Poland's abortion dilemma

[Guest Warwick Green]

A Polish woman who was refused an abortion despite doctors' warnings that giving birth could damage her eyesight has taken Poland to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. She claims that the country failed to protect her rights under its strict abortion law. Poland has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, and abortions are only very rarely approved. Iwona Lejman looks at the ethical issues confronting Poland's doctors:

While for most mothers giving birth is a blessing, for some it is a question of life and death. A recent case has led to doubts as to whether this is taken into consideration in Poland. A single woman from Warsaw became pregnant, but because of her serious eyesight condition, she knew that by having a baby she could go blind. Alicja Tysiac applied for the right to terminate her pregnancy on health grounds, but she was refused. As a result, she has nearly lost her eyesight. She argues that due to the doctors' refusal, her private life collapsed, she received inhuman and degrading treatment and was discriminated on the basis of her sex and disability.

Poland is a predominantly Catholic country. Its abortion law is one of the strictest in Europe and termination is illegal except when there's a threat to the mother's or the fetus's health or when a woman was subjected to rape. However, in practice, the law is hardly ever observed. All in all there are around 200 abortions a year in Poland, according to Wanda Nowicka of the Federation for Women and Family Planning:

"This law is even more restrictive in practice than on paper. In the last few years that the law has been in place, we have observed that a pregnant woman does not enjoy the same right to health as a woman who is not pregnant. A pregnant woman is immediately treated as a potential mother - when she needs an abortion, she is very often denied it and when she continues the pregnancy she does not get treatment in order not to hurt the fetus. So, basically, the life of the fetus is seen as superior to the mother's life or her health."...

http://ice.radio.cz/ice/health/80169

[Charles Anthony]

I wonder how her unaborted child will feel as he grows up.

Will he feel guilty for being the cause of his mother's blindness and misfortune?

Will he feel lucky to be alive?

Will he love his mother?

[Guest Warwick Green]

I wonder how her unaborted child will feel as he grows up.

Will he feel guilty for being the cause of his mother's blindness and misfortune?

Will he feel lucky to be alive?

Will he love his mother?

The kid may not even get to know his mother. According to the report I heard on Radio Polonia the baby has been taken away from the woman because she is not able to look after it because of her blindness.

[Riverwind]

A single woman from Warsaw became pregnant, but because of her serious eyesight condition, she knew that by having a baby she could go blind. Alicja Tysiac applied for the right to terminate her pregnancy on health grounds, but she was refused. As a result, she has nearly lost her eyesight.

I believe there is a special section in hell reserved for self righteous who willingly impose suffering on other people in order to uphold their own twisted form of morality.

[geoffrey]

Riverwind,

The problem with this argument is that it comes down to the traditional abortion debate. Is an unborn baby alive? This hasn't been solved, despite what you might think and there is scholars and experts from fields of biology, ethics and sociology that all disagree. Never the less, work with me a moment and lets give the example that the baby is alive, since that is the context of the case at hand.

If the baby is alive, then aborting it, even for medical reasons, would be murder. This is Poland's reasoning, and it follows a logical ethical path as long as you assume the baby is alive.

So is the baby alive? This has been discussed in other threads, but in context of Poland, it is alive, and therefore a little blindness in exchange for a human life is a reasonable trade.

EDIT: Also, why was she having unprotected sex if she knew she couldn't have a baby? Irresponsibility to the max there I'm afraid.

[Riverwind]

If the baby is alive, then aborting it, even for medical reasons, would be murder. This is Poland's reasoning, and it follows a logical ethical path as long as you assume the baby is alive.

A child that is alive by my definition could never cause another person to go blind by simply existing.

[geoffrey]

If the baby is alive, then aborting it, even for medical reasons, would be murder. This is Poland's reasoning, and it follows a logical ethical path as long as you assume the baby is alive.

A child that is alive by my definition could never cause another person to go blind by simply existing.

So if a child can cause a condition by existing it isn't truly alive? Let me ask you, where do you think the line should be drawn? At birth? Somewhere in between?

If a child is born and causes say, post-partum depression, can the mother kill or have the child killed as it impacts her life negatively, maybe even causing death through suicide?

[Riverwind]

So if a child can cause a condition by existing it isn't truly alive? Let me ask you, where do you think the line should be drawn? At birth? Somewhere in between?

A fetus cannot be seperated from its mother until it is about 8 months old. This biological fact creates the conflict between the mother's health and the fetus. After the child is born any other person could take over the care of the child so there is no longer conflict between the health of the mother and the health of a child.

IOW - it is very easy to draw the line: when a fetus can survive without the mother then it is a human that deserves protection. Until then it is a part of the mother's body and the mother's health is always more important than the life of the fetus.

