Controversial

[LloydDObler]

Right now my opinion would be yes, I would. Oral contraceptives keep a fertilized egg from implanting, which you could consider a very, very early abortion in a way, but I'm not comfortable with the start of life that early. I don't think it's a human life until after implantation, because that process is so naturally precarious. It's a tough question, though.

Umm, actually OCs suppress ovulation, so you can sleep soundly knowing that the millions of women who are trying to prevent pregnancies (versus all the women who have multiple, elective abortions for the fun of it) aren't terminating pregancies on a monthly basis.

One of the ways emergency contraception (not an abortafacient, by the way...) works is to keep a fertilized egg from implanting if the woman has already ovulated.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[8744]

Thanks Panda
I thought that would be the case, because I think people are confusing medical treatment with an elective abortion. I also heard from an ADCOM that it is illegal to even ask about abortion during an interview. He told this to the entire group of us touring the school so I am pretty sure he was accurate.
I don't think pro choicers realize how serious some people believe abortion is. To some people it is considered murder, I don't really think you can force a dr into providing care of something that they consider to be murder. I am not saying if it is right or wrong, but just the facts of it.

Well, that's the point of the "conscience laws." If you are pro-abortion, it is nothing for you to refer a woman for an abortion so you can't understand how anybody would refuse to do it. You will make an analogy comparing an elective abortion to, say, an appendectomy and from the proverbial high horse accuse anti-abortion people of wanting to withhold an appendectomy.

I have posted on this topic before and can't believe the step-wise retreat on rationality I have observed. First it's, "you have a legal obligation." Then it's, "Ok, no legal obligation but a professional duty." Next it's, "you have an ethical responsibility." Finally, it's, "you're just a redneck, backwoods, dark-ages bigot."

Again, I am just presenting the facts. Watch the firestorm of indignation which will surely ensue becasue, unfortunantly, some people are so in love with their own opinions that they cannot conceive how laws could be written to protect opposite opinions.

 

[8744]

And I am indignant! Pandas are not bears!

They're not?

 

[8744]

States should have laws protecting doctors from PERFORMING abortions.

However, doctors cannot play god and dictate to a patient which treatments they can or cannot partake in. And to have laws to protect that is tantamount to saying physicians should have complete control over the pregnancy, instead of the patient.

And that is a terrible, immoral thing.

Oh for God's sake. What is so terrible and immoral about it? Are you such an abolutist that you can't brook a small exception to a general principle?

Also, you logic is faulty. At least I can't see how little old me, the possibly only pro-life doctor in town, not referring a woman for an abortion is tantamount to completely controlling her pregnancy.

Now, if I was there at conception and was legally empowered to prevent her from getting drunk and waking up in a strange trailer with a mullet-headed guy with a "Metallica" tatoo...that would be controlling her pregnancy.

 

[MoosePilot]

Umm, actually OCs suppress ovulation, so you can sleep soundly knowing that the millions of women who are trying to prevent pregnancies (versus all the women who have multiple, elective abortions for the fun of it) aren't terminating pregancies on a monthly basis.

One of the ways emergency contraception (not an abortafacient, by the way...) works is to keep a fertilized egg from implanting if the woman has already ovulated.

Doing some quick research to confirm what I thought turns up multiple mechanisms of action, including suppressing ovulation, preventing implantation, and thickening cervical mucus to prevent the passage of sperm.

The mini-pill, in particular, works through prevention of implantation.

http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/health/publications/oral.htm

http://www.healthnetwork.com.au/search-display.php?cat=medication&id=57

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_9_61/ai_62829065

 

[stoic]

OK. I didn't read the whole thread

Oh, please, then jump in a make assumptions both about the content and disposition of the post in this thread. This thread has been a remarkable informative discussion about the ethics of a physician not refer to an abortion provider. It has been the single most civil discussion of abortion issues I've EVER seen on SDN. Maybe you SHOULD read the whole thread.

Physicians are forbidden from DISCUSSING elective abortion? That ridiculous. You're gonna have to back that up with some evidence before I stop laughing at it. Abortion, elective or not, is a medical procedure. For a state to forbid a physician from even discussing a legal medical procedure makes no sense at all.

I did some research on Louisiana's abortion laws. Here's the deal: Louisiana has a ban on abortion except in cases of rape or situations where the mother's life in endangered. BUT this ban is unenforcable because the supreme court has time and time again supported abortion rights. So the law is more of a political statement, but not a matter of practice. There are in fact abortion clinics in both Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

This thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. Again, you should have read the thread.

The only person spitting fire here is you. Please go to the everyone forum if that's your intention.

 

[Gleevec]

Oh for God's sake. What is so terrible and immoral about it? Are you such an abolutist that you can't brook a small exception to a general principle?

Also, you logic is faulty. At least I can't see how little old me, the possibly only pro-life doctor in town, not referring a woman for an abortion is tantamount to completely controlling her pregnancy.

Now, if I was there at conception and was legally empowered to prevent her from getting drunk and waking up in a strange trailer with a mullet-headed guy with a "Metallica" tatoo...that would be controlling her pregnancy.

