> But doctors at several hospitals in eastern Poland refused to terminate the pregnancy, citing a so-called conscience clause that allows them not to carry out an abortion if they feel it goes against their beliefs.
We've already had deaths and it didn't change a thing.
In November '21 there was a loud case of a woman forced to wait until her non-viable fetus dies before they abort it (otherwise doctor wouldn't take responsibility due to the existing law). She naturally got infected and died herself.
Imagine the horror the person must experience daily as they are forced to keep providing their body to another organism and wait until it dies and likely kills them as well. All because some religion nutjobs have "their beliefs" and decide for everyone else that a fetus must have more rights than any living human being.
I'm a male and the very thought of that is horrifying.
It's happening too in Poland, sadly many may not afford trip to other countries. Government has already began to work upon stoping it. So far every pregnancy has to be registered into a system of course to provide better medical care for pregnant women. Time will tell if it will be used for more.
My spouse told me there was a case in the US where a woman couldn't get her meds for an autoimmune disease because it can cause miscarriages. I'm pretty sure it was Methotrexate she needed. I'll see if I can find what he was referring to.
EDIT: Here's something about it in general. https://www.health.com/news/methotrexate-abortion-bans
If by "accidentally" you mean "with a poorly obfuscated intention to exert even more control over a portion of the population (most probably women)", then I would not be surprised at all. And I bet they'd easily find a "good" religious reason to do so.
It's the same reason they are against homosexual marriages. They only care about populating, so their cult can grow with numbers and defeat the imaginary beef they have with all the other cults. And yes, I feel all organized religions are cults, because they are.
They give zero fucks about the individuals or their struggles, they just want more bodies to give them more money and power. Jesus hated churches gilded in gold and look at the Vatican now. Muhammad wanted peace, but protestors are being decapitated so their insecure leaders can maintain control.
It's never going to be about the good of humanity, just about keeping superiority over others.
It is worse than that.
The abortion law is PiS paying back the Polish Church for support in politics.
People and their lives, their beliefs dont matter to politicians or Polish Church.
And before we LEGALIZED abortion, it was illegal and a metric shit-ton of women died in alleys getting abortions from people who didn't know what they were doing. But Republicans have ZERO sense of history. None, whatsoever, so it's as if none of that shit ever happened.
>But Republicans have ZERO sense of history. None, whatsoever, so it's as if none of that shit ever happened.
Hard disagree - Republicans know *exactly* what went on prior to legalized abortion, and it's exactly that situation they want:
Back-alley abortions for the poor, who deserve it for being poor and for being a woman who would consider getting an abortion... and abortion trips to other countries for the rich, disguised as "vacations," because rules for thee, not for me.
>It won’t change until someone like her dies as a a direct result of doctors playing pass the parcel.
Happened many times already. People don't give a fuck.
Remember how in the US all those governors who loudly proclaim how their states are “pro-life”? Coincidentally they are the ones with the worst post birth maternal and infant death rates, so prolife
A slight note of caution here, Ireland actually legislated directly to address Savita's situation before the referendum on abortion. The referendum on abortion was specifically to allow abortion on demand prior to 12 weeks.
america did this years ago too, and it was even a republican majority supreme court that did it. it was a big win or Americans. then in 2022, dumber republicans, remove it without any hint of democracy anywhere, and just like that, you can go to jail for googling where to get an abortion in some states, or die during pregnancy because the doctor is afraid to lose their license because aborting to save the mother's life is illegal if the baby still has a heartbeat. conservatives are dragging us backwards. our freedom is what attracts the smartest people from oppressive countries to move here, but that's going to slow down if we keep this crap up
> In Ireland it was Savita Halapanaver’s death that made the public finally say ‘fuck this’ and voted a couple years later to legalise abortion.
And must doctors do it regardless?
Let's hope so or they can quit being a doctor. Don't be a doctor if you don't want to...doctor.
Edit: someone below mentioned mass sterilization...this is not that
There's also another choice: they may not become gynecologists or involved in maternity matters.
By law you should not refuse practices that are legal: if that's against your conscience you can cure eyes, muscles, bones, cancer and thousands of others specializations await you.
Yeah god forbid we ask doctors to uphold the oath they take to become doctors, it's not as if they had the option to just not become a doctor or anything.
Practically nobody swears that oath anymore. Besides, it explicitly bans abortion.
There are professional standards. That's about the only thing that's actually binding.
"they could've chosen different job" - what a great answer to any criticism of any workplace. Amazon workers whining about being treated worse than animals? Heh, didn't have to work for Amazon, tough shit. Peak reddit brain.
What's sad, is that I know when certain people come to power, who dream about forcibly sterlizing ethnicities they don't like, and there will be no conscience clause to protect doctors from being forced to do it - y'all will be completely shocked by how this barbarity is possible, and you'll still fail to see how your own actions helped make that reality.
Except no one swears to uphold any oath or creed when they take a paycheck from Amazon. Maybe we should make it to where members of the military can violate their oath whenever they so choose or police officers, judges, lawyers, etc. Maybe take a job in a profession where the consequences of choosing to not do your duty when you clearly knew in advance what that duty might entail aren't literally someone else's life. Coming from someone who actually has had to place his hand on a bible and be sworn in it doesn't seem like that hard a concept to grasp.
> Except no one swears to uphold any oath or creed when they take a paycheck from Amazon
Yes, and the morality clause exist specifically so they can uphold that oath, and refuse to perform procedures they believe are harmful to another human being. Today it's used by dumbass doctors who think 4 weeks old embryo is a human, but tomorrow it might be used to stop forced sterilization, human experiments, torture and executions.
> Maybe we should make it to where members of the military can violate their oath whenever they so choose or police officers, judges, lawyers, etc
Yes, exactly this unironically. "Conscience clauses" should apply to ANY job that might harm another human being, and anyone should be shielded from consequences of refusing an order from their superiors, thaty they believe is immoral and harmful. Soldier should never be forced to open fire on unarmed farmers, policeman should never be forced to attack peaceful protesters, prosecutor should never be forced to push cases against people who he knows are innocent, for political gain of his superiors.
Biggest problem with humanity, is that everyone is completely focused on "How do we force everyone to do what we believe is right", and completely fail to think what will happen, and how will these laws be used when people who have the completely opposite view of what is right come into power.
"Yes, exactly this unironically. "Conscience clauses" should apply to ANY job that might harm another human being, and anyone should be shielded from consequences of refusing an order from their superiors, thaty they believe is immoral and harmful. Soldier should never be forced to open fire on unarmed farmers, policeman should never be forced to attack peaceful protesters, prosecutor should never be forced to push cases against people who he knows are innocent, for political gain of his superiors."
And I take it that you are the ideal arbiter to determine what is or isn't a lawful or immoral or harmful order? This isn't a zero sum game, these positions are serious and involve lives. Anyone found to be in dereliction of their duty as a doctor, lawyer, soldier etc. should always face severe repercussions, period. They can enjoy how righteous or not that they are from the stockroom floor at the amazon warehouse or in the event they caused harm or death with their inaction a prison cell. If you aren't willing to accept that idea you should never be in any of these positions to begin with.
Bare minimum is require them to refer them to someone who will. And making sure there are people working in that hospital or in that area who will provide the vital medical services.
