ABORTION and the interview

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I am sorry to say that there is no such thing as a universal Christian Church which uniformity of doctrine. In fact, I will go one step further and say that there are a few major ostensibly Christian sects which, if they don't condone abortion, do not exactly condemn it either. The Unitarians and some of your more Liberal Methodist and Episcopalians come to mind.

The Catholic, Orthodox, and Baptist churches however are pretty clear about the issue. I am not very knowledgable about Islam or Hinduism so perhaps somebody could enlighten us as to their respective views on abortion.

And I reiterate. I do not need the authority of the Pope, the Archbishop of Constantinople, or any of the church fathers to tell me that abortion is a great evil.

Anyways, I was just pointing out that the "pro-choice" position is not an automatic "slam-dunk." There has been in the past and is now major opposition to the practice of elective abortion. I don't know the exact numbers but it would be fair to say that almost a third of the people in our country are against all abortions and another third would like to see them restricted to early phases of pregnancy.

In of itself this means nothing because, as we have pointed out, the majority is not necessarily right. But it does mean that by definition, the pro-life viewpoint is not the extreme position.

I would go so far as to say that the ultra-orthodox feminist position of abortion on demand up until birth is the extreme and completely unreasonable position.

Another thing that I find ironic is how willing some of you people are who are presumably very "progressive" are to conform to authority. Back in the sixties, I am told, the mantra was to "question authority" and not trust anybody over thirty. Now we have come full circle and it is typically the Christian conservative who challenges authority while the "progressive" (or liberal or whatever you call yourselves nowadays) is a tool of the dominant intellectual orthodoxy.

You have fallen a long way from your radical roots if you back up your opinions with the edicts from an ossified group of white European males who sit on the AMAs board of directors.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Originally posted by Panda Bear
Har Har. You in no way "stood your ground." In fact, you caved in and gave the craven answer that is expected of you by the dominant liberal intellectual culture in this country.

"Stood your ground." Man, that's a hoot. All you did was regurgitate the force-fed orthodox opinion which is required of those who are ostensibly pro-life but are too chicken-**** to say anything that might offend anybody.

"Standing your ground" would have involved saying, "In no way will I ever perform, refer for, or advise a patient to have an elective abortion because I find the practice morally repugnant and I fear the Lord more then I fear you or any other person who is placed over me."

Now that would have been a courageous answer.

Ho Ho Ho. Man. Oh boy. You really told them. You really gave them a shockingly original answer which they did not expect. Har Har. I particularly liked the way you courageously NEVER let your own personal beliefs enter into the conversation. How brave! Move over, Rosa Parks, cause we got us another Lion.

I bet the interviewer patted you on the head and gave you a treat like the performing animal you are.

I'm not out to pick sides, but I am here to point my finger... and point my finger I will...

Rant Mode On:

What makes Holler79's response to the whole Pro-life/choice debate much better than yours? Not much. Both can be seen as a reguritation of the Political extremes that are not willing to listen to each other.

So, in actuality it is no longer a debate because everyone IS LISTENING WITH THEIR MOUTHS AND NOT THEIR EARS AND MINDS.

1)One thing that Holler does point out, which Panda is missing, is that she is willing to hear what the patient has to say (concerns). That she is not about to send her patient reeling into a society that existed ~35years ago.

2)Yet, Holler does miss something that is important; the fact that the abortion is elective and not out of necessity. (I will not debate the point of whether or not rape or risk of mother's life is debatable as a valid choice, because it [hence a gray area in ethics] constitutes a personal choice (I have many female friends that would carry the baby to term, even if it was from a rape, or it might potentially cause their death; I also have friends that could not validate such a birth; these (for and against) are personal choices that they have made that I may never be able rap my mind around). Yet the question here is that it is elective.

3)My personal opinion (extreme or not), the 15 year old pregnant woman needs some counseling to the effect that:

-Abortion is not a Birth Control Method no matter your age (read a concern for Public Health Education)

-There are gray areas in ethics and abortion: Risk to mother's life, rape victim, deformity and quality of life for the mother and baby. Wherever these fall on the political spectrum (these are personal choices [that must be respected] that are contextually influenced by: Religion, family values, laws, etc [read don't assume your view of religion and values should be mapped over everyone elses personal choices; how much more right are you than they are?])

-That because I personally do not want to perform an abortion, and that by me refering her to a willing Ob/Gyn, I have aided in the killing. This is the wrong answer, and this is where you are OBLIGATED as a physician to provide the possible solutions that you know exist. However, you are NOT OBLIGATED to perform the procedure (read requirement of the profession; inform the patient of the treatment modalities). If you feel as though you are aiding in the killing of a baby by referrel to a willing physician (per fundamentalist beliefs), and you think that you have a literalist view of the Bible, ...

...than you better check the part in Leviticus that says 'Thou shall not lay thy hands on the dead skin of a pig.' So that if you have a literalist view, you better stop playing football, or you might suffer the rath of God!



Rant mode off... :rolleyes:

In the end, NO ONE WILL LISTEN WITH THEIR EARS AND THE RANTING WILL GO ON.
 
Originally posted by MDTom
I'm not out to pick sides, but I am here to point my finger... and point my finger I will...

Rant Mode On:

What makes Holler79's response to the whole Pro-life/choice debate much better than yours? Not much. Both can be seen as a reguritation of the Political extremes that are not willing to listen to each other.

So, in actuality it is no longer a debate because everyone IS LISTENING WITH THEIR MOUTHS AND NOT THEIR EARS AND MINDS.

1)One thing that Holler does point out, which Panda is missing, is that she is willing to hear what the patient has to say (concerns). That she is not about to send her patient reeling into a society that existed ~35years ago.

2)Yet, Holler does miss something that is important; the fact that the abortion is elective and not out of necessity. (I will not debate the point of whether or not rape or risk of mother's life is debatable as a valid choice, because it [hence a gray area in ethics] constitutes a personal choice (I have many female friends that would carry the baby to term, even if it was from a rape, or it might potentially cause their death; I also have friends that could not validate such a birth; these (for and against) are personal choices that they have made that I may never be able rap my mind around). Yet the question here is that it is elective.

3)My personal opinion (extreme or not), the 15 year old pregnant woman needs some counseling to the effect that:

-Abortion is not a Birth Control Method no matter your age (read a concern for Public Health Education)

-There are gray areas in ethics and abortion: Risk to mother's life, rape victim, deformity and quality of life for the mother and baby. Wherever these fall on the political spectrum (these are personal choices [that must be respected] that are contextually influenced by: Religion, family values, laws, etc [read don't assume your view of religion and values should be mapped over everyone elses personal choices; how much more right are you than they are?])

-That because I personally do not want to perform an abortion, and that by me refering her to a willing Ob/Gyn, I have aided in the killing. This is the wrong answer, and this is where you are OBLIGATED as a physician to provide the possible solutions that you know exist. However, you are NOT OBLIGATED to perform the procedure (read requirement of the profession; inform the patient of the treatment modalities). If you feel as though you are aiding in the killing of a baby by referrel to a willing physician (per fundamentalist beliefs), and you think that you have a literalist view of the Bible, ...

...than you better check the part in Leviticus that says 'Thou shall not lay thy hands on the dead skin of a pig.' So that if you have a literalist view, you better stop playing football, or you might suffer the rath of God!



