Need help with abortion ethics question

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is. There is an ethical dilemma here, but it's not yours. If she wants an abortion all she has to do is check the yellow pages for "abortion providers." The preceding column is usually "abortion alternatives." She doesn't need a referral from you to go to one of these places, and you being against it won't stop her either. I think the best answer to this question is simply to advise her of a good, local (free) women's services center that specializes in pre-abortion and alternatives counseling (plus let's not forget post-abortion counseling). If she wants an abortion she already knows where to go...so referring her to a counseling service is the best option, even if you're ok with abortion. It's the ultimate irrevocable decision, so it's only reasonable to consider the other options first.

I must say I agree with this opinion wholeheartedly. It's what I was trying to say in my posts, buy you were able to put it into words much more eloquently than I was. :thumbup:

Members don't see this ad.
 
Ah, but this quote is discussing "treatment alternatives." As you will probably agree, a healthy pregnancy is not a disease. Therefore, there can be no treatment! A pregnancy can be terminated- but not treated.


Eeeeroneous, considering there is an elective procedure being considered. You are attempting a semantic dodge of a clinical issue. A "healthy pregnancy" is a medical condition, and, strictly speaking, one that is harmful to the mother (e.g., mineral losses and other biochemical changes), hence the need for prenatal check-ups and care. As such, electing not to maintain this condition makes a discussion of alternatives appropriate.
 
DropkickMurphy said:
I wasn't directing that at you BDD.....I was directing it at TrustWomen for her statement about not discussing contraception with her pts.
Obviously I was being sarcastic, DKM.

But I don't go for forced sterilization, or coerced birth control, any more than I like forced childbirth. Pro-choice, remember? So we will have to part ways on that one.

Now, continuing or terminating a pregnancy (bodily autonomy, fundamental human right) is different from raising a child (socially-granted power relationship, that can be revoked when necessary).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
You do know that hormonal birth control (the pill, depo, norplant, emergency contraception) carries a small risk of causing a fertilized egg to fail to implant, don't you? When does life begin for you? Does the fact that this blastula now has a unique DNA code and the blueprint for life in its few little cells not move you at all?

Judie Brown would be displeased.
Read above: I don't consider a pregnancy to be "viable" until it could survive independent of the mother.

I recall reading in a reproductive biology that a failed implantation is not that uncommon even without the use of OCP's
 
Obviously I was being sarcastic, DKM.

But I don't go for forced sterilization, or coerced birth control, any more than I like forced childbirth. Pro-choice, remember? So we will have to part ways on that one.

Now, continuing or terminating a pregnancy (bodily autonomy, fundamental human right) is different from raising a child (socially-granted power relationship, that can be revoked when necessary).
OK....sorry....I've been up for far too long and missed the sarcasm. :laugh:
 
Of course I know all of this to be true, tw.

And yes, frankly, it does make me somewhat uncomfortable. However, the key for me is the passive dying of a developing human versus the active killing of one. When a fertilized egg fails to implant, it necessarily dies- but no one has actually killed it. Conversely, abortion is active, focused killling: a different thing.

And surgery is active, focused wounding/maiming, but it can still be therapeutic and the right course of action. It can even be *gasp* voluntary. Again, you are trying to use loaded words, which is a semantic dodge.
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
However, the key for me is the passive dying of a developing human versus the active killing of one. When a fertilized egg fails to implant, it necessarily dies- but no one has actually killed it. Conversely, abortion is active, focused killling: a different thing.

So is shooting someone in the head if you have a valid reason. I have a problem with neither.
 
I think a pregnancy (and motherhood) is quite a big deal for a woman, and therefore do not feel comfortable forcing her to go through with one if she does not feel able to.

Abortion rights supporters recognize that pregnancy and motherhood are significant, life-changing events. Saying "you could just have the baby and place it for adoption" minimizes the physical and emotional upheaval involved in doing so, not to mention that for most women, that isn't a realistic option as they cannot imagine ever doing such a thing. Terminating a non-sentient, non-viable pregnancy the size of a pea, however (while not easy by any means), is less traumatic for many women... Whether you think it "should be" or not. (They get to decide, that's sort of the point...)

I firmly support the right of women to freely choose the outcome of their pregnancies. I am against forced abortion and I am against forced childbirth. I also support social systems that make it possible for women to have children when they wish, and not feel coerced into an abortion by finances. I am against state coercion (or any coercion) of women's pregnancy choices.

Yup, I'm Canadian.

