Poland: Abortion ruling and mass protests

[Left Coast]

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.

There's a difference, though, between a personal sense of or need for belonging and larger national or international cooperation or formation of legal bodies. I agree people do need a sense of belonging. And individuals are free to personally associate with those they choose, in their local communities. But that's a very different issue than what national or international policies should be.

 

[exchemist]

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.

If you are not defining "nation" in political terms, then your objection to entities such as the EU becomes even harder to understand - and rather more sinister: Ein Volk, ein Reich.......

The great virtue of the EU is as an umbrella under which all people in Europe can shelter and be friends and allies in a common enterprise, in spite of such differences as exist between them. All you need do is consider Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, which put decades of the Troubles to bed, was only possible because both Irish Nationalists and Ulster Unionists could feel part of the EU, so many things were the same anyway and the differences didn't count for too much. The same to some degree has been true in Scotland. Come out from under that umbrella, and suddenly everyone is fiercely conscious once more of what divides them, rather than what unites them. That's what I mean about the road back to war.

 

[Rival]

If you are not defining "nation" in political terms, then your objection to entities such as the EU becomes even harder to understand - and rather more sinister: Ein Volk, ein Reich.......

The great virtue of the EU is as an umbrella under which all people in Europe can shelter and be friends and allies in a common enterprise, in spite of such differences as exist between them. All you need do is consider Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, which put decades of the Troubles to bed, was only possible because both Irish Nationalists and Ulster Unionists could feel part of the EU, so many things were the same anyway and the differences didn't count for too much. The same to some degree has been true in Scotland. Come out from under that umbrella, and suddenly everyone is fiercely conscious once more of what divides them, rather than what unites them. That's what I mean about the road back to war.

I'm not sure why we need a union to do this, when plain treaties seem to be enough. Places like Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and US hardly have a chance at being at war with each other, because we share values and broad outlooks. We don't need any union. We don't need one government over us to tell us how to behave.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not sure why we need a union to do this, when plain treaties seem to be enough. Places like Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and US hardly have a chance at being at war with each other, because we share values and broad outlooks. We don't need any union. We don't need one government over us to tell us how to behave.

What? It's because they are thousands of miles apart and have no conflicting territorial or economic ambitions.

As I say, just look at Ireland. Or Alsace. Or look up the argument about the Sudetenland. Or the Anschluss.

As for "one government over us, telling us how to behave" that is a complete Aunt Sally. The EU does not do that in the least. That is a myth, propagated by the charlatans that sold us Brexit on false pretences. What the EU does, on behalf of its members, is maintain common standards. That saves everyone a lot of administrative effort and enable free trade between members. The common court at top level is also a way to bind all the states into common legal standards and values - values the UK actually shares anyway.

 

[Rival]

What? It's because they are thousands of miles apart and have no conflicting territorial or economic ambitions.

As I say, just look at Ireland. Or Alsace. Or look up the argument about the Sudetenland. Or the Anschluss.

As for "one government over us, telling us how to behave" that is a complete Aunt Sally. The EU does not do that in the least. That is a myth, propagated by the charlatans that sold us Brexit on false pretences. What the EU does, on behalf of its members, is maintain common standards. That saves everyone a lot of administrative effort and enable free trade between members. The common court at top level is also a way to bind all the states into common legal standards and values - values the UK actually shares anyway.

I can see your argument, but I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I just don't think these kinds of unions are a good idea; I think they encroach too much on national governments. That's me, I guess.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Regardless, I don't support the EU lording it over individual countries and their right to self-determination. If this is what Polish lawmakers have decided, let the Poles deal with it.

So you would also wish to remove the supreme court in the USA.
The European court of justice plays the same roll in the EU.
It is made up of judges from all the states.
However it only gives judgement on cases brought to it, it is not proactive.
It is not acting on behalf of any one.

 

[Rival]

So you would also wish to remove the supreme court in the USA.

No, because the USA is one nation. One country. The EU is not a country.

 

[Yerda]

I can see your argument, but I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I just don't think these kinds of unions are a good idea; I think they encroach too much on national governments. That's me, I guess.

Aye, I can see why you might feel like that; I feel somewhat similar. As you've acknowleged, there are things like treaties and other international agreements that bind national governments so I guess it's where you feel comfortable drawing the line.

Membership of the ECHR is voluntary and I think we should expect members to be bound by its decisions. Whether or not it will get involved here is another issue. I think the rights of women to determine if they carry a child (up to a point) is something we should fight tooth and nail to preserve and being a "conservative country" shouldn't nullify that.

Anyway, I'm late to my own party I see, so if I've skimmed over too much and failed to make a relevant point then I apologise. Have a good one.

 

[Ponder This]

Poland abortion ruling: Protesters block roads across country

The populist right continues its global mission to ruin everything for everyone.

