Siri is against abortion... are you?

CodeBlu said:

http://mashable.com/2011/12/01/apple-siri-abortion-response/
As a scribe, I have seen elderly people come in at the ripe old age of 90, who are on 10,000 medications and are frail and feeble... it breaks my heart. I don't ever want to end up like that.

Click to expand...

So they're like that because their parents didn't abort them? Or are we talking about euthanasia now?

No, I support a woman's right to decide whether or not it's a good idea for her to bring a potentially unwanted child into a cruel and corrupt world. I don't believe in religion or anything "super"natural, but I do understand that some people may be anti-choice due to religious beliefs. If they truly believe in those things then of course they should never have an abortion... BUT they also need to understand that not everyone interprets religion the way that they do and not everyone believes that religion is in any way valid, so if a fair amount of people decide that it's ok to abort a fetus then these anti-choice individuals should mind their own business. Religion has no business in government just as government has no business in religion.

I understand your reference to the elderly as well. I used to work in a nursing home and I could barely get through the day without crying. It was so depressing. Most of them have families but their families can't be inconvenienced by them, so they stick them in a nursing home and they are all just sitting there waiting to die. I remember at least 3 of them trying to escape on a daily basis, but the alarm would go off once they managed to push the door open and then I would have to grab their wheelchair and roll them back to their room. It's like an asylum, imho. I've never understood why some people pray to live to be 100. The likelihood of still being able to properly care for yourself at that age is slim. And personally, I find nothing appealing about growing too old to wipe my own @$$.

I don't think abortion should be banned by the state. That said, I will not perform an abortion, and even referring to a physician that would perform an abortion is a gray area.

I am pro-life. I view the fetus as a human. Just a very early part of the human life. I am not religous. Actually, I am an atheist. I am simply not okay with killing something that I view to be a human.

The only cases I can see where abortion would be okay(very loose def.) from my moral perspective would be in the case of serious health issues, rape, etc.

UnbrokenThread said:

I am pro-life. I view the fetus as a human. Just a very early part of the human life. I am not religous. Actually, I am an atheist. I am simply not okay with killing something that I view to be a human.

The only cases I can see where abortion would be okay(very loose def.) from my moral perspective would be in the case of serious health issues, rape, etc.

Click to expand...

InB4prochoice argument

I'm pro-prevention of unwanted pregnancies. I believe few abortions are performed on previously desired pregnancies (ectopic, fetal anomalies etc). Abortions are what they are. Banning them or 'not liking them' does little to stop/prevent/decrease the practice. Prevent the unwanted pregnancy

Miss Alyssa said:

I'm pro-prevention of unwanted pregnancies. I believe few abortions are performed on previously desired pregnancies (ectopic, fetal anomalies etc). Abortions are what they are. Banning them or 'not liking them' does little to stop/prevent/decrease the practice. Prevent the unwanted pregnancy

Click to expand...

This is a very smart thing to do. I find it sad that many people who are pro-life don't want to prevent as many cases where the mother ends up considering abortion. It doesn't make sense.

Miss Alyssa said:

I'm pro-prevention of unwanted pregnancies. I believe few abortions are performed on previously desired pregnancies (ectopic, fetal anomalies etc). Abortions are what they are. Banning them or 'not liking them' does little to stop/prevent/decrease the practice. Prevent the unwanted pregnancy

Click to expand...

Seriously. Totally agree with you there.

Don't want a baby? Close your legs. Think with your brain instead of your ****.

Pro-choice here.

Gigantron said:

Seriously. Totally agree with you there.

Don't want a baby? Close your legs. Think with your brain instead of your ****.

Click to expand...

Not that you're necessarily advocating it, but I also don't agree with abstinence only education. I haven't seen it to be effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. I'll also add that I'm pro-prevention of rape, incest, and intimate partner abuse, situations where a woman isn't given the choice to open her legs.

Gigantron said:

Seriously. Totally agree with you there.

Don't want a baby? Close your legs. Think with your brain instead of your ****.

Click to expand...

So, women can't have sex unless they are trying to create a child? I hope you're applying this same logic to men who don't want children.

CodeBlu said:

So it's OK to kill someone if they are the product of rape?

Click to expand...

I imagine the rape would cause some major problems that when thrown in with a pregnancy could cause serious issues. Putting it in a similiar category to serious health issues. Then again, I don't know much about the psychology of rape. So I could (probably am) be wrong.

My views stated, I will not personally perform abortions if I have the honor of becoming a doctor, but I would refer to someone else. If abortion is still legal in the future.

As for the other topic it is sad that quality of life decreases so much when people get older. We have managed to wipe out so many illnesses, but age still gets us.