Rant mode off... :rolleyes:

In the end, NO ONE WILL LISTEN WITH THEIR EARS AND THE RANTING WILL GO ON.


Easy now. Putting aside the morality or immorality of abortion, I was just pointing out that Holler79 was giving herself (himself?) way too much credit for original thinking and moral courage.

Regurgitating an innocuous and sanitized answer requires no courage whatsoever. The interviewer probably rolled his eyes and thought to himself, "Jesus, another standard answer. This kid is an idiot. I hate this job."

And I hate to tell you this and I am beating the dead horse but you are not obligated to refer a woman for an abortion if you have a moral objection to it. I believe that every state in the union has a law on the books which explicitly protects a physician against any legal consequences for not referring a woman for such a procedure.

(And I hate to keep sounding like a broken record but my point of view is not only the official policy in all the public hospitals in Louisiana but it is the law. The same holds true for a good number of other states. )

So rant all you want. Have a little hissy fit. Whatever. The Louisiana State Medical Society, the group to which I belong and who promulgates standards of ethical conduct for our state has no policy which contradicts state law. The same holds true for other states which have "conscientious objector" provisions on the books. The AMA may have an opinion on the subject which no doubt carries some weight in the medical world but it is an opinion, not law, and is neither binding nor actionable on anyone including members of the AMA.

In other words: Relax. You will not go to jail if you disobey an AMA ethical opion.

Exactly what part of this don't you understand?

Because the law does not support your point of view and there is not a uniformity of opinion amongst professional organizations as to what constitutes ethical practice, you are left standing on the unfamiliar (to you) ground of personal morality.

All you can say is that I should refer a woman for an abortion even if I object to the practice because you and some of your collegues have a deeply held personal belief that personal beliefs should be ignored in the practice of medicine.

Hooray for you. Your only solution is to start your own religion because, playing the devil's advocate here, you have no more basis for your peculiar morality then I have for mine.

Even less because, and I repeat myself, I believe in absolute (or universal) morality and you don't. (Although you seem absolutely sure that there is no absolute morality. )

I am perfectly willing explore the nature of this absolute morality and I am not so arrogant as to insist that everything I believe is right and everything some Hindu guy believes is wrong.

But fer cryin' out loud (and I repeat again) some things are obvious from a moral point of view. Even you people who claim to be open minded about abortion inadvertantly reveal your true feelngs when you insist that while you will refer a woman, you would never conduct or have an elective abortion yourself.

Well hell. Why the blazes not? Easy answer: because in your gut you know that abortion is a barbaric practice. You have no doubt seen a Dilation and Curretage on a spontaneous abortion and recognized some of the baby's parts in the net. You have read about brine injections and vacuums and third trimester butchery and you naturally recoil at this loathsome practice.

Man. I'm have this mental image of some of you standing in solidarity, arms locked together, with an abortionist, lecturing the rest of us about morality. Har har. Offense meant to any of you who perform abortions but I find it ironic that so many otherwise good people fall all over themselves to protect your kind of scum.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Originally posted by Panda Bear
I am sorry to say that there is no such thing as a universal Christian Church which uniformity of doctrine. In fact, I will go one step further and say that there are a few major ostensibly Christian sects which, if they don't condone abortion, do not exactly condemn it either. The Unitarians and some of your more Liberal Methodist and Episcopalians come to mind.

I am well aware there is no one universal christian church. Just pointing out that for much of the history of christianity, the church's leaders themselves could not agree on when life begins. Unitarians are a different "beast" entirely in that they are inclusive of pretty much everybody from atheists to zoroastrians. Many of the more liberal churches have either remained silent or taken a position that abortions are sometimes acceptable and should remain legal. The one exception I've found is the Seventh Day Adventists who have stated

An Christian exception is the Seventh Day Adventist Church. They are pro-choice to the extent that they believe that "The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation." However, they do not condone abortions "...for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience..." They recognize that abortion can be a legitimate option for some women who "face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest." (quoted from Religious Tolerance website)

So, I guess my question is...if you aren't looking to a particular religious figure for your answers, how in the world do you arrive at them? Every denomination of Christianity has its own interpretation of the same book. How can United Methodists and Southern Baptists be diametrically opposed on such a big issue?

By the way, the Orthodox Jewish church follows a case-by-case analysis according to Jewish law. The Catholic church condemns abortion for any reason (and curiously teaches that they've always done so).

As far as whether I've strayed from my "radical" roots. Nope...I've strayed from my 'conservative' roots. When I was much younger, I saw everything as either right or wrong. I've gained a lot of experience and empathy as I've grown older. I've come to the conclusion that pro-choice is the middle ground on this issue. It leaves a decision about a woman's body and family to the woman and whoever she chooses to involve in that decision. I wish that no woman in the world ever had a need for or felt a need for an abortion, but it's naive to think that will ever happen--especially with the current state of sex education in public schools. The "adoption option" is naive as well. There are no simple easy answers that apply to every woman.

While you may believe that abortion is murder, I think it is a worse atrocity to bring a child into a poverty-stricken, potentially abusive home. I have learned that sometimes you have to make a choice as to the "least worst" option available. The woman in my care is my priority. If she chooses to continue a pregnancy, I'm certainly not going to encourage her to have an abortion. If she asks about other options, I'm not going to lie to her or omit legal options.

It's so easy to sit back and say "You make your choice when you choose to have sex." But we all know it's not that simple. If you won't teach high school kids anything in health class except "abstain until marriage" how can you expect them to understand how to use a condom? The current uber-conservative state of affairs in America is just setting kids up for failure. Don't do it, but if you do and you get pregnant, don't have an abortion. Works as well as "just say no" did for drugs.

But fer cryin' out loud (and I repeat again) some things are obvious from a moral point of view. Even you people who claim to be open minded about abortion inadvertantly reveal your true feelngs when you insist that while you will refer a woman, you would never conduct or have an elective abortion yourself.

I'm pretty sure that *I* never said this. I would refer a patient. I may not perform them, but then...I don't plan on being an OB/GYN either. If I were an OB/GYN, then I think I probably would perform them. Would I have one? That would absolutely depend on the situation. But I'd damn sure rather have that choice left to me and my husband (and even he would give me the final say). And ya know...I think a whole lot of surgical procedures sound pretty nasty. I didn't exactly like the description of other procedures I've had, but it didn't affect my decision about whether or not to have them (that includes electives).

Yeah for you and your absolute morality!!! I'll stick to my guns that patients are individuals and should be treated as such. Oh..and it looks like I've at least go the Orthodox Jews on my side there!

Will~
 
I would think about all that, but then I would realize that God is actually a fictitious man made character and that I should fear retribution from him like I fear getting coal in my stocking every christmas.

Originally posted by Panda Bear
Har Har. You in no way "stood your ground." In fact, you caved in and gave the craven answer that is expected of you by the dominant liberal intellectual culture in this country.

"Stood your ground." Man, that's a hoot. All you did was regurgitate the force-fed orthodox opinion which is required of those who are ostensibly pro-life but are too chicken-**** to say anything that might offend anybody.

"Standing your ground" would have involved saying, "In no way will I ever perform, refer for, or advise a patient to have an elective abortion because I find the practice morally repugnant and I fear the Lord more then I fear you or any other person who is placed over me."

Now that would have been a courageous answer.

