SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Poland is a very Catholic country and the Roman Catholic Church is very much against abortion. The government is also very anti-labor union.
The Committee for a Workers' International (socialistworld.net) reports
[Poland already] has one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in Europe, allowing abortion only in the case of rape, a threat to the health or life of the woman, or deformation of the foetus. In practice, even when these conditions are fulfilled abortion is often prevented by doctors who exploit the so-called "conscience clause" and impose their own religious beliefs on patients by refusing vital treatment.
This law was forced through at the beginning of the 1990s [...] (over 70% of the population was against an abortion ban and supported [...] abortion on demand).
[...] [Recent] plans to impose a total ban on abortion have sparked a massive uncontrolled explosion of anger in Poland. On Monday 3 October a strike of Polish women was called, inspired by the example of Icelandic women, who held a nationwide strike in 1975. [...] Even the police's conservative estimates talk about 98,000 people demonstrating in over 143 separate protests across the country. These are easily the biggest ever protests in defence of abortion rights in Poland, far exceeding the protests in 1993, when the current ban on abortion was introduced.
[This week's strike]
[Continues...]
[...] [In response to the proposed ban, and] inspired by the 1976 strike of women in Iceland, the idea was raised of organising a strike of women. This was not called by any of the trade unions, instead the idea came from within the movement by women who had no previous trade union or strike experience. However, due to the anti-trade union laws and the difficulty of organising a legal strike even by a trade union, women were not encouraged to actually strike, but rather to take a day off work on what was nicknamed Czarny poniedzialek (Back Monday).
Unfortunately many women were prevented from taking part in this strike because they [have lousy employment] contracts and have no right to a day off on demand. For example, Lidl supermarket chain threatened to sack staff who took a day off on Monday.
Finally, on the day of the strike, OPZZ, one of the three major trade union federations, expressed its support and pledged to defend its members from victimisation, should they decide to participate in the protest. Thanks to this, many public administration workers, particularly in local government, were able to strike. A number of theatres and small businesses announced they would close that day to allow their staff to participate. Many more women who had no option but to work dressed in black to express their support for the strike.
[...] Around 10,000 gathered outside parliament in the rain. There were no speakers, but the mood was loud and angry. There were rumours that several thousand protesters marched to Teatr Polski, the theatre where Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the ruling party Law and Justice, was having a meeting.
[...] Law and Justice has been taken completely off guard by the movement. It did not plan to introduce a change in the abortion law, at least not this year, but was forced into taking a position by more right-wing elements and the church, who organised their own "citizen's [initiative]".
Due to the scale of the movement, Law and Justice has reacted by announcing that it will prepare its own compromise draft law, which will probably allow abortion in the case of rape and a threat to the life of the woman, but not in the case of a deformity of the foetus. This, of course, is not a compromise at all, but represents a further tightening of the ban and is completely unacceptable. However, it shows that the government is beginning to feel the pressure.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday October 07 2016, @11:44AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @02:57PM
Your point is interesting and it sounds clear-cut, but "save the mother's life over the child's when the pregnancy is life-threatening" is not the simple textbook answer it may seem to be.
Consider what the doctor should do if the mother says, "Save my baby rather than me"?
Let's say for sake of discussion that the father is capable of supporting the child when she's gone, and that he agrees with her choice (though one rarely hears about the father's input in the abortion debate, and changing any of the variables in this sentence makes this scenario even more complicated.)
If the doctor chooses to interpret the Hippocratic oath in such a way as to consider only the mother as the patient and saves her against her will, aborting her child, how should such a situation be handled? Of course different countries have different laws so it may or may not be considered manslaughter, but let's put legal issues aside for the moment. How would you feel, as a father or mother, if you or your wife wanted to give your life to save your child but that choice were taken away from you, and your child were killed against your will? Would the explanation, "It was for your/your wife's own good" be an acceptable answer?
Thus far in the conversation, the majority opinion in the western world is that the mother's has a right to choose what happens to her body -- so should the doctor listen to the patient and save the child, letting her die?
What if the child has a medical condition, say Down's Syndrome, and knowing this she still wishes her child to live rather than herself?
What if the child has only a 5% chance of survival, but the mother has a 100% chance of death if no abortion is done?
Before you jump to "no one in their right mind would want to die for a disabled child, or on such a gamble," think seriously about what you are saying. If you're suggesting that the doctor may override the patient's wishes using such logic, that is a very scary and slippery slope! Do you want your doctor making medically informed recommendations to you, or do you want your doctor making judgment calls for you that you may disagree with?
In all, having a life-threatening pregnancy is a scary situation -- and having to make a decision you may not want to make is heartbreakingly sad. But this situation is far from rare, and mothers choosing life for their children over their own is not uncommon. How ought doctors to respond when they feel an abortion is called for but the mother does *not* want one?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Friday October 07 2016, @08:24PM
Elective abortion is a healthcare right. Sorry if you don't agree, that doesn't change this fact.
