Poland debates total abortion ban

[thaibeachlovers]

35 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

the vast majority of babies are wanted and should never be called a parasite. even the small number of unwanted babies have couples out there ready and wanting to adopt.

You may have missed it, but I say that a woman should not be forced to carry a baby ( happy now? ) just to give other people adoptive children.

 

I'd rather living people were given as much consideration as the unborn are by many, but apparently that consideration only last as long as the pregnancy.

[DM07]

1 hour ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

a baby in a womb is not living? champ not sure what sort of science you are into but if it is cooking crack you need to lay of testing too much of  your product. a baby in the womb has a beating heart for almost the whole time of its development. it has a brain and of course it is thinking and moving. this can be shown in ultra sounds, ultra sounds i saw when my kids were developing in my girls womb. why do you nutters keep trying to bring god or the devil into this? makes you sound like crackpots.

It is as much alive as cancer....for a loooong part of the development! 

 

[williamgeorgeallen]

27 minutes ago, DM07 said:

It is as much alive as cancer....for a loooong part of the development! 

 

a baby has a heart beat for at least 32 weeks out of about 38 weeks in the womb. cancer never has a heart beat. wondering if you are getting your science out of a bible.

[ddavidovsky]

I take it the optimum number of people on earth has already been exceeded, since maybe about 1970. An appeal for more on sentimental grounds (which is what the pro-life case amounts to) is not a good idea.

 

The more people there are on earth the less each individual life is worth - that seems axiomatic to me both biologically and philosophically, though obviously not sentimentally. Question is how far we should be ruled by sentiment in this.

Edited September 23, 2016 by ddavidovsky

[DM07]

11 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

a baby has a heart beat for at least 32 weeks out of about 38 weeks in the womb. cancer never has a heart beat. wondering if you are getting your science out of a bible.

Dude...it may have a heartbeat- that does NOT make it viable!

I wonder where you get your science from?

 

[williamgeorgeallen]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Dude...it may have a heartbeat- that does NOT make it viable!

I wonder where you get your science from?

 

doctors check for a heart beat to see if some one is alive. if they cant find a heart beat then the patient is  pronounced dead. comparing a developing human being to cancer is very unusual to put it politely. where did you get that one from?

[williamgeorgeallen]

8 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I take it the optimum number of people on earth has already been exceeded, since maybe about 1970. An appeal for more on sentimental grounds (which is what the pro-life case amounts to) is not a good idea.

 

The more people there are on earth the less each individual life is worth - that seems axiomatic to me both biologically and philosophically, though obviously not sentimentally. Question is how far we should be ruled by sentiment in this.

interesting point and i looked into some statistics. about 130 million births per year and about 40 million abortions per year. i was very surprised how many abortions there are. about half of all pregnancies are unwanted. these figures are estimates of course. most people would agree that our numbers are past what they should be and at current numbers population will double in the next 60 years. birth rates in almost all western countries (and thailand) have fallen below the level required to replace their current populations so the third world countries must be producing a lot of children. many western countries are providing benefits and subsidies to try to raise birth rates. others are turning to increased immigration to make top up their populations, with mixed success by the look of it. many western economies require an increasing population to be prosperous.

[DM07]

1 hour ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

doctors check for a heart beat to see if some one is alive. if they cant find a heart beat then the patient is  pronounced dead. comparing a developing human being to cancer is very unusual to put it politely. where did you get that one from?

You know, what "viable" means, don't you?

[55Jay]

17 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

a baby in a womb is not living? champ not sure what sort of science you are into but if it is cooking crack you need to lay of testing too much of  your product. a baby in the womb has a beating heart for almost the whole time of its development. it has a brain and of course it is thinking and moving. this can be shown in ultra sounds, ultra sounds i saw when my kids were developing in my girls womb. why do you nutters keep trying to bring god or the devil into this? makes you sound like crackpots.

What do you mean "your girl"?  You're not married to the mother of your children?

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

doctors check for a heart beat to see if some one is alive. if they cant find a heart beat then the patient is  pronounced dead. comparing a developing human being to cancer is very unusual to put it politely. where did you get that one from?