Ho Ho Ho. Man. Oh boy. You really told them. You really gave them a shockingly original answer which they did not expect. Har Har. I particularly liked the way you courageously NEVER let your own personal beliefs enter into the conversation. How brave! Move over, Rosa Parks, cause we got us another Lion.

I bet the interviewer patted you on the head and gave you a treat like the performing animal you are.
 
Originally posted by mdterps83
I would think about all that, but then I would realize that God is actually a fictitious man made character and that I should fear retribution from him like I fear getting coal in my stocking every christmas.

LOL AMEN!!! Being from coal country...I actually fear the coal in the stocking more.
 
Originally posted by Panda Bear

All you can say is that I should refer a woman for an abortion even if I object to the practice because you and some of your collegues have a deeply held personal belief that personal beliefs should be ignored in the practice of medicine.

Hooray for you. Your only solution is to start your own religion because, playing the devil's advocate here, you have no more basis for your peculiar morality then I have for mine.


But fer cryin' out loud (and I repeat again) some things are obvious from a moral point of view. Even you people who claim to be open minded about abortion inadvertantly reveal your true feelngs when you insist that while you will refer a woman, you would never conduct or have an elective abortion yourself.

Well hell. Why the blazes not? Easy answer: because in your gut you know that abortion is a barbaric practice. You have no doubt seen a Dilation and Curretage on a spontaneous abortion and recognized some of the baby's parts in the net. You have read about brine injections and vacuums and third trimester butchery and you naturally recoil at this loathsome practice.


You have stated (quite redundantly) that you would not refer a woman to an abortionist because you would liken the referral to committing murder itself. This point of view evidently stems from your religious background. However you have also stated that: " my religious beliefs in no way hinder me in treating those of different faiths or those with no faith". You obviously have religious motivations in your approach to treating a patient (or, in this case, withholding treatment). By the same notion, if your personal beliefs supercedes the best interest of the patient how can any (future) patient of yours be certain of the objectivity of your decisions? God obviously plays an important role in the lives of many people. And I am certainly not advocating the abandonment of one's beliefs to satisfy another. However as a doctor, where do you draw the line between what you believe to be morally objectionable while keeping the best interest of the patient in mind?
 
Another thing that I would like to point out:

When I was working at Planned Parenthood and later at the abortion clinic (which did pregnancy testing and counseling) I was always sort of stunned by the assortment of pregnant teenagers that came in 18 weeks pregnant with no pre-natal care, who needed their medicaid forms filled out (so that the state could pay for their "wanted" child). So many of them would tell me: "well, I thought about having an abortion, but I just felt like baby jesus would cry over the death of my child", etc. Well, the question I would throw back at them was "So, where was baby jesus when you were having pre-marital sex with your boyfriend?" Why is religion so ****ing selective? Why should people get to pick and choose what tenets they want to follow? That's just a load of selfish, immature, hypocritical crap. I really have no problems with people who talk the talk and walk the walk not having abortions and going to church and all that other stuff. What I do have a problem with is people just deciding that because religion justifies their behaviour, they have the green light to just keep having kids.

Look, I want LESS kids born. I want teenagers to NOT have kids at ALL. I don't care how we teach them to be responsible, if it's abstinence or sex education or what. I don't want people to be pregnant period (until they are emotionally and finanically ready to be parents). There are too many kids, too much abuse, and too much poverty out there to justify that every single woman that gets knocked up should be having that child.

So maybe instead of fighting with each other about whether abortion is wrong or not, why don't we all go out in the community and teach kids about how not to get pregnant (or to abstain)? Hmm? Doesn't that make more sense?

And P.S. I've worked in an abortion clinic for over a year and I have NEVER, EVER seen or heard of a 9 month abortion. That's just ****ing stupid. The latest I've ever seen was 19 weeks because the kid had Down's. I've also seen elective 18 week abortions. Anything after 20 weeks is illegal in Texas (unless the mother's life is in danger).

MOST (about 90%) of abortions are within the first 12 weeks. Also, just anecdotaly, most of the women who have abortions (at least, that I've seen) are college educated, middle class women. Just FYI.
 
Originally Posted by Elysium
Also, just anecdotaly, most of the women who have abortions (at least, that I've seen) are college educated, middle class women. Just FYI.

IMO, the single most irresponsible group of people dealing with abortion and probably the single biggest reason there is such an incredible pro-life outcry from many pro-lifers.

Those who have the resources to carry a (mistake) pregnancy to term, but for their own convenience choose to end it. (This is women and men BTW).

The day I turned pro-life from pro-choice was from reading this.

Check out the percentage of abortions performed when the mother is 25 or older. The graph is misaligned a little but you should be able to read it. It's divided into <=19 ; 20-24 ; and >=25 for select years since 1972.

Edit: This is better.
 
Originally posted by Elysium
So many of them would tell me: "well, I thought about having an abortion, but I just felt like baby jesus would cry over the death of my child", etc. Well, the question I would throw back at them was "So, where was baby jesus when you were having pre-marital sex with your boyfriend?" Why is religion so ****ing selective? Why should people get to pick and choose what tenets they want to follow?

...

What I do have a problem with is people just deciding that because religion justifies their behaviour, they have the green light to just keep having kids.

Look, I want LESS kids born.

...

I do hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying that people should be consistent in ignoring their religion--if they have premarital sex, they should get an abortion, too, for the sake of consistency.

It also seems to be arguing that people don't always have the "green light to just keep having kids" because fewer children should be born. In other words, people have some sort of obligation to restrict procreation in the name of population control.

I've really got no response to that; I think most reasonable people will read it for what it it. Thought it might be useful to quote a few points illustrating the mindset of someone who does work in planned parenthoods and abortion clinics.

Of course, we all know that planned parenthood is all about giving women all their options without any bias or judgment, so this view can't possibly be representative.
 
Originally posted by Elysium
Another thing that I would like to point out:

When I was working at Planned Parenthood and later at the abortion clinic (which did pregnancy testing and counseling) I was always sort of stunned by the assortment of pregnant teenagers that came in 18 weeks pregnant with no pre-natal care, who needed their medicaid forms filled out (so that the state could pay for their "wanted" child). So many of them would tell me: "well, I thought about having an abortion, but I just felt like baby jesus would cry over the death of my child", etc. Well, the question I would throw back at them was "So, where was baby jesus when you were having pre-marital sex with your boyfriend?" Why is religion so ****ing selective? Why should people get to pick and choose what tenets they want to follow? That's just a load of selfish, immature, hypocritical crap. I really have no problems with people who talk the talk and walk the walk not having abortions and going to church and all that other stuff. What I do have a problem with is people just deciding that because religion justifies their behaviour, they have the green light to just keep having kids.

Look, I want LESS kids born. I want teenagers to NOT have kids at ALL. I don't care how we teach them to be responsible, if it's abstinence or sex education or what. I don't want people to be pregnant period (until they are emotionally and finanically ready to be parents). There are too many kids, too much abuse, and too much poverty out there to justify that every single woman that gets knocked up should be having that child.

So maybe instead of fighting with each other about whether abortion is wrong or not, why don't we all go out in the community and teach kids about how not to get pregnant (or to abstain)? Hmm? Doesn't that make more sense?

