If a girl is raped and refused emer contraceptives: Violation of Rights?

[GreenStyle]

My friend and I were discussing a situation:

http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11640588#page:showThread,11640588


A girl is raped. She and her mother go into the hospital, but the doctors and nurses refuse to give her emergency contraceptives to prevent pregnancy on religious grounds and/or personal beliefs.

If the physician is forced to provide the contraceptives, is this violating the physician's rights?

I am not explaining my view as of yet, since I am quite ignorant about this stuff. I am trying to learn more about these topics to become more informed~.

Thanks all for your contribution.

Edit: Any referrals to other readings or threads are very welcome~.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tiedyeddog]

They can refuse. Its up to doctors if they treat or not, unless lethality is immenient without intervention.

 

[dr zaius]

The doctor can refuse, as is the case with abortion, but a referral to someone should be given.

What is going on with that article? They also didn't do a rape kit because a nurse wasn't there to do it.

Also, what is going on in Oklahoma? Can you not buy Plan B from a pharmacist? The victim was over 17.

 

[Rubiconcrossing]

the doctor had the right to refuse but because emergency contraceptives time sensitive, he was basically increasing the chances that the victim would end up having her rapist's child.

 

[dr zaius]

the doctor had the right to refuse but because emergency contraceptives time sensitive, he was basically increasing the chances that the victim would end up having her rapist's child.

Do not question the plan of The Lord. That child is destined to grow up to be a detective for the NYPD special victims unit.

In the criminal justice system, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.

 

[Abider]

the doctor had the right to refuse but because emergency contraceptives time sensitive, he was basically increasing the chances that the victim would end up having her rapist's child.

Agree. Not using a timely rape kit and quick referral to get contraceptives just to not threaten one's position in the lovely hereafter is pure cowardice.

 

[ColeMine]

Do not question the plan of The Lord.

I actually agree with this statement.

If Alex rapes Suzzie who then becomes pregnant, is it okay to kill John down the street? Of course it isn't. It's never alright to kill another person unless an innocent life is at stake. The fact that the person happens to be living inside the womb of another doesn't change this.

It all boils down to one question, "What IS it?" If "it" is a person, then our responsibility is to protect life, not destroy it. Difficult circumstances does not somehow negate the inherent evil associated with killing the innocent.

 

[Abider]

I actually agree with this statement.

If Alex rapes Suzzie who then becomes pregnant, is it okay to kill John down the street? Of course it isn't. It's never alright to kill another person unless an innocent life is at stake. The fact that the person happens to be living inside the womb of another doesn't change this.

It all boils down to one question, "What IS it?" If "it" is a person, then our responsibility is to protect life, not destroy it. Difficult circumstances does not somehow negate the inherent evil associated with killing the innocent.

Yeah. Until your wife/daughter/mother get violently raped. Stay golden pony boy.

 

[dr zaius]

I actually agree with this statement.

If Alex rapes Suzzie who then becomes pregnant, is it okay to kill John down the street? Of course it isn't. It's never alright to kill another person unless an innocent life is at stake. The fact that the person happens to be living inside the womb of another doesn't change this.

It all boils down to one question, "What IS it?" If "it" is a person, then our responsibility is to protect life, not destroy it. Difficult circumstances does not somehow negate the inherent evil associated with killing the innocent.

John doesn't live inside of Suzzie for 9mo and completely alter the rest of Suzzie's life, either.

 

[Rubiconcrossing]

Do not question the plan of The Lord. That child is destined to grow up to be a detective for the NYPD special victims unit.

Haha I love the SUV reference. Do not question the plan of the lord as he made that rapist to come and rape you so you can birth a child who will stop rapists? Wouldnt it have been easier to just not have rapists?

 

[dr zaius]

Haha I love the SUV reference. Do not question the plan of the lord as he made that rapist to come and rape you so you can birth a child who will stop rapists? Wouldnt it have been easier to just not have rapists?

