Discussion: Abortion

[Mystirious]

And in the opinion of every law court in the US, the UK and many other countries that I could name. And in the opinion of the vast majority of trained medical proffessionals as well.

 

[Marx]

According to the AP, a new Nebraska law (expected to be signed by Governor Heineman) would require physical and mental screening for women who seek abortions. Another seperate law (also expected to be signed by Governor Heineman) will ban abortions after the 20 week mark based on the assertion that fetuses can feel pain.

 

[Marx]

According to the AP, convicted murderer Scott Roeder has filed a petition complaining about his treatment in prison and is seeking a release.

 

[Mystirious]

According to the AP, convicted murderer Scott Roeder has filed a petition complaining about his treatment in prison and is seeking a release.

This would be funny if it were not so very ludicrous. When last I checked, murdering dirt bags were not eligible for release just because people were being mean to them in prison.

 

[BMM]

For those who don’t know, on Tuesday, the Oklahoma Senate overrode Governor Brad Henry’s vetoes of House Bills 2780 and 2656, enacting some pretty messed up abortion legislation, in my opinion. The first bill requires a woman to undergo an obstetric ultrasound prior to having an abortion, “using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly” (At such early stages of pregnancy, I would imagine a vaginal transducer would be used more frequently, which I hear is a much more invasive procedure than an abdominal ultrasound). The woman is presented the ultrasound, although she is permitted to look away, and is given a detailed description of the fetus, including information such as “cardiac activity” and “the presence of external members and internal organs.”

The second bill prevents a woman from suing her doctor in the event her doctor withholds information from her about her unborn child, should the doctor believe such information would lead to the woman having an abortion. In other words, your doctor can lie to you about your unborn child’s developmental status… Great.


http://newsok.com/new-oklahoma-abortion-law-faces-battle/article/3457384

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100427_17_0_OKLAHO771360&allcom=1


The bills:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/HB2780_SFLR.RTF

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/HB2656_SFLR.RTF

 

[Mystirious]

This is so depressing to hear and a huge blow against the rights of women. This so called "Legislation" is both sexist and misogynistic.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I don't mind the first part so much, but the withholding part I mind. The "convince someone not to get an abortion" bill is ****ing stupid. I think that if someone is wanting an abortion they should be given ALL available information.

 

[Mystirious]

Exactly. It's not a Doctors job to act as a tool for some anti-abortion agenda.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Nor should they. They can refuse to do abortions in most places, but they shouldn't be able to willfully withhold information that may be relevant.

 

[Mystirious]

They can refuse to do abortions? Good lord. The government really ought to change that. It's a doctors job to follow their patients wishes, no matter what their personal feelings are

I mean you wouldn't want to go in for a major operation and have the doctor say "Sorry, I have personal objections to surgical procedures. So we're going to just let you die"

 

[Majic Walrus]

Well I'm not as torn on this issue. Doctor's should have the right to refuse treatments for certain things. Many times plastic surgeons refuse treatment based on the fear that the customer is psychologically unstable or that they have a surgery addiction. Furthermore in any case where treatment is dangerous it's up to the doctor to make the determination. If you weight 780 pounds and you need a liver transplant good luck getting it. You're too much of a risk.

For me the same is true of abortions. PRIVATE practices should be able to refuse whomever they choose. However state funded hospitals and clinics that accept medicare, medicaid, and any state or government funding should be able to have a doctor who can and will perform abortions with no moral obligation not to.

 

[Mystirious]

For me the same is true of abortions. PRIVATE practices should be able to refuse whomever they choose.

I disagree. If someone doesn't want to perform abortions their are many occupations in which they won't be required to perform an abortion. But if someone enters a proffession in which they might be called upon to perform an abortion then as far as I am concerned they should not be given the right to refuse.

 

[BMM]

I disagree. The government has no business forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancies, nor does it have any business forcing doctors to perform abortions. In the event the government does enact such a policy, you’re simply going to see a large number of doctors quit or switch to other specialties, reducing women’s options even further.

 

[Mystirious]

If you take a job, you accept the responsibilities of said job. I work at a furniture warehouse. If tomorrow I became a vegetarian I wouldn't start saying "I cannot sell this leather sofa to this couple as animals were killed to make it". I would have to do the job and shelve my personal objections or else get in line at the unemployment office.

Doctors should be no different. If someone enters the field of medicine and takes a job in which they may one day be required to perform an abortion then they had best be willing to perform an abortion. Otherwise they should seek other employment

I'm not saying that their not entitled to have their own opinions on the subject of abortion. But we all have to do things we don't like when we're working. You do the job your paid for.

 

[SentinelMind]

Since many medical professionals believe some abortions are not medically necessary, it seems reasonable to allow a private doctor to refuse to carry out what they think is a non-medically necessary procedure. I don't see why those outside the medical community think they have a right to dictate what every single medical professional must or must not do.