And P.S. I've worked in an abortion clinic for over a year and I have NEVER, EVER seen or heard of a 9 month abortion. That's just ****ing stupid. The latest I've ever seen was 19 weeks because the kid had Down's. I've also seen elective 18 week abortions. Anything after 20 weeks is illegal in Texas (unless the mother's life is in danger).

MOST (about 90%) of abortions are within the first 12 weeks. Also, just anecdotaly, most of the women who have abortions (at least, that I've seen) are college educated, middle class women. Just FYI.

Did I understand you correctly? A woman comes to you with a deep and heartfelt personal belief in "baby Jesus" and you ridicule her beliefs and convince her to have an abortion? Man oh man. If that's not ramming your personal beliefs down your patient's throat then I don't know what is.

A few clarifications:

To argue that we may abort an unwanted baby because it will be born into a life of poverty and ignorance is to commit the ultimate act of paternalism. Basically, you are saying that any child who's childhood does not rise to a certain level of happiness would be better off dead.

In logic, there is a principle called "reduction to the absurd" where we assume the premise of some arguement to be true and then apply the premise faithfully to see to what bizarre conclusions it leads.

In your case, following your logic we should be justified in roaming the globe killing children who are not happy. Sort of "retroactive abortion." Why stop there? the world is full of unhappy people. Many of them are terminally ill to boot. Let's all just non-judgementally judge them and do them a favor by killing them.

On another point, no where has anybody on this thread who is pro-life implied or insinuated in any way that their particular brand of morality is absolutely right about absolutely everything. We mearly agree that there is absolute morality which come from our creator and are willing to have a civil discussion as to its nature.

It is only your extremism which keeps you from seeing the important point that our morality is not monolithic. Nor does our faith require us to enforce all of our beliefs on others. In fact, other then abortion, I can't think of too many of my personal beliefs which I am interested in enforcing on anybody. And "enforcing" is too strong a word for the doctor-patient relationship. I may act pro-actively by voting for pro-life candidates and lobbying my representatives to pass laws banning abortion. But when it comes to the patient I am not so much "enforcing"as "declining to condone." We live in free society, after all, which values diversity of opinion.

Let me also reiterate that your belief that we are bound by some ethical code to refer woman for an abortion is an urban myth. We had this discussion in one of our ethics classes in second year. I know what the law is on this subject because I was called to task by the course director for expressing the same opinion I express here.
 
please try to keep in under a paragraph. I'd like to keep up on this thread, because I find it interesting. But the length of these posts really discourages me from doing so.
Besides 1 paragraph of rant is just as effective as 6, if it's coherrently written.
 
Wait, let me get this straight? Did my two religious friends Mr. White and pandabear miss the point? How could that be so?

:confused:

Really, what I'm talking about is hypocrisacy. If people want to be religious why not encourage them to follow all the dictates of the religion? Why would you not encourage young people to seek out religion in order to prevent premartial intercourse from happening at all? Do you believe in birth control? Do you believe that the church frowns on premarital sex? By God, you must.

My point is that NO, I have NEVER, EVER ENCOURAGED ANYONE to have an abortion. Do not put words in my mouth. You guys spend all day extrapolating the "logical conclusion" about all our argurments. So what about pointing out the flaw in the behaviour in people who want to just randomly decide what parts of the religion they want to follow? Don't you think that weakens the whole argument of religion? I do. I was a confirmed catholic so I know a bit about that religion. I also know that a lot of folks that call themselves catholic don't follow 90% of what the church teaches.

THE other point that I really wanted to make is this: why don't you guys (the Pro-Life gang) go out into the community and teach prevention? If this issue is so important to you, do something PRO-ACTIVE. I have spent the last 5 years educating young men and women about family planning and contraception, with relatively little time spent talking about the merits of abortion. I have NEVER ENCOURAGED the procedure to someone who doesn't want it. I trust my patients and will give them ALL THE OPTIONS. That's the point.

PS I was talking to IM Republican doctor friend of mine who's been in practice for 27 years. When I told him about this debate (not giving patients correct information) he was totally disgusted. He said "I can't believe they're letting judgemental single minded religious nuts in medicine. Go be a preacher. Leave medicine to the scientists". He's pro-life, BTW.

Sorry this was so long, guys.

I'm OUT. Let Luke and panda play with themselves on this forum ad infintium. It's not gonna change anything, guys.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
it is very difficult to restrain myself from hurling sarcastic and equally supercilious remarks to pandabear and his ilk.

but my main beef is this: what is so "brave" about spewing out, uncritically, the product of years of learned social behavior (read: religious practice)? how is it original and right to consume avidly the rules of others, and the texts of which one has no personal experience? regardless of your religion or non-religion, think! use reason. consider your fellow person and his/her own autonomy-- consider your own, for that matter. to do otherwise (and yes, i'm making a judgement statement) is to engage in mythmaking and ritualizing, to live on autopilot.

i'm not looking to put forward an airtight logical argument about the morality of abortion--or anything, for that matter. people on the political side of pro-choice are not about that either. pro-life extremists can scream and stomp feet all they want, but nobody's going to be able to "prove" one way or another when "life" begins (i think willow did an excellent job of pointing out how those definitions change and how little headway we've been able to make on the matter in these thousands of years). [[some considerations, for example: what distinguishes a living egg, a living sperm, and a living zygote? pretty tough to tell. and what is the definition of an autonomous creature? you tell me. genome; individuality in space; self-sufficiency; having a soul--ps try that one in court]] there is just no common yardstick by which we can measure it.

so what is a rational person living in a sometimes impossibly pluralistic society to do? (1) let the person whose body is carrying the fetus decide for herself, giving her all the information she needs to make an informed decision. (2) lie to her and tell her that the only option she has is to bear her ungodly bastard child (oh, i just love making extreme statements in order to inflate my point unnaturally and via emotion a la FOX news). (3) give her all her "options", but let her know that she will certainly burn in hell for the grave misdeed, as god certainly will never forgive her and jesus, although kind, just doesn't forgive some sins. and make sure to rub it in, as solemnly as possible, that you don't appreciate her dragging your spotless soul through the mud by forcing you to refer her to a "butcher".

i think i've failed on the no sarcasm bit.

please, though, for the well-being of patients and for professional integrity, try to see from somebody else's point of view, and recognize the complexity of a matter that is the intersection of social, economic, political, moral, and professional import. having an abortion is never an easy decision, nor is it polarized.

peace
 
SDN Community, what you've been waiting for:

A Line of Demarcation:

I MDTom as a future physician will:

-Not perform an elective Abortion (will counsel that Abortion is not Birth Control)

-If procedure is not elective, but risen from a health care issue, then I will skip the Counseling Regimen on Abortion is not Birth Control Speech, and will help a mother find the health care she needs/wants

-Advise and provide all the available options for "treatment" whether or not is elective or for quality of life issues (mental health for mother/baby, or physical health)

-Perform an abortion if required to save the mother's life in an emergency

There you have it...

MDTOM is a HARDCORE, EXTREME MODERATE in the political spectrum... no better than a liberal or a fundamentalist.

I'm done with this thread... (maybe...) :wow:
 
Pro-life people are very active in the community. There are many "crisis pregnancy centers" in the United States run by religious organizations which provide support to make it easier for woman who to keep and raise their unwanted children.

I'm suprised you don't know this.

Additionally, many, many extremely fundamentalist Christian churches run medical missions in the third world which are staffed by very religious physicians who take their own vacation time to minister to the bodies of the sick while their pastors minister to the souls.