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

[Abider]

For all the dudes here who are imminently concerned about their ability to roll 50 million deep in the Jesus posse, consider this:

By some medical miricale you have a cryptic uterus. Now. You just got ko'd the F out by 2-3 thugs who want the 10$ bill in your wallet. For fun. These young lads, misguided as young lads can be at times, decide to run a train on your precious virgin behind. The violence of the process allows sperm to reach the uterus you never knew you had.

And you conceive. Though the paternity is uncertain. Pitty.

Now, if you are willing to raise that child of god. Well then I concede you your moral high ground. If not, shut the F up!

 

[Rubiconcrossing]

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Maybe the lord works through people who make emergency contraception? Maybe that child is damien the anti-christ!

 

[GvGKen]

The physician has a right to contentiously object to administering treatment, as long as it does not unreasonably compromise the quality and efficiency of treatment. There are quite a few state and municipal laws that do require the physician to administer contraceptives, with the patient's consent, in the case of rape. These laws are typically deemed unconstitutional and are capable of being contested. Though with all cases of civil disobedience be prepared to face the consequences.

However, the physician has an obligation to inform the patient regarding of the medical options available to the patient and where the patient can receive those treatments. The important thing is to provide the victim/patient with full autonomy. The last thing you would want is to remove the ability to chose from a rape victim.

"The Limits of Conscientious Objection..." Cantor & Baum
"Conscientious Objection in Medicine" Julian Savulescu
And check out the case of Dr. Maria DeCicco. It is a pretty famous case from the Hasting's Center that has plenty of commentary.

 

[ColeMine]

John doesn't live inside of Suzzie for 9mo and completely alter the rest of Suzzie's life, either.

This is true. Interestingly enough, we discussed this recently in a philosophy of ethics class I was in. They reframed this exact idea with this thought experiment:

Alex is a sick and twisted individual. He kidnaps both Suzzie and John and takes them to his sadistic medical laboratory. John in injected with bacteria which produce toxins which will kill him. Lucky for John, he's connected to Suzzie with a type of umbilical cord. Suzzie is infused with another bacteria which produce a specific enzyme which neutralizes the toxin found in John's blood. The enzyme will pass through the size-specific barrier in the cord and prevent John from dying as long as he is connected to her. She is not reliant upon him for survival in any way.

It will take just shy of 10 months for John's body to rid itself of the offending bacteria. As long as Suzzie remains vitally connected to John for the 10 months, the enzymes will pass through the cord and keep John alive after which the cord can be removed and both are free to go their merry ways.

Both are dumped at a local hospital with a note pinned to their unconscious bodies explaining the situation.
​

After the scenario was presented, everyone was asked whether it is okay for Suzzie to cut the cord and end John's life....or does she have a moral obligation to help John?

I'm interested to hear what type of answer we might see here.

 

[Frank Nutter]

My friend and I were discussing a situation:

http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11640588#page:showThread,11640588


A girl is raped. She and her mother go into the hospital, but the doctors and nurses refuse to give her emergency contraceptives to prevent pregnancy on religious grounds and/or personal beliefs.

If the physician is forced to provide the contraceptives, is this violating the physician's rights?

I am not explaining my view as of yet, since I am quite ignorant about this stuff. I am trying to learn more about these topics to become more informed~.

Thanks all for your contribution.

Edit: Any referrals to other readings or threads are very welcome~.

The doc has a right to refuse... but his employer also has the right to fire him for exercising that right. When signed the contract to work for them he agreed to play by their rules.

But the sad thing is contraceptives are illegal except through a licensed physician or pharmacy. If those people object even if it's their "right," they indirectly impose their belief system on others, because the government puts them in such an unusually powerful position.

I think anyone going into medicine should appreciate how potentially unfair that situation is and avoid fields where conflicts might arise.

 

[dr zaius]

That scenario is a bit different in that they are both fully-formed-out-of-the-womb adults compared to the use of an emergency contraceptive which would prevent ovulation or implantation. The usefulness of the analogy hinges on if I value a zygote as much as even a neonate.

At any rate she is under no obligation to remain connected to this man. It would be nice if she did since he likely has a family that loves him.