[Guest Warwick Green]

So is the baby alive? This has been discussed in other threads, but in context of Poland, it is alive, and therefore a little blindness in exchange for a human life is a reasonable trade.

I would suggest that what we have is a potential life form since the fetus is not viable outside the uterus until late in the pregnancy. That is the rationale in Bill C-338 for not prohibiting abortions until the 20th week.

[Charles Anthony]

Excellent question:

If a child is born and causes say, post-partum depression, can the mother kill or have the child killed as it impacts her life negatively, maybe even causing death through suicide?

I, too, await somebody who can provide the answer.....

[Riverwind]

Excellent question:

If a child is born and causes say, post-partum depression, can the mother kill or have the child killed as it impacts her life negatively, maybe even causing death through suicide?

I, too, await somebody who can provide the answer.....

I already answered it:

A fetus cannot be seperated from its mother until it is about 8 months old. This biological fact creates the conflict between the mother's health and the fetus. After the child is born any other person could take over the care of the child so there is no longer conflict between the health of the mother and the health of a child.

IOW, if a mother's life is being impacted by the child then the child can be given to some else to care for so there is no longer a need to choose between the well being of the mother and the well being of the child. While the child is is an inseperable part of the mother's body then the well being of the mother is the only priority.

[Charles Anthony]

The problem with that answer is that the reason is too broad. It is so broad that it includes everything. Thus, it really does not clarify the issue.

if a mother's life is being impacted by the child then the child can be given to some else

Does that give the mother the right to kill the child before it is born? regardless of what that "impact" happens to be?

I tend to think that every mother's life is "impacted" by her child (even the mother's who abort their children) to such a great extent that nobody can ever imagine.

Mind you, I suppose it is possible for a particular mother to be so distanced emotionally from her child that her life is not impacted at all by motherhood. That would certainly be technically possible.

[Rue]

The point is government legislators should not be defining through laws when life begins. The law will necessarily be defective. The fact is no one knows for sure when an embryo becomes a life form. Most would argue under 12 weeks it is just cells. When those cells turn into an entity that is a life form no one can say scientifically but many define on religious grounds.

In Poland, a staunchly Catholic nation, why would anyone be suprised that it has zero tolerance for abortions? It reflects its Catholic traditional view as to abortion and lets face it the laws on abortion are very much inter-mixed with the prevailing religious views of the society in which the laws are promulgated.

Show me a strong Catholic Church or other fundamentalist religious presence or lack of seperation between fundamentalist religion and state, and I will show you an anti-abortion law.

I personally think the decision to have an abortion should be made by the mother and her doctor with in-put from the father but I think the bottom line is this is an issue of doctor client privileged relationship and that no one has the right to interfere with a woman's decision as to what to do with her body and its between her and her doctor. No I do not personally believe abortion should be used as birth control and should be avoided when-ever possible but for me my personal opinion is just that and I do not believe I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, its none of by business.

[Charles Anthony]

I will play the devil's advocate on you.

No I do not personally believe abortion should be used as birth control and should be avoided when-ever possible but for me my personal opinion is just that and I do not believe I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, its none of by business.

How do you feel about your taxes going to fund abortions?

Do you object to abortion as birth control enough to demand your taxes back or at least to remove it from the list of universal health-care services?

[RB]

How do you feel about your taxes going to fund abortions?

Do you object to abortion as birth control enough to demand your taxes back or at least to remove it from the list of universal health-care services?

I feel strongly that government must continue to support abortion as a health service.

If you start thinking that conception means life then the moral line of thought would be a criminal thing to encourage abortions.

But, from statistics over 80% of children are raised by their mothers whether they become divorced, are single parent.

Its hard to imagine a young women struggling with life to make ends meet financially heads off to try her darndest to adopt the child, that was suppose to be aborted. Females can also make logical choices.

What I mean is that if government do not continue to support abortion it will result in continually hardship for women.

Plus it you really wanted to save money, it is more cost effective to have an abortion, than to support the child and mother on welfare.

[Guest Warwick Green]

How do you feel about your taxes going to fund abortions?

Do you object to abortion as birth control enough to demand your taxes back or at least to remove it from the list of universal health-care services?

Pretty slippery slope. Can I get a reduction on my taxes because I don't support the war in Afghanistan?

[Charles Anthony]

Pretty slippery slope.

Yes, it is and luckily this thread is in the Moral & Religious Issues! Anything goes!

By raising the issue of taxation, it opens up a second aspect of the moral dillemma:

1) not only are we looking at the morality of abortion, per se

2) but also whether it is moral to FORCE everybody else to PAY for what you want (in this case, it is abortion).