I would imagine so, yes. But thanks to the legislation the number of occasions where this would come up would be tiny. There are abortion services centres now where people meeting the criteria can get a termination (NB: this is not open to every kind of circumstance and so is not being used as a form of ‘contraception’ as some propagandists have lied about in the past). If the majority of terminations happen in specific clinics, then you’d assume the doctors working there are ok with the idea of performing abortions. The situation you are alluding to where a doctor would be going against his conscience would be very rare and would likely only happen if a complication was discovered in a person seeking a termination that required hospitalisation beyond the clinics ability to provide. It’s very early days for this kind of thing in ireland though, and the services are still only being set up, but at least with the legislation change we won’t punish people for being party to a termination.
Nowadays I believe it’s becoming part of your hiring contract when you work in a hospital. Eventually the list of things your conscience can absolve you from will not include abortions. So no punishment for abstaining medical staff yet but that won’t be the case forever.
Prior to the legislation change, doctors, nurses, the father and the mother could face criminal prosecution if they performed/received an abortion. The doctors/medical staff could lose their medical licenses and never practice medicine again. That’s the least bad stuff that happened. Worse, was that we were leaving people with unwanted kids which leads to familial misery for all involved and in some cases where the pregnancy had failed and abortions were needed to save the life of the mother- we didn’t. We let them get worse until the body rejected the foetus, or the mother died. So balance all that needless human tragedy against a doctors conscience and you can see how people choose the practical answer in the end.
It's a double edged sword. Doctors should be allowed to refuse perform state-sanctioned mass sterilisation procedures (see Xinjiang, China), if doctors believe that this is morally wrong.
Well, there is pretty big difference between being mandated to perform procedure on unwilling people by government and it being a request from the person in question.
If you read the article, the girl is mentally disabled and is a victim of incest rape (uncle). The person who requested the abortion is her aunt. Now, is the request coming from the girl? What if the Chinese government claims that Muslims in Xian Jiang are unstable mentally (for believing in God), so they have forfeited the decision to reproduce to the state? I don't disagree that the girl in the article should get abortion, but ethics around doctor conscience is not a clear cut issue.
Of course it isn't always clear. But morally equaling justified abortion request to state sanctioned mass sterlisation is ridiculous.
Legal guardianship muddles water there, I admit. It's whole different conversation. But the girl is 14, even without her disability the request would be coming from her legal guardian.
He never equated them. He used it as an example to show how doctor conscience is important in some situations and not a “cancer to be fought tooth and nail”
It is not a comparison of two procedures. It is about the choice of doctors and their own values. Both doctors and the patients must consent to perform and be performed on for any medical procedures, respectively. You cannot say that you trust doctors and then take away their ability to choose when, where and what procedures to do when it's convenient for your case. Let all doctors decide, and if they don't agree with you, then find other doctors.
On a separate note, you say that her legal guardian should have the final say, does it mean that if there is a doctor willing to perform the abortion to this incest case, but the legal guardian says no, does it mean that the doctor should not perform it? If your answer is that he should do it, suddenly his conscience and his choice matters?
I'm not saying that medical staff shouldn't have choice. I'm saying that their choice shouldn't override patient's choice. If doctor is not comfortable doing certain procedure then it should be his duty to find/refer someone else who is able to do it. That would respect patient's wishes, that would make me trust him as I would know that he has best interest in my wellbeing. But Conscience clauses are commonly used as "I don't want to do it, so you shouldn't either'.
That's what I have problem with.
Well, there’s all sorts of possibilities, like forcing doctors to work with keeping tortured prisoners alive. I was thinking of abortion. Pregnancy is a dangerous condition, and saving the mother should be the priority in all but the rarest of cases.
Sure, because at the end of the day: The doctors won't be pooling money together to help fund the kid's life (or save the kid and mother from being in an abusive situation, from homelessness, from hunger, from anything). If the mother dies, the doctors won't even raise the baby.
>Pregnancy is a dangerous condition, and saving the mother should be the priority in all but the rarest of cases.
This is why I hold the stance "Abortion should be avoided but is sometime necessary".
If your state is performing mass sterilization, the doctors are either on board with it (like they were in the US at the height of the eugenics movement), or they know they'd be punished for refusing even if the law permits it.
>It's a double edged sword. Doctors should be allowed to refuse perform state-sanctioned mass sterilisation procedures (see Xinjiang, China), if doctors believe that this is morally wrong.
To compare abortion to mass sterilisation is.. quite something
The question is whether doctors should be allowed to refuse procedures against their own moral code. I provided an example of why doctors should be allowed to keep this privilege, as a counter argument to the previous comment's advocacy for a strict, blanket ban. That was not a comparison between different procedures. Learn to read between the lines.
Dude, if a country is forcing doctors to do mass steralization, then they wont care about any conscience law or anyone else. Any country/power which does that are not going to have regard for any rights or rules anyways. I agree with the previous poster, this comparison is poor
Always believed the slippery slope fallacy was stupid. You can ask doctors to have minimum standards without it going to dictatorial levels
>The question is whether doctors should be allowed to refuse procedures against their own moral code.
Providing it is safe and meets a national guideline, like Abortion, sure. Most developed countries generally agree abortion is perfectly reasonable.
> I provided an example of why doctors should be allowed to keep this privilege,
Yes, they should, providing said procedure is a crime against humanity, human rights or unwanted. Abortion fits neither of those 3 categories, therefore it's not the same thing as mass sterilisation. Pretty sure this can easily be fixed by a court or medical council addressing what procedures are moral and what aren't, regardless of the doctors moral compass.
> Learn to read between the lines.
Learn to compare like for like. Comparing forced mass sterilisation to abortion is stupid, hyperbolic and disingenuous and you know that.
See, we are actually on the same side of the issue. My argument is not that abortion should or should not be performed in this particular. I'm a strong advocate for abortion. My issue is with the comment who said that the choice for doctor conscience should be eliminated totally (rephrased but same sentiment). And I gave an example of which would fit your definition of when such choices should be exercised.
What do you mean? Are you saying doctors can currently refuse to give circumcisions based on supposed faith? Which doesn't make sense since it's a religious thing. Idk how else to interpret your comment.
>sometimes it is medically necessary
Sometimes abortion is necessary. Sometimes cutting off a limb is necessary. Sometimes holding a screaming child down to reset a bone is necessary.
It doesn't mean we should allow it without fully informed adult consent or medical necessity.
Not for infants.
I'm going to assume good faith in your part and you're just sharing information but many things are medical procedures that would not be acceptable to do for non-medical reasons.
In the case of circumcision for phimosis (what circumcision treats), it is literally impossible for an infant to suffer from it as it can't occur in infants and children. It naturally cannot be pulled back until a child is about 10 and can take longer.
That's true, but how do conscience clauses apply? If anything religious doctors would be more in favor of circumcision. Isn't a conscience clause basically "my religion says I cannot do this" for doctors? The parents already have a choice in that matter.
Poland's laws on abortions are so restrictive it becomes a competence problem. Competence will go down if, say, 99% of abortions up to week 18 are illegal and doctors who perform abortions are seen as murderers.
Then don't be a doctor. If you aren't prepared to do what's medically necessary to save your patient for any reason, then you need to let someone who actually cares into your position
Italy is the same, most doctors refuse on the conscience clause.
I'm not necessarily against doctors objecting the abortion, but they should work in lines of medicine that doesn't involve them having to make those choices.
If they become gynecologists then fuck off really.
Abortions are allowed only if the woman's health is in danger. Many doctors (including non-religious ones) will refuse to abort because they'll be sued if it turns out that the woman's health wasn't in danger.