American Shero said:

So, women can't have sex unless they are trying to create a child? I hope you're applying this same logic to men who don't want children.

Click to expand...

The four word expletive...what do you think I said there?

Although I should've elaborated by saying use contraception, protection, etc. etc.

...but is it really so hard NOT to be an idiot when you do that stuff? Like...really?

It is my inclination to believe that the majority of abortions occur due to unwanted pregnancies; nobody wants to be in a position where they are forced to consider an abortion. Prevention, at every level, is key. Contraceptive, birth control and proper sex education should readily be available to anyone.

That said, for a wide array of reasons, prevention does not always occur -- sometimes, of no fault to the woman (nothing is 100%) -- and/or circumstances arise that is out of the women's hands. Due to this, abortions not only need to be legal; but people need to a) have access to objective information about the procedure and b) for those who are uninsured, underinsured and/or in a situation where using their insurance would have a negative impact on their life (ie, an adolescent who lives in a highly conservative household who does not think her parents will react in an acceptable way) there needs to be assistance in paying for the procedure.

As an atheist, no religious faith has influenced these opinions and they were reached after a considerable amount of thought and wrestling with the subject. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that, though everyone has a right to life, nobody has a legal right to force another human being to give them their resources for the purpose of preserving their own life. In other words, even if one was to accept that fetus is a human being equal to you and I -- which is not something I necessarily agree with -- abortion should still be kept legal, as nobody should be forced to give their resources, especially those contained within their body, to another person.

Despite all of this, though I obviously would not know unless I was in that situation, I am not sure I myself would be willing to have one done (I would perform one, however). This does not make me any better than the person who would, it is just a preference.

UnbrokenThread said:

I imagine the rape would cause some major problems that when thrown in with a pregnancy could cause serious issues. Putting it in a similiar category to serious health issues. Then again, I don't know much about the psychology of rape. So I could (probably am) be wrong.

Click to expand...

Being sexually assaulted, for obvious reasons, causes severe distress; carrying the child of one's rapist is likely only to increase said distress. Thus, as there is research suggesting that stress both negatively impacts one's own health and the development and health of the fetus, one could argue that it would fall under the category of serious health issues. If one were to use that argument, however, they would have to extend it to all women experiencing severe stress, including levels of stress that are lower than what one would expect from a rape victim/survivor (as stress in general is what has been studied). What if the pregnancy itself, for example, is causing a woman significant stress? That has the potential to harm both the child and mother. As many, if not most, unwanted pregnancies cause these feelings, you end up having to include those situations in the exemption, as well.

CodeBlu said:

Ethically, you're supposed to refer them... are you not?

Especially as a medical professional, you have be objective when you're dealing with the patient and their concerns and needs.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends on your views I suppose. If I think elective abortions are morally wrong, why should I be expected to give people the ability to do something I'm morally opposed to?

Patients aren't *****s. They're fully capable of finding a provider willing to perform an abortion if that's what they're looking for. I find it odd that physicians are expected to subjugate their moral values because someone seems to think that patients are incapable of finding an abortion provider; by doing so, the personal autonomy of physicians disappears while, at the same time, patients are patronized to a ridiculous degree.

I should add that I'm not against abortions in the case of a medical emergency, and if I thought a patient's health would suffer without an abortion, I would absolutely refer them to a provider. But other than that, you're on your own.

Gigantron said:

The four word expletive...what do you think I said there?

Although I should've elaborated by saying use contraception, protection, etc. etc.

...but is it really so hard NOT to be an idiot when you do that stuff? Like...really?

Click to expand...

No, it's not hard at all. Is it really so hard to acknowledge the fact that a lot of women get pregnant despite being on birth control and that condoms sometimes fail? Like...really?

CodeBlu said:

I was just wondering... to whoever is against abortions... do you celebrate the day of your morulation? blastulation? implantation? or... do you celebrate the day you were born?

Click to expand...

I haven't celebrated(with a party) the day I was born since I was 13 or so. I do like to receive gifts though. If I thought I could get money out of it I would celebrate the things you mentioned.

That said, I feel like you are being kind of petty here. Maybe I am just overthinking it.

NickNaylor said:

Well, it depends on your views I suppose. If I think elective abortions are morally wrong, why should I be expected to give people the ability to do something I'm morally opposed to?

Patients aren't *****s. They're fully capable of finding a provider willing to perform an abortion if that's what they're looking for. I find it odd that physicians are expected to subjugate their moral values because someone seems to think that patients are incapable of finding an abortion provider; by doing so, the personal autonomy of physicians disappears while, at the same time, patronizing patients to a ridiculous degree.

