>

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original 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 | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: abortion^#1 case^#2 Poland^#3 legal^#4 Federa^#5
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. >

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” >

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. >

I hope the uncle is getting prosecuted. >

Hope you say? >

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 >

that was the irish case, there has been a polish case like that too >

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. >

"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). >

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. >

What kind of cunt bans abortion in the first place, hope anyone who votes for this type of government dies horribly. >

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. >

To be fair: all those customs and beliefs are not something that came out of nowhere. At the moment religions appeared probably it was a step forward in terms of humanity/rules/laws/relatiins is society/security and so on. It was easier to force or delude people to follow some rules from someone they though already exist rather than to educate them. 
The problem is that after several thousands of years situation changed drastically, but for a lot of people re-used(sometimes twisted in a way that's opposite to initial idea), degraded customs is closer than modern law, knowledge, healthcare and so on. 
And that's on top of the fact that's it's easier to brainlesly stick to this customs rather than think a bit for themselves and the ones around about what's the origin of this beliefs and customs, what was the rational point behind that and how people's knowledge (in general) have changed and what is rational and what isn't now. >

If you are a student of history, you will know most of these didnt come about to force people to follow rules or be good. Religion was mostly used to gain power and keep power, the religious leaders were closely associated with rulers and monarchs and gave them legitimacy
So the religious rules etc were to keep the common, poor, suffering population in check. If you believe there is an afterlife which is better, you will be more ok with your current condition no matter how bad, if you believe the opressive king is appointed by God, you are less likely to revolt
Throughout most of history religion was always used to gain and keep power, not for some rule of law. You didnt need religion for a human society to exist or follow rules, we are naturally social animals who obey socitial rules, right from our prehistoric times (and those who didnt became extinct) >


If you are a student of history, you will know most of these didnt come about to force people to follow rules or be good.

I am not a student of history, though I know something about history of government and law. That's your first wrong assumption.
The second wrong assumption - 'to force to be good'. I've never used good. For some reason 'development of society/rules' you associated with word 'good'. Development is not good or bad, I was talking about evolution of rules. That was reasonable at the moment this rules were forced. Moreover, you're saying this yourself:

religious leaders were closely associated with rulers and monarchs and gave them legitimacy

After

most of these didnt come about to force people to follow rule

No contradiction found? So religion is not about setting up rules for society, but at the same time it is to set up legitimacy or to enforce people with power in their power. In other words: to set up rules and form society.

Throughout most of history religion was always used to gain and keep power, not for some rule of law. You didnt need religion for a human society to exist or follow rules, we are naturally social animals who obey socitial rules (and those who didnt became extinct)

Again in every religion there's definition of 'good' and 'evil', 'right things' and 'wrong things' or in other words - set of rules for people without modern understanding of law. Basically it is ancient ancestor of law/norms of the society for dummies.
Ancient people used authority of god to force the behaviour that was reasonable on other people. And yes, obviously it was used as source of power and to keep power. Was it rational from nowadays point of view? Nope. Not in a slightest. That's a rudiment. 
Does it mean that's not true? Also nope. You know, a few centuries ago it was peak medicine to crack skull open. And despite how stupid and ineffective it was - it still was a step in medicine evolution. Just as religion - step in evolution of society and law. It was not so obvious that you cannot kill other people just cause you want to do it a few thousand years ago too, you know. Religion is supposedly the thing that somehow restricted this stuff. At least tried. >

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 >

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