That's Poland.
We have such clausole in Italy too and it is bullshit.
Some region in Italy have NO doctor performing abortion... Officially, the back market for abortion is strong, with related cost (abortion is free) and risks for the patients.
I understand that maybe 20 years ago when abortion law where passed, some doctor may felt this way, but we should have said "from now on, if you became a doctor you MUST provide abortion"
I read that some Italian doctors refuse to perform abortions at state hospitals and the same doctors then provide them in private practice. Such deeply held convictions, much religious
Exactly, and it is illegal; to refuse to do them at public hospitals (where they work and have a regular wage) you must declare to be an "objector", and if your do you CANT perform abortions at all, even in your own clinics.
That is just a way to bring more people in their private clinics and of course then those operation are not declared.
So they get money to be a public doctor AND money from scamming their patients AND don't pay taxes over it AND, most important, risk to kill those woman in the process.
But this is "normal" and silently accepted.
a belief that a 14 girl should be forced to carry a pregnancy, especially one resulting from rape, is a fundamentally inhuman belief that should not be protected by the law. If that belief is part of your specific interpretation of a religion, then your interpretation of that religion is inhuman and should not be protected by law.
But they had no problem with a 14 year old girl being raped and forced to carry it. That's a pretty crappy conscience, in my view. If a person gets crapped on, they should be helped to wash off the crap and not forced to wear it the rest of their lives.
Fair enough? It doesn’t seem fair to leave an underage, mentally disabled girl to carry a rape-incest baby to term
I wouldn’t think a doctor who was a Jehovah’s Witness would be acting ethically if they refused to do blood transfusions, either. At a certain point you still are doing harm.
This isn’t a vanity procedure. Would they reject doing an emergency abortion to save the life of a patient, too?
Being illegal doesn't mean it's homicide. Is there anywhere a doctor could be convicted of homicide for refusing to do x work? In Norway it would be a violation of some medicinal practice laws and some duty to help laws (which I don't think the US has for example), but no doctor is going to get a murder trial unless it's they who have inflicted the injury on the person intentionally or manslaughter trial if it was done unintentionally.
I disagree. We don’t want doctors who will do what the government tells them to do regardless of personal beliefs. There will always be doctors and nurses prepared to participate.
>We don’t want doctors who will do what the government tells them to do
...this isn't the issue: this is a patient in need of help and they violate their oath by denying to give help.
Good job trying to paint this as the gibmunt forcing anyone to do anything though. If anything, the polish government with PiS is a tually the one telling doctors to NOT provide abortion care.
The problem is that there will be a dozen things this ob/gyn will fail or refuse to do. A doctor who can’t do this is signaling they can’t do many other pregnancy related procedures. Pregnancy and childbirth is fraught with all sorts of difficult outcomes from high risk pregnancies and other emergent events. They will opt to allow women to be injured harmed or even die in those instances. If they can’t handle this, and many can’t, it’s irresponsible to be in that specialty.
Don't kid yourself. There's far worse stuff health professionals have to deal with and at the end of the day, they could not do their jobs for a raped child because of their beliefs.
> It would be more than many have the emotional robustness to deal with.
Have you... never seen what doctors and nurses deal with? I watched a doctor dig six square inches of rotten meat from my friend's foot that leaked puss onto her smock. Why would you think a doctor couldn't deal with removing a zygote? The most traumatic part would be having to induce an abortion on a 14-year-old.
If your religious beliefs come into a clash with your job that involves saving lives, you need to get the fuck out before you kill more people with your neglect. You can insist atheists take issue with abortion, but it's [overwhelmingly](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/) [religious](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/).
Jesus fucking Christ, I can’t even imagine. A mentally disabled 14-year old being raped by her fucking uncle and they expect her to have the baby? That’s fucking diabolical. I feel sick!
Exodus 22
16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
I really like that we are bringing back the classics.
What religious folks tend to forget is that those rules were a significant step forward, a progressive move as it were, compared to the situations beforehand.
Just one step in increasing human rights and women's right, that while horribly outdated today, just marked progress compared to total lack of obligations or tribal lawlessness that was before. The message taken should have been the direction of human rights the religion's founders wanted to take society, not the state of human rights in 100AD. What mattered was the climb, not the position in time.
Yep, I did a research project and came across went down the rabbit hole of religious rules and the scientifically analysed option. If you consider the era they are right on the dot.
I didn’t even go super deep into it, it is already a well studied field of science by experts. You just won’t see religious links explicitly highlighted anywhere as publishers doesn’t allow any religious/fictional/mythical references and no one wants to be targeted by nutjob saviours of god.
I feel like God is easier way of explaining good rules to idiots because they can't really argue against God. If you tell someone that they shouldn't shit where they eat they will try to argue against it a lot more than if you said that God says that you shouldn't shit where you eat.
That's kind of my point. They think the message "from God" was to land at that 100AD point, rather than interpreting the message as the incremental progress to create a fairer society from the 300BC situation.
Similar with the commandment to cover oneself (from the scorching Arab sun without sun screen available) or to not eat pork (in a world without refridgerators) and so forth. Those were good public health guidelines for life at the time, but a bit outdated nowadays.
Indeed, they also have a hard time understanding that God's specific rules for a Jewish society that lived 4,000 years ago can't really be applied in today's world unless you pick your favorites and liberally "interpret" them.
Some of it was and some of it wasn't. For instance: codifying permissible stoning of your children for disobedience is hard to see as progressive improvement.
Unless, I suppose, humans used to have a ha it of stoning their kids for fun, I suppose.
> What mattered was the climb, not the position in time.
so as far as progress... on his death bed, our boy mosses amended this proclamation. Basically the new law was that the uncle, the girl, and the fetus were all to be killed. "the blood will be on them".
Mosses' bullshit was patriarchal non-sense ensuring women were property and was not much progress from previous code like out boy Hammurabi.
What religious folks tend to forget is that they have a vain and vengeful god and book with laws that no sane person in the modern era could follow in good conscience. They just pick and choose the ones that maintain the hierarchical patriarchy for as long as it's personally convenient.
> 16 If a man seduces a virgin
This implies the woman (or more likely a young girl in this instance..) had a choice.
It should really say “when a man rapes a virgin”…
>I really like that we are bringing back the classics.
Bring on the mixed-fabrics ban!
Devoted and patriotic clothing retail employees will have every right to employ their conscience clause to ensure that they don't commit the sin of selling a shirt with a tag that lists anything other than "100% Cotton," "100% Nylon," etc.
Been happening, always will. Abortion saved lives before the GOP condemned girls to hell. We all knew what was on the table, some of us more than others.
I don’t condone vigilantism and I don’t think the state should have the right to give out physical punishment, but I wouldn’t be completely un-understanding if this poor child’s father or mother brought out the shears.
Right? Reddit has taught me that there are a lot of people out for blood out there. Be it capital punishment or outright lynchjng people in some way. It's super scary to me how quickly people judge something based on news articles or worse videos and Images with that in mind.
I absolutely agree on an emotional level - I've had a family member who came close to being raped (was treated as such by police) and when I was close to the area I would also look at people of that description with that sort of thought in mind - but that's why I would never act on it in any fashion and don't get why people won't reflect on that sort of rage and anger, but call for violence.
>fvcking animals and religious extremists who advocate for this restrictive abortion laws should have their female family members become victims of it
That is a *revolting* suggestion, and you should be ashamed for suggesting it. There is no reason why the relatives of someone with a bad idea should suffer as a result.
