Jump to content
IGNORED

My close encounter with religious people in Poland


Effie

Recommended Posts

While I find it flattering that you’ve taken the time to diagnose me as borderline, since that makes me feel extra special, it really proves nothing other than your general lack of knowledge. Since Borderline is the least of what I have, it only serves to prove how absolutely ignorant you must be in this field to possibly reach such a conclusion.

*snip*

And THIS is why Hallmark took 'gay' out of _Deck the Halls_.

Because some people trolls really ARE to dim to realize that a word has more than one meaning. (which, yes, I'm sure will be claimed to be because of 2nd language. But, really, the tone and nuance leave me doubtful)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/borderline?s=t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And THIS is why Hallmark took 'gay' out of _Deck the Halls_.

Because some people trolls really ARE to dim to realize that a word has more than one meaning. (which, yes, I'm sure will be claimed to be because of 2nd language. But, really, the tone and nuance leave me doubtful)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/borderline?s=t

You know I do not agree with really anything Effie has said, it did though make for an interesting thread it has to be said. WHAT really pisses me off is just because she may have opinions that to others are totally wrong or totally offensive, which many have said. JUST because she refuses to capitulate or change her views does NOT make her a troll.

I can barely write in English at times so actually am always willing to give a pass on those who navigate in a second or third language. Especially with nuance and differing culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's called propaganda. Read the following articles to get a more nuanced view:

Nowicka, Wanda, Sexual and reproductive rights and the human rights agenda: controversial and contested,

Reproductive Health Matters, 2011

Środa, Magdalena,

Dickensowskie okno

życia, Wyborcza, 2012-12-04,

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75968,12983814,Dic ... .html?bo=1

Keszka, Joanna, Wstyd mi za okna życia w Polsce, Barbarella, 2013-01-22,

http://barbarella.pl/z_zycia/wstyd-mi-z ... a-w-polsce

No, not propaganda - I simply provided statistics to challenge your point of view that those hatches support anti abortion law. If you read comments under Sroda's article (who incidentally supports baby hatches in the article you linked but would welcome a progressive solution in a long term - the point i am making too) you will get a more nuanced point of view.

I won't comment on the second link to barbarella, Keszka's 'most sexy portal for Polish women'. I just cann't take her seriously, not with all those sex toys on sale and promises to improve my sex life :lol: while I am reading her opinion on baby hatches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole UN has not condemned baby hatches, Herczog did. And I indeed question the views and also the competence of Herczog, which does not represent the whole UN!

You could google Herczog yourself... here´s an example anyway:

"Herczog has suggested that these facilities "encourage women to give birth in very insecure circumstances"."

How do people even make such mental leaps... :cray-cray:

No Maria Herczog, giving birth and having to give up a baby does not work that way. No woman ever said: "Oh, I was going to give birth to the baby in the hospital and going to raise it - BUt NOW THERE´S A BABY HATCH, so I may as well give birth in the basement and then just put it there, what could possibly go wrong!?" No, not happening!

We have both, anonymous birth and baby hatches, in Austria and I firmly believe both serve a important but yet different meaning ( I explained above).

I think I understand what she means. The children who are given away in the baby hatches haven't been registered before. How could they have been? Then it would be visible in a record that you had given birth to a child, which had suddenly "disappeared". And then you would have the social services and possibly even police after you, cause they would want to know what you had done to your child. So by that reason, the baby hatches encourage women to give birth at a place where it won't be registered. At home for example it won't be registered. At a hospital it will be registered. Therefore, if you want to leave your baby in a baby hatch, you will probably choose to not give birth at a hospital. To not do so could indeed be considered a very insecure circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are seeing the women who use the baby hatch as making much more rational, planned out decisions than is likely the case. I don't think most women who use them are sitting making a list of the pros and cons of using a hospital due to concerns regarding registration and follow up. I think most women who use them would be women who are extremely desperate and panicked about their situation. I doubt that anyone could do any sort of useful statistical analysis about outcomes, because the number of babies placed in a baby hatch is so incredibly small.

Also, the use of the word "borderline" was meant as a modifier of xenophobia. Meaning your statement were "somewhat" or "almost" xenophobic, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. I live in the midwest US. My background is not Polish or Swedish. I am Catholic, though.

In 2nd grade, the kids at our Catholic school all dress up as their favorite saint on All Saints Day. THey spend the day in costume. THis is our second Catholic school - in different regions of the US - and they both did it.

We also mark our front door with those initials. I didn't know the background, but it was just a Catholic custom.

We also visit loved ones graves on or near All Saints Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And THIS is why Hallmark took 'gay' out of _Deck the Halls_.

Because some people trolls really ARE to dim to realize that a word has more than one meaning. (which, yes, I'm sure will be claimed to be because of 2nd language. But, really, the tone and nuance leave me doubtful)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/borderline?s=t

Okay, borderline xenophobia means you are xenophobic towards your own culture? Or that you have an ambivalent relation to a certain culture? I have only been a week at most in an English speaking country, so I'm not exactly familiar with the more modern terms.