Roe vs. Wade is one of the best SCOTUS decisions ever made. Go read it, we'll wait. The crux is that until the fetus, with modern medical support, would be likely to survive out of the womb the owner of that womb has full agency over it, including the ability to voluntarily withdraw support. This is, literally, the only rational decision that can be made. If you seriously take the position that abortions should be broadly disallowed, you saying you want the State to force people into being unwilling hosts for parasites which will materially change their bodies, lives, and condemning them to a very real chance of death.
It should be noted that after 22-24 weeks, this balance tips in favor of the baby - note it's now a baby, not a fetus - as it crosses the 50% survival threshold if delivered. That balance is what Roe vs. Wade says, and provides that with advancing medicine/neonatal support the line in the sand may get pushed back.
No better decision is possible.
If that doesn't convince you, consider what you would do if you came back from vacation in the tropics with a botfly larvae growing under your skin. Look it up if you're unfamiliar. But within an 8-hour driving radius, every doctor is a pacifist and refuses to excise the larva which is feeding off of you and causing excruciating pain. How would that feel? Would you consider taking things into your own hands, in unsterile and unsafe conditions if needed? Because that's essentially the decision young women are having to make in this country, right now. If physicians will not help them, those desperate for relief will find it only a coat hanger away. That is not a society I want to live in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @09:54PM
Even if you happen to agree with the emotion behind that decision, and think that the mother should have all control (not the living child or his father), you ought to admit that the decision is more tortured than the one that expanded the commerce clause. Few decisions can compete with Roe vs. Wade for making a mockery of the idea that courts interpret law.
Really: There is a first amendment that goes on about assembly, free speech, and religion. Pretend it says something about privacy, despite the fact that this isn't done for all sorts of spying and corporate database cases. Pretend that privacy implies the right to have a medicalized killing performed by a hit-man.
The sheer WTF in this contorted logic should have been horribly embarrassing.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:32AM
Roe vs. Wade is literally the best decision possible on the topic - in a completely dispassionate analysis. I will not accept your language 'living child' for any fetus with less than a 50% chance to survive if emergently delivered. Nor will I accept that such a thing has any hold against or over the willing mother currently supporting it.
The father did his part in creating it. From there to delivery the decision to carry the fetus is 100% up to the mother. If you seriously think differently, you're advocating for law where males dictate what women can and cannot do with their own bodies. From your response I assume you are male; would you accept such limitations? If not, think twice before advancing that line again. It's not worthy of further discussion, so I'm moving on.
I honestly couldn't follow what you were trying to say in the second paragraph. It's clear you don't understand the process of abortion nor fetal development. A fetus has no rights, as it is not a person and is wholly dependent on the mother. The mother has passed the gauntlet of childhood illnesses and other nasty conditions/accidents and is ready to reproduce (obviously). She can do so at another time. If it's not right, for her, that's not anyone else's business. If it's really not right, she will turn to whatever means necessary.
Forcing women to choose between huge health and life implications vs. a coat hanger is pure barbarism. In an enlightened society, half the population would have the ability and support to have this procedure done, at will, without judgement.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @10:00PM
However unfettered access to an abortion from any healthcare provider of your choice is not a right. It seems there is a fair amount of bait and switch between US law and Polish law, when the the only commonality between them is people refusing to perform procedures they find objectionable. Way to dilute the issue.
One of the major turning points against eugenics was people unwilling to go against their conscience, not so much different than doctors unwilling to take part in executions, and yet you hypocrites ignore the parallels, laud one and condemn the other when they originate from the same source.
It is a true sign of madness when the ideologues demand perfect conformity with the passions of the day, yet seem unwilling to accept the full implications.
(Score: 1) by charon on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:53AM
If the occasional doctor chooses not to perform abortions due to their own personal beliefs, that's fine. That's only part of the problem here. The real problem is that the government intends to codify that objection into law, preventing ALL doctors from performing abortions, regardless of their beliefs. Also, seriously, why decide to become an obstetrician if you cannot perform the duties of one?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @03:28AM
To which the same idiots railing against doctors having moral compunctions against performing abortions, citing law, Hippocratic oath and other things they are only dimly aware of; will these same people have the same revulsion against doctors who perform abortion in spite of the law?
You are a bunch of self-serving hypocrites. End of discussion.
(Score: 1) by charon on Saturday October 08 2016, @03:55AM
I'm not sure I get what your point is here. We idiots who want women to be able to get abortions when they need them would applaud a doctor violating an oppressive law to perform them. Of course we'd never know about it, because the doctor sure as hell would be secretive about what s/he does.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Sunday October 09 2016, @04:07AM
Ideally we would hear about a Doctor violating an oppressive law to perform abortions as well as training other doctors to do the same. This how abortion became legal in Canada, a Polish doctor who publicly opened illegal abortion clinics, jury nullification, 3 times, each time the jury acquitted faster, eventually a constitution guaranteeing rights and now Canada has no abortion laws, just that a person is legally a person after birth.
One quote from wiki.
Interesting read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler [wikipedia.org]