Is this a glimpse of America's future given the recent Supreme Court appointment?

I think is was a correct ruling by the Poland Court, because I happen to believe that it is not the job of the courts of a country to legislate. Countries generally have a branch of government responsible for that. It's populated by people known as "legislators" and I know that this may surprise some people, but the Legislative Branch is where laws should actually be made.

Similarly, the US Supreme Court should not legislate from the bench. There's a branch of the government that it supposed to do that. The US has what is called a "Congress".

Should people protest? Sure.
But they should be getting their legislators to take action. Admittedly, it's a difficult thing to know when it is courts that are being corrupt. So I do think a bit of protest helps to make sure that courts are being honest, but I think Poland should direct its energies towards its legislative branch.

Poland has a very low rate of abortion (less than 0.1 per thousand women). So is Poland in a better place than other countries? I would be for more concerned about Russia where the abortion rate remains very high (29.18%)! On the other hand, just because Poland women aren't getting abortions in Poland, doesn't mean they aren't getting them abroad (or illegally). And if significant portions of your population are going to do a thing regardless of whether or not it is a law, then you have to question if the law is that well-made.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No, because the USA is one nation. One country. The EU is not a country.

But it is governed as a federation of states in much the same way as the USA.
In terms of its judicial system, all the countries have signed up to the European court of justice being their supreme court. That is one of the things you have to agree to before becoming a member. They also have to agree to follow the rulings of the European human rights court. Though this is Europe wide not Just the EU.
The polish abortion ruling could end up going through both courts,

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, on that note. As much as liberals would like to get into a tizzy about anything Amy Coney Barrett is a pretty moderate and highly qualified person. Even the left didn't try to come at her on anything of substance, as they would have been truly destroyed in the press, lol. They spent their time groveling about non-substantial issues like her religion and stance on abortion. (Hint: One pro-life justice isn't going to tip the scale.)

Anyway, I'm kind of with Poland on this because abortion is a ghastly practice. It's not like we don't make contraception, and if you're old enough to do the deeds you're old enough to not act like an idiot when you do. Please tell me a good reason that most sexually mature and fertile women aren't on birth control in the first place... (Other than actually having the intent to have children.) Personally, I think if you are in the position of needing the abortion outside of life-threatening situation it's mostly that you're in that 'idiot' club and society shouldn't accommodate you. It's usually a complete lack of personal responsibility that creates that need and we shouldn't be dealing with it at that level, but rather from the top.

Poland's law makes sense to me: No abortions ever unless it's the result of a criminal act, or the mother's life is threatened. In fact, I'd consider it ideal.

I can agree with where you're coming from, but people who are so irresponsible as to accidentally get pregnant and get an abortion over it shouldn't be parents in the first place. If they get an abortion for mere birth control reasons (outside of health reasons, rape, birth defects, etc.), they should be sterilized (the male, too; I'm sick of males getting a free pass when it comes to reproduction). There's a lot of people as it is who should have their kids taken away from them.

 

[exchemist]

I can see your argument, but I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I just don't think these kinds of unions are a good idea; I think they encroach too much on national governments. That's me, I guess.

Yes, well, I suppose I too should declare an interest.

I have had the good fortune to work in multinational with a wide variety of European colleague, and spent several years in The Hague. I also had a French wife (now deceased) and thus spent, and spend, time in France. My abiding impression of Continental Europe is one of freedom, with respect for local traditions. All the people I met seemed to enjoy, as I did, the feeling that the whole of Europe belonged to us all and we could go wherever we liked, to do business, to work or on holiday, and be pretty sure of a respectful welcome. I did not find any signs of complaint about overlords in Brussels, though of course there was plenty of the usual complaining about local political parties and politicians. It has its faults and inconsistencies, but it does seem to work, without getting in the way. And now we are losing it all.

One other aspect: one of my brothers, further to the right politically than me, was an EU sceptic. Then a few years ago he took his children to Belgium for one of the WW1 centenaries. The rows and rows of crosses made a big impression on him. While he was there, Angela Merkel showed up, with the King of Belgium, to pay her respects to the dead. He was very moved. And suddenly, he told me, he realised that THIS was what it was all about.

The EU is a deliberate move away from nationalism.

 

[Rival]

Yes, well, I suppose I too should declare an interest.

I have had the good fortune to work in multinational with a wide variety of European colleague, and spent several years in The Hague. I also had a French wife (now deceased) and thus spent, and spend, time in France. My abiding impression of Continental Europe is one of freedom, with respect for local traditions. All the people I met seemed to enjoy, as I did, the feeling that the whole of Europe belonged to us all and we could go wherever we liked, to do business, to work or on holiday, and be pretty sure of a respectful welcome. I did not find any signs of complaint about overlords in Brussels, though of course there was plenty of the usual complaining about local political parties and politicians. It has its faults and inconsistencies, but it does seem to work, without getting in the way. And now we are losing it all.