I am on most issues a libertarian but not on abortion because someone has to speak for the unborn child. You had a previous post where you told some angry parents as they were leaving that "its her body she can decide" or something similar to that. I believe that argument is wrong. How can a women consider a male fetus especially as part of her body. Is the penis on the ultrasound hers? Are all women that give birth to males temporary hermaphrodites? Also you seem to believe that it is an easier choice for most women to kill an unborn child than it is to give it away for adoption? I think in a twisted way you are right because most women end up being so happy they didn't abort their child that it would be almost impossible to give the child up for adoption. I think abortion is an out for women who usually make poor reproductive choices (rape and potentially incest don't apply here) and because they are usually poor our society (actually 9 justices) decreed that they shouldn't have to "suffer" for their poor choices. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are exempt from responsibilities. Furthermore, tell me what is the logical difference between abortion and infanticide? I think it is difficult to do so. I am also wondering why American women survived from 1790 to 1973 without legalized abortion? And remember abortion is not very popular in America now. It is clear in opinion polls that the majority of American strongly dislike abortion and if the issue was put to a vote abortion rights would be strongly curtailed and in most states banned except in the case of rape or incest. I also think it is interesting to point out that the woman known as Roe in Roe vs. Wade is now staunchly pro-life.
 
I am on most issues a libertarian but not on abortion because someone has to speak for the unborn child. You had a previous post where you told some angry parents as they were leaving that "its her body she can decide" or something similar to that. I believe that argument is wrong. How can a women consider a male fetus especially as part of her body. Is the penis on the ultrasound hers? Are all women that give birth to males temporary hermaphrodites? Also you seem to believe that it is an easier choice for most women to kill an unborn child than it is to give it away for adoption? I think in a twisted way you are right because most women end up being so happy they didn't abort their child that it would be almost impossible to give the child up for adoption. I think abortion is an out for women who usually make poor reproductive choices (rape and potentially incest don't apply here) and because they are usually poor our society (actually 9 justices) decreed that they shouldn't have to "suffer" for their poor choices. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are exempt from responsibilities. Furthermore, tell me what is the logical difference between abortion and infanticide? I think it is difficult to do so. I am also wondering why American women survived from 1790 to 1973 without legalized abortion? And remember abortion is not very popular in America now. It is clear in opinion polls that the majority of American strongly dislike abortion and if the issue was put to a vote abortion rights would be strongly curtailed and in most states banned except in the case of rape or incest. I also think it is interesting to point out that the woman known as Roe in Roe vs. Wade is now staunchly pro-life.

I'm looking for anything within that rant that actually has some data behind it.
 
Read above: I don't consider a pregnancy to be "viable" until it could survive independent of the mother.

I recall reading in a reproductive biology that a failed implantation is not that uncommon even without the use of OCP's

Remember that infants cannot survive independent of their mother or some other human caregiver. Leaving a 1 year old alone in her crib without someone around would show she isn't "viable" either yet she is protected from being killed because she has been born.
 
Eh, you say "loaded words," I say "the truth."

Would you suggest that abortion is not, in fact, killing?
Not in any more of a sense that taking out any other clump of cells (biopsy, cancer, etc) is killing.
 
Eh, you say "loaded words," I say "the truth."

Would you suggest that abortion is not, in fact, killing?

No, "loaded words" in the sense of manipulating the language in an effort to provoke a visceral reaction from those with whom you are speaking. That's manipulative, not the truth.

And would you suggest that surgery is not, in fact, wounding/maiming?

You are assuming that the concept of "life" is equally applicable over a number of stages of human development, and I'm not willing to let you get away with that. You are sliding over *meaningful* stages of organismal development, and that's intellectually dishonest.
 
Remember that infants cannot survive independent of their mother or some other human caregiver. Leaving a 1 year old alone in her crib without someone around would show she isn't "viable" either yet she is protected from being killed because she has been born.
I was speaking for the basis of not dying once you sever the umbilical cord. You probably are aware of the distinction I am making (clinical viability) but rather choose to split hairs.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Remember that infants cannot survive independent of their mother or some other human caregiver. Leaving a 1 year old alone in her crib without someone around would show she isn't "viable" either yet she is protected from being killed because she has been born.

False analogy - the infant can survive due to surfactant and skin integrity. The fetus cannot before particular stages of development.
 
Honestly, yes, I do believe that this is OK. I believe that freedom of speech should include both what we can say and what we can not say. I also believe that we should not be asked to forfeit our constitutional rights on the Altar of Doctoring. Being a doctor is a responsibility, yes: but our first responsibility is, in my opinion, to our oath that we will do no harm. Thus, if a Catholic doctor honestly believes that birth control = harm, then he/she should be perfectly entitled to say (or not to say) what he/she pleases.

