Staunchly Catholic Poland takes a new look at easing abortion laws

[beehumble]

Originally Posted by seekerz

Your analysis is pretty much where it's at. Restrictive laws bring down the "official numbers" and possibly decrease abortion access for those of limited financial means, that's about it. Relaxing those laws would probably allow the real numbers to be calculated, leading to over-estimates of the effect of legalization.

Not sure when the message will get through that this is a spiritual malaise which cannot be 'cured' with laws. What the yellow pages advertise is really the Achilles' heel of the whole anti-abortion legislative strategy: abortion can be advertised, sought and performed without either party actually admitting a pregnancy even existed. Short of a placing a pro-life OB/GYN in every examination room (note that all italicized components are essential), anti-abortion laws are very limited in what they can achieve.

Obviously not true, a mere myth of the pro-abort industry. The abortions in the US SKYROCKETED and are now at around a million each year, since Roe v Wade. Before that it was no where near that high. Its being illegal very obviously kept the rate at least an order of magnitude (a big number) lower. People should stop drinking the kool-aid and think for themselves and analyze the plain facts. So it is demonstrable that anti-abortion laws don't stop all abortions, but they stop most of them. (No law stops a crime entirely - there are prostitutions, murders, rapes, blackmail etc regardless of these being illegal, for example.)

God bless you.

[Dale_M]

Originally Posted by beehumble

I'm sorry, what was your point?

Earlier, you had asked the following questions

Originally Posted by beehumble

It is new party, funded by who? WHy does it include FREE contraception

I was providing information to answer your questions.

[Elizium23]

Originally Posted by child_of_God85

Unless you yourself have been raped you have no idea what a woman goes through. And please, don't dignifie that monster that raped me by calling him the father. That term should only be used for men who deserve to be called father. The bum who raped me is the lowest kind of scum you can find.
I don't consider a dnc an abortion. It was a scraping of the womb jusy hours after the rape to prevent anything taking. There is a good chance that I wasn't even pregnant. I had been drugged, so the creep might have been using a condom. Though it's unlikely. If he is willing to rape a woman and not care, he certainly doesn't care what happens after either.

I will pray for you, your mother, and your child, and I pray that you find forgiveness and acceptance where you need it the most.

[child_of_God85]

Originally Posted by Elizium23

I will pray for you, your mother, and your child, and I pray that you find forgiveness and acceptance where you need it the most.

Like I said, I'm not sure I was even pregnant, because I was drugged when I was raped. And second, why do I need forgiveness? I was the victim!

[Elizium23]

Originally Posted by child_of_God85

Like I said, I'm not sure I was even pregnant, because I was drugged when I was raped. And second, why do I need forgiveness? I was the victim!

I will pray for you.

[child_of_God85]

Originally Posted by Elizium23

I will pray for you.

Still didn't answer my questions, but oh well:/
To be quite frank, after I was raped it wasn't so much what happened to me tgat made me suicidal, but how my "fellow" catholics treated me that made me suicidal. I'm not a cradle catholic. I became catholic at the age 22. I felt do strongly that I had found the true form of christianity. Since my rape, I have truely come to question that. Never have I encountered a more judgemental, and frankly, hateful group of people, than in the catholic church. Somehow, a family "friend", who is catholic and goes to out parish, foynd out about my dnc after my rape, and told me that my dnc was more sinfull than the rape itself. And noe most people at my parish gives me dirty looks.
When I was at a truely tortured and vulnerable state, this church that I felt so much love for, it turned it's face on me and treated me with pure hate. I dOn't feel any of Christs teaching in that.

[Elizium23]

That was extremely unfortunate for you, and heaped injustice on top of injustice. Alas, it is frequently the case with gossipy parish congregations that people are rejected because of some "unforgivable" sin. I hope that the clergy treated you better than that. I hope that you will see past the sinful nature of your fellow man and seek God in His Sacraments. Because we can never trust each other completely, and will always be let down by others, but God will never let us down in His Divine Promises.

[child_of_God85]

Originally Posted by Elizium23

That was extremely unfortunate for you, and heaped injustice on top of injustice. Alas, it is frequently the case with gossipy parish congregations that people are rejected because of some "unforgivable" sin. I hope that the clergy treated you better than that. I hope that you will see past the sinful nature of your fellow man and seek God in His Sacraments. Because we can never trust each other completely, and will always be let down by others, but God will never let us down in His Divine Promises.

I have sought comfort with God and Christ, because I was not getting the support from those around me. I do thank you for understanding.

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by beehumble

[b]So it is demonstrable that anti-abortion laws don't stop all abortions, but they stop most of them.

God bless you.

Source?

You can call it a myth if you like, but then you'd have to prove it is anything more than your personal opinion.

Have you ever worked in health care? Do you know the various ways a pregnancy can be ended? If you can demonstrate that you have something more than personal disagreement to contribute to this debate, then please do so.

[beehumble]

Originally Posted by seekerz

Source?

You can call it a myth if you like, but then you'd have to prove it is anything more than your personal opinion.

Have you ever worked in health care? Do you know the various ways a pregnancy can be ended? If you can demonstrate that you have something more than personal disagreement to contribute to this debate, then please do so.

No I do not have to prove anything to you (and it actually is frowned upon in these forums to always use that old debate trick of asking for sources - these are forums not debates).
If you don't know how many US babies are aborted per year now versus how many were estimated to have been aborted before the 1973 Roe V Wade decision (you must not know how to use google) I cannot help you, nor is it my job to help you overcome your lack of knowledge.