 

[GvGKen]

This is true. Interestingly enough, we discussed this recently in a philosophy of ethics class I was in. They reframed this exact idea with this thought experiment:

Alex is a sick and twisted individual. He kidnaps both Suzzie and John and takes them to his sadistic medical laboratory. John in injected with bacteria which produce toxins which will kill him. Lucky for John, he's connected to Suzzie with a type of umbilical cord. Suzzie is infused with another bacteria which produce a specific enzyme which neutralizes the toxin found in John's blood. The enzyme will pass through the size-specific barrier in the cord and prevent John from dying as long as he is connected to her. She is not reliant upon him for survival in any way.

It will take just shy of 10 months for John's body to rid itself of the offending bacteria. As long as Suzzie remains vitally connected to John for the 10 months, the enzymes will pass through the cord and keep John alive after which the cord can be removed and both are free to go their merry ways.

Both are dumped at a local hospital with a note pinned to their unconscious bodies explaining the situation.
​

After the scenario was presented, everyone was asked whether it is okay for Suzzie to cut the cord and end John's life....or does she have a moral obligation to help John?

I'm interested to hear what type of answer we might see here.

John has moral status that an embryo does not. John has sentience, the capacity of autonomy, and the ability to form and reciprocate care relationships. The embryo lacks those capacities. Equating the two is pretty faulty.

 

[Abider]

I'm squeamish about abortion itself. And would never perform them in practice. But preventing pregnancy in in a rape victim at her request seems like a no-brainer. You really have to come up with elaborate moral schemes to ignore the fact.

I wonder if those comfortable in abortion moral theory have never been face to face with the wreckage of human evil. Face that patient you're talking about in all her misery and tell her to find somebody else to prevent the pregnancy. That's a gutcheck and a half.

There's nothing that could legally compel you to perform the service. You're entitled to that right. Which is why I find incumbent on the rest of us who would never want our daughters/wives to be denied this service to make you look like the pious cowards you are. Additionally your medical knowledge fails you if you think pregnancy itself is without risk. And for a raped patient this risk is elevated in the equation in my book.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

The doctor can refuse, as is the case with abortion, but a referral to someone should be given.

What is going on with that article? They also didn't do a rape kit because a nurse wasn't there to do it.

Also, what is going on in Oklahoma? Can you not buy Plan B from a pharmacist? The victim was over 17.

Yeah this story just sounds dumb...was there no one else with a prescription pad in the hospital? However, people always seem to forget that no one has an obligation to provide you with anything. There's this same outrage when pharmacies won't sell Plan B and yet I don't see any outrage over stores keeping airsoft guns behind a glass counter/age restrictions or refusing to sell spray paint to anyone under 16-17 (I actually got ID'd for spray paint last time I went to Wal-Mart). As has been said before, if she didn't have an immediately life threatening condition the staff can refuse to giver her medication all day long.

They probably wanted a prescription so they could get insurance to cover it (because it would be part of the ER visit) rather than going to a CVS and paying for it out of pocket.

 

[Daedalus]

John has moral status that an embryo does not. John has sentience, the capacity of autonomy, and the ability to form and reciprocate care relationships. The embryo lacks those capacities. Equating the two is pretty faulty.

Philosophy major here - the scenario presented by ColeMine is a well-known argument by Judith Thompson commonly known as "The Violinist Argument". In Thompson's scenario, you are hooked up to a world-class violinist who has a kidney disease and needs the use of your circulatory system to clear toxins from his/her blood, needs to be hooked up for 9 months, etc.

In this scenario, it is assumed for the sake of argument that the violinist (fetus) is "alive" and is "a person". The conclusion Thompson reaches is that, even if you assume the violinist is a living person, you still do not have a moral obligation to keep yourself hooked up to them for 9 months. And this should hold true even if you initially agreed to hook yourself up, but then changed your mind.

To respond to GvGKen, you can argue that John has a different moral status than an embryo, but your reasons are a bit weak. Infants do not have the ability to form relationships, are not autonomous or self-aware, etc, but it is generally understood and accepted that infanticide is morally wrong.

 

[Gamechanger]

The doctor can refuse, as is the case with abortion, but a referral to someone should be given.

