not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30367
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Alan Phipps » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 22:19

Ideally, a 'free country' will be one in which the authorities, legislators and judiciary act with the approval and in the best interests of their country's general democratic system.

In practice, the degree of freedom tends to be judged as to whether the authorities, legislators and judiciary act with the approval and in the best interests of each involved individual, lobby group or political faction.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by mr.WHO » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 23:31

fiksal wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:41
@ Mr Who, where did pregnancies below adult age and in low income fall in?
Underaged pregnancies:
Usually below adult age (or rather below legal age of 16, which is slightly lower than adult age of 18), falls under any of 4 legal abortion points (1/danger to life/health of woman, 2/ incest, 3/ rape, 4/ unberable and unreversable dammage to child health post-birth).

However outside of these point and in general, we don't have flood of underaged pregnancies.
If it's safe, it's carry on till birth (however, the younger the mother is, the more likely it will automatically fall under point 1 or 4 - general health danger to mother or child).

The other factor, contibuting to low underage pregnacies, is that despite being the most conservative and religious society in EU, we are rather liberal in regards to anti-conception.
You're more likely to get social stigma of not knowing proper anti-conception, than the stigma of having the accidental pregnacy itself.
Anyone who propose ban on anti-conception is basically treated as r*tarded.

Most of right-wing and most of Church in Poland is basically like this:
"We don't want to openly condone anti-conception, as it would promote promiscuousness, but as far as real life goes...don't be stupid and use protection, Jesus will understand".

I can give an example of above aproach by case from my own backyard - the most conservative and redneck part of Poland, over 20 years ago we had a 15-years old girl in school, who get pregnant from 16-years old boy. It didn't met any of above 4 abortion points. Girl and pregnancy was strong and healthy. Both underaged parents needed to take responsibility for their action. Beyond initial "LOL, U dummies, U don't know how to use protection?", there was no stigma or problems. Girl carried pregnancy and finished school with no troubles. The whole situation didn't ruined her life.


The only time anyone proposed anything in regards to anti-conception is to move them to pharmacies only, but it was more like safety measure again possible "religious zealots" sabotaging the rubbers (it was more or less urban legend than actual problem). Anti-conception pills should be mostly used based on prescription anyway to be safe and effective, so the whole pharmacy-only idea had some practicality, but eventually wasn't implemented.


Low income:
Due to social security programs and basic healthcare, the income is not pressing abortion justification (up until the recent War-Inflation combo, all poverty indicators were steadily going down for years).
If you meet the mentioned 4 point cases, the abortion is part of basic healthcare. Of course, there are mothers/parent who are affected by poverty, but usually poverty is not the main issue, but rather a side-effect.
I can definetly stand by this statement, because my Mother was Social Care worker for most of my life. I had first hand insight to the situation of poor families, and the ones that were simply just "poor" were rather stable and children were not going hungry or missing on education. Eventually most of them were able to get out of their parent poverty. In 9 cases out of 10 people who want abortion due to poverty, are poor due alcoholism, drug abuse or mental problems. In such cases poverty in not an explenation, but an excuse.

I'd say the most inncent poverty adjecent cases, would be poverty induced by sudden health problems, but these are usually post-birth and unpredictable.
If they are predictable and during pregnancy, they classify as point 1 or point 4 legal abortion.

Purely on finacial side, if everythings fails, there is always Baby hatch as a last resort. I never heard about starving-poor case, where someone would be so poor, it's impossible to survive the 9-month pregnancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch

Despite above, I admit that untill recently, I was in favor of poverty abortion as lesser evil.
However, 3 years ago my Sister adopted a newborn child from "poverty situation" (single mother, alcoholic, driking during pregnancy, multiple children from multiple fathers, even after this adoption, there was 2 more children to come, still drinking).
Today, my Nephew is safe, healthy and happy child. I find it totally abhorrent, the idea that in more liberal framework, he would most probably be just a "poverty situation" note in endless chain of abortions.




Don't get me wrong it's not all fine and roses in Poland.
There are recurring cases of hospital gross negligence or bad will from overly zealous doctors.
It cause tragedy like these every year:
Warenwolf wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 12:18
And in Poland Izabela Sajbor and Agnieszka T, unlike Andrea above, never had chance at all.
Point being is that abortion is not always planned. And even if you have money and resources on your hands, sometimes you don't have time.
These are the rare and most extreme cases. Usually a little bit of google search about hospital and doctor review in internet, allow you to avoid the absolute worst dimwits.
Small consolation, that courts consistently point out gross negligence, doctor/hospital/govermental failure.
The law state, that for the mentioned 4 points, The state should provide the timely access to legal abortion (it's clause intended to bypass bad will).
Usually it works, but there are screw-ups in the systems, more often than it should be.