Click to expand...

Because it's not about you?

American Shero said:

No, it's not hard at all. Is it really so hard to acknowledge the fact that a lot of women get pregnant despite being on birth control and that condoms sometimes fail? Like...really?

Click to expand...

Did I ever say anything to the contrary?

American Shero said:

No, it's not hard at all. Is it really so hard to acknowledge the fact that a lot of women get pregnant despite being on birth control and that condoms sometimes fail? Like...really?

Click to expand...

Seriously. No method of birth control is 100% (except not having sex at all), up to and including surgical sterilization.

Gigantron said:

Because it's not about you?

Click to expand...

If a patient presents in a non-emergent situation and is asking for elective abortion, am I 1) putting the patient in harm's way and/or 2) impairing their ability to get an abortion by not referring them to an abortion provider?

NickNaylor said:

Well, it depends on your views I suppose. If I think elective abortions are morally wrong, why should I be expected to give people the ability to do something I'm morally opposed to?

Patients aren't *****s. They're fully capable of finding a provider willing to perform an abortion if that's what they're looking for. I find it odd that physicians are expected to subjugate their moral values because someone seems to think that patients are incapable of finding an abortion provider; by doing so, the personal autonomy of physicians disappears while, at the same time, patients are patronized to a ridiculous degree.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how do you define elective? As anything that is non-life threatening or do you include rape? What about in instances where the mother is severely distressed, leading to non-life threatening health complications (such as high blood pressure)?

Gigantron said:

Did I ever say anything to the contrary?

Click to expand...

Your comment about not being an idiot seems an awful lot like you are oblivious to the fact that pregnancies happen despite people being diligent about their birth control methods.

Starlightembers said:

Out of curiosity, how do you define elective? As anything that is non-life threatening or do you include rape? What about in instances where the mother is severely distressed, leading to non-life threatening health complications (such as high blood pressure)?

Click to expand...

I would define "elective" as anything not medically indicated, so yes, that would include rape. However the rape case is a particularly difficult one, and I'm not sure where I stand on that. There are compelling arguments on both side in my opinion. The jury's still out.

Geekchick921 said:

Seriously. No method of birth control is 100% (except not having sex at all), up to and including surgical sterilization.

Click to expand...

So true. Even that .05% (or so) failure rate is a lot when you consider the number of sexually active women.

NickNaylor said:

If a patient presents in a non-emergent situation and is asking for elective abortion, am I 1) putting the patient in harm's way and/or 2) impairing their ability to get an abortion by not referring them to an abortion provider?

Click to expand...

Well before I answer that, we'd have to talk semantics first.

In your scenario, the physical pregnancy would not be an emergency, but you failed to mention how this women became pregnant. What if this person had been raped? The present condition would be "non-emergent", sure, but the means of conception may have not been so.

Gigantron said:

The four word expletive...what do you think I said there?

Although I should've elaborated by saying use contraception, protection, etc. etc.

...but is it really so hard NOT to be an idiot when you do that stuff? Like...really?

Click to expand...

Some would say that this is where the problem peaks in intensity. Do you think that there maybe societal values which might make it difficult for a girl to go and buy condoms... hell I'm a guy and I feel a bit odd when I buy them. Secondly our culture breeds certain traits in women that unfortunately are correlated with unsafe sex practices in women ( Self-objectification being one). Our culture also for the most part while oversexualizing people and making it clear that we are sexual creatures, then demonizes sexuality when it's your daughter or etc.
So.... this is in a way... victim blaming...
Well anyways, inb4 someone burns me my liberal agenda and what not.
To prevent teenage pregnancy we need to change our culture. Not tell women to keep their legs crossed, they get enough from their parents...

Gigantron said:

Well before I answer that, we'd have to talk semantics first.

In your scenario, the physical pregnancy would not be an emergency, but you failed to mention how this women became pregnant. What if this person had been raped? The present condition would be "non-emergent", sure, but the means of conception may have not been so.

Click to expand...

See above. I'm not sure what I would do in the case of rape. That's a particularly difficult situation, and I think reasonable people can make valid arguments both for and against abortion in that scenario.

CodeBlu said:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/22/2/115.full.pdf

Can't argue with logic. Prima facie responsibility to provide medical services.
You're basically saying "No, I can't treat your medical condition because I find it morally objectionable."

What if you had a gay male aged 30, newly contracted HIV... would you refuse him anti-retroviral treatment?

Click to expand...

Your link didn't work for me. Also, an elective abortion isn't something I would call a "medical condition" unless we're considering pregnancy a pathology. There's nothing wrong with you if you're pregnant. An otherwise healthy pregnant woman has no medical condition that's treatable unless, again, pregnancy is pathological.

