Support NeoGAF

[Joel Was Right]

Because they're supposed to provide help under any circumstance and their personal beliefs shouldn't interfere with that?

What next, a muslim doctor should have the right ro refuse to check a mole on a woman's ass because according to his religion a woman shouldn't be naked in front of any man other than her father/brother/husband?

I don't think the idea of seeing/touching the nude body of the opposite gender is comparable to (what in their eyes would be) inducing the death of an unwanted life. The underlying theme of the oath is to provide care and do no harm, and it should be noted that its not just doctors who believe in a deity that oppose abortion for this reason.

 

[Kosmo]

I don't think the idea of seeing/touching the nude body of the opposite gender is comparable to (what in their eyes would be) inducing the death of an unwanted life. The underlying theme of the oath is to provide care and do no harm, and it should be noted that its not just doctors who believe in a deity that oppose abortion for this reason.

This is a very gray area when you're talking elective abortions.

 

[Joel Was Right]

This is a very gray area when you're talking elective abortions.

A dilemma further underlined by the various measurements by countries of how many weeks pass before the mother has no legal right to choose

 

[Dude Abides]

This is a very gray area when you're talking elective abortions.

Not really. A woman has a medical condition that she would like to get rid of, and may be threatening to her health and welfare. If you think it's actually murdering a baby, fine, but that has nothing to do with whether it's medical care.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I don't understand why the oath is held up a rule when the oath administered between universities is different, and occasionally doesn't even exist. For instance "As it turns out, the oaths given in this day and age have changed substantially from the original. Fourteen percent ban euthanasia. Eleven percent invoke a higher power. Eight percent oppose abortion. And three percent prohibit sexual relationships between patients and physicians. Some might suggest that this is proof that medicine, like politics, has evolved much like the modern penchant for dividing church and state." via Doctor's Review.

Long story short, using the oath as anything more than a symbol is silly.

 

[Kosmo]

Not really. A woman has a medical condition that she would like to get rid of, and may be threatening to her health and welfare. If you think it's actually murdering a baby, fine, but that has nothing to do with whether it's medical care.

I'm not arguing that it's medical "care" - but it's no more medical "care" in the vast majority of cases than getting a nose job. If the mother's health is truly threatened in a physical manner, then of course an abortion is completely appropriate. When you're getting into the area of elective abortion and judging that the mother's welfare is threatened due to some potential threat (e.g. being pregnant is more dangerous than not) or psychological threat (woman is now depressed), that's a completely different area.

The line should be drawn at necessity. The ability to have an abortion without violating the law is a negative right, not a positive one - you're trying to make it the latter.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Not really. A woman has a medical condition that she would like to get rid of, and may be threatening to her health and welfare. If you think it's actually murdering a baby, fine, but that has nothing to do with whether it's medical care.

As I said, even theologically abortions are accepted if there is a risk to the mothers life but if we're being honest, I think the predominant context for the majority of opinions on abortion are when they are done for 'lifestyle' reasons e.g. the mother just does not want a child at that moment in her life or because of financial limits. At least that's the viewpoint I'm coming from personally and in that sense, I personally do not see why a doctor should be obligated to go through a procedure where they feel they will end 'human life' because the mother does not want it.

Question for you: do you feel a doctor should be obligated to provide this 'medical care' for a woman who didn't want the baby because it was not e.g. a boy?

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm not arguing that it's medical "care" - but it's no more medical "care" in the vast majority of cases than getting a nose job. If the mother's health is truly threatened in a physical manner, then of course an abortion is completely appropriate. When you're getting into the area of elective abortion and judging that the mother's welfare is threatened due to some potential threat (e.g. being pregnant is more dangerous than not) or psychological threat (woman is now depressed), that's a completely different area.

The line should be drawn at necessity. The ability to have an abortion without violating the law is a negative right, not a positive one - you're trying to make it the latter.

If the line is drawn at necessity then a lot of things we currently consider medical would not be. A lot of people don't "need" a hip replacement, but their quality of life is improved with one. If instead of a fetus it were a cyst would you not consider a procedure to remove it medical care?

 

[Joel Was Right]

If the line is drawn at necessity then a lot of things we currently consider medical would not be. A lot of people don't "need" a hip replacement, but their quality of life is improved with one. If instead of a fetus it were a cyst would you not consider a procedure to remove it medical care?

But how cosmetic surgeries comparable to pregnancies?

