Immediately and without hesitation answer the title question: NO.
In order to talk honestly and honestly about abortion, its causes and consequences (medical, social, legal, etc.) in order to make the best position of the best in Parliament, which is essential due to the fact that it concerns human life, 1 must put aside a political and ideological view and limit itself to the question of the superior good of the human person. Unfortunately, this is not possible due to the fact that the parties to the dispute are not willing to accept common, unchanging and honest principles of discussion, and without this there will be no conclusions to which the adversaries could agree.
If I were to set a discussion ground for honest conclusions, I would first ask for key concepts and definitions before the period of discussion on abortion to destruct those characterized by political and ideological stigma. This could be done by classical sources: dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks (medical and legal), technological articles and another materials on the subject.
This is very important, even crucial, due to the fact that the current discussion either ignores the description of reality, or denies it. It is intellectual and lexical deception to talk about the second human being "the body of a woman", to halt the life of a kid during the prenatal period "medical treatment" and to dispute erstwhile human life begins according to its own vision, alternatively than in accordance with the discipline of biology.
If anyone is going to argue with these examples, I encourage him to scope into the biology textbooks. Preferably a few, respective years ago, due to the fact that it cannot be ruled out that, following lies in public space, there is simply a hasty printing of textbooks incorporating the fresh language and modified definitions of concepts, as is the case with the word "post-abortion syndrome", which magically stopped touching women who have undergone this procedure, e.g. "legal abortion does not pose a danger of serious intellectual problems" (American intellectual Society), and in many articles and publications "scientific" it is called the phenomenon of "genuine" or "myth".
Another area of discussion, which makes small sense if not based on facts, is the legal state. I will not make this topic, but I will mention that in fresh days and hours representatives of the government and a crowd of politicians say that under Polish law abortions can be carried out without the opinion of doctors and by another people than the obstetrician in the medical facility, and those who publically advance illegal abortion procedures and medical preparations not authorised in Poland are not afraid by the judiciary.
It is simply a shameful presentation of the legal state that women do not want to become pregnant for fear that it will not be interrupted in the event of a threat to the life or wellness of a woman, which is allegedly the consequence of a Constitutional Court ruling. The fact that the Court has not eliminated this condition is not disturbing for those who are saying these ruses. In addition, the thesis is promoted that doctors do not execute abortions that save the mother's life due to the ‘freezing effect’, that is, fear of harsh justice. However, the key fact that there are doctors in prosecutorial proceedings is ignored, not due to an abortion that saves a woman's life, but due to not having an abortion, as a consequence of which the child's parent died.
The last, but most likely the most important, issue that prevents a fair debate on abortion law is the camouflage of real intentions by any of the opposing parties. Supporters of a full ban on abortion or the maintenance of current laws – abortion banned but for 2 (three) exceptions contained in the Act – do not cover that they are behind specified a ban, but the another side says 1 thing, and truly wants something different. In debates, we hear about a change in the law due to the letal defects of the fetus, which will die in the prenatal period or will not be able to make decently after birth, abortion in the event of a threat to the life and wellness of a female (as I mentioned above), and erstwhile it comes to editing projects, we read about abortion on request until 12 weeks of pregnancy, that is, not due to concern for the parent and fear of having “fed without the brain” but as a form of “anticonception” for irresponsible women who cannot or do not want to respect themselves and their bodies and their partners, whom they treat as a temporary toy, not as co-responsible for joint decisions and actions.
Supporters of abortion say that men should not say "because they don't have children" on this subject, and they send not only women (also those of age excluding pregnancy), but men – supporters of abortion.
Finally, it is worth noting that there are representatives of both sexes in Parliament and representatives of both sexes elect their representatives to Parliament, whose function is to legislate according to the views of each of them. The problem is not the sex or age of people who speak, but the level of discussion that leaves much to be desired, as an example of the claim that "a biological man can have a child".
Is it possible to have a fair discussion?
Peter Strzembosz
illustration/photo.freeimages.com
Post Strzembosz: Is it possible to have a fair debate about abortion? appeared for the first time in Kontrrevolution.net.