Forget about abortion, there are many times a doctors may have disagreements on what is the best procedure to treat cancers...some may disagree on experimental operations, some won't. There is risk in carrying out many medical procedures, including surgeries...people have died from surgeries...people have died from abortions. Doctors should be allowed to exercise their own judgment on what procedures they will or will not carry out, especially if the medical community they received their standing respects their decision.

 

[Kelly]

If you take a job, you accept the responsibilities of said job. I work at a furniture warehouse. If tomorrow I became a vegetarian I wouldn't start saying "I cannot sell this leather sofa to this couple as animals were killed to make it". I would have to do the job and shelve my personal objections or else get in line at the unemployment office.

Doctors should be no different. If someone enters the field of medicine and takes a job in which they may one day be required to perform an abortion then they had best be willing to perform an abortion. Otherwise they should seek other employment

I'm not saying that their not entitled to have their own opinions on the subject of abortion. But we all have to do things we don't like when we're working. You do the job your paid for.

Not necessarily true....if you are the owner of that furniture warehouse, you can choose to not sell leather furniture.

If the doctor is in private practice he/she, should have the choice of performing abortions or not. It is their practice, they own it....their choice.

If it is a Catholic Hospital, funded by Catholic donations/the Catholic Church....they should not have to perform abortions...

If it is a hospital funded by public funds, then there is probably a doctor within that hospital that will perform an abortion, and therefore those that do not feel it is right, do not have to...if I were person in charge of hiring the doctors, I would most certainly employ at least some who perform abortions just for that reason, and those that do, can continue to follow their convictions.

 

[Mystirious]

I just find it very diturbing, the idea that a doctor can say "I don't want to perform this procedure". I mean fine, if someone is against abortion on religious grounds or personal grounds then that's their opinion. I don't agree with it but their entitled to it. But if their a doctor then their personal beliefs should not be influencing their actions, in my opinion.

There are some people who are opposed to the use of certain drugs and some surgical procedures. If they become doctors, should they be allowed to deny patients these based on personal beliefs? What if the patient life depends upon it?

I mean, I realise it's not exactly the same thing but it's a slippery slope as I see it. A doctor should be completely objective in my opinion. Their personal opinions and beliefs should be left at the door the moment they enter the clinic.

That's how I view things, anyway

 

[Mystirious]

I just find it very diturbing, the idea that a doctor can say "I don't want to perform this procedure". I mean fine, if someone is against abortion on religious grounds or personal grounds then that's their opinion. I don't agree with it but their entitled to it. But if their a doctor then their personal beliefs should not be influencing their actions, in my opinion.

There are some people who are opposed to the use of certain drugs and some surgical procedures. If they become doctors, should they be allowed to deny patients these based on personal beliefs? What if the patient life depends upon it?

I mean, I realise it's not exactly the same thing but it's a slippery slope as I see it. A doctor should be completely objective in my opinion. Their personal opinions and beliefs should be left at the door the moment they enter the clinic.

That's how I view things, anyway

 

[BMM]

I just find it very diturbing, the idea that a doctor can say "I don't want to perform this procedure". I mean fine, if someone is against abortion on religious grounds or personal grounds then that's their opinion. I don't agree with it but their entitled to it. But if their a doctor then their personal beliefs should not be influencing their actions, in my opinion.

There are some people who are opposed to the use of certain drugs and some surgical procedures. If they become doctors, should they be allowed to deny patients these based on personal beliefs? What if the patient life depends upon it?

The patient would go to another doctor and probably be the better for it.

 

[Mystirious]

It sets a worrying precedent, that's all. Like I said, I feel that doctors should be 100% objective

 

[Majic Walrus]

I just find it very diturbing, the idea that a doctor can say "I don't want to perform this procedure". I mean fine, if someone is against abortion on religious grounds or personal grounds then that's their opinion. I don't agree with it but their entitled to it. But if their a doctor then their personal beliefs should not be influencing their actions, in my opinion.

There are some people who are opposed to the use of certain drugs and some surgical procedures. If they become doctors, should they be allowed to deny patients these based on personal beliefs? What if the patient life depends upon it?

I mean, I realise it's not exactly the same thing but it's a slippery slope as I see it. A doctor should be completely objective in my opinion. Their personal opinions and beliefs should be left at the door the moment they enter the clinic.

That's how I view things, anyway

I certainly understand your point, but what Kel said is true. If someone wants to do whatever with their business... who am I to stop them.

 

[Mystirious]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. My personal opinion is that the government should require private clinics as well as public hosptals to perform abortions if the patient so wishes and the staff are able to, in the sense that they have the needed expertise.

 

[Addendum]

A paying customer whose money could help pay off a couple bills

 

[Mystirious]

double post

 

[SentinelMind]

If a doctor is opposed to carrying out an abortion, I think its in the patient's interest to get a doctor who is ecstatic about carrying out an abortion that having one who is reluctant. Who do you think will more likely make a critical mistake?

And I strongly disagree with the notion that the abortion-on-demand crowd has any authority to dictate every other participant of community must serve to facilitate their agenda, from groups to businesses to institution to families against their own wishes.