 

[Raist]

If the line is drawn at necessity then a lot of things we currently consider medical would not be. A lot of people don't "need" a hip replacement, but their quality of life is improved with one. If instead of a fetus it were a cyst would you not consider a procedure to remove it medical care?

ITT medical care is only required when life is threatened. Man, doctors are sure gonna have loads of time on their hands.

 

[Emerson]

Doctors and any other healthcare provider should be allowed to elect not to participate in abortions where the woman's life isn't in danger. That's how it is now and it shouldn't change.

ITT medical care is only required when life is threatened. Man, doctors are sure gonna have loads of time on their hands.

Actually that's pretty much the truth. Doctors are not obligated to treat anyone unless it's an emergency situation.

 

[Dude Abides]

But how cosmetic surgeries comparable to pregnancies?

How indeed? Ask Kosmo.

 

[Lambtron]

So is the new thing to try to attach the word "elective" to abortion? Comparisons to cosmetic surgery? Good god.

 

[Emerson]

So is the new thing to try to attach the word "elective" to abortion? Comparisons to cosmetic surgery? Good god.

The point is to distinguish between abortions made necessary by serious danger to the mother and abortions done by personal choice. It's a real and important distinction.

Doctors can turn away patients for tons of reasons, provided that it's not an emergency and they provide the patient with referrals to other providers. Abortion should be no different.

 

[Kosmo]

But how cosmetic surgeries comparable to pregnancies?

Because, unless the mother's health is truly threatened, elective abortion is little more than a cosmetic procedure - just as cosmetic surgery would remove a mole, abortion simply removes a kid hanging off your arm.

 

[Devolution]

ITT we pretend like pregnancy isn't a medical issue that has irreversible changes (and can still result in death) that some women would rather avoid.

Just have the baby sluts. Gosh.

 

[Zoe]

So is the new thing to try to attach the word "elective" to abortion? Comparisons to cosmetic surgery? Good god.

New? That has always been around, and there's an important, even legal in some cases, distinction between elective abortions (birth control) and medically necessary abortions.

 

[Raist]

just as cosmetic surgery would remove a mole, abortion simply removes a kid hanging off your arm.

Jeebus.

 

[Emerson]

ITT we pretend like pregnancy isn't a medical issue that has irreversible changes (and can still result in death) that some women would rather avoid.

Just have the baby sluts. Gosh.

ITT we treat physicians like slaves who have no choice in anything. If it's not an emergency then the doctor provides a referral elsewhere. It's not hard, for fuck's sake.

 

[Devolution]

New? That has always been around, and there's an important distinction between elective abortions (birth control) and medically necessary abortions.

All abortions are medically necessary. If the woman doesn't want to undergo pregnancy she needs one. Are we just going to sit here and pretend like pregnancy is something we should force women to undergo?

 

[Devolution]

ITT we treat physicians like slaves who have no choice in anything. If it's not an emergency then the doctor provides a referral elsewhere. It's not hard, for fuck's sake.

Ah but I'm not talking about doctors with objections on moral grounds, people like you are stipulating that an abortion isn't a medically necessary procedure. I'm here to tell you, you're wrong.

 

[Zoe]

All abortions are medically necessary. If the woman doesn't want to undergo pregnancy she needs one. Are we just going to sit here and pretend like pregnancy is something we should force women to undergo?

I won't stop someone from getting an abortion any more than I would stop someone from getting a breast reduction. That doesn't mean all reductions are necessary.

 

[Big-E]

Troubling and it is probably just as bad with doctors here in Canada now with the growing conservatism here.

 

[Devolution]

I won't stop someone from getting an abortion any more than I would stop someone from getting a breast reduction. That doesn't mean all reductions are necessary.

I already told you, it's medically necessary since the only other option is pregnancy. Unless you can somehow find a way to put the burden of pregnancy on someone else, you have no right to call it "medically unnecessary."

 

[Emerson]

Ah but I'm not talking about doctors with objections on moral grounds, people like you are stipulating that an abortion isn't a medically necessary procedure. I'm here to tell you, you're wrong.

This is fucking retarded. There is absolutely no point in forcing the doctor to perform a procedure he objects to when he can just as easily send the woman elsewhere to get it done. IF he's the only available doctor, it might be a question. If it's not, then it's not a question.

 

[Devolution]

This is fucking retarded. There is absolutely no point in forcing the doctor to perform a procedure he objects to when he can just as easily send the woman elsewhere to get it done. IF he's the only available doctor, it might be a question. If it's not, then it's not a question.

Deal with it.