What is going on with that article? They also didn't do a rape kit because a nurse wasn't there to do it.

Also, what is going on in Oklahoma? Can you not buy Plan B from a pharmacist? The victim was over 17.

Welcome to the sonagram state son!

In Oklahoma, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of January 2011:

• The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided.
• A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
• Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
• Abortion is covered in private insurance policies only in cases of life endangerment, unless an optional rider is purchased at an additional cost.
• Health plans that will be offered in the state’s health exchange that will be established under the federal health care reform law can only cover abortion in cases when the woman's life is endangered, unless an optional rider is purchased at an additional cost.
• The use of telemedicine for the performance of medication abortion is prohibited.

This just in...

The state is appealing a judge’s ruling last month that struck down a law intended to restrict the off-label use of certain abortion-inducing drugs.

“The district judge in this case took the unprecedented step of finding that the Oklahoma Constitution contains a right to an abortion — a right never before recognized in any Oklahoma court and purposefully left out of our constitution by those who drafted it,” Attorney General Scott Pruitt said in a statement after filing his appeal with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
The law passed last year would have required doctors to follow strict guidelines authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and would have prohibited off-label uses of the drugs, such as changing a recommended dosage or prescribing it for different symptoms than the drug was intended. It also would have required doctors to examine women before prescribing the drugs, document certain medical conditions and schedule follow-up appointments.
A temporary injunction against the law was issued in October before it could take effect.
​

​

 

[GvGKen]

Philosophy major here - the scenario presented by ColeMine is a well-known argument by Judith Thompson commonly known as "The Violinist Argument". In Thompson's scenario, you are hooked up to a world-class violinist who has a kidney disease and needs the use of your circulatory system to clear toxins from his/her blood, needs to be hooked up for 9 months, etc.

In this scenario, it is assumed for the sake of argument that the violinist (fetus) is "alive" and is "a person". The conclusion Thompson reaches is that, even if you assume the violinist is a living person, you still do not have a moral obligation to keep yourself hooked up to them for 9 months. And this should hold true even if you initially agreed to hook yourself up, but then changed your mind.

To respond to GvGKen, you can argue that John has a different moral status than an embryo, but your reasons are a bit weak. Infants do not have the ability to form relationships, are not autonomous or self-aware, etc, but it is generally understood and accepted that infanticide is morally wrong.

Also a philosophy major. I admit my argument was overly short. But the point I was trying to make, and am still to lazy to formulate entirely is that we don't give moral status on the fact of just being alive, but through various capacities and the interests they invoke. The hypothetical human has interests that an embryo does not. Saying something or someone has a right to live just because they are alive, is shakey at best and extremely troublesome when applied fairly. (Assuming that an embryo qualifies as alive). A being with sentience has an interest in experiencing pleasure and diminishing pain. From that interest there is a felt 'right' that the being has a right feel pleasure and the opportunity for pleasurable experiences. Not a right to life but to opportunity.

And an infant can form care relationships, feminists ethics uses the relationship of a mother and infant to typify a care relation which is at the foundation of the ethical theory.

Edit: Blah, it shows I haven't written anything in a while

 

[Rendar5]

These arguments would all be well and good, except for the fact that Plan B has never been proven to induce abortions based on current data (do not ask me why so many websites list it as such...it's a medical myth). Refusing Plan B is simply akin to refusing to provide condoms, OCP's, spermicide jelly, etc.

 

[dr zaius]

These arguments would all be well and good, except for the fact that Plan B has never been proven to induce abortions based on current data (do not ask me why so many websites list it as such...it's a medical myth). Refusing Plan B is simply akin to refusing to provide condoms, OCP's, spermicide jelly, etc.

Exactly.

 

[GvGKen]

These arguments would all be well and good, except for the fact that Plan B has never been proven to induce abortions based on current data (do not ask me why so many websites list it as such...it's a medical myth). Refusing Plan B is simply akin to refusing to provide condoms, OCP's, spermicide jelly, etc.

Mind explaining a bit more. I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean.