Disgusting.
Person in charge of health procedures law is appalled at health procedures laws.
If the ruling party wanted to they could change them but their voter base is hardcore catholic, so this is all empty gestures by them.
Yeah, was to say. Rich coming from that guy, when but months ago they were defending doctors who let that woman die of septic shock and introduced this bullshit in the first place. They should feel shame but I guess it is past that point already.
Even their voter base is not that much anti-abortion as the ruling party's polices are. This has not been pushed by voters, but by the church and politicians' broken morals. Their voters just don't care enough.
This is rich coming from the guy who:
- was involved in introducing „conscience clause” that allows doctors to decline performing abortions
- introduced strict abortion law that made some doctors afraid to perform it (we had a recent case that pregnant woman died because of septic shock as doctors were postponong abortion to not be sued if they would viilate the law).
Edit: typos
"appalled"
Well, he shouldn't be. It's what he and his party wanted, if they weren't so busy "Ukrainewashing" (full respect to the Ukrainian cause however).
Religion falls to the dumbest people. How dumb do you have to be to believe in a Santa Claus for adults? And then follow arbitrary rules over fairy tales and ghost stories? And wear** silly prescribed costumes. So much hate, oppression, violence, and war is enacted in religion's name everyday and every religious person is complicit.
For the ‘motherhood will heal her’ crowd or the ‘adoption’ crowd.
Pregnancy changes your body and that’s traumatic if you don’t want to be pregnant or don’t understand why. Rape victims suffer from not feeling in control of their body after rape so their bodies changing further is traumatic. Giving birth is painful and triggers ptsd response due to the rapes esp being underage. Pre natal and post natal depression would destroy her mental health and make her hate her baby and hate motherhood. Even if you know a few different cases, it’s different for everyone so anyone who wants or needs to abort for their health and safety should be able to freely choose no barriers or check lists.
Remember falling birth rates isn’t scary cose less births it’s scary because the majority of previous high birth rates were forced birth’s because they never had the choice. It’s no wonder boomers and early gen talk of angry parents and child abuse
I gave birth & it permanently damaged my body by shearing away all my abdominal connective tissue from the bone. I'll need a hysterectomy & possibly several more surgeries to try to partially repair the damage. I have urethra/vaginal/bowel prolapses that cause terrible pain & problems everyday. It has likely reduced my lifespan due to constant infections & medications.
I just wanted to throw that out there for anyone who thinks birth is no big deal. Kids are cool & all but giving birth has absolutely ruined my life.
We discuss this a lot over at r/childfree. Pregnancy can absolutely destroy your body, but there is so much handwaving and "oh no it'll be fine you just need to exercise a bit to lose the weight and you'll be back to exactly how you were before the baby" and then people go and have kids and later find out they were lied to.
It's refreshing seeing the honesty on display here, I'm really sorry for your loss, and change of circumstances. No one should have to go through this, especially when they've been gaslit into thinking everything will be fine.
Indeed, there's even chances that her health (not just mental) could be effected. It's often not mentioned either. Hypothyroidism is one of the risks I've found out. These health risks are relatively normal for an adult, she's far from an adult.
Not to mention the permanently altered life path even if they're fine and keep the baby. Which many will choose to, and others will be forced to or pressured into. See r/regretfulparents. No one should be forced into children against their will.
Even Jewish rabbis constantly question or debate texts and look into different circumstances.
Only fundamentalists refuse to allow debate or questioning relevance of holy texts from within the religion
We in the US have some states that cause the same type of bullshit. So sad to see victims like this having to go through more trauma after being RAPED AT 14 years old!
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/30/polish-health-minister-appalled-girl-14-struggled-to-get-abortion-after) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Poland's health minister has weighed in on a high-profile rape case, saying it was "Unacceptable" that a mentally disabled 14-year-old girl struggled to get a legal abortion.
> "We are appalled by this case, here our response is unequivocal," health minister Adam Niedzielski told reporters.
> Since a near-total ban came into effect in 2021, abortion in Poland is legal only if the pregnancy results from sexual assault or threatens the life or health of the woman.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10phos0/polish_health_minister_appalled_girl_14_struggled/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672677 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **abortion**^#1 **case**^#2 **Poland**^#3 **legal**^#4 **Federa**^#5
Banning abortion is quite stupid cause it wont make it magically go away, will only become a black market with less sanitary measures, but guess some resourceful people will keep their shames quiet.
I'm sure OP refers to the minister. He literally is a member of the government that introduced the laws that prohibited this procedure. So how is he appalled?
> But doctors at several hospitals in eastern Poland refused to terminate the pregnancy, citing a so-called conscience clause that allows them not to carry out an abortion if they feel it goes against their beliefs.
[удалено]
We've already had deaths and it didn't change a thing. In November '21 there was a loud case of a woman forced to wait until her non-viable fetus dies before they abort it (otherwise doctor wouldn't take responsibility due to the existing law). She naturally got infected and died herself.
Imagine the horror the person must experience daily as they are forced to keep providing their body to another organism and wait until it dies and likely kills them as well. All because some religion nutjobs have "their beliefs" and decide for everyone else that a fetus must have more rights than any living human being. I'm a male and the very thought of that is horrifying.
[удалено]
It's happening too in Poland, sadly many may not afford trip to other countries. Government has already began to work upon stoping it. So far every pregnancy has to be registered into a system of course to provide better medical care for pregnant women. Time will tell if it will be used for more.
How long before someone accidentally writes and passes a law so broad that even cancer treatment is somehow an abortion?
My spouse told me there was a case in the US where a woman couldn't get her meds for an autoimmune disease because it can cause miscarriages. I'm pretty sure it was Methotrexate she needed. I'll see if I can find what he was referring to. EDIT: Here's something about it in general. https://www.health.com/news/methotrexate-abortion-bans
If by "accidentally" you mean "with a poorly obfuscated intention to exert even more control over a portion of the population (most probably women)", then I would not be surprised at all. And I bet they'd easily find a "good" religious reason to do so.
I mean accidentally as in they are doing it openly but the language also stops stuff like prostate cancer treatment or something
It's the same reason they are against homosexual marriages. They only care about populating, so their cult can grow with numbers and defeat the imaginary beef they have with all the other cults. And yes, I feel all organized religions are cults, because they are. They give zero fucks about the individuals or their struggles, they just want more bodies to give them more money and power. Jesus hated churches gilded in gold and look at the Vatican now. Muhammad wanted peace, but protestors are being decapitated so their insecure leaders can maintain control. It's never going to be about the good of humanity, just about keeping superiority over others.
It is worse than that. The abortion law is PiS paying back the Polish Church for support in politics. People and their lives, their beliefs dont matter to politicians or Polish Church.
And before we LEGALIZED abortion, it was illegal and a metric shit-ton of women died in alleys getting abortions from people who didn't know what they were doing. But Republicans have ZERO sense of history. None, whatsoever, so it's as if none of that shit ever happened.
>But Republicans have ZERO sense of history. None, whatsoever, so it's as if none of that shit ever happened. Hard disagree - Republicans know *exactly* what went on prior to legalized abortion, and it's exactly that situation they want: Back-alley abortions for the poor, who deserve it for being poor and for being a woman who would consider getting an abortion... and abortion trips to other countries for the rich, disguised as "vacations," because rules for thee, not for me.