Of course, this doctors pateitns are also free to seek out another doctor. But I would not support making a doc compromise him/herself or his/her values.

But what about patients who are ignorant about their options. Not everyone in the United States knows about the multitude of choices for contraception, not everyone would know that abortion is an option if you have an unwanted pregnancy.

How is it moral for a doctor to only tell a patient about the options that the doctor wants to tell the patient about. It leaves the patient to make a choice out of an incomplete set of options. THAT IS IMMORAL.
 
Hell, what about patients who are ignorant about their own bodies? I worked with a young woman (18) who stated that she defecated out of her uterus.
 
Yeah, I know people do stuff that's stupid, Cirrus. But a pregnancy isn't a disease. If the pregnancy appears to be healthy, there's no medical reason for its termination. A referal to an abortionist is being done for social, not medical reasons (and don't give me that mental health crap :sleep: ) As for the chance that someone will do something stupid on her own, if we spent our time preventing our patients from doing every stupid, dangerous and immoral thing they want to do, we'd have to tag along behind some of the 24 hours a day. Of course, if a patient asks, I will certainly recommend against a home coat-hanger job.

I will happily refer for any medically necessary procedures. Elective abortions? Not a chance. :thumbdown:

See the thing is, if a girl comes in asking for an abortion, she clearly wants to terminate the pregnancy. So if you're simply denying her information (now if you had said that you would provide info about alternatives that's one thing, but I'm talking about just refusing to deal with it and turning her away) it could pretty easily result in her just taking things into her own hands. It's damned hard to seek help at all in such a situation, so just the fact that you're given a chance to help her make a well-informed decision...

Well that's a whole other ethics argument.

Anyways, I've personally had people I considered close friends do unbelievably stupid things without bothering to consult a physician (and no, I obviously didn't know about it or I wouldn't have let any of it happen), and the end result being equal, I would have much preferred that they not have tried to self-abort in the most idiotic ways possible (I'd rather not post the details in public, but just think of like, every bad thing you could possibly do while pregnant then imagine if a teenage girl decided to abort using these fragments of knowledge).

I'm not saying I'm some huge fan of abortion, but I definitely think that you might have a hard time being a doctor if they can't come talk to you about things you find unsavory, because patients do a lot of very messed up stuff, and you have to be someone they feel like they can trust-even about horrible things.

And I'm not suggesting that you should be forced to have to actually give someone an abortion, but if you're uncomfortable just TELLING a patient about their possible options in this situation...
 
I'm looking for anything within that rant that actually has some data behind it.

Google "is roe pro life?" and you'll find out about that point. Read "Party of Death" by Ramesh Ponnuru for the opinion poll statistics. Look up any demographic data about abortion and you will find that most women getting abortions are young, single, poor and more likely to be a minority. I believe all other questions posed in my argument are merely asking for the opinion of others. The point about male babies and ultrasounds is undeniably a logical confound to the "it's a woman's body so she can decide" argument so I don't believe I need evidence for that.
 
Nope, none of them were in any way religiously affiliated.

I think that, to them, I represent "diversity" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: . That said, I probably wasn't quite as harsh as I am here on SDN. But I certainly made my pro-life stance absolutely explicit at two top schools (one ranked in the 20s and the other ranked in the 30s), both of which accepted me.

Nor do I think it's fair to suggest that my being against abortion will compromise the care of my patients. Quite the opposite! In order for me to be so deeply against abortion, I am likely to have a deep passion for supporting, nurturing and prolonging life. These are all qualities that make for excellent quality of care, as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree. I think not at least telling a patient about all their options would make someone a VERY POOR doctor. I would strongly recommend friends and family to avoid any doctor who let their personal beliefs affect how many options they tell their patients about.
 
chad5871 said:
I am referring to clinics that make an attempt to offer more "desirable" alternatives to their patients before allowing them to obtain an abortion without thinking twice. I am sure there are some clinics that require the mother to go through counseling or require her to wait a certain amount of time before the abortion can be granted, and these are the clinics I would choose to refer my patients to. I believe that as long as abortion is legal and the patient is free to make her own choices, she should be allowed to have an abortion and nothing should stop that choice. However, I think that the patient must be fully informed before the abortion can occur, especially regarding possible alternatives. Elective abortion is something I find morally reprehensible and I feel I would be unable to offer this service to my patients unless it was deemed medically necessary (because either the patient's physical or mental well-being was at risk). However, if I was required to refer the patient, I would choose to refer her to a clinic that I had specially selected and I deemed would help her make a truly informed and thoughtful decision.
You don't have to offer the service if you don't want to, anywhere, period.

And in many states in the US you don't even have to refer. Unprofessional? Sure.

