Discussion: Abortion

[Addendum]

I just think that the final say about getting an abortion lies with the woman who is pregnant and has to decide.

 

[Kelly]

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

If the doctor is willing to forgo that....that should be his/her choice in their privately owned practice...IMO.

 

[Mystirious]

I just think that the final say about getting an abortion lies with the woman who is pregnant and has to decide.

I agree 100%

 

[Kelly]

I just think that the final say about getting an abortion lies with the woman who is pregnant and has to decide.

I agree.....which is why I am pro-choice.


A doctor that will not do the abortion is not telling her she doesn't have the right to her choice, but he/she may be telling her to get a second opinion....

 

[SentinelMind]

I agree.....which is why I am pro-choice.


A doctor that will not do the abortion is not telling her she doesn't have the right to her choice, but he/she may be telling her to get a second opinion....

Exactly. This isn't about "choice" or "freedom"...its about forcing every agent, professional, organization, business, individual in this community to submit to an abortion-on-demand agenda.

 

[Tally Man]

Exactly. This isn't about "choice" or "freedom"...its about forcing every agent, professional, organization, business, individual in this community to submit to an abortion-on-demand agenda.

Which is about as true as saying the pro-life crowd are simply trying to force women back into the kitchen where they belong...

 

[Mystirious]

I agree.....which is why I am pro-choice.


A doctor that will not do the abortion is not telling her she doesn't have the right to her choice, but he/she may be telling her to get a second opinion....

I don't feel a doctor should be allowed to do that. If a woman wants an abortion then a doctor should be required by law to perform it. I find myself very uncomfortable with the concpt of doctors letting personal feelins intefere with their work.

Yes, I am Pro-Choice but even if I were opposed to abortion I wouldn't want doctors refusing to perform them

 

[SentinelMind]

Which is about as true as saying the pro-life crowd are simply trying to force women back into the kitchen where they belong...

Did you read this thread? No, mines is truer. Requiring tax dollars to pay for abortions for minors, insurance policies covering abortions, boycotting football players for taking about their mother, and requiring doctors to carry out abortions is a pretty statist position to take even if you're pro-choice.

 

[Addendum]

Boycotting someone isn't statist

 

[Kelly]

I don't feel a doctor should be allowed to do that. If a woman wants an abortion then a doctor should be required by law to perform it. I find myself very uncomfortable with the concpt of doctors letting personal feelins intefere with their work.

Yes, I am Pro-Choice but even if I were opposed to abortion I wouldn't want doctors refusing to perform them

Do you think a doctor should kill a 1 month old baby if their mother decides that is what she wants to do? Because to a doctor that does not believe in abortion, that is exactly what he is doing....he believes that life begins at conception, you may not....and that's fine, that is a question no one has been able to answer for me....and in my case, I would not have an abortion, but I don't think that my choice, should be the choice of everyone. IF, the mother's life is in danger, then the doctor, I'm sure would do the abortion....if her life is not in danger, she can go find a doctor that will do the abortion.

I guess then if assisted suicide becomes law, and a doctor is against this, they should still have to do it, because they are a doctor?

 

[Tally Man]

Did you read this thread? No, mines is truer. Requiring tax dollars to pay for abortions for minors, insurance policies covering abortions, boycotting football players for taking about their mother, and requiring doctors to carry out abortions is a pretty statist position to take even if you're pro-choice.

No its really not. Your position is a gross exaggeration of what the pro-choice agenda is about. I could go on about how the pro-life group are trying to criminalize a medical procedure, lock up doctors and other ridiculous things to point out how statist the pro-life group is, but that would be foolish and disregard the actual positions of pro-life people out there. So how about returning the favor eh?

 

[SentinelMind]

Did I say all pro-choicers support that? No, I said that those who support requiring doctors and middle schools to carry out abortions are using the "choice" rhetoric to hide their statist agenda.

 

[Tally Man]

Did I say all pro-choicers support that? No, I said that those who support requiring doctors and middle schools to carry out abortions are using the "choice" rhetoric to hide their statist agenda.

I'm curious as to how many people support this "statist agenda" which you seem to be tossing out here? Once again the exaggeration here is on par with those who characterize pro-life groups as trying to take away women's rights with parental control laws.

 

[Mystirious]

Do you think a doctor should kill a 1 month old baby if their mother decides that is what she wants to do? Because to a doctor that does not believe in abortion, that is exactly what he is doing....he believes that life begins at conception, you may not....and that's fine, that is a question no one has been able to answer for me....and in my case, I would not have an abortion, but I don't think that my choice, should be the choice of everyone. IF, the mother's life is in danger, then the doctor, I'm sure would do the abortion....if her life is not in danger, she can go find a doctor that will do the abortion.

I feel a doctors decisions should be governed solely by hard,scientific and medical fact. And there is no strong scientific proof that life begins at conception. If a doctor wishes to believe that it does then that is their personal opinion and they have every right to it. But I feel it should not govern their decisions when they are on the job

And while I understand where you're coming from in your hypothetical scenario, what would happen if there were no doctors in the womans area willing to perform the abortion? She has effectively been stripped of her right to choose.

It is every womans right to decide what to do with their body. If they wish to have an abortion then they have every right to do so. But if no doctor will agree to perform it then what are they to do?

Allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions seems like a very bad idea to me.

I guess then if assisted suicide becomes law, and a doctor is against this, they should still have to do it, because they are a doctor?

Personally, I believe they should.