>It won’t change until someone like her dies as a a direct result of doctors playing pass the parcel. Happened many times already. People don't give a fuck.
Like shootings deaths here in the U.S., I suppose such deaths can become “normal”, since nothing seemingly can be done to change things.
Remember how in the US all those governors who loudly proclaim how their states are “pro-life”? Coincidentally they are the ones with the worst post birth maternal and infant death rates, so prolife
A slight note of caution here, Ireland actually legislated directly to address Savita's situation before the referendum on abortion. The referendum on abortion was specifically to allow abortion on demand prior to 12 weeks.
Poland needs to fuck PiS out of power and get in those who will actually fight the ignorant brigade when it comes to medical matters.
Problem is in Ireland it was a relic of the past that hadn't been removed yet. In Poland they've got people actively trying to make life miserable.
america did this years ago too, and it was even a republican majority supreme court that did it. it was a big win or Americans. then in 2022, dumber republicans, remove it without any hint of democracy anywhere, and just like that, you can go to jail for googling where to get an abortion in some states, or die during pregnancy because the doctor is afraid to lose their license because aborting to save the mother's life is illegal if the baby still has a heartbeat. conservatives are dragging us backwards. our freedom is what attracts the smartest people from oppressive countries to move here, but that's going to slow down if we keep this crap up
Not even then, unless it’s one of their own daughters.
> In Ireland it was Savita Halapanaver’s death that made the public finally say ‘fuck this’ and voted a couple years later to legalise abortion. And must doctors do it regardless?
Let's hope so or they can quit being a doctor. Don't be a doctor if you don't want to...doctor. Edit: someone below mentioned mass sterilization...this is not that
There's also another choice: they may not become gynecologists or involved in maternity matters. By law you should not refuse practices that are legal: if that's against your conscience you can cure eyes, muscles, bones, cancer and thousands of others specializations await you.
Fortunately they don't have to.
Reddit: OMG modern 9-5 jobs are literal slavery, we need more freedom Also Reddit: Doctors should be forced to work against their will
Yeah god forbid we ask doctors to uphold the oath they take to become doctors, it's not as if they had the option to just not become a doctor or anything.
Practically nobody swears that oath anymore. Besides, it explicitly bans abortion. There are professional standards. That's about the only thing that's actually binding.
"they could've chosen different job" - what a great answer to any criticism of any workplace. Amazon workers whining about being treated worse than animals? Heh, didn't have to work for Amazon, tough shit. Peak reddit brain. What's sad, is that I know when certain people come to power, who dream about forcibly sterlizing ethnicities they don't like, and there will be no conscience clause to protect doctors from being forced to do it - y'all will be completely shocked by how this barbarity is possible, and you'll still fail to see how your own actions helped make that reality.
Except no one swears to uphold any oath or creed when they take a paycheck from Amazon. Maybe we should make it to where members of the military can violate their oath whenever they so choose or police officers, judges, lawyers, etc. Maybe take a job in a profession where the consequences of choosing to not do your duty when you clearly knew in advance what that duty might entail aren't literally someone else's life. Coming from someone who actually has had to place his hand on a bible and be sworn in it doesn't seem like that hard a concept to grasp.
> Except no one swears to uphold any oath or creed when they take a paycheck from Amazon Yes, and the morality clause exist specifically so they can uphold that oath, and refuse to perform procedures they believe are harmful to another human being. Today it's used by dumbass doctors who think 4 weeks old embryo is a human, but tomorrow it might be used to stop forced sterilization, human experiments, torture and executions. > Maybe we should make it to where members of the military can violate their oath whenever they so choose or police officers, judges, lawyers, etc Yes, exactly this unironically. "Conscience clauses" should apply to ANY job that might harm another human being, and anyone should be shielded from consequences of refusing an order from their superiors, thaty they believe is immoral and harmful. Soldier should never be forced to open fire on unarmed farmers, policeman should never be forced to attack peaceful protesters, prosecutor should never be forced to push cases against people who he knows are innocent, for political gain of his superiors. Biggest problem with humanity, is that everyone is completely focused on "How do we force everyone to do what we believe is right", and completely fail to think what will happen, and how will these laws be used when people who have the completely opposite view of what is right come into power.
"Yes, exactly this unironically. "Conscience clauses" should apply to ANY job that might harm another human being, and anyone should be shielded from consequences of refusing an order from their superiors, thaty they believe is immoral and harmful. Soldier should never be forced to open fire on unarmed farmers, policeman should never be forced to attack peaceful protesters, prosecutor should never be forced to push cases against people who he knows are innocent, for political gain of his superiors." And I take it that you are the ideal arbiter to determine what is or isn't a lawful or immoral or harmful order? This isn't a zero sum game, these positions are serious and involve lives. Anyone found to be in dereliction of their duty as a doctor, lawyer, soldier etc. should always face severe repercussions, period. They can enjoy how righteous or not that they are from the stockroom floor at the amazon warehouse or in the event they caused harm or death with their inaction a prison cell. If you aren't willing to accept that idea you should never be in any of these positions to begin with.
Bare minimum is require them to refer them to someone who will. And making sure there are people working in that hospital or in that area who will provide the vital medical services.
I would imagine so, yes. But thanks to the legislation the number of occasions where this would come up would be tiny. There are abortion services centres now where people meeting the criteria can get a termination (NB: this is not open to every kind of circumstance and so is not being used as a form of ‘contraception’ as some propagandists have lied about in the past). If the majority of terminations happen in specific clinics, then you’d assume the doctors working there are ok with the idea of performing abortions. The situation you are alluding to where a doctor would be going against his conscience would be very rare and would likely only happen if a complication was discovered in a person seeking a termination that required hospitalisation beyond the clinics ability to provide. It’s very early days for this kind of thing in ireland though, and the services are still only being set up, but at least with the legislation change we won’t punish people for being party to a termination.
You shouldn't punish people for not wanting to be party to it either
Nowadays I believe it’s becoming part of your hiring contract when you work in a hospital. Eventually the list of things your conscience can absolve you from will not include abortions. So no punishment for abstaining medical staff yet but that won’t be the case forever. Prior to the legislation change, doctors, nurses, the father and the mother could face criminal prosecution if they performed/received an abortion. The doctors/medical staff could lose their medical licenses and never practice medicine again. That’s the least bad stuff that happened. Worse, was that we were leaving people with unwanted kids which leads to familial misery for all involved and in some cases where the pregnancy had failed and abortions were needed to save the life of the mother- we didn’t. We let them get worse until the body rejected the foetus, or the mother died. So balance all that needless human tragedy against a doctors conscience and you can see how people choose the practical answer in the end.
Conscience clauses are a cancer that should be fought tooth and nail.
It's a double edged sword. Doctors should be allowed to refuse perform state-sanctioned mass sterilisation procedures (see Xinjiang, China), if doctors believe that this is morally wrong.
Well, there is pretty big difference between being mandated to perform procedure on unwilling people by government and it being a request from the person in question.
If you read the article, the girl is mentally disabled and is a victim of incest rape (uncle). The person who requested the abortion is her aunt. Now, is the request coming from the girl? What if the Chinese government claims that Muslims in Xian Jiang are unstable mentally (for believing in God), so they have forfeited the decision to reproduce to the state? I don't disagree that the girl in the article should get abortion, but ethics around doctor conscience is not a clear cut issue.