It’s a culture clash, since I come from two extremely different cultures. I have a harder time understanding one of the cultures, but that doesn’t make me xenophobic since it’s still my culture. It's still my people. I should have developed one or more trains of thought, I guess. Especially this part:

She explained to me that older people on the street aren’t used to children crying and not obeying their parents immediately. This happened more than once. I learned that those were empty threats, but I guess I early on learned to be suspicious towards people there. I never understood the "putting the child in a sack". I guess the point was to terrify the child so that he/she would be quiet.
That was just me over-analyzing myself, suggesting that I probably have been suspicious of people there, and possibly still have that in me. I tend to over-analyze myself, and it often reflects badly on me.

Of course, there are differences. In Sweden, people are cowards and don't dare to say what they want to say. In Poland, people say what they want to say, even if that might offend people. People are more confrontational in Poland, while in Sweden people are so much the opposite of that it’s ridiculous. In Sweden, people don’t usually dare to say to the passenger on the seat next that they want to get off at the next stop. Instead of saying it, you will find the other person anxiously pulling her pursue and perhaps even looking at your direction (that’s at most). If you live in an apartment, and hear someone outside in the hall, you wait until you're certain the other person has gone away. In Poland, people are more warm and open and chatty. In Sweden, people can be cold at first, and it takes a while until they get rid of the cold, hostile outside. It could be because of the cold though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2nd grade, the kids at our Catholic school all dress up as their favorite saint on All Saints Day. THey spend the day in costume. THis is our second Catholic school - in different regions of the US - and they both did it.

.

That sounds really sweet. My Catholic pen-pal was once surprised when he learned that protestants in Sweden also celebrate saint(s). Or that's mostly one saint, which is Lucia. He seemed to think that only Catholic people celebrate saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, borderline xenophobia means you are xenophobic towards your own culture? Or that you have an ambivalent relation to a certain culture? I have only been a week at most in an English speaking country, so I'm not exactly familiar with the more modern terms.

It’s a culture clash, since I come from two extremely different cultures. I have a harder time understanding one of the cultures, but that doesn’t make me xenophobic since it’s still my culture. It's still my people. I should have developed one or more trains of thought, I guess. Especially this part:

That was just me over-analyzing myself, suggesting that I probably have been suspicious of people there, and possibly still have that in me. I tend to over-analyze myself, and it often reflects badly on me.

Of course, there are differences. In Sweden, people are cowards and don't dare to say what they want to say. In Poland, people say what they want to say, even if that might offend people. People are more confrontational in Poland, while in Sweden people are so much the opposite of that it’s ridiculous. In Sweden, people don’t usually dare to say to the passenger on the seat next that they want to get off at the next stop. Instead of saying it, you will find the other person anxiously pulling her pursue and perhaps even looking at your direction (that’s at most). If you live in an apartment, and hear someone outside in the hall, you wait until you're certain the other person has gone away. In Poland, people are more warm and open and chatty. In Sweden, people can be cold at first, and it takes a while until they get rid of the cold, hostile outside. It could be because of the cold though.

Yes, the sweet, warm Poles....at the same time they are the most antisemitic people in Europe.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not propaganda - I simply provided statistics to challenge your point of view that those hatches support anti abortion law. If you read comments under Sroda's article (who incidentally supports baby hatches in the article you linked but would welcome a progressive solution in a long term - the point i am making too) you will get a more nuanced point of view.

I won't comment on the second link to barbarella, Keszka's 'most sexy portal for Polish women'. I just cann't take her seriously, not with all those sex toys on sale and promises to improve my sex life :lol: while I am reading her opinion on baby hatches.

The Caritas statistics only show how many people have been left in the baby hatches. That doesn't say whether the rate of infanticide has declined or enhanced (still that's not what you meant to prove, I realize that).

I'm glad that you read one of the articles, especially since Sroda takes up several good points. Especially her point that the church would save far more lives by recognizing the rights of women to decide over their motherhood. It's also an interesting (yet horrifying) point Sroda makes by saying that it is not completely surprising if women feel forced to kill their unwanted children, instead of giving them up for adoption, since the women who adopt away their children become subjected to dehumanization and stigmatization. Anyhow, it must be of greatest importance to tackle the stigma surrounding adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying about how nobody can give anyone a 100% guarantee of anonymity.

At the same time, if we are talking about Safe Haven laws specifically and not adoption laws in general (where the trend is toward more open arrangements and disclosure), you acknowledge in the first bold section that these situations often involve women in situations of duress, but then in the other bolded parts you talk about at least partially making the decision and about whether giving birth is the wisest option.

If someone is using a Safe Haven Law, I can't make any assumptions at all that anything about their situation, including carrying a pregnancy to term, was ever a matter of choice.

And I am saying that adoptees should not be permanently relegated to second class status (and birth parents never be allowed to contribute information forevermore) on the assumptions of other people about what an anonymous birth mother wants. Why is that so hard to understand?

Life is messy, and not all adoptees are going to realize their dream of meeting both biological parents and getting all this wonderful family information and making wonderful connections with family. I support open adoption and it's a great option for some, but it may not work for everyone. If you are trying to prevent infanticide, then one price to be paid is that those children, who may only be alive because of the law, may lack information.