Most of the times, it's just a doctor that is the problem (+ goverment screw up to provide bypass in timely manner, not even due to bad will, but bureacratic lag).
When it's a whole hospital, it's usually in a big city, where there is more than one avaliable.
In the City I live, there is one hospital (out of three), with really bad reputation. I always hear pregnant women advising to eachother to avoid it like a plague.

Deaths or pernament health dammage cases are mostly avoidable, if doctor/hospital bad will would be more actively persecuted and punished.

Unfortunately every single time discussion looks like this:
<Media> Woman died, the abortion should have been legal under the current law, but something went wrong. We don't know what and we don't care, since you all will forget this news in a few days.
<Majority of public> Hey, this sounds familiar. Looks like something avoidable and fixable. Shouldn't we do something with it?
<Far-Right> REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, all life is sacred, god hate abortion, its a sin REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
<Far-Left> REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, free abortion for everyone, you get free abortion, you get free abortion, everyone get free unrestricted abortion, I got like 15 already, get yours now REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
<Media> YEAH, muh ratings! FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
<Center>..................Don't look at me..........I'm not touching it even with 10 foot pole.
<Majority of public>..................f*ck you all, forget I even asked.


It's rather frustrating every single time every few months.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 15:12

@who
If you really hate it when these US constitutional/civil rights issues crop up, you don't have to participate in the discussion. Does anything about this even indirectly have an impact on you, anyway? You're doing it to yourself, so you're the only one to blame for your displeasure.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by mr.WHO » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 17:04

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Fri, 1. Jul 22, 15:12
@who
If you really hate it when these US constitutional/civil rights issues crop up, you don't have to participate in the discussion. Does anything about this even indirectly have an impact on you, anyway? You're doing it to yourself, so you're the only one to blame for your displeasure.
It's not hate, more like curiosity. I do enjoy these discussion.
especially that, at time you put your argument about US infrastructure shortomings and impact on abortion, I got YT video pop up about US vs EU infrastructure.
Seems that in both EU and US, member states law differences gives similar range of opportunities, but access to infrastructure and resources (e.g. basic social security, healthcare) make the difference in the end.

That makes the freedom question much deeper than I originally thought.

User avatar
EGO_Aut
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon, 2. Dec 19, 19:40
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by EGO_Aut » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 18:05

Having a child is a major life and body changing responsibility.
Mistakes happen, or "sh#@ happens" as some know. A pregnant woman must be able to decide for herself whether she is ready for this.
Banning abortion is the same as banning going to school.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 18:38

mr.WHO wrote:
Fri, 1. Jul 22, 17:04
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Fri, 1. Jul 22, 15:12
@who
If you really hate it when these US constitutional/civil rights issues crop up, you don't have to participate in the discussion. Does anything about this even indirectly have an impact on you, anyway? You're doing it to yourself, so you're the only one to blame for your displeasure.
It's not hate, more like curiosity. I do enjoy these discussion.
especially that, at time you put your argument about US infrastructure shortomings and impact on abortion, I got YT video pop up about US vs EU infrastructure.
Seems that in both EU and US, member states law differences gives similar range of opportunities, but access to infrastructure and resources (e.g. basic social security, healthcare) make the difference in the end.

That makes the freedom question much deeper than I originally thought.
It really does make a huge difference. Flag wavers will say "Freedom isn't free" as an homage to loss of life in war, but to truly be free, in this country at this point in time, you have to be able to pay your way. Food, transportation, housing, healthcare, and even legal services are often out of reach in 1 or more area for a buttload of people here.

At the end of the day, if we are to be free, we have to be able to make decisions for ourselves without the government allowing us to make that decision, especially when it doesn't have any real impact to anyone else.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 8547
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by mr.WHO » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 19:56

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Fri, 1. Jul 22, 18:38
It really does make a huge difference. Flag wavers will say "Freedom isn't free" as an homage to loss of life in war, but to truly be free, in this country at this point in time, you have to be able to pay your way. Food, transportation, housing, healthcare, and even legal services are often out of reach in 1 or more area for a buttload of people here.

At the end of the day, if we are to be free, we have to be able to make decisions for ourselves without the government allowing us to make that decision, especially when it doesn't have any real impact to anyone else.
If things are so dysfunctional in US, then I agree that abortion might not be the last resort...more like only option.

I might even not fully comprehend the poverty question perspective - here in Poland paid maternity leave (about 60% of salary) is standard for ages. Now we discover that paid paternity leave is also the thing and it's getting popular.
Meanwhile, I realized that in most US states, the maternity leave is unpaid. Moreover, big corporations will pay for abortions, just because it's even cheaper than UNPAID leave. That's f*cked up on so many levels.