You'll be fine referring to crisis pregnancy centers (which generally provide false information about abortion and have been involved in all sorts of egregious violations) as long as you don't live anywhere where sanity prevails. However, please don't delude yourself into thinking that this is a professional or unbiased approach.

If women are unsure about their decision to have an abortion, the counselor at the abortion clinic reschedules them and sends them home to think about it more. (Yes, all women see a counselor). And what woman doesn't know about her alternatives? ("gee, I never realized I could give birth instead!"). Indeed, that awareness is why they go to the clinic in the first place.

You don't need to fear that referring to Planned Parenthood will result in somebody having an ill-thought-out, hasty abortion. They have unbiased options counselors for those who don't know what they want to do, and abortion counselors for those who do schedule an abortion. The two types of counseling are different, but a woman who is being coerced into having an abortion will be caught by the counselor in both cases - unless she is a stupendous liar.

Please don't think that just because you don't like a decision, that it isn't thoughtful and informed. I have counseled patients who made what I personally thought was a terrible decision, but they definitely thought about it, and their perspective is automatically 10 000 times more valid than mine, considering that we are talking about their pregnancy.

I'm even fine with doctors giving their personal opinions to their patients (though I wouldn't on this matter, it's none of my business) as long as they refrain from judging and coercing, and as long as they refer appropriately.
 
False analogy - the infant can survive due to surfactant and skin integrity. The fetus cannot before particular stages of development.
Thank you.....I was going to save that for my rebuttal. :laugh:
 
False analogy - the infant can survive due to surfactant and skin integrity. The fetus cannot before particular stages of development.

Remember that surfactant can be given to premature infants who cannot make it yet themselves. I assume by your argument about stages of development that you wouldn't support abortions beyond about 22 weeks of pregnancy because is the youngest a premature baby has been born that has survived. As medical technology increases and potentially babies can be born even more prematurely are you going to become gradually more pro-life?
 
DropkickMurphy said:
Read above: I don't consider a pregnancy to be "viable" until it could survive independent of the mother.

I recall reading in a reproductive biology that a failed implantation is not that uncommon even without the use of OCP's
I agree with you, and I was responding to BDD.;)
 
That will depend on state statutes; for some states, pregnancy makes her an emancipated minor, capable of making her own decisions. State laws also govern parental disclosure requirements. If these end up not being issues (i.e., legally she is capable of making her own decisions), then it comes down to your personal conscience (there are conscience clauses for these kinds of polarizing procedures), but if there are no alternative clinicians capable of performing the procedure, it falls to you.

If a 14 year old girl has sex with a 17 years old boy, and she ends up pregnant, does that mean that he did not commit statutory rape? If she is emancipated and capable of making her own decisions because of the pregnancy, then presumably she was competent when she had sex, right? Or does "emancipation" only apply when it comes to murdering unborn children?
 
Not terribly strange; there are quite a few laws that I don't think make sense (e.g., EMTALA and malingerers who game the system, HIPAA producing paperwork to the point of undermining effective patient care, etc., etc.)

EDIT:

even referring.

I beg to differ. My Law and Ethics class covered conscience clauses, and referrals weren't part of that. You have to provide information.

No, you don't.
 
I disagree. I think not at least telling a patient about all their options would make someone a VERY POOR doctor. I would strongly recommend friends and family to avoid any doctor who let their personal beliefs affect how many options they tell their patients about.

Yeah, imagine if a doctor refuses to treat homosexual patients for STDs because of religious beliefs. Or rather, refuses to even tell the homosexual patient about what they could do, or where they could get more information from. Any time where you're letting your own personal beliefs get in the way of helping a patient make more intelligent decisions...well, that's definitely not something that makes you a better doctor.
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
Of course I know all of this to be true, tw.

And yes, frankly, it does make me somewhat uncomfortable. However, the key for me is the passive dying of a developing human versus the active killing of one. When a fertilized egg fails to implant, it necessarily dies- but no one has actually killed it. Conversely, abortion is active, focused killling: a different thing.
What about mifepristone, which merely blocks the effect of progesterone, basically just removing the connection between the woman and the fetus (since the fetus cannot live without using the woman's organs/circulation, it then dies)? Isn't she essentially "taking her body back" by using this method of abortion?
 
Yeah I'm pretty sure depending on where you're practicing you might very well have to do stuff you might not personally believe in. Just leaving people out in the cold without any info isn't particularly ethical anyway, since it could just lead to some kinda horrible self-abortion attempt (and don't tell me people don't do this, because people do lots of very stupid crap in this situation, even people you never thought would do anything nearly that stupid).