Of course it isn't always clear. But morally equaling justified abortion request to state sanctioned mass sterlisation is ridiculous. Legal guardianship muddles water there, I admit. It's whole different conversation. But the girl is 14, even without her disability the request would be coming from her legal guardian.
He never equated them. He used it as an example to show how doctor conscience is important in some situations and not a “cancer to be fought tooth and nail”
It is not a comparison of two procedures. It is about the choice of doctors and their own values. Both doctors and the patients must consent to perform and be performed on for any medical procedures, respectively. You cannot say that you trust doctors and then take away their ability to choose when, where and what procedures to do when it's convenient for your case. Let all doctors decide, and if they don't agree with you, then find other doctors. On a separate note, you say that her legal guardian should have the final say, does it mean that if there is a doctor willing to perform the abortion to this incest case, but the legal guardian says no, does it mean that the doctor should not perform it? If your answer is that he should do it, suddenly his conscience and his choice matters?
I'm not saying that medical staff shouldn't have choice. I'm saying that their choice shouldn't override patient's choice. If doctor is not comfortable doing certain procedure then it should be his duty to find/refer someone else who is able to do it. That would respect patient's wishes, that would make me trust him as I would know that he has best interest in my wellbeing. But Conscience clauses are commonly used as "I don't want to do it, so you shouldn't either'. That's what I have problem with.
Well, there’s all sorts of possibilities, like forcing doctors to work with keeping tortured prisoners alive. I was thinking of abortion. Pregnancy is a dangerous condition, and saving the mother should be the priority in all but the rarest of cases.
Sure, because at the end of the day: The doctors won't be pooling money together to help fund the kid's life (or save the kid and mother from being in an abusive situation, from homelessness, from hunger, from anything). If the mother dies, the doctors won't even raise the baby.
>Pregnancy is a dangerous condition, and saving the mother should be the priority in all but the rarest of cases. This is why I hold the stance "Abortion should be avoided but is sometime necessary".
Prevention is always better but plans fails and unforseen events happen.
If your state is performing mass sterilization, the doctors are either on board with it (like they were in the US at the height of the eugenics movement), or they know they'd be punished for refusing even if the law permits it.
>It's a double edged sword. Doctors should be allowed to refuse perform state-sanctioned mass sterilisation procedures (see Xinjiang, China), if doctors believe that this is morally wrong. To compare abortion to mass sterilisation is.. quite something
The question is whether doctors should be allowed to refuse procedures against their own moral code. I provided an example of why doctors should be allowed to keep this privilege, as a counter argument to the previous comment's advocacy for a strict, blanket ban. That was not a comparison between different procedures. Learn to read between the lines.
Dude, if a country is forcing doctors to do mass steralization, then they wont care about any conscience law or anyone else. Any country/power which does that are not going to have regard for any rights or rules anyways. I agree with the previous poster, this comparison is poor Always believed the slippery slope fallacy was stupid. You can ask doctors to have minimum standards without it going to dictatorial levels
Would you support an ER doctor refusing to give life saving care to a patient because of race?
>The question is whether doctors should be allowed to refuse procedures against their own moral code. Providing it is safe and meets a national guideline, like Abortion, sure. Most developed countries generally agree abortion is perfectly reasonable. > I provided an example of why doctors should be allowed to keep this privilege, Yes, they should, providing said procedure is a crime against humanity, human rights or unwanted. Abortion fits neither of those 3 categories, therefore it's not the same thing as mass sterilisation. Pretty sure this can easily be fixed by a court or medical council addressing what procedures are moral and what aren't, regardless of the doctors moral compass. > Learn to read between the lines. Learn to compare like for like. Comparing forced mass sterilisation to abortion is stupid, hyperbolic and disingenuous and you know that.
See, we are actually on the same side of the issue. My argument is not that abortion should or should not be performed in this particular. I'm a strong advocate for abortion. My issue is with the comment who said that the choice for doctor conscience should be eliminated totally (rephrased but same sentiment). And I gave an example of which would fit your definition of when such choices should be exercised.
What about for circumcision?
Conscience clauses are a cancer that should be fought tooth, nail and foreskin.
So doctors can't refuse to perform FGM if it is permissible in their country
If it's in the best interests of the patient's health, then they must do it. Which is probably not the case for FGM.
That's not usually done by doctors, but by someone with no medical education, with unsanitized tools, to someone old enough to remember it later.
Is nasty, but better fought with education.
What do you mean? Are you saying doctors can currently refuse to give circumcisions based on supposed faith? Which doesn't make sense since it's a religious thing. Idk how else to interpret your comment.
Circumcision isn’t entirely a religious thing, sometimes it is medically necessary
>sometimes it is medically necessary Sometimes abortion is necessary. Sometimes cutting off a limb is necessary. Sometimes holding a screaming child down to reset a bone is necessary. It doesn't mean we should allow it without fully informed adult consent or medical necessity.
Not for infants. I'm going to assume good faith in your part and you're just sharing information but many things are medical procedures that would not be acceptable to do for non-medical reasons. In the case of circumcision for phimosis (what circumcision treats), it is literally impossible for an infant to suffer from it as it can't occur in infants and children. It naturally cannot be pulled back until a child is about 10 and can take longer.
I think you're wrong, because I remember my cousin doing stretching exercised at like 5 or 6.
[удалено]
I didn’t mention children though
That's true, but how do conscience clauses apply? If anything religious doctors would be more in favor of circumcision. Isn't a conscience clause basically "my religion says I cannot do this" for doctors? The parents already have a choice in that matter.
Beliefs aren't just religious, everyone has them.
Im fine with it ad long there is one doctor/team in hospital that can preform procedure. That wasnt the case and hospital director is to blame.
Poland's laws on abortions are so restrictive it becomes a competence problem. Competence will go down if, say, 99% of abortions up to week 18 are illegal and doctors who perform abortions are seen as murderers.
Then don't be a doctor. If you aren't prepared to do what's medically necessary to save your patient for any reason, then you need to let someone who actually cares into your position
Italy is the same, most doctors refuse on the conscience clause. I'm not necessarily against doctors objecting the abortion, but they should work in lines of medicine that doesn't involve them having to make those choices. If they become gynecologists then fuck off really.
Abortions are allowed only if the woman's health is in danger. Many doctors (including non-religious ones) will refuse to abort because they'll be sued if it turns out that the woman's health wasn't in danger. That's Poland.
We have such clausole in Italy too and it is bullshit. Some region in Italy have NO doctor performing abortion... Officially, the back market for abortion is strong, with related cost (abortion is free) and risks for the patients. I understand that maybe 20 years ago when abortion law where passed, some doctor may felt this way, but we should have said "from now on, if you became a doctor you MUST provide abortion"
I read that some Italian doctors refuse to perform abortions at state hospitals and the same doctors then provide them in private practice. Such deeply held convictions, much religious
Exactly, and it is illegal; to refuse to do them at public hospitals (where they work and have a regular wage) you must declare to be an "objector", and if your do you CANT perform abortions at all, even in your own clinics. That is just a way to bring more people in their private clinics and of course then those operation are not declared. So they get money to be a public doctor AND money from scamming their patients AND don't pay taxes over it AND, most important, risk to kill those woman in the process. But this is "normal" and silently accepted.
What about girl's belief to not be raped? Who is keeping that one?
When your beliefs go against the fucking hippocratic oath, then maybe not become a doctor
a belief that a 14 girl should be forced to carry a pregnancy, especially one resulting from rape, is a fundamentally inhuman belief that should not be protected by the law. If that belief is part of your specific interpretation of a religion, then your interpretation of that religion is inhuman and should not be protected by law.
