The Death of a Polish WomanDemonstrates the Dangers of Abortion Bans

submitted by jet199 from bylinetimes.com

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]LearningTheLand 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (22 children)

Abortion should never have been a right. The reality is that murder has never been a right in the history of the human race and the idea that it is acceptable to murder children for selfish reasons does nothing but harm humanity.

[–]turtlew0rk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

The doctors not only refused the abortion, but refused tp treat the woman and drain the fluid until after he baby had passed due to septic shock from having a dying and now dead fetus inside her that had little chance to make it to term and would have required her to remain hospitalized until the birth. Like 5 months? That seem wise?

If this were your wife and unborn child would you still feel the same way? Abortion to save the life of the mother is not acceptable and they both gotta die?

[–]LearningTheLand 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (20 children)

Yes. What is and isn't right doesn't change just because of whom it is affecting. Abortion is never acceptable and anyone who performs an abortion should be charged with murder.

[–]turtlew0rk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Even if the baby is gonna die either way and this is to save your wife? Does she get a say in that? Isn't that murdering her in a way?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

was this polish woman married, the article doesn't say

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I don't know. Is that a factor in determining if she should die? Or are you just curious?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

yes why was she pregnant in the first place then

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That is something your mommy and daddy should explain to you

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. pretty simple. And everyone knows there are risks to pregnancy, so don't do it unless 100% sure you want kids, and are married.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

lol. That is cute, but an entirely different argument. This woman wanted a baby, but the pregnancy failed and it was killing her. And then did kill her. Married or unmarried there are 2 outcomes to her situation. Either the baby dies and she is saved, or they both die.

If you were her husband which outcome would be preferable?

[–]LearningTheLand 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Natural process, direct action is always murder if it intentionally ends an innocent life.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What about inaction? What if you could stop a person's death but chose not to because of lets say for example some religious dogma that you ironically claim is about the sanctity of every life? Is allowing her to die the only just course of action there?

[–]LearningTheLand 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Actions fine, so long as said action isnt abortion.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Read my question again. I think you may have misunderstood it.

[–]LearningTheLand 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I understood it perfectly. If the only action was abortion then you do nothing and hope it works out. Inaction is never as evil as action.

[–]turtlew0rk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If I saw a child drowning and could easily save them but choose not to because I don't feel like getting wet. Is that kosher then? Is inaction.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

“The problem is that according to Polish law,” wrote Budzowska, “emptying the uterine cavity [to prevent septic shock] while the foetus is alive is treated as termination of pregnancy. In the described situation, it could be performed if the doctor decided that the pregnancy poses a threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman. At what stage … and under what conditions, can a doctor safely, from the point of view of his possible criminal liability, consider that the pregnancy poses a threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman?”

Better to let the mother die, simply because removing the dying baby that's killing her might be illegal? That doesn't seem right, or defensible.

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I know a guy that is pulling for an abortion ban. He wants to set up an abortion cruise ship where you have to pay a shitload of money to get an offshore abortion.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Evidence from leading health organisations demonstrates that abortion bans fail to prevent women from accessing terminations. Instead, they force women and girls to have unsafe abortions which, in turn, can result in women dying.

I've heard that bans on armed robbery haven't stopped armed robbery. Instead, armed robbers are forced to engage in unsafe armed robbery, which can result in armed robbers and their victims dying. When are we going to recognize we're making armed robbery unsafe by having laws against it?