 

[dr zaius]

Plan B is not an abortifacient. RU-486, however, is. RU-486 will cause abortion of an implanted blastocyst/embryo/whatever. Plan B works by preventing either ovulation (which prevents fertilization) or implantation of the zygote (it is believed that OCPs can do this as well, and is the main mechanism behind copper IUDs).

 

[Abider]

Plan B is not an abortifacient. RU-486, however, is. RU-486 will cause abortion of an implanted blastocyst/embryo/whatever. Plan B works by preventing either ovulation (which prevents fertilization) or implantation of the zygote (it is believed that OCPs can do this as well, and is the main mechanism behind copper IUDs).

A good point, but mostly irrelevant to anyone making a moral delimma out of this. For every sperm is sacred in the loosing people arms race against Islam. Ratzinger, Graham et al will not likely engage in the distinction you make and neither would anyone who trusts them.

 

[VBGLL]

....

 

[dr zaius]

A good point, but mostly irrelevant to anyone making a moral delimma out of this. For sperm is sacred in the loosing people arms race against Islam. Ratzinger, Graham et all will not likely engage in the distinction you make and neither would anyone who trusts them.

Oh, I know. Romney and the rest continue to equate Plan B to an abortion pill. I was clearing things up for Gv.

 

[whatbout2morrow]

I don't think it's logical for a doctor who refuses to prescribe emergency contraceptives to rape victims to be the only doctor on duty in an emergency room.

 

[Rendar5]

I don't think it's logical for a doctor who refuses to prescribe emergency contraceptives to rape victims to be the only doctor on duty in an emergency room.

Not to defend this doctor, but in rural EM, it doesn't make financial sense to routinely have 2 doctors on duty unless patient volume is greater than 20,000 visits a year. That said, plan B doesn't even prevent implantation, which some people used to believe it did. It prevents zygote formation. So only an anti-contraception person should be against it, not a pro-lifer.

 

[Concubine]

There's nothing that could legally compel you to perform the service. You're entitled to that right. Which is why I find incumbent on the rest of us who would never want our daughters/wives to be denied this service to make you look like the pious cowards you are. Additionally your medical knowledge fails you if you think pregnancy itself is without risk. And for a raped patient this risk is elevated in the equation in my book.

Not taking any side one way or another, but wouldn't some say that sticking to a moral code despite all pressures to the contrary is not cowardice? In fact, they might make the argument that "killing" an innocent fetus, who's interest is life in itself, is cowardice? Just saying, there are always two sides to the argument...

 

[Rothbard]

nm

 

[dr zaius]

How would using the rape kit jeopardize the afterlife?

 

[DrMom]

In most hospitals in Oklahoma there are no available SANE nurses (they do the rape kit exams). That means that if a rape victim shows up, most ERs do a medical exam and deal with any other injuries and then the patient is transferred to a facility where they do the rape exams. The 2nd facility is where any emergency contraception or STD treatment is given. From the article it is plausible that this process is what happened.

My friend and I were discussing a situation:

http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11640588#page:showThread,11640588


A girl is raped. She and her mother go into the hospital, but the doctors and nurses refuse to give her emergency contraceptives to prevent pregnancy on religious grounds and/or personal beliefs.

If the physician is forced to provide the contraceptives, is this violating the physician's rights?

I am not explaining my view as of yet, since I am quite ignorant about this stuff. I am trying to learn more about these topics to become more informed~.

Thanks all for your contribution.

Edit: Any referrals to other readings or threads are very welcome~.

 

[Rendar5]

How would using the rape kit jeopardize the afterlife?

His god hates collecting evidence to prosecute rapists, apparently...

 

[Abider]

lol how is that cowardice? If you assume faith in the "hereafter", it's just pure rational decision making. In fact, a neutral moral observer (who has a similar faith in the hereafter) would hope that the doctor doesn't administer the rape kit, since an eternity of bliss clearly outweighs 9 months of pregnancy/L&D.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to not take care of rape victims, but I don't think doctors should be forced to do it.