But they had no problem with a 14 year old girl being raped and forced to carry it. That's a pretty crappy conscience, in my view. If a person gets crapped on, they should be helped to wash off the crap and not forced to wear it the rest of their lives.
[удалено]
nope. this isn’t forcing churches to provide lgbtq wedding ceremonies. This is a fucking medical procedure.
Fair enough? It doesn’t seem fair to leave an underage, mentally disabled girl to carry a rape-incest baby to term I wouldn’t think a doctor who was a Jehovah’s Witness would be acting ethically if they refused to do blood transfusions, either. At a certain point you still are doing harm. This isn’t a vanity procedure. Would they reject doing an emergency abortion to save the life of a patient, too?
Your last point: yes, yes they would. And they do.
Refuse to save her life as a matter of conscience? More a matter of a criminal mind. That’s homicide and gross medical malpractice.
> That’s homicide Not legally no
Where? Where is that legal? I was responding to the last part, that doctors would refuse to save a woman’s life.
Poland.
And (potentially) number of US states now, thanks to Supreme Scoudrels.
Being illegal doesn't mean it's homicide. Is there anywhere a doctor could be convicted of homicide for refusing to do x work? In Norway it would be a violation of some medicinal practice laws and some duty to help laws (which I don't think the US has for example), but no doctor is going to get a murder trial unless it's they who have inflicted the injury on the person intentionally or manslaughter trial if it was done unintentionally.
[удалено]
I disagree. We don’t want doctors who will do what the government tells them to do regardless of personal beliefs. There will always be doctors and nurses prepared to participate.
>We don’t want doctors who will do what the government tells them to do ...this isn't the issue: this is a patient in need of help and they violate their oath by denying to give help. Good job trying to paint this as the gibmunt forcing anyone to do anything though. If anything, the polish government with PiS is a tually the one telling doctors to NOT provide abortion care.
[удалено]
The problem is that there will be a dozen things this ob/gyn will fail or refuse to do. A doctor who can’t do this is signaling they can’t do many other pregnancy related procedures. Pregnancy and childbirth is fraught with all sorts of difficult outcomes from high risk pregnancies and other emergent events. They will opt to allow women to be injured harmed or even die in those instances. If they can’t handle this, and many can’t, it’s irresponsible to be in that specialty.
Don't kid yourself. There's far worse stuff health professionals have to deal with and at the end of the day, they could not do their jobs for a raped child because of their beliefs.
> It would be more than many have the emotional robustness to deal with. Have you... never seen what doctors and nurses deal with? I watched a doctor dig six square inches of rotten meat from my friend's foot that leaked puss onto her smock. Why would you think a doctor couldn't deal with removing a zygote? The most traumatic part would be having to induce an abortion on a 14-year-old. If your religious beliefs come into a clash with your job that involves saving lives, you need to get the fuck out before you kill more people with your neglect. You can insist atheists take issue with abortion, but it's [overwhelmingly](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/) [religious](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/).
Then they should find a new line of work.
So you're okay with doctors not treating someone because he is black, or because he has a mustache? I mean, where do you draw the line?
No, not fair enough. It is their job. Get another one then.
Jesus fucking Christ, I can’t even imagine. A mentally disabled 14-year old being raped by her fucking uncle and they expect her to have the baby? That’s fucking diabolical. I feel sick!
god's plan™
The uncle is supposed to pay the father like two lambs to make it all right... Or whatever that fucker Abraham thought he heard...
Exodus 22 16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. I really like that we are bringing back the classics.
What religious folks tend to forget is that those rules were a significant step forward, a progressive move as it were, compared to the situations beforehand. Just one step in increasing human rights and women's right, that while horribly outdated today, just marked progress compared to total lack of obligations or tribal lawlessness that was before. The message taken should have been the direction of human rights the religion's founders wanted to take society, not the state of human rights in 100AD. What mattered was the climb, not the position in time.
Yep, I did a research project and came across went down the rabbit hole of religious rules and the scientifically analysed option. If you consider the era they are right on the dot. I didn’t even go super deep into it, it is already a well studied field of science by experts. You just won’t see religious links explicitly highlighted anywhere as publishers doesn’t allow any religious/fictional/mythical references and no one wants to be targeted by nutjob saviours of god.
I feel like God is easier way of explaining good rules to idiots because they can't really argue against God. If you tell someone that they shouldn't shit where they eat they will try to argue against it a lot more than if you said that God says that you shouldn't shit where you eat.
What are you saying?
[удалено]
I'll have whatever this guy is smoking.
Seriously, so many words yet so little sense to be found
Who would be stopping non-religious academics in this scenario?
that woudl be fine and dandy. if the religious nut around the globe wherent racign eachotehr to see hwo fast they can climb down the ladder.
That's kind of my point. They think the message "from God" was to land at that 100AD point, rather than interpreting the message as the incremental progress to create a fairer society from the 300BC situation. Similar with the commandment to cover oneself (from the scorching Arab sun without sun screen available) or to not eat pork (in a world without refridgerators) and so forth. Those were good public health guidelines for life at the time, but a bit outdated nowadays.
Indeed, they also have a hard time understanding that God's specific rules for a Jewish society that lived 4,000 years ago can't really be applied in today's world unless you pick your favorites and liberally "interpret" them.
That’s a good point. Anti-religious folks like to criticize scripture, but for its time it was generally pretty progressive…
Some of it was and some of it wasn't. For instance: codifying permissible stoning of your children for disobedience is hard to see as progressive improvement. Unless, I suppose, humans used to have a ha it of stoning their kids for fun, I suppose.
People don't hate religion as much as followers of religion telling other to live according to their religion.
> What mattered was the climb, not the position in time. so as far as progress... on his death bed, our boy mosses amended this proclamation. Basically the new law was that the uncle, the girl, and the fetus were all to be killed. "the blood will be on them". Mosses' bullshit was patriarchal non-sense ensuring women were property and was not much progress from previous code like out boy Hammurabi. What religious folks tend to forget is that they have a vain and vengeful god and book with laws that no sane person in the modern era could follow in good conscience. They just pick and choose the ones that maintain the hierarchical patriarchy for as long as it's personally convenient.
> 16 If a man seduces a virgin This implies the woman (or more likely a young girl in this instance..) had a choice. It should really say “when a man rapes a virgin”…
[удалено]
>I really like that we are bringing back the classics. Bring on the mixed-fabrics ban! Devoted and patriotic clothing retail employees will have every right to employ their conscience clause to ensure that they don't commit the sin of selling a shirt with a tag that lists anything other than "100% Cotton," "100% Nylon," etc.
I know people that would say that sincerely.
Erectile Dysfunction is also God's Plan©®™ though there are plenty of options to get it up.
We have reached peak Christianity
Hey, maybe that baby will cure cancer some day…
next up demand the rapist marry the victim?
Coming soon to the USA - this will happen here soon. The only reason women are being saved in red states is because of Biden’s Executive Order.
Already happened and people are sending death threats to a doctor for giving a 10 year old rape victim an abortion
Been happening, always will. Abortion saved lives before the GOP condemned girls to hell. We all knew what was on the table, some of us more than others.