And your comments about adoptees wanting some magical happy information/story is offensive. Really, adoptees don't realize that "life is messy"? Most of us know damn well that there was shit going down and the story isn't going to be happy. We do not expect to be lost princess/princes reunited forevermore with our birth family. I would say out of all the people I know personally who have searched (and I do know many) most understood that there would be trauma involved. I appreciate you championing your perceived what-ifs for birthmothers, truly I do. But I think you are directing your ire at the *wrong people*. Especially when you then fall into ye old tired stereotyping of adoptees and their selfish desires to *gasp* perhaps have access to some information about their pasts. This does not always have to come with meeting, you know. Some of us don't want that, either.

By the way, how do you come to the conclusion that baby hatches prevent infanticide? ALL the studies I have seen, as well as talking to people who work in that field (as well as spending a great deal of time working in crisis care nurseries, myself, both as a social worker in the facility and later as a foster parent)--leaves me in doubt as to whether they do. They are another option for people who *already would not kill their infants*, or who possess the transportation, means, resources, and safety to get to one. It is sad that people kill their babies and continue to at the *same rate* in haven areas as they do where they don't exist. They do not help the teen who's been in denial and gives birth at home alone and doesn't know what to do. They don't help trafficked women who aren't going to be able to get out on their own to take their newborn to a specific place and whose handlers probably don't give a damn about it. They don't help people who are incapacitated by other means. It is an option, for people who can utilize it--but I believe most people who can utilize it probably would have also figured out some other way to spare the lives of their babies. Of course, I am most familiar with US haven areas, which don't have safe spots on every street corner. And most people don't realize how many babies are abandoned at hospitals, safe haven or not. So there are other safeguards as well, and at least there is a record there (even if it's a false name). Spare me the insinuation that people who are leery of true anonymity just don't understand that problem or that we don't give a damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I guess my post must have come across to you as something very different from what I intended.

I've never said that an adoptee's desire to know about their birth family background is "selfish". I think it's perfectly understandable. Like I said, I've supported laws in my jurisdiction that allow for open adoption, and for easier disclosure of information.

My main issue with your first post was using language that suggests that birth mothers using Safe Haven laws are making a choice to carry to term and give birth. I can't assume that any woman in that situation would have had a real opportunity to terminate the pregnancy on a timely basis, even if abortion is technically legal in her area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I guess my post must have come across to you as something very different from what I intended.

I've never said that an adoptee's desire to know about their birth family background is "selfish". I think it's perfectly understandable. Like I said, I've supported laws in my jurisdiction that allow for open adoption, and for easier disclosure of information.

My main issue with your first post was using language that suggests that birth mothers using Safe Haven laws are making a choice to carry to term and give birth. I can't assume that any woman in that situation would have had a real opportunity to terminate the pregnancy on a timely basis, even if abortion is technically legal in her area.

I feel that I was very plain in saying that many women who "choose" the option of abandoning their babies anonymously are highly likely doing it due to coercion. This does not always mean another individual person, it can mean societal, whether that's shame-based or non-existent access to abortion or other legal ramifications. As long as we are pretending this is about an option (Wow this must be in place to give women another option/save the babies!) then we can't deny that the other person involved in this (the infant, who will grow up, hopefully, and become an adult) also will have their own feelings about things and may seek out information, for example. They should not be told to shut up and be grateful, lest they in theory hurt someone's feelings who may or may not feel that way (and who may suffer precisely because of that irrevokable decision and no access to providing information later down the line). I do not feel that anonymity is a logical expectation in today's world with the advent of OTC genetics testing (23andme, ect). Even sperm donors from the era where confidentiality was "guaranteed" are finding that not to be the case. If people want to hold up the baby boxes/safe havens as golden promises of safe anonymity, then to me that is another exploitation of the women already in pretty crappy circumstances, as there is no such guarantee. I don't think these women should be lied to. People have found their birth relatives overseas after being abandoned, it's unreal what a dedicated searcher and a few strokes of luck can uncover. Whether you or anyone else likes/agrees with that or not, it's a reality. To pretend otherwise, or try to browbeat people into certain choices (like to never ever inquire as to their origins) infantizes the birthmothers too. I do not think that they are stupid or incapable of realizing that this too holds a risk. To me, promising someone anonymity in this day and age for the good of the babies (when that promise is a lie) is just as much magical thinking as you seemed to imply that searching adoptees have.

To be clear, I do not oppose save havens. In fact, I personally feel that people should be allowed to leave their babies at ANY hospital, or call social services to arrange it, or whatever, and when they do so without harming the infant they should never face prosecution. I think though, that the person being relinquished should have access to records later that state their vital information at birth, and some information about their family background, and that the birthparent should be able to add to that later without fear of prosecution. This anonymous business of safe havens when it's not accessible to everyone merely allows the facade of "oh look, we care!" while continuing legal and criminal intimidation, exploitation, and slut shaming. It's a feel good band-aid. And even were my above laws enacted? I have no illusions that there would still be women who kill their infants. Let's put protections in, not stuff that makes life even more complicated to solve a problem that frankly isn't going to be solvable by "promising" anonymity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.