And the last thing you need is your friends finding out that their daughter came to talk to you, but then you ignored her, didn't tell them, and wouldn't refer her anywhere, so she tried some kind of *****ic self-aborting attempt that lands her in the hospital.

We are not obligated to assist others in their immoral deeds just because the perpetration of the deed (if unassisted) may endanger the perpetrator. It's like helping a bank robber out so that he doesn't get shot by the police.
 
Thank you.....I was going to save that for my rebuttal. :laugh:
Look up any demographic data about abortion and you will find that most women getting abortions are young, single, poor and more likely to be a minority.

The first three in that combination (or even #1 and #3, or #3 by itself) are valid reasons why you should be breeding. The ethnic or racial status is a confounding factor that is used simply to provoke an emotional response and might well be simply to do with a higher percentage of minorities being poor and single when they get knocked up (assuming this is this case....I have no statistics to back it up and frankly I don't care one way or the other regarding the race of people choosing not to have kids).
 
Google "is roe pro life?" and you'll find out about that point. Read "Party of Death" by Ramesh Ponnuru for the opinion poll statistics. Look up any demographic data about abortion and you will find that most women getting abortions are young, single, poor and more likely to be a minority. I believe all other questions posed in my argument are merely asking for the opinion of others. The point about male babies and ultrasounds is undeniably a logical confound to the "it's a woman's body so she can decide" argument so I don't believe I need evidence for that.

Google results aren't valid; the internet isn't peer-reviewed. And the "poll data" you mention is contained within a clearly biased source. Again, do you have non-anecdotal, peer reviewed, public policy data to support your positions?

For instance, Gallup has this to say about U.S. public opinion on abortion:

Gallup Polling said:
Guidance for Lawmakers:

1. Most Americans oppose the idea of passing laws to outlaw abortion and they soundly reject the idea of overturning Roe. v. Wade.
2. Despite this, most Americans support the kind of chipping-around-the-edges limits on abortion that many states have enacted in recent years, and that continue to be promoted in others: parental consent for minors, informed consent for women, spousal consent, and laws that would prohibit the specific procedure known as "partial-birth abortion."
3. More broadly, a majority of Americans favor keeping abortion legal in the first trimester but would make it illegal in the second and third trimesters.
4. Americans generally reject extreme positions on abortion (always legal or always illegal) in favor of middle-of-the- road positions (legal, but in only certain circumstances).

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1576
 
If a 14 year old girl has sex with a 17 years old boy, and she ends up pregnant, does that mean that he did not commit statutory rape? If she is emancipated and capable of making her own decisions because of the pregnancy, then presumably she was competent when she had sex, right? Or does "emancipation" only apply when it comes to murdering unborn children?

Actually most state laws for age of consent and statuatory rape have leeway for this. Depending on the state as long as people are within a certain number of years in age, it's not statuatory rape.

Otherwise you'd have 17 year olds with 15 year old girlfriends getting charged with statuatory rape all the time, which would obviously be a huge waste of court time. This varies by state, but I know NY and NJ definitely give a couple of years of leeway (I think NJ is more forgiving than NY by a year but I don't remember the exact #'s-I cared a lot more about this when I was 17 myself, lol).
 
Meh, your choice. But given that the only thing I will not discuss in medicine is abortion, I don't see why that should affect your friends/family from going to me for anything else. :)
Because to me the fact that you would do it for abortion shows that you are willing and capable of putting your own needs over those of your patients. I find that a fairly disdainful and selfish quality for a doctor to have.
 
If a 14 year old girl has sex with a 17 years old boy, and she ends up pregnant, does that mean that he did not commit statutory rape? If she is emancipated and capable of making her own decisions because of the pregnancy, then presumably she was competent when she had sex, right? Or does "emancipation" only apply when it comes to murdering unborn children?

Well, since you betray your ideological presuppositions in that last sentence rather explicitly, I'm not sure how much common ground we'll find. As it stands, states vary on their idea as to what constitutes an age of consent, which does not immediately translate into age of majority. So some states may have a problem with it, and some might not.
 
First, that's incredibly paternalistic to refuse your patient information because you disagree with what they might do with that. You'll be violating informed consent standards, too, which could put your license in jeopardy. Second, physicians have the right to refuse unnecessary treatments (e.g., dialysis for a head cold), but you are skating on very thin ice with the example at hand. You can certainly refuse to see the patient, provided someone else can, but if there is no one else capable of doing it, and it is medically necessary (and psychological trauma is an inclusion criteria), then you'll have to deal with it. Just a fair warning.