To some women, and they are the only ones that count ( at least till men can make babies ), a baby is a welcome as cancer.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

interesting point and i looked into some statistics. about 130 million births per year and about 40 million abortions per year. i was very surprised how many abortions there are. about half of all pregnancies are unwanted. these figures are estimates of course. most people would agree that our numbers are past what they should be and at current numbers population will double in the next 60 years. birth rates in almost all western countries (and thailand) have fallen below the level required to replace their current populations so the third world countries must be producing a lot of children. many western countries are providing benefits and subsidies to try to raise birth rates. others are turning to increased immigration to make top up their populations, with mixed success by the look of it. many western economies require an increasing population to be prosperous.

In Saudi when I was there, 8 children was apparently average for a woman. I doubt it has changed.

Many docos about illegal economic migrants reference the large families as the reason the father seeks to work in the west. One father featured has 9 children, despite having no way of earning a decent living in his own country.

 

Do I need to point out that in the world we live in, such reproductive rates are irresponsible?

Edited September 24, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

What do you mean "your girl"?  You're not married to the mother of your children?

And that is important why?

[williamgeorgeallen]

33 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

What do you mean "your girl"?  You're not married to the mother of your children?

why any man would marry a thai woman is beyond me. several of my friends have made that mistake.

edit, yea whats that go to do with it?

Edited September 24, 2016 by williamgeorgeallen

[williamgeorgeallen]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In Saudi when I was there, 8 children was apparently average for a woman. I doubt it has changed.

Many docos about illegal economic migrants reference the large families as the reason the father seeks to work in the west. One father featured has 9 children, despite having no way of earning a decent living in his own country.

 

Do I need to point out that in the world we live in, such reproductive rates are irresponsible?

not only irresponsible but un maintainable.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And that is important why?

I can't read his mind, but I took it as being very un PC to refer to the mother of his children as a "HIS girl". She is an independent person, and doesn't "belong" to him. However, I doubt it was meant in a bad way.

[55Jay]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And that is important why?

It's not but it is of interest if arguing with such passion from a religious perspective.   Having children outside of wedlock would be hypocritical cherry picking. 

 

1 minute ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

why any man would marry a thai woman is beyond me. several of my friends have made that mistake.

edit, yea whats that go to do with it?

Now you're just trolling.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

why any man would marry a thai woman is beyond me. several of my friends have made that mistake.

edit, yea whats that go to do with it?

I agree, and I'm sure there are very many men that would as well. Unfortunately a separate thread about that would probably be not allowed under TV rules, and is off topic on this thread.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

It's not but it is of interest if arguing with such passion from a religious perspective.   Having children outside of wedlock would be hypocritical cherry picking. 

 

Now you're just trolling.

I strongly disagree with him, but I don't think he is arguing from a religious perspective.

[williamgeorgeallen]

1 minute ago, 55Jay said:

It's not but it is of interest if arguing with such passion from a religious perspective.   Having children outside of wedlock would be hypocritical cherry picking. 

 

Now you're just trolling.

i am not religious and never have been. you were the one that bought religion into it, i dont know why.

i am very serious about getting married here. almost always it is a big mistake. like i said i have several friends who paid the price for that mistake but that is another discussion. so is religion so lets leave that out of it as well.

[williamgeorgeallen]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can't read his mind, but I took it as being very un PC to refer to the mother of his children as a "HIS girl". She is an independent person, and doesn't "belong" to him. However, I doubt it was meant in a bad way.

you compared a baby to cancer.  i can refer to my girl as 'the mother of my children' if you like but it seems a bit long winded.

note to everyone, i am not religious. it is strange to see so many people think anti abortion is only for the religious .

Edited September 24, 2016 by williamgeorgeallen

[williamgeorgeallen]

14 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

It's not but it is of interest if arguing with such passion from a religious perspective.   Having children outside of wedlock would be hypocritical cherry picking. 

 

Now you're just trolling.

i am not religious but if i was then i could be anti abortion but not anti marriage? think it is ok to just pick the parts you like. this guy did.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

you compared a baby to cancer.  i can refer to my girl as 'the mother of my children' if you like but it seems a bit long winded.

note to everyone, i am not religious. it is strange to see so many people think anti abortion is only for the religious .

I did not say a baby IS cancer. I said that a baby is as UNWELCOME as cancer by some women. There is a difference.

If it makes a difference, I was present at many births during my nurse training, and am a registered obstetric nurse. I have nothing against WANTED children, but I utterly oppose any attempt to force women to have unwanted babies, on any grounds whatsoever.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

i am not religious but if i was then i could be anti abortion but not anti marriage? think it is ok to just pick the parts you like. this guy did.

 

LOL. EVERYONE cherry picks the bits of religion they like, and opposes the bits they don't. If it wasn't so, we would still be stoning women for adultery.