We could also ask the same question about getting a reduction of your taxes if you do not support ANYTHING ELSE that the government does.

Can I get a reduction on my taxes because I don't support the war in Afghanistan?

Yes, I think you should. The reason has to do with whether I think you should be paying taxes at all more than anything else...... but that is for a different thread!

Just to tease everybody, I could say that if your taxes fund the war in Afghanistan or everybody else's abortions, YOU ARE COMPLICIT in both of those actions whether you agree with them morally or not.

[Riverwind]

We could also ask the same question about getting a reduction of your taxes if you do not support ANYTHING ELSE that the government does.

Can I get a reduction in taxes for the portion spent on resolving native land claims?

[Charles Anthony]

Can I get a reduction in taxes for the portion spent on resolving native land claims?

Yes, I think you can easily make that claim. However, only if you understand how taxation is theft. Otherwise, you will be chasing your tail.

[Rue]

I will play the devil's advocate on you.

No I do not personally believe abortion should be used as birth control and should be avoided when-ever possible but for me my personal opinion is just that and I do not believe I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, its none of by business.

How do you feel about your taxes going to fund abortions?

Do you object to abortion as birth control enough to demand your taxes back or at least to remove it from the list of universal health-care services?

No. I have no problem with women having access to abortion. My personal opinions on abortion are irrelevant to the issue of whetehr women shoud be entitled to access to universal health care services. I think it would be ludicrous to ban abortion particularly if a woman's life is in danger or she has been a victim of rape. So then please don't ask me to start drafting laws that define when abortion is o.k., and when it is not. That becomes an absurd exercise destined to be arbitrary and unfair.

[Charles Anthony]

There are provinces in Canada who have recently (and will continue to) de-listed unversal health services.

My personal opinions on abortion are irrelevant to the issue of whetehr women shoud be entitled to access to universal health care services.

You (and everybody else) votes for or against legislators and politicians. They make and update the laws.

Your (and everybody else's) opinions DO matter.

So then please don't ask me to start drafting laws that define when abortion is o.k., and when it is not. That becomes an absurd exercise destined to be arbitrary and unfair.

Our current laws were not drafted arbitrarily. Our laws were drafted and changed as a result of politicians who themselves had opinions and who responded to the opinions of people who vote.

[Black Dog]

I don't understand why people have a problem with abortion as birth control. Why shouldn't someone be able to decide if they want to have kids or not? Most species of animals, including humans, have soem manner of controlling their reproductive destiny. Rabbits can sponteneously abort entire litters during times of depravation. Other animals simply eat their young. Humans throughout history have used infantacide as a means of controlling the population: compared to drowning a living, breathing infant, removing a collection of unformed tissue seems positively humane.

[BHS]

I don't understand why people have a problem with abortion as birth control. Why shouldn't someone be able to decide if they want to have kids or not? Most species of animals, including humans, have soem manner of controlling their reproductive destiny. Rabbits can sponteneously abort entire litters during times of depravation. Other animals simply eat their young. Humans throughout history have used infantacide as a means of controlling the population: compared to drowning a living, breathing infant, removing a collection of unformed tissue seems positively humane.

Your arguments are logical and anthropologically/biologically correct. It's a mistake to think that the anti-abortion side arrives at their conclusion logically or scientifically. Most people who oppose abortion do so because they find the notion detestable on it's face without regard for whether or not abortion is intellectually reasonable.

The broader question is this: should government have a say in restricting optional surgery?

If no, should government have a say in restricting any medical treatment at all?

Why is access to pharmaceuticals legally restricted? Not just addictive chemical compounds, but medical equipment and non-addictive creams and lotions are restricted too.

If your answer to the last question is something along the lines of, "Because those things can be harmful if they aren't properly administered" then why can't the government at least caution prospective aborters about the long-term consequences of the procedure?

[Riverwind]

If your answer to the last question is something along the lines of, "Because those things can be harmful if they aren't properly administered" then why can't the government at least caution prospective aborters about the long-term consequences of the procedure?

Sounds quote reasonable but who gets to write and approve the warnings? I am sure anti-abortionists would like add full color photos of late term absortions. Pro-abortion would likely stick the medical facts but would underplay the risks.

[BHS]

If your answer to the last question is something along the lines of, "Because those things can be harmful if they aren't properly administered" then why can't the government at least caution prospective aborters about the long-term consequences of the procedure?

Sounds quote reasonable but who gets to write and approve the warnings? I am sure anti-abortionists would like add full color photos of late term absortions. Pro-abortion would likely stick the medical facts but would underplay the risks.

Beyond the physical risks, there are also long term psychological effects that should at least be acknowleged as well.