There are other kinds of activism then "needle exchanges" and "raising awareness."

In fact, many religious organizations struggle mightily (but unsuccessfully) to correct some of the social pathologies which are the result of forty years of experimentation in moral relativism.

I reiterate. Your knowledge of Christians and Christianity is unfortunantly nothing more then a collection of stereotypes fed to you by popular culture.

My my my. I have certainly hit a nerve. Who knew that the only morality that many of you recognize is the absolute conviction that pro-life people are evil.
 
Originally posted by MDTom
...
I MDTom as a future physician will:

-Not perform an elective Abortion ...

If all physicians took this position, there would be no medically supervised elective abortions. Therefore, thousands or millions of women would have other people do it or attempt it themselves.

What would happen if abortions were performed using nonsterile equipment, with no history-taking, no initial examination, no medical facilities available to treat the woman in case something went wrong during the procedure (due, for example, to a pre-existing condition), no medical follow-up afterwards to make sure there was no infection?

Do we say, "well, any woman who tries to have an elective abortion deserves what she gets"?

from http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages/carnStages.html
allStagesButtons.gif
 
Originally posted by greggth
If all physicians took this position, there would be no medically supervised elective abortions. Therefore, thousands or millions of women would have other people do it or attempt it themselves.

What would happen if abortions were performed using nonsterile equipment, with no history-taking, no initial examination, no medical facilities available to treat the woman in case something went wrong during the procedure (due, for example, to a pre-existing condition), no medical follow-up afterwards to make sure there was no infection?

Do we say, "well, any woman who tries to have an elective abortion deserves what she gets"?

from http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages/carnStages.html
allStagesButtons.gif


Of course not.

But let's carry your premise to it's absurd conclusion: You imply that we are to blame if we refuse an abortion to a woman who subsequently dies in some back alley because she had no other recourse then to have some amateur perform the procedure.

By your logic, I should supply every drug-seeker who comes to my clinic with a perpetual supply of safe, "clean," narcotics because if I don't he might get into some street **** that is cut with drano.

Also, I should provide filter cigarettes to my children because if I don't they might go out and obtain some of those more dangerous unfiltered ones.

While it is regretable that any woman will allow some amateur to perform a surgical procedure on her, we do live in a free society where our right to freedom of action is tempered with our responsibilty to accept the consequences of our actions.

You all throw the term "paternalism" around as though it only applies to those of us who live by a moral code. In fact, by implying that a segment of our population is so intellectually helpless that they cannot be held responsible for their actions is the very definition of "paternalism."

Every time you excuse the actions of anybody on the grounds that "society's to blame" you are guilty of paternalism. It's Okay for you, I guess, because "you only want to help."

Again, you want it both ways and this is another manifestation of your extremism. In other words, you are absolutely convinced that people, especially the poor, are automatons who need your constant guidance for their well-being.
 
Originally posted by Panda Bear
Pro-life people are very active in the community. There are many "crisis pregnancy centers" in the United States run by religious organizations which provide support to make it easier for woman who to keep and raise their unwanted children.

I'm suprised you don't know this.

I know all about "crisis pregnancy centers", and if this represents the effort of the anti-choice movement to end the need for abortion in this country, I wouldn't hold your breath. Elysium didn't ask, "why doesn't the anti-abortion community do more to support women in raising their unwanted children?", she asked why you don't do more to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place; and unfortunately these places do exactly jack squat as far as prevention or education. They are staffed by church volunteers, and essentially walk a fine line between preaching and practicing medicine without a license.

For example, in my area they get around licensing laws by having the patient place her own urine on the test, so they technically aren't "performing diagnostic procedures", but they set the place up to look like a clinic and some even walk around wearing lab coats, obviously trying to mislead patients into thinking they are in a medical office and not a religious organization. Worse, in my years at the clinic, we have seen countless women come in to our clinic who have been lied to by the staff there--for example, told that they will never be able to get pregnant again if they have an abortion, and even lied to about the results of their test if they planned to have an abortion! I'm sure they think their lying and manipulation is justified to "save the unborn" because they share the patronizing views expressed by others on this board that they know better than the woman involved what's right for her.

Okay, I think I'm about done with this thread, as I've made my points and don't want to keep reiterating them (in logic, that is what's known as "beating a dead horse"). Many others here are doing a fine job of explaining the pro-choice position as well. But I can't help making a couple more points before I (probably) stop. Panda Bear and crew seem very fond of insisting that all arguments be followed out to their logical conclusion; unfortunately, when you are trying to argue a position from the angles of both religion and logic, you frequently run into problems as these two things are often mutually exclusive. So I have a couple of questions for them, and am curious to see how they are answered:

1.) Ealier, someone expressed the view that "abortion until birth" was an impossible position, but I feel that the "life begins at conception" position is far more untenable. I won't bother getting into the many scientific problems posed by trying to set the beginning of life at any one particular point (although we can if you want), but I do want to ask one question to those who believe that life begins the moment sperm meets egg, which is the popular anti-abortion position: as good students of biology, surely you are aware that roughly half of all conceptions naturally fail to implant and end within a few days of beginning; why then is there no public outcry over this epidemic, if you truly believe each of these is a life being destroyed before it gets a chance? I mean, if some other disease, natural or not, was wiping out half of the human population, wouldn't you be doing something to try to stop it? Think about it, millions of little zygotes (babies?) helplessly being washed out of the uterus every year! Who will stand up and fight for them? I'm serious, if you insist that life begins at this point, then surely you are morally obligated to do something to stop the deaths of all these little "babies". And don't tell me you're not worried about those deaths because they're "natural" or "god's will"; by that logic, so is cancer, and we shouldn't be doing anything to fight it either. I really want to hear an answer to this: if abortion is wrong because life begins at conception and it is therefore destroying a life, why isn't anyone concerned about the half of all conceptions that "die" of natural causes?

2.) I brought this up before, but never got an answer, and I'm curious to hear what it would be. The anti-abortion argument is mainly (not exclusively) a christian one; so far all of the posters who have been arguing about the immorality of abortion have done so citing god and the bible as the foundation of their beliefs. It has already been pointed out, though, that the god of the christian bible actually has a whole laundry list of sins punishable by death, for everything from murder to working on Sunday (see my earlier post for more). If you oppose abortion on biblical grounds, isn't the logical extension of that argument that you must be equally opposed to any of these sins which the bible declares are punishable by death? Why do you get to pick and choose? And if you do get to pick and choose, then why can't I or anyone else ignore the parts that you feel support an anti-abortion position? I mean, god's not even particularly clear on that one, but he's pretty explicit that cursing your mother or father is a capital crime. In god's absolute morality, these sins all rank the same, so if you're going to argue a position of moral superiority based on biblical commandments, then the ones against not eating the flesh of an animal that died of natural causes should be taken as literally as the ones you perceive to be against abortion, right? Otherwise, you're doing what's known in logic as "being a religious hypocrite" or sometimes, as "spanking the hairy monkey" :p (just playing with you, P.Bear). If you're going to cite the bible as the source of your moral code, which not only you but everyone must follow or go to hell, but then not even consistently listen to what the bible says about how we should behave, how can I take your position seriously? You're free to believe whatever you want based on anything you choose, but if you're going to tell me that all your patients and I should believe it too, you better have more to go on than some highly selective reading of the bible.