I have no idea what your second scenario has to do with anything, but yes, I would treat that person.

NickNaylor said:

I would define "elective" as anything not medically indicated, so yes, that would include rape. However the rape case is a particularly difficult one, and I'm not sure where I stand on that. There are compelling arguments on both side in my opinion. The jury's still out.

Click to expand...

Understood.

Leading off of your previous post (where you brought up harming the patient), would your decision to not perform the abortion change if a) you were the only provider in the area (rural or, if she lacks a mode of transportation, any setting if you are in walking distance) or if you were the only provider that would accept her insurance or that she could afford and, due to the stress of the unwanted pregnancy, she had developed stress-related health problems (such as high blood pressure, anxiety, etc)? In this situation, she is experiencing harm by being pregnant and does not have the ability to see anybody else. Thus, you not providing the abortion would technically be harming the patient.

Also, are there any particular arguments that you find particularly strong against allowing abortions in case of rape?

Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing you at all. Just trying to better understand your position.

I'm pro-choice, the mother is more important and will be able to produce more children later in her life, she will also be able to achieve higher societal rank and thus provide more opportunities for their children.
Is it better for the mother to give birth to a wretch which will obtain nothing? Great, we need more garbage men and kids selling drugs. An ignorant and childlike populous is always great for politicians and easy to control...

NickNaylor said:

See above. I'm not sure what I would do in the case of rape. That's a particularly difficult situation, and I think reasonable people can make valid arguments both for and against abortion in that scenario.



Your link didn't work for me. Also, an elective abortion isn't something I would call a "medical condition" unless we're considering pregnancy a pathology.

I have no idea what your second scenario has to do with anything, but yes, I would treat that person.

Click to expand...

Well a fetus is technically a parasite...


...never mind. lol

serenade said:

I'm pro-choice, the mother is more important and will be able to produce more children later in her life, she will also be able to achieve higher societal rank and thus provide more opportunities for their children.
Is it better for the mother to give birth to a wretch which will obtain nothing? Great, we need more garbage men and kids selling drugs. An ignorant and childlike populous is always great for politicians and easy to control...

Click to expand...

Yes we do! Have you seen what happens in NYC when the garbage men go on strike for one day?

CodeBlu said:

No, I'm not being petty. I'm being logical. Would you rather the patient tried to perform her own abortion with a clothes-hanger and risk hemorrhaging etc? Or would you prefer a medically sanctioned abortion? Either way, you're not killing a person. There's a reason it's called a fetus, and not a baby in medical text books... because without the mother it cannot sustain it's own life until 24-26 weeks...

Even then... months in a NICU are required.

Click to expand...

I would prefer she just did not get an abortion. Also, that is semantics. A fetus is a person in my opinion. Just as a baby or a toddler. Neither of which would survive without the parent. Well, the toddler might, but it would be horribly slim chance. It is merely the degree to which the parent is needed. Which is becoming less and less as technology advances.

UnbrokenThread said:

I would prefer she just did not get an abortion. Also, that is semantics. A fetus is a person in my opinion. Just as a baby or a toddler. Neither of which would survive without the parent. Well, the toddler might, but it would be horribly slim chance. It is merely the degree to which the parent is needed. Which is becoming less and less as technology advances.

Click to expand...

Even if we were to assume that a fetus is a person, why does it automatically follow that abortion should not occur? The fetus, who is a person, is using the mother's resources against her will. Should a person be allowed to do that? What if a full grown human could only survive if it was attached to you (and only you) for nine months before (s)he could be given the procedure that would allow him/her to live independently of you? Should you be legally obligated to allow that person to stay attached to you? Of course, it would be nice if you allowed it; but many would say that, no, you should not be forced.

Geekchick921 said:

Your comment about not being an idiot seems an awful lot like you are oblivious to the fact that pregnancies happen despite people being diligent about their birth control methods.

Click to expand...

It's with issues like this that I feel better actually talking to someone about instead of writing over a keyboard. Semantics can get pretty messy, and my position would've been much more clear had you heard it come out of my own mouth instead of a keyboard. I'll just finish with that.

UnbrokenThread said:

I would prefer she just did not get an abortion. Also, that is semantics. A fetus is a person in my opinion. Just as a baby or a toddler. Neither of which would survive without the parent. Well, the toddler might, but it would be horribly slim chance. It is merely the degree to which the parent is needed. Which is becoming less and less as technology advances.

Click to expand...

Even if you prefer nobody have an abortion (self-performed or done by a doctor), abortion is never going to be eradicated. It has been occurring for thousands of years in some form or another and will continue to happen.