[williamgeorgeallen]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I did not say a baby IS cancer. I said that a baby is as UNWELCOME as cancer by some women. There is a difference.

If it makes a difference, I was present at many births during my nurse training, and am a registered obstetric nurse. I have nothing against WANTED children, but I utterly oppose any attempt to force women to have unwanted babies, on any grounds whatsoever.

ok. i would like to see abortion at least more controlled. people are using it as a form of birth control. pregnant woman should be counciled and given an offer from parents looking to adopt. new zealand has so few babies to adopt and tens of thousands of good parents who want to adopt. if the pregnant mother was compensated for her 9 months of pregnancy then she may be more willing to go through with the pregnancy.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

ok. i would like to see abortion at least more controlled. people are using it as a form of birth control. pregnant woman should be counciled and given an offer from parents looking to adopt. new zealand has so few babies to adopt and tens of thousands of good parents who want to adopt. if the pregnant mother was compensated for her 9 months of pregnancy then she may be more willing to go through with the pregnancy.

That's starting to look like having children to sell them.

[NongKhaiKid]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. EVERYONE cherry picks the bits of religion they like, and opposes the bits they don't. If it wasn't so, we would still be stoning women for adultery.

Doesn't that still happen in certain countries ?

Remember many years back diplomatic relations between Britain and Saudi Arabia were almost scuppered over the documentary " Death of a Princess ' aired by the BBC on the stoning of a Saudi princess for adultery ?

[williamgeorgeallen]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That's starting to look like having children to sell them.

fine line. adoption in nz has fallen almost to nothing in nz as everyone just has abortions. there are about 100 adoptions per year and about 14000 abortions. there are more than enough parents willing to adopt these babies. the new zealand population would be in decline if it were not for immigration. all seems like a waste of life.

[55Jay]

35 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

i am not religious and never have been. you were the one that bought religion into it, i dont know why.

i am very serious about getting married here. almost always it is a big mistake. like i said i have several friends who paid the price for that mistake but that is another discussion. so is religion so lets leave that out of it as well.

No, the church is involved in supporting this proposal and it's quite common for fervent religious people to have strong views against abortion, as you do.   You referenced god in a post you made on page 1.    But OK, if you are arguing against abortion because it's murder, then I've got no issues with that.

 

I bristle up when the church involves itself in governmental affairs.

 

As to your views about marrying Thai women, I'll go with your rationale for a moment.  It's often a mistake.  These dopes fly in the face of a mountain of anecdotal and statistical evidence, and still do it,  but can terminate with divorce and hopefully there are no kids involved.  So yes, people make "mistakes", even when they know, or should know, better.  There is a legal remedy. Imagine if there wasn't and you were forced to remain in the marriage for the rest of your life. 

 

What about casual sex?  Humans are one of a few species that engage in sex for pleasure, not just reproduction.  Men and women both know it could result in pregnancy.  Take one-night stands, where one or both parties may be intoxicated.  They may not even exchange family names and phone numbers.  They may or may not take precautions but ooops....   a month later she's pregnant.   She doesn't want kids.  It was a careless mistake on her (and his) part.  Should she be forced, by law, to have no legal way out?  The rest of her life is forever altered.

Edited September 24, 2016 by 55Jay

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

ok. i would like to see abortion at least more controlled. people are using it as a form of birth control. pregnant woman should be counciled and given an offer from parents looking to adopt. new zealand has so few babies to adopt and tens of thousands of good parents who want to adopt. if the pregnant mother was compensated for her 9 months of pregnancy then she may be more willing to go through with the pregnancy.

NZ has so few babies for adoption because the long suffering taxpayer has to support irresponsible girls to keep their illegitimate and unwanted by the fathers babies. That sure seems like being compensated for 9 months of pregnancy.

If the government stopped giving money to them to bring their children up badly ( children raising children ) there would be so many babies for adoption there wouldn't be enough prospective parents.

A classic case of unintended consequences..

 

BTW I believe the Japanese use, or used, abortion as a method of birth control. Their society didn't fall apart as a result.

 

It's a pity, IMO, that science doesn't invent a safe pill with no detrimental side effects to cause menstruation. Take one every month and the problem never happens.

[Jingthing]

The Poles democratically elected a right wing government. This kind of stuff is what happens when people do that. The abortion debate is international. People have strong feelings about it both ways. Minds won't be changed.