Originally posted by Panda Bear
I reiterate. Your knowledge of Christians and Christianity is unfortunantly nothing more then a collection of stereotypes fed to you by popular culture.

My my my. I have certainly hit a nerve. Who knew that the only morality that many of you recognize is the absolute conviction that pro-life people are evil.

My stereotype of the religious right-wing (not all christians) is that they are arrogant, hypocritical people who often try to force their social and political beliefs on others through the guise of religion. This comes not from popular culture as much as personal experience; and I'm sorry to say, Panda, so far you have done little to change that steroetype, although you are at least less pompous than Pat Robertson. ;) I'm talking about the positions you argue on this board, not you as a person; I don't know you, but I'm sure you are generally friendly and reasonable. So no, I don't think you're evil either--just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you're going to, I don't know, burn eternally or something. As I said earlier, I don't have time or energy to pass judgement on everyone; I'll leave that to others, as the market already seems cornered on that type of thinking.
 
Originally posted by Mistress S
I so far all of the posters who have been arguing about the immorality of abortion have done so citing god and the bible as the foundation of their beliefs.

I don't recall ever citing either God or the Bible as the foundation of my beliefs for anything in this thread.

I find it sort of amazing that someone should be so set in their thoughts that as soon as they see a position supporting life over abortion, they think, "Well, obviously this person has a religious motivation for it."

But you've taken it one step further. Not only do you reflexively believe that, but you attribute to me arguments that I never made and would not be inclined to make. That's where the stereotyping ends and the simply false statements begin.

Just amazing that people should be on such auto-pilot when it comes to this that they bend reality to what they expect to be true. I can almost see the algorithm turning in the mind:

Pro-life? Y
THEREFORE: Christian
THEREFORE: Arguments based on God and Bible
THEREFORE: Discount

Silly, and now that it's gotten to the point of things that are objectively false, dangerously careless.
 
what do you consider to be the pro-life position, and why did you arrive at the conclusion that this is the correct stance to take on the matter?
 
Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
I don't recall ever citing either God or the Bible as the foundation of my beliefs for anything in this thread.

I find it sort of amazing that someone should be so set in their thoughts that as soon as they see a position supporting life over abortion, they think, "Well, obviously this person has a religious motivation for it."

But you've taken it one step further. Not only do you reflexively believe that, but you attribute to me arguments that I never made and would not be inclined to make. That's where the stereotyping ends and the simply false statements begin.

I clearly said in my post that the anti-abortion argument is mainly, but NOT EXCLUSIVELY, a christian one. Please re-read it carefully and you will see that, right above the part you chose to qoute in your reply. I don't recall attributing anything to you in particular, but I'm sorry if you feel I neglected your secular arguments, lukealfredwhite. If you are not christian, good for you; disregard question #2 and please answer question #1.
 
I don't have a position I consider "the" pro-life position. I think there's room for reasonable disagreement. I try to make a point of believing as little as possible, and favoring laws based on as few assumptions as possible.

With that said, my position is that abortion should not occur after the last possible point of twinning unless the mother's life is in severe danger or the fetus has no chance of life. I would accept a law allowing abortion in the case of anencephaly, non-viable ectopic pregnancies, etc. I do not accept laws that allow for abortion in the case of rape, incest, survivable disabilities such as Down's syndrome, etc.

I arrived at this position through the following logic:

1. If rights exist at all, the right to one's own life is foremost among them. It's a right that's been recognized at least in theory throughout most of history. Or in slightly different terms:

2. Any other rights depend on the right to life, as they can't be exercised without being alive. Therefore, the right to life trumps all other claims to rights. If someone's lesser right conflicts with someone's right to life, the right to life must be respected first.

3. All laws are essentially the balance of conflicting rights. Property rights, for example, balance one individual's right to free action with another individual's right to ownership by partially restricting the free action of the first.

4. Therefore, any law protecting rights must ensure that the right to life is protected first, and everything else balanced out after that.

5. Assuming that the fetus is human before birth, the fetus' right to life must be protected like any other humans. Abortion of a human fetus should therefore be illegal unless it conflicts with another individual's right to life or the fetus' own life is unviable.

All fine and good, but how to tell when the fetus is human? I wouldn't draw the line at conception from a legal standpoint; there are few non-religious compelling arguments for the claim that a single cell is a human individual. That's weakened further by the classic twins paradox--how can it be an individual if it can split into two individuals? Are twins half a person? Etc.

The last possible point of twinning IS a pretty clear line, though, in fact the clearest one throughout all of life. After this, there's a continuum of development. There's no fundamental difference between the individuality of the fetus just entering the second trimester who can be legally aborted and the fetus just entering the second trimester who is born prematurely and successfully cared for. There's an almost universal consensus that the latter is a human worthy of protection; that consensus should extend to her counterpart, regardless of whether she's inside or outside a uterus.

Whether I were atheist, Christian, Hindu, agnostic, Confucian, you name it, the argument would remain the same as long as I accepted that human life is valuable and that individual humans do have certain rights that can't be confiscated for the sake of lesser rights. It's ONLY because this argument is so universal that I favor strict laws against abortion. Were it a religious matter, it would best be left up to individuals.

But if universal rights require a religious basis, we might as well just pack up the governments and let everyone fend for themselves.
 
Originally posted by Mistress S
I clearly said in my post that the anti-abortion argument is mainly, but NOT EXCLUSIVELY, a christian one. Please re-read it carefully and you will see that, right above the part you chose to qoute in your reply. I don't recall attributing anything to you in particular, but I'm sorry if you feel I neglected your secular arguments, lukealfredwhite. If you are not christian, good for you; disregard question #2 and please answer question #1.

You also clearly said that everyone arguing the pro-life position was using arguments based on God and the Bible. That's obviously not true.

I'm sure you recognize that when you claim everyone in a group is doing something, you're attributing that something to all the particulars of the group.

So which part of your argument don't you believe?
 
Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
The last possible point of twinning IS a pretty clear line, though, in fact the clearest one throughout all of life.

Ah, so you're a fan of the development school of thought for the rights of personhood. Me too. The difference is, I don't think things are so black and white, i.e. that the loss of twinning ability clearly signifies the beginning of personhood. The loss of twinning ability is indeed an important milestone in development, but it is hardly the only marker that one could choose to define the beginning of life (and therefore the "right to life"), and there is nothing about it so definitive as to insist that this be the one that all public abortion policy be ruled by. One could just as easily point to any of the many stages of neuralation--from the beginnings of the CNS at 3 weeks, to the first neuro-integrative process (detection of electrical activity in the brain and onset of motility) at 6-7 weeks, to the first signs of continous EEG activity (brain activity) at 30 weeks--as the markers by which personhood could be set.

If the issue for you is not absolute morality that dictates abortion is wrong or a staunch and insupportable "life begins at conception" position, and you acknowledge that development is a continuum of events that can only serve as reference points, not determiners of the moral status of an embryo or fetus, then you must be aware that there are many other reference points one could choose and there is no absolute reason that the one you like best be the one that all must follow. You have chosen a position on abortion based on assigning the rights of personhood at a particular developmental marker, which is of course your perogative; but if you are not basing your argument on absolute morality, then how can you not acknowledge the rights of others, including your patients, to decide on other significant developmental reference points as being more definitive of personhood than the one you have chosen? In other words, what makes you so sure that only you have it figured out, to the point where you would try to impose this belief on patients?