EDIT:

Are you sure you're going into medicine for the right reasons? You seem *incredibly* judgmental about your patients (e.g., paternalistic, dismissive of psychiatric reasons for treatment, etc.) and extraordinarily reckless with what you will and will not do. You might find your license suspended very quickly, if you continue along this path.

You are not violating informed consent at all. If the girl is asking for an abortion, she obviously knows that it is one of her options - teenagers are not as ignorant as you make them out to be. Psychological trauma is really just an excuse for "I want it." Yes, I'm sure it's difficult and embarrassing for a 14 year old to deal with the opprobium of society and criticism of her parents when they find out she's pregnant, but that's no excuse for killing.

EDIT:

Are you sure you're not being condescending here? You seem *incredibly* judgmental and paternalistic about someone else's legitimate viewpoints. You might find that you annoy others, if you continue along this path.
 
We are not obligated to assist others in their immoral deeds just because the perpetration of the deed (if unassisted) may endanger the perpetrator. It's like helping a bank robber out so that he doesn't get shot by the police.
Here's the problem with your argument: your example isn't a moral problem, it's a legal problem. It is illegal to rob a bank, but that does not neccessarily mean that it's actually immoral to rob a bank-that would depend on the situation. What if he had to rob the bank because his family had been taken hostage? (haha yes there was a bad movie about this, but pretend you never heard of that movie) In that situation, it might not actually be an immoral act to rob the bank.

Don't confuse legality with morality. While legality is quite clear-cut, morality is obviously not nearly as clear cut. Which is why it's problematic when a physician uses their own personal morals as a reason to override a legal obligation. You could have all kinds of crazy personal moral beliefs-but if you start applying those to limit who you're treating that's no good.

And, I will point out that that bank robber would get healthcare while in prison, lol. So you'd have to help him after he got shot by the police ;)
 
Remember that surfactant can be given to premature infants who cannot make it yet themselves. I assume by your argument about stages of development that you wouldn't support abortions beyond about 22 weeks of pregnancy because is the youngest a premature baby has been born that has survived. As medical technology increases and potentially babies can be born even more prematurely are you going to become gradually more pro-life?
Ask any neonatologist....they will tell you that survival beyond 23-24 weeks without some form of significant impairment is unusual. A 22 weeker surviving is something that would warrant a case report in a journal. The survival rate has not significantly improved and most experts in the field (and I am an NICU trained RT who regularly reads up on the topic) don't think that we will see the survival barrier for most cases drop much below where it is now, no matter what forseeable technology comes down the line.

Your suggestion is akin to asking at what point does keeping a premie who will, in all likelihood, be severely ******ed, blind and deaf (for some reason I now have "Pinball Wizard" from The Who's "Tommy" running through my head) alive using tremendously expensive technology that is fraught with risk. But hey.....a life is a life right? No matter how little the patient is actually alive in the same sense as you or I right?
 
This is not at all the same thing, Cirrus. While I may disapprove of things people do with their own bodies, I don't see that it is any of my business and will treat appropriately.

Converesly, though, I absolutely reserve the right to object to what a person does to another human creature's body.

lol, I'm not a big fan of abortion arguments one way or another, so I will abstain from arguing over who's body is whose. Like I said before, I'm not myself a huge fan of abortion.

I will again point out that just because you don't believe in something, that doesn't mean that the most moral or ethical thing to do is to simply do nothing.
 
Remember that surfactant can be given to premature infants who cannot make it yet themselves. I assume by your argument about stages of development that you wouldn't support abortions beyond about 22 weeks of pregnancy because is the youngest a premature baby has been born that has survived. As medical technology increases and potentially babies can be born even more prematurely are you going to become gradually more pro-life?

You are still forgetting the skin integrity barrier, which appears to be much more absolute; and surfactant ceases to be effective before certain developmental stages.

I do find that the abortion issue becomes more problematic the further one gets into development, and personally I'm generally against third trimester abortions except in medical (or psychological) emergency. These cases, however, are in a *clear* minority, as non-emergent abortion tends to occur well before these stages of viability or potential viability.
 
"Serving life" is fine, but you have already demonstrated in other threads that your objection to abortion is visceral, which doesn't give you the right to force your opinions on your patients. That's coercive, plain and simple, and that goes against the AMA standards.

So what? Who cares what the AMA says? It's just someone's opinion, has nothing necessarily to do with what's right.
 
So what? Who cares what the AMA says? It's just someone's opinion, has nothing necessarily to do with what's right.
If you all want to know what is really right, you have to take the Bible as the literal word of God himself. Just look at some of Mercapto's prior posts. He's the biggest religious troll on SDN.
 
Google results aren't valid; the internet isn't peer-reviewed. And the "poll data" you mention is contained within a clearly biased source. Again, do you have non-anecdotal, peer reviewed, public policy data to support your positions?