The fact stands. Since Roe V Wade some 50 million innocent US children have been murdered in this country. Before 1973, no such numbers any where near that order of magnitude exist, for the entire period of US history when it was outlawed. What is a myth is articles that claim studies show anywhere from 200,000 to over a million abortions per year prior to 1973. Usually the study names are not given, and the article references say 'extrapolation of data' which is a canard term easily exposed by the ranges they give - 'extrapolation estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1.2 million.' That is ridiculous - a range of plus or minus 1 million ?? Are they serious? Those numbers are obviously mythically being inflated to support the cause of abortion, and anyone with half a brain can see through it.

So again, the point stands: anti-abortion laws don't stop all abortions, but they stop most of them.

God bless you.

[Dale_M]

Originally Posted by beehumble

No I do not have to prove anything to you (and it actually is frowned upon in these forums to always use that old debate trick of asking for sources - these are forums not debates).

I'm not sure that asking for a source in support of a dubious statement is frowned upon. It is hardly a debate trick, but simply an attempt to establish the credibility of a claim. Providing such a source is also a good way to provide additional information. Both results are generally a benefit to an online discussion.

That said, I think it is believable that laws restricting abortion tend to reduce the number of abortions. People often dislike the additional trouble of locating illegal providers, or risk being being charged with a crime. Those things serve as a deterrent.

However, I don't think it is possible to show how much of a reduction such laws bring, simply because estimates of illegal or extra-legal abortions are speculative and can vary wildly. For example, the news article mentions that the number of such abortions in Poland are anywhere from 70,000 per year, up to 200,000 per year. That is quite a range.

[Elizium23]

Originally Posted by Dale_M

I'm not sure that asking for a source in support of a dubious statement is frowned upon. It is hardly a debate trick, but simply an attempt to establish the credibility of a claim. Providing such a source is also a good way to provide additional information. Both results are generally a benefit to an online discussion.

I think at one point that the moderators tried to discourage debates in which sources were constantly demanded in an uncharitable fashion, but I think that fell by the wayside, and they recognize that providing a reputable source is the only way to establish credibility of a claim when we have a totally anonymous forum full of people claiming whatever they want.

I, for one, do not make claims without being ready to back them up with a link, at least a link to where I read that so I can pass the buck . I tend to use reliable sources such as news articles, Church documents, reputable publishers, things that would be accepted as Wikipedia puts it, WP:RS.

I think it is OK if you are an established, reputable poster to make claims without necessarily providing a source. But if you say something contentious, or you are unknown to the posters in a thread, it is only fair to back up your position with quotes and links rather than your own bald assertions. It is a matter of fairness to allow us to evaluate the reputation and reliability of a source on its own merits, rather than an unsupported, anonymous claim in a forum.

[markomalley]

Originally Posted by Elizium23

I think at one point that the moderators tried to discourage debates in which sources were constantly demanded in an uncharitable fashion, but I think that fell by the wayside, and they recognize that providing a reputable source is the only way to establish credibility of a claim when we have a totally anonymous forum full of people claiming whatever they want.

I, for one, do not make claims without being ready to back them up with a link, at least a link to where I read that so I can pass the buck . I tend to use reliable sources such as news articles, Church documents, reputable publishers, things that would be accepted as Wikipedia puts it, WP:RS.

I think it is OK if you are an established, reputable poster to make claims without necessarily providing a source. But if you say something contentious, or you are unknown to the posters in a thread, it is only fair to back up your position with quotes and links rather than your own bald assertions. It is a matter of fairness to allow us to evaluate the reputation and reliability of a source on its own merits, rather than an unsupported, anonymous claim in a forum.

Considering that we are all basically anonymous here, I think that substantiating claims is ALWAYS a good idea.

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by beehumble

No I do not have to prove anything to you (and it actually is frowned upon in these forums to always use that old debate trick of asking for sources - these are forums not debates).
If you don't know how many US babies are aborted per year now versus how many were estimated to have been aborted before the 1973 Roe V Wade decision (you must not know how to use google) I cannot help you, nor is it my job to help you overcome your lack of knowledge.

The fact stands. Since Roe V Wade some 50 million innocent US children have been murdered in this country. Before 1973, no such numbers any where near that order of magnitude exist, for the entire period of US history when it was outlawed. What is a myth is articles that claim studies show anywhere from 200,000 to over a million abortions per year prior to 1973. Usually the study names are not given, and the article references say 'extrapolation of data' which is a canard term easily exposed by the ranges they give - 'extrapolation estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1.2 million.' That is ridiculous - a range of plus or minus 1 million ?? Are they serious? Those numbers are obviously mythically being inflated to support the cause of abortion, and anyone with half a brain can see through it.

So again, the point stands: anti-abortion laws don't stop all abortions, but they stop most of them.

God bless you.

So that you feel your opinion has greater worth than mine - fine. That's all it is without sources: opinion.

Update: this is not 1973. Women have always had abortions - just ask Hippocrates. It has never in history been easier (technically speaking, not just legally), to have one and never have doctors been so uniformly tolerant (if not actively supportive) of women's 'right' to have it done, so the idea that changing a law will change much is wishful thinking.

The article itself tell you how easy it is for women who want one to find a doctor will to oblige; so hoping that anti-abortion law stop most abortion is just that: a hope.

You should visit a country where abortion is illegal: what determines level of enforcement is the level of acceptance (or lack of it) - among the general population AND medical professionals. In places where tolerance is high, nurses and doctors just shake their heads and give euphemistic nicknames to women whom they suspect of starting the process out and then reporting to hospital with symptoms of miscarriage...Sorry if reality does not fit your worldview.