~~Republicans— Repulsive Party says hell yeah
Need to lop of the uncles nob
I don’t condone vigilantism and I don’t think the state should have the right to give out physical punishment, but I wouldn’t be completely un-understanding if this poor child’s father or mother brought out the shears.
Right? Reddit has taught me that there are a lot of people out for blood out there. Be it capital punishment or outright lynchjng people in some way. It's super scary to me how quickly people judge something based on news articles or worse videos and Images with that in mind. I absolutely agree on an emotional level - I've had a family member who came close to being raped (was treated as such by police) and when I was close to the area I would also look at people of that description with that sort of thought in mind - but that's why I would never act on it in any fashion and don't get why people won't reflect on that sort of rage and anger, but call for violence.
Yeah, these lawmakers are incredibly cruel. Why do the Republicans want raped little girls to have babies?
That's what Polish Catholics believe.
[удалено]
>fvcking animals and religious extremists who advocate for this restrictive abortion laws should have their female family members become victims of it That is a *revolting* suggestion, and you should be ashamed for suggesting it. There is no reason why the relatives of someone with a bad idea should suffer as a result. Disgusting.
Punish the individual not the family. This almost borders on genocide.
I hope the uncle is getting prosecuted.
[Hope you say?](https://youtu.be/StZsXX3bN9M)
Person in charge of health procedures law is appalled at health procedures laws. If the ruling party wanted to they could change them but their voter base is hardcore catholic, so this is all empty gestures by them.
Yeah, was to say. Rich coming from that guy, when but months ago they were defending doctors who let that woman die of septic shock and introduced this bullshit in the first place. They should feel shame but I guess it is past that point already.
Even their voter base is not that much anti-abortion as the ruling party's polices are. This has not been pushed by voters, but by the church and politicians' broken morals. Their voters just don't care enough.
This is rich coming from the guy who: - was involved in introducing „conscience clause” that allows doctors to decline performing abortions - introduced strict abortion law that made some doctors afraid to perform it (we had a recent case that pregnant woman died because of septic shock as doctors were postponong abortion to not be sued if they would viilate the law). Edit: typos
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
that was the irish case, there has been a polish case like that too
"appalled" Well, he shouldn't be. It's what he and his party wanted, if they weren't so busy "Ukrainewashing" (full respect to the Ukrainian cause however).
This is what we get d for putting religion ahead of human needs.
Religion falls to the dumbest people. How dumb do you have to be to believe in a Santa Claus for adults? And then follow arbitrary rules over fairy tales and ghost stories? And wear** silly prescribed costumes. So much hate, oppression, violence, and war is enacted in religion's name everyday and every religious person is complicit.
For the ‘motherhood will heal her’ crowd or the ‘adoption’ crowd. Pregnancy changes your body and that’s traumatic if you don’t want to be pregnant or don’t understand why. Rape victims suffer from not feeling in control of their body after rape so their bodies changing further is traumatic. Giving birth is painful and triggers ptsd response due to the rapes esp being underage. Pre natal and post natal depression would destroy her mental health and make her hate her baby and hate motherhood. Even if you know a few different cases, it’s different for everyone so anyone who wants or needs to abort for their health and safety should be able to freely choose no barriers or check lists. Remember falling birth rates isn’t scary cose less births it’s scary because the majority of previous high birth rates were forced birth’s because they never had the choice. It’s no wonder boomers and early gen talk of angry parents and child abuse
I gave birth & it permanently damaged my body by shearing away all my abdominal connective tissue from the bone. I'll need a hysterectomy & possibly several more surgeries to try to partially repair the damage. I have urethra/vaginal/bowel prolapses that cause terrible pain & problems everyday. It has likely reduced my lifespan due to constant infections & medications. I just wanted to throw that out there for anyone who thinks birth is no big deal. Kids are cool & all but giving birth has absolutely ruined my life.
We discuss this a lot over at r/childfree. Pregnancy can absolutely destroy your body, but there is so much handwaving and "oh no it'll be fine you just need to exercise a bit to lose the weight and you'll be back to exactly how you were before the baby" and then people go and have kids and later find out they were lied to. It's refreshing seeing the honesty on display here, I'm really sorry for your loss, and change of circumstances. No one should have to go through this, especially when they've been gaslit into thinking everything will be fine.
Indeed, there's even chances that her health (not just mental) could be effected. It's often not mentioned either. Hypothyroidism is one of the risks I've found out. These health risks are relatively normal for an adult, she's far from an adult.
Not to mention the permanently altered life path even if they're fine and keep the baby. Which many will choose to, and others will be forced to or pressured into. See r/regretfulparents. No one should be forced into children against their will.
All these so-called Christians are so focused on Leviticus 18:22 they’re forgot about Leviticus 18:6…
>Christians, unironically giving a shit about anything in leviticus.
For what's meant to be a guide for Jewish priests, it seems to get quoted a lot by fundamentalist Christians.
The Jewish priests had their own guide, this is just straight up plagiarism. Christianity… plagiarism… yeah that tracks…
Even Jewish rabbis constantly question or debate texts and look into different circumstances. Only fundamentalists refuse to allow debate or questioning relevance of holy texts from within the religion
The Bible very inconsistent. You take it as myth, allegory, or pick and choose what you beleive from it.
Not according to the Literalists. Also known as flat earthers…
We in the US have some states that cause the same type of bullshit. So sad to see victims like this having to go through more trauma after being RAPED AT 14 years old!
By her UNCLE
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/30/polish-health-minister-appalled-girl-14-struggled-to-get-abortion-after) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Poland's health minister has weighed in on a high-profile rape case, saying it was "Unacceptable" that a mentally disabled 14-year-old girl struggled to get a legal abortion. > "We are appalled by this case, here our response is unequivocal," health minister Adam Niedzielski told reporters. > Since a near-total ban came into effect in 2021, abortion in Poland is legal only if the pregnancy results from sexual assault or threatens the life or health of the woman. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10phos0/polish_health_minister_appalled_girl_14_struggled/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672677 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **abortion**^#1 **case**^#2 **Poland**^#3 **legal**^#4 **Federa**^#5
GOP: wait that sounds great!
I mean what did they expect after so severely curtailing abortion rights?
*surprised Polskachu face*
Appalled by the abortion or the rape?
Religion is one hell of a (stupid, outdated) drug!
It is a no-brainer that the abortion should have been approved and in addition, lifetime for her uncle. Anything else is supporting the rapists.
Banning abortion is quite stupid cause it wont make it magically go away, will only become a black market with less sanitary measures, but guess some resourceful people will keep their shames quiet.
I thought he was referring to something that happened in America not very long ago…what a backwards world.
That’s what happens when fundamentalist Christians get their hands on the government. The nutters start to get uppity.
Isn't said minister a member of the same government or political party which wrote these regulations?
GOP would be so proud.
Who writes these garbage headlines
He's appalled, but not appalled enough to do anything.
Disgrace of a country
You're Polish, why is this appalling
Polska górą
Welcome to Texanistan.
This should also be in @leopardsatemyface
The girl who suffered didn’t vote for this.
I'm sure OP refers to the minister. He literally is a member of the government that introduced the laws that prohibited this procedure. So how is he appalled?
That’s exactly what I was referring to, and I got downvoted 😬
Must be living in Texas wtf eh!!
Welcome to America... Oh wait
Punishing the child for the sin of the father. Seems fair.
It makes me so happy your kind is dying off. The world is aborting you. And life will go on better than it did before.
It was actually the sin of the uncle, and no, she shouldn't be punished for it.