For instance, Gallup has this to say about U.S. public opinion on abortion:



http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1576

I don't have the book sitting in front of me or else I would give you the polls the author cites. I do know that the author did none of the polling himself and he relies on polls like the gallup poll you have here. In fact he may even have cited this exact study. I admit I probably worded my argument too strongly about America's dislike of abortion but I think the Gallup poll is closer to my position than most of what the pro-choice crowd would have you believe. Also if you can't trust the internet why are you citing a website to counter my arguments? I think you problem with Google is a pretty weak argument. Google results bring up newspaper articles all the time that are readily cited in all sorts of books. Plus I don't think anybody would take the time to "peer-review" Jane Roe's opinion on abortion. Remember the "peer-reviewed" journal Nature published the South Korean man's fabricated stem-cell research so you should be fearful of potential dishonesty coming from even peer-reviewed sources. As for demographic data about abortion that is easy to find. Here is just one site: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html I hope it is up to your standards. I think you'll find my assertions were true.
 
You are not violating informed consent at all. If the girl is asking for an abortion, she obviously knows that it is one of her options - teenagers are not as ignorant as you make them out to be. Psychological trauma is really just an excuse for "I want it." Yes, I'm sure it's difficult and embarrassing for a 14 year old to deal with the opprobium of society and criticism of her parents when they find out she's pregnant, but that's no excuse for killing.

Quite the contrary; you don't seem to be very well-informed about teens and their cognitive development. You are making them into little adults, and the science isn't there to support what you are saying. Appreciation of consequences doesn't fully kick in until well after 14, knowledge of their bodies, resources, support networks, and other concepts require a lot more insight than the typical teenager possesses.

mercapto said:
Are you sure you're not being condescending here? You seem *incredibly* judgmental and paternalistic about someone else's legitimate viewpoints. You might find that you annoy others, if you continue along this path.

I could very well be judgmental, but given my clinical background in medical ethics, I think I'm qualified to state when an opinion might be uninformed, contradictory, or poorly argued.
 
Tyronebiggums said:
I am on most issues a libertarian but not on abortion because someone has to speak for the unborn child. You had a previous post where you told some angry parents as they were leaving that "its her body she can decide" or something similar to that. I believe that argument is wrong. How can a women consider a male fetus especially as part of her body. Is the penis on the ultrasound hers? Are all women that give birth to males temporary hermaphrodites?
The woman can decide whether her uterus, her circulation, her immunoglobulins, her calcium, etc.. will be used to support a fetus. You can't compel her to do so anymore than you can compel her to give blood.
Tyronebiggums said:
Also you seem to believe that it is an easier choice for most women to kill an unborn child than it is to give it away for adoption? I think in a twisted way you are right because most women end up being so happy they didn't abort their child that it would be almost impossible to give the child up for adoption. I think abortion is an out for women who usually make poor reproductive choices (rape and potentially incest don't apply here) and because they are usually poor our society (actually 9 justices) decreed that they shouldn't have to "suffer" for their poor choices. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are exempt from responsibilities.
I think you don't know any women who have had abortions - no, wait, you probably do, but they know better than to tell you about it. Where do you get off, saying you know why women have abortions and what kind of women they are? And, for that matter, if abortion is murder, why does it matter whether a woman was raped or not? The "baby" is still alive and doesn't deserve to be killed, no? Or is this really about judging women?
Tyronebiggums said:
Furthermore, tell me what is the logical difference between abortion and infanticide? I think it is difficult to do so.
An infant can survive just fine without me - someone else can easily keep it alive. Not so my embryo. Severing its attachment to my body, which I have the right to do as the owner of my body, kills it. Infants, you can drop off at the hospital and never see again, and they won't die.
Tyronebiggums said:
I am also wondering why American women survived from 1790 to 1973 without legalized abortion?
Illegal abortion. (And for the rest, a whole lot of misery and inequality). Yes, I'm being flippant. But survival has nothing to do with it. A whole lot of people have survived being denied their basic human rights. That doesn't make it OK.
Tyronebiggums said:
And remember abortion is not very popular in America now. It is clear in opinion polls that the majority of American strongly dislike abortion and if the issue was put to a vote abortion rights would be strongly curtailed and in most states banned except in the case of rape or incest. I also think it is interesting to point out that the woman known as Roe in Roe vs. Wade is now staunchly pro-life.
Ah, opinion polls. And what do those say about minorities or gays, again? No, wait, I'm probably giving you fodder here. Never mind.

Yes, we should determine and defend fundamental human rights by looking at polls.
 