It's cowardice in the same way that brainwashing children to be the transportation devices of explosives for the will of Allah and the spoils of virgins is cowardice. It sees plainly a reward for a conduct. And goes right for the goods. A straight bribe would be more respectable. But instead we get treated to the parade of sanctity in the process, such that when somebody on the TV says "...I'm a person of Faith..." we're all supposed to politely genuflect the inherent morality of whatever comes next.

To ignore the persons suffering and their choices for how they want to cared for, especially in situations so devastating as rape, in order to exalt your own moral reward is slimy, unforgivable gutlessness and should be shamed openly.

You all can debate the philosophy. I'll stick to vilifying what makes me sick--spineless sanctimony.

But later. I'm cramming for the Step.

 

[GreenStyle]

The physician has a right to contentiously object to administering treatment, as long as it does not unreasonably compromise the quality and efficiency of treatment. There are quite a few state and municipal laws that do require the physician to administer contraceptives, with the patient's consent, in the case of rape. These laws are typically deemed unconstitutional and are capable of being contested. Though with all cases of civil disobedience be prepared to face the consequences.

However, the physician has an obligation to inform the patient regarding of the medical options available to the patient and where the patient can receive those treatments. The important thing is to provide the victim/patient with full autonomy. The last thing you would want is to remove the ability to chose from a rape victim.

"The Limits of Conscientious Objection..." Cantor & Baum
"Conscientious Objection in Medicine" Julian Savulescu
And check out the case of Dr. Maria DeCicco. It is a pretty famous case from the Hasting's Center that has plenty of commentary.

First off, Thank you to everyone who responded. I am quite interested in all of this. I will also be checking out some of the books recommended.

What arguments based on rights does a patient have in such a circumstance? Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But this situation poses an infringement in both the parties right to liberty. The physicians if forced to give contraception (under the situation it aborts a zygote and such), or the patients liberty is violated by being forced to carry a zygote or further without contraception.
I understand that Plan B likely does not cause abortion (if you consider abortion once zygote is formed), but I am proposing a circumstance in which one assumes it can.

Not my views, but I am curious to see your comments.

[Any more recommended readings are welcome too~]

 

[dr zaius]

The patient has every right to emergency contraception and a rape kit. Neither of those things are illegal. The doctor also has every right to refuse to write for the emergency contraception, but the way I was taught for cases like this was that a referral to a willing physician is necessary. I'm only a rising M3 so I have nothing to base this on other than an ethics course and uworld questions.

From DrMom's post it seems like the normal routine in OK is to make sure everything else is fine in the ED and then move the patient along to wherever they send them for the rape kit (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) and emergency contraception if the patient chooses. To play the devil's advocate perhaps the doc was in the process of sending this poor woman to wherever they send rape victims and the lines of communication broke down. Or it could be another episode of "WTF Are They Doing to Women in Oklahoma."

 

[tiedyeddog]

Do not question the plan of The Lord. That child is destined to grow up to be a detective for the NYPD special victims unit.

In the criminal justice system, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.

I don't think I should be laughing but rofl

 

[theWUbear]

The doc has a right to refuse... but his employer also has the right to fire him for exercising that right. When signed the contract to work for them he agreed to play by their rules.

I think you're wrong, based on what I witnessed with UMDNJ last year. I think everyone should read this, as it is relevant. And please excuse some of the comments, I'm quite embarrassed at the amount of idiocy on nj.com (the site of the New Jersey paper - the Newark Star Ledger).

I don't think it's logical for a doctor who refuses to prescribe emergency contraceptives to rape victims to be the only doctor on duty in an emergency room.

I believe UMDNJ countered (legally) by hiring additional staff that would be able to complete the tasks. I'm not sure if this would be a requirement or not.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

A friend of mine was raped a year ago and she became pregnant. Long story short, it would have derailed her life majorly. Problem:she didnt have the money to pay for an abortion. So I paid for her to have it done. She tells me everyday how I "saved" her and how thankful she is. We're still good friends.

...but there are some that would say I assisted in murder. Or that I am the murderer. I can't imagine the amount of stupid these people must have, and it makes me furious.
I wonder if those people would have the guts to call me a murderer to my face. If they do, I might as well earn my title...I would send them to see whatever god they're trying to appease in a very,very painful way.

