a supra-national entity making rules for a completely different culture with possibly a completely different religious outlook or set of value systems. It makes no sense for someone unfamiliar with the territory, so to speak, to come in and start making laws for it. For the same reason I support more local government for different counties
exchemist
Veteran Member
No nation has been around for thousands of years. This is a complete myth.
Italy and Germany didn't exist until the end of the c.19th. Great Britain has only existed for 300 years. As for culture and all that baloney it famously does not correlate well with national boundaries, which is one of the reasons for wars. Sudetenland? Alsace? Ireland?
Israel has. It's called a nation in the Tanakh.
How would you define a nation? I never mentioned borders or boundaries. I mentioned culture, language, faith, history and values. A nomadic people can be a nation.
The modern nation-state is a pretty recent historical creation, really. Prior to that we had empires, kingdoms, fiefdoms, tribes, and so on. Again, the issue is that Poland chose it's fate. Thus whether you personally like it or not, Poland's choice to be in the EU means it is subject to that same EU.
Further, your view of nations as united by "culture, faith, history, etc." is increasingly inaccurate and outdated as we become a more global society. The Internet, increased international travel, and the desire of nations to united and cooperate have created a situation where nations' histories, cultures, etc. are in many ways blended. As more nations embrace secularism, seeing its obviously preferable benefits, faith is also increasingly irrelevant factor in determining how nations organize themselves.
So how would you define a nation? Seems rather arbitrary from your side? I dislike globalisation too
Interesting that several of the signs are in English. How common is English in Poland?
So how would you define a nation? Seems rather arbitrary from your side? I dislike globalisation too
This seems fine.
Definition of nation | Dictionary.com
You may dislike globalization all you like, but that doesn't make it go away.
And yes, all units of human organization are arbitrary, and routinely change, blend, etc.
Number 4 broadly works for me.This seems fine.
Definition of nation | Dictionary.com
You may dislike globalization all you like, but that doesn't make it go away.
Edit: I'm hoping the populists help turn the globalisation train around.
Unfortunately for the nationalists, immigration is such that few modern nations are rarely composed exclusively of one ethnic group. Nor do virtually any of them require one to be a certain ethniticity to become a citizen of said nations. So that's an increasingly antiquated way of organizing people.
I'm not saying they should be. I just think globalisation is dangerous. If one economy goes, the rest go with it. If one country ships bad food to ten countries, now ten countries have it. If we have to alter our laws to trade with other countries, our values are being compromised. Like the issue with the US selling its bleached chicken to the UK; money talks, unfortunately.
All forms of cooperation are dangerous. Someone can always backstab another; faulty products and services can always be expanded and sent to a wider set of consumers. I see those as reasons to be wise and create reasonable safeguards when cooperating; not as reasons to isolate.
The globalization toothpaste is already out of the tube; I don't think there's any putting it back now. Globalization has brought technology, medicine, and other products and services to parts of the world that wouldn't have them otherwise. People more freely move and travel across national lines and enjoy that freedom.
Ethnostates divide and separate us. Why would we want to go back to that?
Because not all peoples are the same, and we prefer being around those who speak the same language as us, share our values and outlook. For the same reason we don't let into the country folks who don't share those values and may be potential inside threats, fifth columnists or terrorists. Humans can and should co-operate, I totally agree with you; isolationism is stupid, I'm definitely not arguing for that; but humans need to feel a sense of belonging and identity, and essentially saying we're all the same simply does not foster that. For the same reason we find different religious communities forming ghettos; because folks prefer to be around their own kind. It makes it easier to form laws and so on when people share an outlook.
People can share an outlook, though, without sharing an ethnicity, or even a religion. Modern secular democracies are examples of this.
This is why I mentioned all these things; I didn't mean to imply all of them, sorry if I was unclear. But all I'm saying is, people like to feel part of a group, and if they don't share any of these things, or even just one, they can feel isolated and without an identity. Such has led in part to my decision to convert.