One other aspect: one of my brothers, further to the right politically than me, was an EU sceptic. Then a few years ago he took his children to Belgium for one of the WW1 centenaries. The rows and rows of crosses made a big impression on him. While he was there, Angela Merkel showed up, with the King of Belgium, to pay her respects to the dead. He was very moved. And suddenly, he told me, he realised that THIS was what it was all about.

The EU is a deliberate move away from nationalism.

This just seems like a lot of feels to me though. My mom lives in France. I visited last year. I've been to Belgium, to the Netherlands, it was all great. No complaints.

 

[exchemist]

This just seems like a lot of feels to me though. My mom lives in France. I visited last year. I've been to Belgium, to the Netherlands, it was all great. No complaints.

Does your mum report groaning under the yoke of Brussels? Whereabouts does she live, by the way? My wife's family is in Paris and Rouen, mainly.

 

[Rival]

Does your mum report groaning under the yoke of Brussels? Whereabouts does she live, by the way? My wife's family is in Paris and Rouen, mainly.

Normandie, Quettreville sur Seine. She is a Brexiteer, aye.

 

[exchemist]

Normandie, Quettreville sur Seine. She is a Brexiteer, aye.

Ah OK. Normandy too. Well if she's a Brexiter, she's living in the right country for it, i.e. not GB.

I think the UK is finished.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not in touch with Poland's religious views or whatever, nor do I claim to be. I think abortion on the basis of defect is a pretty tough sell too. (Where do we stop the criteria? Mentally handicapped? People under 80 IQ? Hmm... seems arbitrary in the first place.) Murder is murder to me, and whether people like depersonalizing it with all the wedge words or not matters little to me.

I'm not completely pro-life in the least -- I mean I support contraception, abortion in the case where the mother would perish, and abortion where criminal acts which lead to pregnancy.

Wedge words?
Phht.
You appear to be trying to argue in concepts and in ignorance of Poland's particulars, so I'm somewhat confused why you even entered this thread. This is specifically about the recent law changes in Poland. It's not fluffy, theoretical, or anything else. There's no hard to understand concepts here.

Poland has 1000 legal abortions per year. That's not America.
98% are due to foetal defects, with the other 2% purely sexual assaults, or due to the mother's health.

The Polish constitutional tribunal found that abortions in cases where “prenatal tests or other medical indications indicate a high probability of severe and irreversible fetal impairment or an incurable life-threatening disease” violate the right to life.

Source : Poland had some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe. They just got even stricter.

There are links within that article to discussions around stacking of the Tribunal, and to polls indicating that popular opinion in Poland is that abortion is not desireable...but also that their law should not be extended to include cases of severe foetal impairment.

This thread is not about aborting kids who might have IQs of 80 and that's straight prevarication.
As I posted, the leader of the ruling party specifically called out that even in cases where the foetus would be stillborn, he wanted to force women to carry to term so the baby could be born, baptised and buried.

Bully for him. I think that's pretty disgusting. If you think women should be forced to carry non-viable foetusus to term, then bully for you too. But please don't start using terms like 'wedge words', talk about aborting kids with low IQs, and try to take some moral high ground.
If you want to discuss abortion generally, or abortion in America, there's nothing stopping you from starting a thread. If you want to discuss the recent changes to Polish law, by all means, do so.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please tell me a good reason that most sexually mature and fertile women aren't on birth control in the first place...

We're human -- which is one of the many animal species on planter Earth. And sometimes, our biology, or our psychology, get away from us -- mistakes happen.

And when mistakes happen, it's not a bad idea to have some way to fix them.

 

[epronovost]

We're human -- which is one of the many animal species on planter Earth. And sometimes, our biology, or our psychology, get away from us -- mistakes happen.

And when mistakes happen, it's not a bad idea to have some way to fix them.

You are opposed by deontological ethics based on unordered moral axioms. You cannot try to present reasons to moderate a choice since they do not respond to conseqentialist ethics neither do they wish to hierarchise moral axiom on that basis.

 

[Mindmaster]

I can agree with where you're coming from, but people who are so irresponsible as to accidentally get pregnant and get an abortion over it shouldn't be parents in the first place. If they get an abortion for mere birth control reasons (outside of health reasons, rape, birth defects, etc.), they should be sterilized (the male, too; I'm sick of males getting a free pass when it comes to reproduction). There's a lot of people as it is who should have their kids taken away from them.

I don't really know where I sit with those other topics, but for abortion is pretty obvious. I'm not really sure if sterilization is the answer or not really... I do think an argument can be made, but who to enforce it? That's sort of the problem...