You're so hardcore. Maybe you should just not care what people call you and do what you're gonna do.

 

[batch5000]

I actually agree with this statement.

If Alex rapes Suzzie who then becomes pregnant, is it okay to kill John down the street? Of course it isn't. It's never alright to kill another person unless an innocent life is at stake. The fact that the person happens to be living inside the womb of another doesn't change this.

It all boils down to one question, "What IS it?" If "it" is a person, then our responsibility is to protect life, not destroy it. Difficult circumstances does not somehow negate the inherent evil associated with killing the innocent.

I would still abort it. Also, I don't understand how any of this is inherently evil? Despite all of the hubbub about abortion, I have never seen the problem. I mean, I fully understand that some people are very opposed. I just have never understood why people get so upset. I remember when one of my friends got pregnant. Naturally, she wanted an abortion. She heard all of the typical things from people. "This is a very hard thing you are going through, but we support you 100%." But she was like "What? This is no big deal. I just want this thing out of me so that I can move on with my life!" And sure enough, when it was done, there were no regrets, no traumatic emotional breakdowns, or any of the sort which you hear about on TV. Abortion is really no big deal.

 

[GreenStyle]

i would still abort it. Also, i don't understand how any of this is inherently evil? Despite all of the hubbub about abortion, i have never seen the problem. I mean, i fully understand that some people are very opposed. I just have never understood why people get so upset. i remember when one of my friends got pregnant. Naturally, she wanted an abortion. she heard all of the typical things from people. "this is a very hard thing you are going through, but we support you 100%." but she was like "what? This is no big deal. I just want this thing out of me so that i can move on with my life!" and sure enough, when it was done, there were no regrets, no traumatic emotional breakdowns, or any of the sort which you hear about on tv. Abortion is really no big deal.

lmao!!

 

[FunnyCurrent]

Read the bible carefully. The god of Abraham was known to do some crazy **** like massacre entire cities. I think you'll be okay killing a few cells.

 

[redpanda]

My friend and I were discussing a situation:

http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11640588#page:showThread,11640588


A girl is raped. She and her mother go into the hospital, but the doctors and nurses refuse to give her emergency contraceptives to prevent pregnancy on religious grounds and/or personal beliefs.

If the physician is forced to provide the contraceptives, is this violating the physician's rights?

I am not explaining my view as of yet, since I am quite ignorant about this stuff. I am trying to learn more about these topics to become more informed~.

Thanks all for your contribution.

Edit: Any referrals to other readings or threads are very welcome~.

Might we refer to the victim as a "woman"? After all, she is an adult at the age of 24. In the world of women, pregnancy, and abortion, there is a certain amount of infantalization and paternalism going on in some corners, so referring to grown women as "girls" does nothing to discourage that.

 

[gasknight]

Philosophy major here - the scenario presented by ColeMine is a well-known argument by Judith Thompson commonly known as "The Violinist Argument". In Thompson's scenario, you are hooked up to a world-class violinist who has a kidney disease and needs the use of your circulatory system to clear toxins from his/her blood, needs to be hooked up for 9 months, etc.

In this scenario, it is assumed for the sake of argument that the violinist (fetus) is "alive" and is "a person". The conclusion Thompson reaches is that, even if you assume the violinist is a living person, you still do not have a moral obligation to keep yourself hooked up to them for 9 months. And this should hold true even if you initially agreed to hook yourself up, but then changed your mind.

To respond to GvGKen, you can argue that John has a different moral status than an embryo, but your reasons are a bit weak. Infants do not have the ability to form relationships, are not autonomous or self-aware, etc, but it is generally understood and accepted that infanticide is morally wrong.

Well, I agree with the conclusion made on the violinist argument; however, a fetus is a totally different scenario - your choices brought the fetus into the world. You created life. The violinist argument is a far reaching one if you are intending for it to defend the vast majority of abortions (not rape related).

 

[batch5000]

How do you know if you like abortion or not if you have never even tried it? Just give it a chance and you might love it.

 

[Rothbard]

nm