Development is a highly complex and in many ways little understood process; it is very much a "gray" area when "life" and more importantly, the rights of personhood, begin, especially to the point where they supercede the rights of the already clearly established person (the mother) to decide what she wants to do with her body. I'm not saying the point you have chosen to assign the beginning of life at is wrong or right, I just question why you can't acknowledge the rights of others to engage in the same type of reasoning you have and come to a different conclusion than you. Your refusal to allow for this smacks of moral absolutism, whether it is guided by religious principles or not.
 
it seems as though you've thought about your argument well. if i understand you correctly, you are saying that the right to life is something that needs to be protected for all people under the law, and that this right cannot be taken away for any lesser right (which is basically everything else we have rights to).
i do, however, think that there are some practical flaws to your explanation, with regard to the law and government, concerning the precedence of the right to life. firstly, there is war, which is basically state-sanctioned murder for things like political prowess, resources, and, most recently, 'humanitarian' forced regime change. secondly, there is execution, another legal practice in many states. granted, the people affected by these two practices are not so-called innocents (but that is a belief, the idea that people are clean when brought into the world). so it's kind of inconsistent for the government to say that it protects some people's right to life but not others.
i can't say that i'm entirely convinced that the foundation of some anti-abortion arguments (i've heard others, too) on rights is correct. but hey, you don't have to convince me of anything.

wow, we've really strayed from the original topic, here.
 
BOOYAH. Mistress S. You're alright with me. :love:
 
Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
You also clearly said that everyone arguing the pro-life position was using arguments based on God and the Bible. That's obviously not true.

I'm sure you recognize that when you claim everyone in a group is doing something, you're attributing that something to all the particulars of the group.

So which part of your argument don't you believe?

Christ, LAW, I already apologized for negelcting your secular arguments. I obviously wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that. I'm sorry if you felt I lumped you in with the christians. I promise to put you foremost in my mind from now on when replying to this thread, right up there with P. Bear. Happy now?
 
And, I think many of you have missed the point of this thread.

The issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong but whether as physicians we can be compelled act in a manner which conflicts with our own deeply held personal beliefs.
 
Nice cop out for not answering any of my questions, P. Bear.
 
Originally posted by Panda Bear
And, I think many of you have missed the point of this thread.

The issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong but whether as physicians we can be compelled act in a manner which conflicts with our own deeply held personal beliefs.

A hypothetical: If a degenerate rapist/murderer/drug addict/whatever gets wheeled into the ED, and according to your deeply held personal beliefs he should be allowed to die, are you within your rights to withhold care? No. Being a physician comes with certain responsibilities that are expected to be met. If a person doesn't feel they can meet those responsibilities and be true to their personal beliefs, maybe they shouldn't pursue the job.

I am not saying that performing abortions necessarily falls into this category of expected responsibilities (the jury's still out on that). But according to you, we're not talking about abortions anyway.
 
Pandabear wrote, "And, I think many of you have missed the point of this thread."

how you find youself not included in this category?
 
Originally posted by Mistress S
Nice cop out for not answering any of my questions, P. Bear.



First, no where has anybody said that that would refuse treatment for any patient because they didn't live up to certain moral standards. That is both immoral (from a Christian point of view) and unprofessional.

But first, and I am repeating, elective abortion is not a "treatment" and nothing is cured by it's application. So from a purely secular point of view those of you are not religious but still find abortion repugnant have a fairly good position on which to stand.

Second, giving treatment and compassion to a "degenerate/murderer/etc." patient in no way conflicts with Christian morality. In fact, loving those who you are tempted to despise is the highest Christian ideal.

On the other hand, just because the bible says we should be "non-judgemental" does not mean that we must assist people in immoral behavior to avoid offending them.

I suppose your question was why don't I try to impose all biblical morality?

I think you've missed the point. I don't try to impose any biblical morality on my patients. I just refuse to be dragged into a crime as an accomplice. They can find some other physician, without my help, who is a little less concerned about his soul.

If you don't believe in Heaven, hell, or the immortal soul then bully for you. You either believe or you don't. But I do and I'm going to make decisions accordingly. God outranks the AMA, Congress, and the President.

And look, I'm a Greek Orthodox boy. We hardly fit your stereotype of the sanctimonious "bible thumping" intolerant fundamentalist Christian. I don't know how many Greeks you know but we just ain't like that.

The Orthodox church is not as "sin" obsessed as, say, some other religious denominations who we will not name. Hey, we all fall short of what is expected of us.

If you believe that religion is bogus because it's adherents don't believe and enforce every fine point of dogma then you probably also believe that those of us who have gotten a few "C's" in medical school should be expelled.

One last thing. As the father of three, I can tell you that having childen is not the most horrible thing in the world. Most parents, even if the child was unplanned, love their babies with an intensity that is truely astonishing. My wife did not become "pro-life" until she had our first baby.

What I mean to say is that, while it is certainly inconvenient for a sixteen-year-old to have a baby, now that the social stigma of illegitimacy has evaporated it is not exactly cruel and unusual punishment to expect the girl and the father to accept some responsibilty for their action.
 
Sacrament,

You came out of the woodwork after all for this little discussion! Good to see you!

BTW, Mistress S, will you marry me?

(If you can go for the whole girl-girl thing)

How bout we start a debate on homosexuality? Who's up for that?

;)
 
Panda, don't assume your being inconspicuous by not answering my last post.
 
Hobs:

I agree wholeheartedly that much of modern law is misguided in that it strays from, and in many instances, contravenes law's purpose of protecting basic rights. The death penalty is an excellent example of what I'd consider a fundamentally immoral law, and likewise with war (though I'd make an exception for those wars waged in order to protect life under just the same principle.) Most opponents of legislation abortion point to the fact that the law inconsistently protects the right to life. While this is clearly true, I'd argue that inconsistency is no reason not to change what can.

Mistress S:

You've misunderstood my argument. I did argue that there are few clear lines that can be drawn; I did NOT argue that one's humanity develops over time. Believing that goes more or less hand-in-hand with supporting infanticide (Which, I'll point out, sacrament does, "in theory.")

The point again: Life is THE basic right, and should be protected above all others. Therefore, an individual's life should be protected at the earliest point individual human life is theoretically possible, NOT the earliest point we're certain it exists. The latter sets up human life as subject to social opinion. We might as well say that Jews aren't fully developed humans, or that children don't have as developed a right to life because their humanity isn't developed.

We do know, however, with scientific certainty, the latest stage of development before which it's possible for a mass of cells to differentiate two or more people. Obviously, if those cells can become two people, it would be impossible to say that there's an individual humanity to protect, and so laws attempting to protect that humanity would be based on speculation and opinion.

After this point, we're sure that the cells will differentiate into an individual. Arguing that the individual isn't "there" until some later point, or gradually seeps into the cells over time somehow, is far more religious than scientific and smacks just as much of baseless opinion as prohibiting abortion before.

Again: Law protects basic human rights. Life is the most basic of all rights. The early possible point at which an individual human life is possible is the point at which twinning becomes no longer possible. Life should therefore be protected at that point.

While the execution may require compromise and consideration, the principle IS black and white, and it's universal.
 
Originally posted by JBJ
I have heard that it will kill you application to be pro-choice at the Jesuit universities, such as Georgetown.