Tyronebiggums said:
Remember that infants cannot survive independent of their mother or some other human caregiver. Leaving a 1 year old alone in her crib without someone around would show she isn't "viable" either yet she is protected from being killed because she has been born.
There you have it. And, please note that a one-year-old has no legal claim on the use of her mother's blood or organs, even if it were necessary to save her life.
 
I think you don't know any women who have had abortions - no, wait, you probably do, but they know better than to tell you about it. Where do you get off, saying you know why women have abortions and what kind of women they are? And, for that matter, if abortion is murder, why does it matter whether a woman was raped or not? The "baby" is still alive and doesn't deserve to be killed, no? Or is this really about judging women?
An infant can survive just fine without me - someone else can easily keep it alive. Not so my embryo. Severing its attachment to my body, which I have the right to do as the owner of my body, kills it. Infants, you can drop off at the hospital and never see again, and they won't die.

Illegal abortion. (And for the rest, a whole lot of misery and inequality). Yes, I'm being flippant. But survival has nothing to do with it. A whole lot of people have survived being denied their basic human rights. That doesn't make it OK.

Don't you think the most basic human right is the right to live? And I do know what kind of women they are. Just look here: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html.

You will find every assertion I made to be correct. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

Also I never said I believe in abortion in the cases of rape or incest I was merely stating that Americans, according to polls, prefer a exception for those two things.
 
We are not obligated to assist others in their immoral deeds just because the perpetration of the deed (if unassisted) may endanger the perpetrator. It's like helping a bank robber out so that he doesn't get shot by the police.
Once again....swing and a miss. There's a difference between immoral and illegal (at least in the somewhat rational society the rest of us inhabit). You also fail to realize what you view as immoral isn't necessarily immoral to the rest of us. But then again, I regularly question your grip on reality so I don't even want to begin to think about your grip on morals (the "I wouldn't shoot a would be rapist who was attacking my wife....I'd ask him to stop" comments cemented my opinion of you in this regard)
 
Tyrone said:
I don't have the book sitting in front of me or else I would give you the polls the author cites. I do know that the author did none of the polling himself and he relies on polls like the gallup poll you have here. In fact he may even have cited this exact study. I admit I probably worded my argument too strongly about America's dislike of abortion but I think the Gallup poll is closer to my position than most of what the pro-choice crowd would have you believe. Also if you can't trust the internet why are you citing a website to counter my arguments?

Because Gallup has established a reputation for respectability in public polling. Being on the internet itself is not what undermines credibility; it's the lack of a peer review process.

Tyrone said:
I think you problem with Google is a pretty weak argument. Google results bring up newspaper articles all the time that are readily cited in all sorts of books.

Again, the issue is that Google returns quantity, not quality, and the websites it returns do not have the same evidentiary standards of established resources and high-impact journals.

Tyrone said:
Plus I don't think anybody would take the time to "peer-review" Jane Roe's opinion on abortion.

That's fine; she is one voice among many. That does not make it legitimate to extend her opinion to the general public.

Tyrone said:
Remember the "peer-reviewed" journal Nature published the South Korean man's fabricated stem-cell research so you should be fearful of potential dishonesty coming from even peer-reviewed sources.

I'm well aware of this; however, the probability of that kind of error is extraordinarily low, especially when compared with the usual fare of internet "data."

Tyrone said:
As for demographic data about abortion that is easy to find. Here is just one site: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html I hope it is up to your standards. I think you'll find my assertions were true.

"CBR operates on the principle that abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror. "

No, that sentence alone undermines the objectivity of the data discussed.
 
There you have it. And, please note that a one-year-old has no legal claim on the use of her mother's blood or organs, even if it were necessary to save her life.

This assertion is completely false. Many pregnant women who intentionally try to starve themselves or do other things to harm their pregnancy are paradoxically charge with crimes. America on the abortion issue is full of hypocrisy. For example, Scott Peterson was charged with double-murder for killing his wife and THEIR UNBORN CHILD. Now if the child is unborn it can be aborted as is technically not a person according to pro-choice people. We know that you can only be charged with murder for killing PEOPLE so how can Scott Peterson be charged with double-murder in a country with legalized abortion?
 
Are you sure you're not being condescending here? You seem *incredibly* judgmental and paternalistic about someone else's legitimate viewpoints.

Wow.....pot calling the kettle black. Of course, getting lectured by Mercapto about being condescending, judgmental and paternalistic is kind of like having Idi Amin tell you that you have an anger management problem.

You might find that you annoy others, if you continue along this path.

This never stops you. Why should it stop anyone else? Do you enjoy people pointing and laughing?
 
Top