Buttermellow said:

Even if you prefer nobody have an abortion (self-performed or done by a doctor), abortion is never going to be eradicated. It has been occurring for thousands of years in some form or another and will continue to happen.

Click to expand...

I am pro-choice; however, and I mean no offense, I do not feel this is a good argument. Many things have been occurring for thousands of years -- such as rape, murder, assault, etc -- but that does not make them OK.

Starlightembers said:

I am pro-choice; however, and I mean no offense, I do not feel this is a good argument. Many things have been occurring for thousands of years -- such as rape, murder, assault, etc -- but that does not make it right or OK.

Click to expand...

Good point. And what it all comes back to again, is it morally right to have an abortion? I think we can all agree that rape, murder, and assault are inherently wrong.

Buttermellow said:

Good point. And what it all comes back to again, is it morally right to have an abortion? I think we can all agree that rape, murder, and assault are inherently wrong.

Click to expand...

Of course and, as I hope I have been able to express in previous posts, I do not believe that abortion is morally wrong. I was just disagreeing with your particular argument as to why.

Starlightembers said:

Even if we were to assume that a fetus is a person, why does it automatically follow that abortion should not occur? The fetus, who is a person, is using the mother's resources against her will. Should a person be allowed to do that? What if a full grown human could only survive if it was attached to you (and only you) for nine months before (s)he could be given the procedure that would allow him/her to live independently of you? Should you be legally obligated to allow that person to stay attached to you? Of course, it would be nice if you allowed it; but many would say that, no, you should not be forced.

Click to expand...

It automatically follows that abortion should not occur just as it automatically follows that innocent people should not just be killed.

The mother knew beforehand that a pregnancy could very well occur. The mother gave this human life. I don't think that means she should be allowed to just take it away. Children drain their parents resources for some 18 years as it is.

As for the other thing. I don't know. It is an interesting hypothetical about how much you really owe to those around you. Then again, in the case of pregnancy the analogy breaks down as I did not create the person's life. I still don't know though. Thank you for giving me someting interesting to think about.

Starlightembers said:

Understood.

Leading off of your previous post (where you brought up harming the patient), would your decision to not perform the abortion change if a) you were the only provider in the area (rural or, if she lacks a mode of transportation, any setting if you are in walking distance) or if you were the only provider that would accept her insurance or that she could afford and, due to the stress of the unwanted pregnancy, she had developed stress-related health problems (such as high blood pressure, anxiety, etc)? In this situation, she is experiencing harm by being pregnant and does not have the ability to see anybody else. Thus, you not providing the abortion would technically be harming the patient.

Also, are there any particular arguments that you find particularly strong against allowing abortions in case of rape?

Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing you at all. Just trying to better understand your position.

Click to expand...

a) No. Just as, to give another scenario, if I were the only plastic surgeon in a 50 mile radius and a woman asked me to give her a breast augmentation, I would refuse because I think cosmetic surgery is asinine. Obviously there are differences between abortion and cosmetic surgery, but the two scenarios are similar in several ways in my eyes. Neither (again, assuming otherwise healthy individuals) is medically indicated, and by refusing to perform the procedure I won't be putting the patient in harm's way. The patient would be inconvenienced, sure, but inconvenience isn't enough to obligate me to ignore my own values and support the patient's in my opinion.

b) I think the hypothetical you're mentioning is highly unlikely. Regardless, if a pregnancy was causing legitimate, life-threatening harm, then yes, I would refer for (or, if absolutely necessary, perform) an abortion - as a physician I must put my patient's health in front of my own values. Elective abortions in the case of unwanted pregnancies due to consensual sex don't fit that bill in my opinion.

c) I think the main argument supporting abortion in the case of rape is that the woman was impregnated through no fault of her own and presumably refused sex. As a result, she's saddled with a burden that she shouldn't be responsible for, and it's highly unfair that she should have to provide care for a child while the father sits in jail unable to contribute to the significant costs of child rearing. I think that's the most compelling argument supporting abortions in rape cases.

Gigantron said:

It's with issues like this that I feel better actually talking to someone about instead of writing over a keyboard. Semantics can get pretty messy, and my position would've been much more clear had you heard it come out of my own mouth instead of a keyboard. I'll just finish with that.

Click to expand...

BACKPEDAL! BACKPEDAL! BACKPEDAL!

I like how pro-lifers [sometimes] jump over the fence when rape, incest, and medical emergency is brought up. So in those cases the life of a fetus isn't as important? Why should a fetus get punished for the rape, incest or medical emergency of his/her mother?