Polish Syndrome: the discussion on the ban on abortion has entered a new round in our country and in the world

The multimillion-dollar protests in Poland against the amendments to the abortion law seem to be paying off. Recall that the Poles did not protest against the abortions themselves, as many in Russia think, but only against the fact that one, but a very significant point, was removed from the law banning abortions, which has been in force since 1993. Three exceptions were made in the law: abortion was allowed in cases of rape, a threat to the life or health of the mother, and for medical reasons. It was precisely the last point that they demanded to return the polka to the law.

And last Friday, Polish President Andrzej Duda initiated amendments to the Family Planning Law, which would allow abortion due to serious and irreversible damage to the fetus, leading to the death of the child, but at the same time protect children with Down syndrome. According to Duda, such a decision fits into “the essence of the so-called compromise on abortion of 1993 and is consistent with the decisions of the Constitutional Court”: “Taking into account the decision of the Constitutional Court, this project provides for the introduction of a new prerequisite that restores the possibility of abortion in accordance with the principles of the Polish Of the Constitution exclusively in the case of so-called lethal defects, when prenatal tests or other medical reports indicate a high likelihood that the child will be born dead or with an incurable disease or defect leading to the inevitable death of the child, regardless of the therapeutic measures applied.

Despite this, discussions on this topic do not subside on Russian social networks. The laws prohibiting abortion are interpreted by many as compulsion to good and the recognition of the value of life above freedom.

So, publicist Tatyana Zhuridova is sure that many Russians and Russians simply do not understand why abortion is prohibited in Poland and many US states:

“In the modern world, in civilized, developed countries, especially in the USA, young girls and boys believe that abortion should be avoided and there are enough ways for this in the modern world (!) That one should think: when, with whom and why, and not blindly obey momentary desires that you need to be responsible for your behavior.

It is believed that abortion is murder, that murder is unacceptable, and that the reasoning that at one term it is not murder, and at another, later date, is already murder - which is wrong to reason like that. In Poland, it is believed that the acceptability of abortion is a legacy of the totalitarian past, when people decided who could live and who could not, and when it was believed that a disabled person did not need to live at all.

Now there are many methods of contraception, and the main thing is to take intimate relationships seriously and prudently - this is what modern youth thinks here (!)

Another aspect: when a man knows that his partner will not have an abortion, he is very (!) Circumspect about the most intimate intimacy, since it is he who will have to feed the child if pregnancy occurs. As a result, in Poland, young men propose marriage after a short time of acquaintance, because for them acquaintance with a girl makes the sense of marriage, and not sex at once. What's the point in having sex at one time, if you have, in case of pregnancy, to raise a child and live with the one you don't want to live with, or pay alimony? Here in Poland, men are extremely careful about women and very responsible for their behavior. There are no situations here, as in some countries, when a guy actively looks after, achieves intimacy and says the next morning: "I'm not ready for a serious relationship," making stress to the girl who gave herself to him for love. And if this happens, it is extremely rare. And yet, here the guy will not say, like in Russia, what they say, "she wanted to... she was a whore, but there was no talk about marriage! And in general, all women are whores" and will not humiliate a girl who agreed to have sex because here intimacy involves marriage.

Of course, this is a more civilized attitude towards intimate relations between men and women, and it has become possible only in the modern world. This has nothing to do with the Middle Ages, when women did not have the right to education, to many activities and inheritance of property, and when she depended on men for everything. Now a woman has equal rights with a man and can deny him sex if she is not ready for the birth of a child, can study, work, support herself and choose a convenient time for her to have a child or not have a child, not have a family if she does not want to. No one will condemn her, she is free and decides for herself! And intimate relationships involve the possible birth of a child, and the state pays a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the child. This is how life works here now.

All this, of course, does not apply to Russia and other backward countries, economically, scientifically, ideologically and legally backward. In Russia, abortions should be allowed, since in the Russian Federation a woman is not protected, child benefits are insufficient, rape in families by husbands is frequent, and children, if it is impossible for a woman to raise a child, end up in inhuman conditions in orphanages or for adoption by pedophiles who paid corrupt officials from the guardianship authorities. That is why, based on the realities of Russian life, it is difficult for Russians to understand many European and American laws.

So, in the United States, young girls who are still studying and do not provide for themselves, it is believed that it is more correct and more moral not to have an abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, but to carry the child and give him up for adoption (adaptation) to a family that has no children. There, the girls can proudly say: "I gave the child for adaptation," no one will judge her. This is a new type of relationship that is not understandable for Russia, where if the mother herself does not take care of the child, then he will die or suffer, where abortion is often the only way for a woman to survive with children already born, and the birth of a new child will lead to death or illness of the rest from malnutrition, where a woman cannot tell anyone that she was raped by her husband and hold him accountable, since the law does not protect women and children from violence and cruelty in the family. Yes, what to say! In Russia, men often treat women as consumers, and in response, women also begin to treat men, using sex for blackmail purposes. And in normal families in the Russian Federation, with a respectful attitude of the husband and wife, living conditions, housing, salaries and benefits for children are such that God forbid raising one or two children! Yes, what is there to compare!