And since the law states that women have to get it in under a certain time frame, it's even more prudent that they have access to it as soon as possible.

 

[Emerson]

Deal with it.

And since the law states that women have to get it in under a certain time frame, it's even more prudent that they have access to it as soon as possible.

LOL dude, whatever

 

[Joel Was Right]

I already told you, it's medically necessary since the only other option is pregnancy. Unless you can somehow find a way to put the burden of pregnancy on someone else, you have no right to call it "medically unnecessary."

 

[Raist]

This is fucking retarded. There is absolutely no point in forcing the doctor to perform a procedure he objects to when he can just as easily send the woman elsewhere to get it done. IF he's the only available doctor, it might be a question. If it's not, then it's not a question.

Well there might be perfectly valid reasons. However "abortion = sin" isn't one of them.

 

[Devolution]

Telling that I have yet to get a real argument back. Just a 'lol whatever' and a gif. Sorry to break up your circle jerk comparing abortions to cosmetic surgery.

 

[Zoe]

Telling that I have yet to get a real argument back. Just a 'lol whatever' and a gif. Sorry to break up your circle jerk comparing abortions to cosmetic surgery.

Having a medical "condition" does not make something a necessity.

I have bony growths under my gum (sorry, don't remember the official term). Sometimes my gums get scratched up and it becomes sore because food catches on them or I push on them, but that doesn't mean that any oral surgeon is going to look at removal as anything other than elective.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Telling that I have yet to get a real argument back. Just a 'lol whatever' and a gif. Sorry to break up your circle jerk comparing abortions to cosmetic surgery.

You do a disservice to the pro-choice position in these threads. They'll be peace in Jerusalem before I ever 'get' you in these discussions.

 

[LosDaddie]

Almost positive by law that they cannot be forced.

However, their employer or perhaps certain contracts can obligate them to perform it.

Then what's the problem?

Just don't work for a company that will "force" you to perform abortions. Problem solved, right?

 

[Devolution]

Having a medical "condition" does not make something a necessity.

I have bony growths under my gum (sorry, don't remember the official term). Sometimes my gums get scratched up and it becomes sore because food catches on them or I push on them, but that doesn't mean that any oral surgeon is going to look at removal as anything other than elective.

It's funny you call pregnancy a medical "condition." lol.

You do a disservice to the pro-choice position in these threads. They'll be peace in Jerusalem before I ever 'get' you in these discussions.

Oh really, how? I'm not the one making hilarious comparisons to cosmetic surgery. You guys really want to have your cake and eat it too huh? Terminating a pregnancy is just like having a mole removed, please. The fetus is of the utmost importance and yet you'd minimize the very process that a woman has to undergo to have it just to make your argument.

 

[Mudkips]

My doctor doesn't personally perform brain surgery. If I needed brain surgery, I wouldn't go to him and demand he cut into my brain.
I would demand that a plan or facility I am paying for provide coverage and facilities in accordance with the terms of my insurance plan or service contract.

My doctor doesn't inject silicone studs into dicks to give them nodules of pleasure. If I wanted silicone nodules in my dick, I wouldn't go to him and demand it.
I would demand that a plan or facility I am paying for provide coverage and facilities in accordance with the terms of my insurance plan or service contract.

You have a right to coverage, treatment, and facilities as defined by your contract, insurance plan, or government.
Doctor's offices, hospitals, insurance companies, and governments have the right to fine / punish / fire / not hire people who are unwilling to do things required of them, as per the terms of their employment contract, the law, etc.
But you do not have a right to force a person to do something they don't want to do.


Doctors absolutely should have the right to refuse to do things they don't want to do. If you want an abortion, go to an abortion clinic. If you want a nose job, go to a plastic surgeon. If you want to get a prescription for weed, go the local doctor who's loose with the weed prescriptions. If you want to get LASIK eye surgery, you go to an office that offers that service. If you need a tooth pulled, you go to a dentist. If you've got a bad case of gum disease, your dentist could refuse to treat you and instead tell you to see a periodontist.

The medical field is already rife with specialization and disjoint services. Not all places do all things. "Doctors who perform abortions" is just a specialized resource, like many others. If you force doctors to provide services then, by the same logic as forcing them to provide abortions, I could walk into a cardiologist's office and demand he perform my kidney dialysis. Absurd.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Taking this to an extreme, what if nobody wanted to be a doctor? That would be a HUGE problem but I still don't think it would give the government the right to force people to provide health care against their will. Based on that, I don't believe doctors should be forced to provide abortions if they are against it but I also believe that every woman has the right to control her own reproductive system so the government should do everything they can to enable them to exercise that right. If not enough people will provide abortions under the current system then there should incentives created to entice people to provide the service.