Which is why I put their secondary in the "circular file"...
 
Originally posted by lukealfredwhite
The point again: Life is THE basic right, and should be protected above all others. Therefore, an individual's life should be protected at the earliest point individual human life is theoretically possible, NOT the earliest point we're certain it exists.

Yes. And I believe that human life (as I view it) is not theoretically possible prior to birth. Nobody is going to argue that a fetus isn't alive. But a bacteria is "alive" too. There is no way that a fetus entombed in a womb can generate any sense of self or power of introspection, no matter how much you want to anthropomorphize it.

I don't understand your hang-up with "twinning." It's some cells splitting apart. Okay, so let's say we are past the point where that happens. Now we've got a mass of cells that aren't going to split apart. That's an individual? Well, it's a discrete something, I'll give you that. To give it the full rights of a human being is, I think, a bit odd.

This is, by the way, a far cry from "supporting infanticide." It is simply the consequence of having a consistent worldview which in no way devalues human life. I hate it when people claim that I support murder. I support no such thing. (Not that I'm getting aggressive towards you, luke. You've been very, very civil in this and the other recent abortion thread, which I appreciate. We need more respectful people like you posting over in the Everyone forum.)
 
Originally posted by Panda Bear

Second, giving treatment and compassion to a "degenerate/murderer/etc." patient in no way conflicts with Christian morality. In fact, loving those who you are tempted to despise is the highest Christian ideal.

I never mentioned Christians. I wasn't talking about Christians. You're the one that really wants to talk about Christians. I was giving a hypothetical situation where the physician's duty conflicted with a deepy held personal belief. Your question was: as physicians can we be compelled to act in a manner which conflicts with our own deeply held personal beliefs? The answer is: yes.
 
:love: :love: :love: I love you sacrament! :love: :love: :love:
 
sac,

Likewise, and I appreciate your willingness to carry your beliefs through to their logical conclusion. It's the only way of thinking that makes debates like this worthwhile.

Re. the infanticide, it was less a charge than quote from the other thread. I'll reiterate for those who haven't read it that you argued that killing babies shortly after birth should be fine in theory, but argued that it was an impractical solution.

As for the twinning: I suppose I haven't made myself clear. I'm not arguing that the point after the last possible point of twinning is when someone becomes an individual. I'm arguing that it's the point at which we can no longer be sure that they're NOT an individual.

Assuming one accepts that one can be human before birth (which you don't, and so this argument really doesn't apply to your logic), a line has to be drawn somewhere before birth. It should be the last point at which we're uncertain whether the infant is individual or not--if we draw it after that point, it's arbitrary.

Most people will agree that there's no individuality before the point of twinning, since otherwise individuality would have to split somehow into two different individualities, which is completely nonsensical. After that point, who knows? I don't feel as if I'm in a position to judge that, nor anyone else. Therefore, the most reasonable course of action in a society premised first on the protection of human life (as all societies should be) should be to protect that human life at its earliest possible stage: the last point of twinning.

Perhaps it's human right after that, perhaps not. That's for philosophers. Laws can't be built on guesses, though, particularly not for fundamental rights--best to err as far on the side of caution as one can while still being reasonable.

For anything much after that, my argument changes; I think it's absolutely clear that a six-month old fetus is as human as a six year old child. But that's another argument altogether.
 
Originally posted by smartreader
Panda, don't assume your being inconspicuous by not answering my last post.

I sincerely don't know what you're talking about. Could you refresh my memory?
 
Originally posted by sacrament
I never mentioned Christians. I wasn't talking about Christians. You're the one that really wants to talk about Christians. I was giving a hypothetical situation where the physician's duty conflicted with a deepy held personal belief. Your question was: as physicians can we be compelled to act in a manner which conflicts with our own deeply held personal beliefs? The answer is: yes.

Then I'll turn the question around. If your state passes a law which makes it a crime to mention abortion to a patient will you respect the law and put aside your deeply held belief in a "woman's right to choose?"

If you answer yes then I'll at least give you points for being intellectually consistent.
 
2. Any other rights depend on the right to life, as they can't be exercised without being alive. Therefore, the right to life trumps all other claims to rights. If someone's lesser right conflicts with someone's right to life, the right to life must be respected first.

That's an interesting philosophical argument, lukealfredwhite. I'm not really sure it works for me, though.

The problem is with the idea that right to life trumps all else, when clearly as a society we've decided it doesn't. From not having socialized health insurance on down to the death penalty (which, ironically enough, I'm against) it seems fairly clear to me that our society is based on the old economics formula of make changes if cost * probability is greater than the cost of the changes.

Now, if you're just saying that they're strictly personal and you don't believe they're a basis for outlawing abortion, that's more reasonable, insofar as that, while you can make the idea that life is always more important than every other right look absurd, it's not "wrong", per se, just an individual judgment. However.

Strictly speaking, the logical flaw (from a philosophy standpoint) is that "the right to life trumps all other claims to rights" does not invariably follow from "any other rights depend on the right to life, as they can't be exercised without being alive" because "not having the right to life" is not the same as "not being alive". In other words, you're conflating right to life with life. Basically, the point is that making decisions that explicitly disregard the "right to life" does not unavoidably render people dead (which would void their other rights). There are probably some other ways to work around that flaw but I'm too lazy to think them up for you.
 
Originally posted by Panda Bear
Then I'll turn the question around. If your state passes a law which makes it a crime to mention abortion to a patient will you respect the law and put aside your deeply held belief in a "woman's right to choose?"

If you answer yes then I'll at least give you points for being intellectually consistent.

If I lived in a state/nation wherein it was illegal to mention abortion, I would probably be very interested in moving to a more enlightened locale--like North Korea. This is also being intellectually consistent.
 
Originally posted by sacrament
If I lived in a state/nation wherein it was illegal to mention abortion, I would probably be very interested in mo ving to a more enlightened locale--like North Korea. This is also being intellectually consistent.

(By "mention" I meant "refer." Sorry.)

Well, then while you don't agree with me on whether abortion is murder or a treatment option, at least we both have a set of beliefs on which we are not willing to compromise.

Dude, that's all I was originally trying to say. That sometimes personal beliefs trump institutional beliefs.

BTW, it is illegal to discuss abortion with a patient in a public hospital in many states including my native Louisiana. If you referred a woman for an abortion in these hospitals it would be YOU who were breaking the law and opening yourself up to disciplinary action by your local medical association ethics panel.

I don't know if that brings us up to par with North Korea...
 
Originally posted by Panda Bear
I sincerely don't know what you're talking about. Could you refresh my memory?

sure
Originally posted by Smartreader
You have stated (quite redundantly) that you would not refer a woman to an abortionist because you would liken the referral to committing murder itself. This point of view evidently stems from your religious background. However you have also stated that: " my religious beliefs in no way hinder me in treating those of different faiths or those with no faith". You obviously have religious motivations in your approach to treating a patient (or, in this case, withholding treatment). By the same notion, if your personal beliefs supercedes the best interest of the patient how can any (future) patient of yours be certain of the objectivity of your decisions? God obviously plays an important role in the lives of many people. And I am certainly not advocating the abandonment of one's beliefs to satisfy another. However as a doctor, where do you draw the line between what you believe to be morally objectionable while keeping the best interest of the patient in mind?[/B]
 
Top