 

[SentinelMind]

I'm curious as to how many people support this "statist agenda" which you seem to be tossing out here? Once again the exaggeration here is on par with those who characterize pro-life groups as trying to take away women's rights with parental control laws.

I don't have an exact number, but if you read the last 5 pages you'll find posters who do support this and at least one reference to a news article of communities that sanction schools to misinform parents. So the people are out there and I have a right to call it out and debate it when I see it, sir.

 

[SentinelMind]

I feel a doctors decisions should be governed solely by hard,scientific and medical fact. And there is no strong scientific proof that life begins at conception. If a doctor wishes to believe that it does then that is their personal opinion and they have every right to it. But I feel it should not govern their decisions when they are on the job.

What if they are part of a medical community that does not believe abortion or euthenasia is a valid medically necessary procedure? What is a medical community and code of ethics dictates they do not have to perform an what they believe is an execution?

 

[Tally Man]

I don't have an exact number, but if you read the last 5 pages you'll find posters who do support this and at least one reference to a news article of communities that sanction schools to misinform parents. So the people are out there and I have a right to call it out and debate it when I see it, sir.

So focusing on a minority of people who in no way have any real influence on the issue and adds nothing constructive to the national discourse is you're way of addressing the abortion issue? You can call them out all you want but that adds nothing to the debate and only helps to perpetuate the stereotypes which unfortunately pervade the issue. I mean geez why worry about exceptions dealing with women's health in laws or finding a way to educate people on abortions when we can call out these "communities" on this pressing issue...

 

[SentinelMind]

So focusing on a minority of people who in no way have any real influence on the issue and adds nothing constructive to the national discourse is you're way of addressing the abortion issue? You can call them out all you want but that adds nothing to the debate and only helps to perpetuate the stereotypes which unfortunately pervade the issue. I mean geez why worry about exceptions dealing with women's health in laws or finding a way to educate people on abortions when we can call out these "communities" on this pressing issue...

whoa, you're blowing a fuze here. I have a right to debate people have different opinion, no matter how significant you think they are. I have a right to discuss enforcedLAWS that require doctors to misinform parents about child's abortions, regardless of whether you think that focusing on existing laws creates "stereotypes that pervades this issue"

 

[Addendum]

Yes, you have that right. Anything else is another matter.

 

[Mystirious]

What if they are part of a medical community that does not believe abortion or euthenasia is a valid medically necessary procedure?

It's not a matter of whether it is medically necessary or not. If a woman does not want to have a baby she has the right to choose not to do so. Our bodies are our own and we have the right to decide what to do with them.

And if a patient wishes to end their life if they are suffering, from a terminal disease or simmilar then I feel they should be allowed to do so. But that's another discussion altogether and not one that's really connected to the matter at hand

 

[SentinelMind]

Yes, you have that right. Anything else is another matter.

Like organizing and voting against it?

 

[Kelly]

So focusing on a minority of people who in no way have any real influence on the issue and adds nothing constructive to the national discourse is you're way of addressing the abortion issue? You can call them out all you want but that adds nothing to the debate and only helps to perpetuate the stereotypes which unfortunately pervade the issue. I mean geez why worry about exceptions dealing with women's health in laws or finding a way to educate people on abortions when we can call out these "communities" on this pressing issue...

We tend to do this a lot around here....

 

[Addendum]

Like organizing and voting against it?

Like "respect" and "not being dismissive". Politics has nothing to do with that.

 

[Tally Man]

whoa, you're blowing a fuze here. I have a right to debate people have different opinion, no matter how significant you think they are. I have a right to discuss enforcedLAWS that require doctors to misinform parents about child's abortions, regardless of whether you think that focusing on existing laws creates "stereotypes that pervades this issue"

Of course you have the right to debate. But if your debating topics which deal with a small minority and have no real bearing on the actual debate then your pretty much just wasting time and ending up causing more harm then good. Its one thing to come to a debate with relevant information and bringing something to it, but if you just pull out things like statist agenda and social engineers in the government I don't see how that really helps anybody.

Also got a link to that law that requires doctors to misinform parents? I remember seeing the high school incident posted a few pages back but I must have missed that one.

We tend to do this a lot around here....

That's pretty much why I tend to lurk around here instead of posting a lot these days. There's no real point to getting into such a debate with either side when this happens.

 

[SentinelMind]

Ok, Tally, you've worn me out, please tell us what the "actual debate" should be.

The high school incident was what I was referring to but its happening lots more places
than you think. I don't think its as rare as you think it is, and even if it was, I have a right to debate it. Unfortunately, I think this will be more common as time passes.

Kentucky
http://www.wlky.com/news/23223953/detail.html

Stargel, a Lakeland Republican, pushed a measure Tuesday to make it harder for a pregnant teenager to get an abortion without parental consent.
Her legislation, and a companion Senate bill, takes particular aim at state court judges, who grant minors waivers from parental notice 95 percent of the time under provisions in a 2005 law.

The measure would require a judge to determine by the elevated standard of ``clear and convincing evidence'' that a minor is ``sufficiently mature'' to choose termination. Another provision prevents so-called judge shopping by requiring a pregnant girl to make the petition only at the local courthouse; requires a parent's signature get notarized for consent; and allows longer delays, up to three weeks, for final approval.


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/...make-it-harder-for-florida.html#ixzz0mY07H2BY


UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-484201/Doctors-code-silence-hide-age-sex-parents.html