 

[Devolution]

Taking this to an extreme, what if nobody wanted to be a doctor? That would be a HUGE problem but I still don't think it would give the government the right to force people to provide health care against their will. Based on that, I don't believe doctors should be forced to provide abortions if they are against it but I also believe that every woman has the right to control her own reproductive system so the government should do everything they can to enable them to exercise that right. If not enough people will provide abortions under the current system then there should incentives created to entice people to provide the service.

Agreed. But there will be an issue if too many doctors coming up in the system cannot or refuse to separate their religion from their practice.

 

[Sennorin]

One of the better news today. I welcome people being in a position where they *can* make a difference making a stance. You can go on about women´s rights all day long, it does not change the fact that every abortion *is* murder. Those people that claim that it isn´t hide behind semantics, attempting to explain why a child in the belly is not yet life and such. It´s grade A bs.

Life and Death shouldn´t be a matter of comfort, which abortions have turned them into. There may be rather difficult circumstances, such as pregnant rape victims, but even then: The child in your belly has done no wrong. Why should it be punished with death? And that´s the minority of abortion cases. Most girls literally fuck up and then kill of their baby because they "don´t feel like having a baby yet".

Abortion has become a joke of a treatment. The one situation where I am pro-abortion is when the mother´s physical life is in danger. Then it is a matter of one-life-or-another, in which I believe the mother´s life is more important. Other than such, props to the participating doctors.

 

[Angry Fork]

I think abortion should be legal up until there's a heart beat, and doctors should have to do them until that point even if they disagree.

 

[Brian Griffin]

One of the better news today. I welcome people being in a position where they *can* make a difference making a stance. You can go on about women´s rights all day long, it does not change the fact that every abortion *is* murder. Those people that claim that it isn´t hide behind semantics, attempting to explain why a child in the belly is not yet life and such. It´s grade A bs.

Life and Death shouldn´t be a matter of comfort, which abortions have turned them into. There may be rather difficult circumstances, such as pregnant rape victims, but even then: The child in your belly has done no wrong. Why should it be punished with death? And that´s the minority of abortion cases. Most girls literally fuck up and then kill of their baby because they "don´t feel like having a baby yet".

Abortion has become a joke of a treatment. The one situation where I am pro-abortion is when the mother´s physical life is in danger. Then it is a matter of one-life-or-another, in which I believe the mother´s life is more important. Other than such, props to the participating doctors.

I don't want to derail with semantics arguments but "murder" refers to unlawful killing. Abortion is legal so I don't think you can call it "murder", but a fetus is life and by aborting it you are killing it, I have no problem acknowledging that.

 

[Kosmo]

Deal with it.

And since the law states that women have to get it in under a certain time frame, it's even more prudent that they have access to it as soon as possible.

Negative rights vs. positive rights. You should learn the difference.

As to the mole/fetus analogy, what's the difference? If the baby is not yet viable outside the womb, most abortion advocates take the position to the effect of "you're just getting rid of cells."

As for your stating that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant they cannot put the pregnancy on someone else, this is disingenuous. What those women do not want is to be a month and to raise the child - there are options for that. One is never getting pregnant via abstinence and the other is to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption.

FYI I am pro-choice, I just do not think we should be getting into the business of forcing doctors to do abortion against their personal beliefs.

 

[Desmond]

Aren't Doctors in the UK obliged to give the patient details on someone who will perform the abortion if they won't?

Even though abortion is illegal here, I'm 99% sure that Doctors are obliged to provide that

 

[Sennorin]

I don't want to derail with semantics arguments but "murder" refers to unlawful killing. Abortion is legal so I don't think you can call it "murder", but a fetus is life and by aborting it you are killing it, I have no problem acknowledging that.

Ok, then we´ll call it "killing", even though you realize yourself that this is semantics more than anything else.

 

[msv]

It all comes down to how you want to run things. Publicly I mean of course, private companies can refuse and offer the services they want. They should be forced to clearly inform people on their stances in that case though. But doctors working for the public, we should see them as our employees. And only the shittiest employer would let their employees do whatever the fuck they want. If I had an employee that was whining about an abortion because he was against it for whatever reason, then he can refuse and not do it, and consequently receive his last paycheck.