And lastly, both Russians and Russian speakers are accustomed to lecturing others! Criticizing and teaching is the legacy of the scoop. We were brought up so that only we are right! Many people write: "Poland should!", "Poland should allow abortion!", "The USA should...", etc. Yes, it is difficult to understand the relationship and life in another country, but I think it is worth trying to understand, and not hack off the shoulder, not condemn. And always thinking: "Maybe they are right, but I just don't know something, I don't understand?!"

As far as I understand, Poland is building exactly the kind of state that most Poles want to see, and with open borders, everyone has the right to choose whether to live in this country or in another, if you have a different worldview. Now Belarusian and Ukrainian women come here, they want to have children, raise them and are glad that the state of Poland gives them this opportunity. You should not impose something on the Poles and try to teach them, Poland is successfully developing, overcoming the legacy of the scoop. People here are respectful to each other and calm..."

***

However, not everyone agrees with this point of view, not without reason believing that for the state, children are simply an excuse to cement the role of women in society as an object that performs the functions of an incubator and cook / nanny / nurse / servant, and not a free independent person with full set of civil rights.

Here is what the poet and civil activist Dariya Serenko writes about this:

“I am sad and ashamed to admit this, but at a certain period of my life (at about 18-20 years old) I was a proliferator - that is, I was against any abortion for any reason.

It's hard to learn something instructive from this experience, but now I understand perfectly well that prolifers are not born, haha, but become, sorry for this joke.

I remember being caught on this emotional hook, how they instilled condemnation of women who had an abortion, how they intimidated with pictures, how they distorted the facts, how they manipulated my then belief in God, while releasing all the theological discussions that have existed for many years (yes- yes, believers can also advocate for the right to abortion in general).

Events in Poland (the conservative government has banned almost all types of abortion and hundreds of thousands of women are protesting right now), Putin's statements about the need to financially reward doctors who refuse to have abortions - all this is not just terrible, but also terribly stupid. It's funny that all this is being done under two banners: 1) the salvation of unborn human souls, 2) the increase in the birth rate.

T.N. the demographic decline is not due to abortion, but to the fact that many people do not want to have children in poverty and insecurity (well, that is, for example, under Putin). The right to abortion is a basic right for everyone; without it, gender equality will not be achieved. The best fight against abortion is prevention of abortion, that is:

1) sex education from school age

2) affordable contraception

3) fighting poverty and the feminization of poverty

4) support for childhood and motherhood, informed parenting and male decrees

And it also has a good effect on demographic policy:

5) increasing the gender equality index, yes, yes. because gender equality provides more informed access to different choices, including the choice to have a child

6) support for LGBT families, many of whom would like to have children, but cannot fulfill their desire in the conditions of our country

7) the end of political persecution and repression, because of which a huge number of people leave the Russian Federation forever

Not intimidation, not a church looking into your crotch with condemnation, not pressure on doctors, not forming a proliferating army going to war against pregnant women and feminists, not state bans. Prohibitions do not work, we have international / Soviet experience showing that the prohibition of abortion leads to a black market for abortions, and therefore to an increase in female mortality.

Hey conservative governments, let's skip that you don't think of pregnant women as people with a choice, but isn't it weird trying to raise fertility rates while raising death rates?

Fu, how tired of all this, why aren't we the president here..."

***

And the position of the philosopher Dmitry Luchikhin very convincingly draws a line under such discussions:

“Let's focus on a little.

I adhere to the point of view that the ban on abortion is the greatest evil and unparalleled meanness. And in relation to the mother and in relation to the potential child. It is clear that the idea of prohibition is only one of the particular consequences of the shift of the value vector from the rights of the individual to the right to life.

But my dear fellow-thinkers, do you understand that when you appeal to the substantive side of the issue, you become like a person arguing the refusal of theft, through arguments of the disadvantage and danger of this action.

The essence of this and similar questions is not at all in their content. It is in the very attitude to the right of the majority to impose their will on other people. We constantly confuse the right to have our own opinion, with the right to impose it, which not only do not coexist, indistinguishable flowing into each other, but are at opposite ends of the legal spectrum. Must be there.

Any compulsion can not be justified by any good, no matter how objective it may be or may look. No amount of argument makes coercion permissible.

This is the conviction that good can be forced, and the only dispute is that good here is the main evil of our time, and the main enemy of modern man.

And whether the source of violent actions in the name of truth is a radical group, the state or the popular majority - it does not matter..."