This really double down on the depth of freedom question:

In Poland we are more strict on abortion, but have more options to avoid or mitigate the social issues of the strict law. If everythings fail, even move to the place where there is different law within EU.

In US (before Roe v Wade was overruled) you were more liberal on abortion, but don't have options to avoid or mitigate social issues of not-having an abortion.



Congratulations, you explained and convinced me why Roe v Wade overrule is a big mistake.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 20:52

I don't know anything about companies having a policy to pay for abortions, but paid leave is not quite so bleak.* Companies do offer FMLA and there's caveats about when/how it can be used and for how long, however paternity leave is little to non-existent and maternity leave can be up to 6 months (i think), and that's federally mandated.

*for salaried employees working full time. Hourly workers, especially part time, rarely qualify for such benefits (and that includes just accrual of regular paid time off). Put yourself in the shoes of a woman working 2 part time jobs just to pay bills and keep food on the table - forget company provided health insurance (again, usually reserved for full-time employees), and uh oh... she gets pregnant.

Now you have a pregnant woman with no health insurance faced with a choice to carry the baby to term, be out of work for however long with no income to deal with the delivery and a new born, or potentially (now) face murder charges just to keep her head above water.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

User avatar
JSDD
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri, 21. Mar 14, 20:51
x3tc

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by JSDD » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 21:16

Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:49
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:12
That's why I think this whole outrage and discussion is artificial - if anything having one law across EU/US would be less freedom and far more dangerous.
You would have 50% chance you would end up on the side you don't like.
Even if you end up with the side you like...who guarantee it won't be flipped again a few years later (especially if you pack the court)?
I usually treat this expression as dumb joke, but in this case it's really "diversity is our strenght".
If you don't like something, you can easily move to different EU/US state - that's the freedom luxury, that people from outside of EU/US doesn't have.
Uhh.... "artificial outrage" da fuq you on about? People are legitimately and rightfully pissed at being told their bodies are property of the state. Republicans are even trying to ...
growth ... dude! the key word is "growth" :roll:
an almost "sacred" word when it comes to economy or tax revenue (for republicans)
the more unwanted children, the more (american) taxpayers there gonna be in the future ^^

the more you can cut down medicare / medicaid, the less abortions are affordable for the state ...

the more republicans f*ck with liberals and their wishes, the more popular those republicans gonna be ... the better the election results caused by high bible belt voter turnout

its aaall cold-blooded politics .. you know ^^

....................

just do your part on that, and relocate to new york / california ...
te more people (in those republican areas) would do that, the less taxpayers / workforce / voters / enterpreneurs (and therefore: *money* and hence power) htey gonna have

...............

no, seriously ... what the supreme court did was not "unfair" or so ... its all good
the real perversion comes to light when after that ruling, some republicans decide to outlaw abortion cause "they know whats better for you"
(so dont blame it on the supreme court, even if these dudes paved the way for the republicans)
(its one thing to give somebody a gun, its a completely different thing to pull the trigger .. you know ?!)
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.


Mission Director Beispiele

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: not allowing abortions = not a free country?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 21:26

JSDD wrote:
Fri, 1. Jul 22, 21:16
Vertigo 7 wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:49
mr.WHO wrote:
Wed, 29. Jun 22, 21:12
That's why I think this whole outrage and discussion is artificial - if anything having one law across EU/US would be less freedom and far more dangerous.
You would have 50% chance you would end up on the side you don't like.
Even if you end up with the side you like...who guarantee it won't be flipped again a few years later (especially if you pack the court)?
I usually treat this expression as dumb joke, but in this case it's really "diversity is our strenght".
If you don't like something, you can easily move to different EU/US state - that's the freedom luxury, that people from outside of EU/US doesn't have.
Uhh.... "artificial outrage" da fuq you on about? People are legitimately and rightfully pissed at being told their bodies are property of the state. Republicans are even trying to ...
growth ... dude! the key word is "growth" :roll:
an almost "sacred" word when it comes to economy or tax revenue (for republicans)
the more unwanted children, the more (american) taxpayers there gonna be in the future ^^

the more you can cut down medicare / medicaid, the less abortions are affordable for the state ...

the more republicans f*ck with liberals and their wishes, the more popular those republicans gonna be ... the better the election results caused by high bible belt voter turnout

its aaall cold-blooded politics .. you know ^^

....................

just do your part on that, and relocate to new york / california ...
te more people (in those republican areas) would do that, the less taxpayers / workforce / voters / enterpreneurs (and therefore: *money* and hence power) htey gonna have
Just move? That's your brilliant solution? Never mind the fact you obviously haven't read the rest of this thread, do you even understand what the ramifications of every left leaning person leaving wherever they are just to bolster left leaning states would have? And you make it sound so simple, just snap your fingers and wish yourself somewhere else. FFS dude...
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”