I don't know how you people want to run this business, but letting your employees do whatever the fuck they want is a dumbass way of running things. Follow our rules, do the medical procedures we say are allowed, and if you don't, then get lost.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Aren't Doctors in the UK obliged to give the patient details on someone who will perform the abortion if they won't?

Even though abortion is illegal here, I'm 99% sure that Doctors are obliged to provide that

How does that work if abortion is illegal will the doctor tell you to leave the country and then oh by the way in case you are in say Switzerland here is a doctor you can call *nudge* *wink*

Or are you in a America and the legality of abortion is on a state by state basis?

 

[Dude Abides]

Negative rights vs. positive rights. You should learn the difference.

You should explain why it matters.

 

[luxarific]

Also, the only murder of an "abortion provider" I can recall in recent history is that of George Tiller.

Your memory is very short. From wikipedia:

Murders

In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.

March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.

December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.

October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.

May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas.

This doesn't include the numerous attempted murders, death threats, assaults, and kidnappings

Attempted murder, assault, and kidnapping

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Attempted murders in the U.S. included:

August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).

July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.

December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.

January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.

And those two quotes don't include the arson, bombings and property crimes committed by "Pro-Life" activists.

Also, with regards to how "trivial" late-term abortions are, the following is from an essay by one of Dr. Tiller's patients who underwent a third-trimester abortion:

I was almost 26 weeks. I showed up for my ultrasound by myself. I was scanned for almost 2 hours. This is when my life forever changed. The scan showed that her little brain was severely calcified, parts were not symmetrical and there was fluid. The doctor took me into a room to talk to me. I told her "please just tell me the truth I need to know." The Doctor said that she had no idea what this meant but that she felt something was terribly wrong. Within two weeks her brain had gone from "normal" to massive problems. I was sent up to Genetics. The counselor told me that the genetic doctor wanted to talk to me. I requested that they wait until my husband got there. The conversation with this doctor was the same, she felt that something was terribly wrong, but they had no idea what it was. "This looks like the tip of the iceberg" we were told.

The hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life was to decide to terminate this pregnancy. This all happened on a Wednesday.

Friday we had to go and talk with some perinatologists. They told us that they had never seen this before and that they could not tell us what the outcome would be. We did not even get a percentage of what her life would be like. They told us that she possibly could die in utero, die shortly after birth, or be a vegetable. They told us that we could wait another two weeks and have another scan and possibly an MRI. How could I go on another day? It killed me to feel her move around inside. This was so awful.

We had another appointment with the doctor that performed the terminations. We were told that with my conditions and the lateness of the pregnancy he did not feel he could give me the care that I required. That's when we were referred to the Women's Clinic in Wichita, Kansas.

I was 27 weeks by this point. I was terrified. The moment I met the doctor, all of that ended. He was a wonderful and loving man. I came in on Monday and gave birth to our baby girl on Friday. We were able to hold her after, and say our goodbyes. That doctor will always be in my heart.

You can read many more testimonials by Dr. Tiller's patients at that site. The vast majority of late-term abortions are performed on women who want to be pregnant and they are not making the choice to terminate lightly or easily. People who describe these abortions as trivial really have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Zoe]

Also, with regards to how "trivial" late-term abortions are, the following is from an essay by one of Dr. Tiller's patients who underwent a third-trimester abortion:



You can read many more testimonials by Dr. Tiller's patients at that site. The vast majority of late-term abortions are performed on women who want to be pregnant and they are not making the choice to terminate lightly or easily. People who describe these abortions as trivial really have no idea what they're talking about.

I don't know where you read about late-term abortions being trivial, but it certainly wasn't around here.

 

[shuri]

Abortion has become a joke of a treatment.

Have you ever seen in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy by both parties? Have you seen first-hand the consequences of an abortion on the mental state of the woman?

Have you?

 

[Joel Was Right]

I don't want to derail with semantics arguments but "murder" refers to unlawful killing. Abortion is legal so I don't think you can call it "murder", but a fetus is life and by aborting it you are killing it, I have no problem acknowledging that.

You personally see a foetus as life and yet also are pro-choice I take it? If so, can you explain that

You can read many more testimonials by Dr. Tiller's patients at that site. The vast majority of late-term abortions are performed on women who want to be pregnant and they are not making the choice to terminate lightly or easily. People who describe these abortions as trivial really have no idea what they're talking about.

Abortions at 27 weeks are no trivial matter at all. In that quoted example, the mother had the abortion after the pregnancy sadly went horribly wrong and resulted in the condition of the baby deteriorating. But unfortunately that's not the case for many other late-term abortions.