No, my logic is fine. Do you not see that by not telling a patient a possible course of action that that is equivalent to denying patient autonomy.

This isnt a difficult concept. As doctors we help patients make decisions for themselves. By denying patients even the option (you dont have to PERFORM it, mind you), you are inherently coercing the patient.

So yes, by not telling a patient about all the viable options because of your own beliefs (that you obviously believe are superior to theirs-- which is the reason you didnt provide the option in the first place), you are indeed attempting to play god and are denying the patient autonomy.

You can try to spin it anyway you want to, but the bottom line is that by knowingly refusing to tell the patient a possible option simply because your own beliefs, you automatically are imposing your beliefs on the patient and are coercing the patient to a specific course of action.

Patients respect doctors opinions and trust us to do what is in THEIR best interest. Religous fanatical doctors who refuse to name all possible options are in direct violation of that trust, and it is truly a crimson mark on our profession that some feel they are so superior to their patients that they can make decisions for them not in the best interest of the patient, but in the best interest of the doctor.

 

[LloydDObler]

Doing some quick research to confirm what I thought turns up multiple mechanisms of action, including suppressing ovulation, preventing implantation, and thickening cervical mucus to prevent the passage of sperm.

The mini-pill, in particular, works through prevention of implantation.

http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/health/publications/oral.htm

http://www.healthnetwork.com.au/search-display.php?cat=medication&id=57

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_9_61/ai_62829065

Right, the mini-pill does work by preventing implantation. It is progestin-only, and is only recommended for women who are breast-feeding, or who can't take estrogen (over 35 year old smokers, etc...). Combined OCs work by preventing ovulation, and, I suppose, preventing implantation should the woman actually ovulate (It is NOT the primary mechanism in combined OCs).

I guess this is where the anti-choice argument really breaks down for me. So you're against abortion, but you're also against most methods of birth control. So the women that you insult by suggesting that they don't know about birth control enough to use it to prevent the multiple abortions they're having ALSO can't use OCs because they MIGHT prevent implantation of a fertilized egg?? What birth control methods do you think are morally OK besides abstinence? I am truly curious.

 

[Noeljan]

like I have said before....I am against abortion and feel it is murder (minus a threat to the mother in which I still believe it to be abortion but here I feel as though the mother's life takes priority) and I am ALL for birthcontrol. Hell I am even for mandating it on women who have had one abortion, though I am not sure this would ever pass. I see one who is on protection as responsible in trying to prevent themselves from ending up in such a situation. I also see this as having morals in that many women (and men) who chose protection/control think that ending their fetus would be a horrible thing to do and thus want to prevent being in that situation. Many of these people also know that if they were to get pregnant the would be keeping their child, thus try and control somewhat when that occurrs.
The point of all this: I am against abortion but am pro birthcontrol (before fertilization).

 

[Zweihander]

Well, that's the point of the "conscience laws." If you are pro-abortion, it is nothing for you to refer a woman for an abortion so you can't understand how anybody would refuse to do it. You will make an analogy comparing an elective abortion to, say, an appendectomy and from the proverbial high horse accuse anti-abortion people of wanting to withhold an appendectomy.

I have posted on this topic before and can't believe the step-wise retreat on rationality I have observed. First it's, "you have a legal obligation." Then it's, "Ok, no legal obligation but a professional duty." Next it's, "you have an ethical responsibility." Finally, it's, "you're just a redneck, backwoods, dark-ages bigot."

Again, I am just presenting the facts. Watch the firestorm of indignation which will surely ensue becasue, unfortunantly, some people are so in love with their own opinions that they cannot conceive how laws could be written to protect opposite opinions.

Hey Panda, if you addressed this specifically I missed it, but part of the earlier debate had to do with whether as a doctor you were allowed to refuse referral to another provider or refuse to oversee a transfer of care. Granted that performing an abortion is NOT mandatory (nor should it be), but do "conscience laws" also allow you to say "I'm not even going to tell you where you can go to get an abortion?" It is my understanding that this is not the case.

 

[Medikit]

I've thought about it a lot. I'm not sure how often I'll have to deal with something like this as a pediatrician. Perhaps often. It would make me sick to tell someone where to get an abortion, but I probably would. If I had the ability to wash my hands of the situation I'm not sure if that would be the right thing either. If it's within the law for me to strongly recommend not getting an abortion I would do so followed by showing them where they need to go in order to have an abortion.

I'd probably use the same reasoning when recommending methods of birth-control, strongly recommending against birth control that merely prevent implantation.

 

[MoosePilot]

I guess this is where the anti-choice argument really breaks down for me. So you're against abortion, but you're also against most methods of birth control. So the women that you insult by suggesting that they don't know about birth control enough to use it to prevent the multiple abortions they're having ALSO can't use OCs because they MIGHT prevent implantation of a fertilized egg?? What birth control methods do you think are morally OK besides abstinence? I am truly curious.

Not against birth control, reread and then readress, please.

 

[N-toxicologist]

"...I will remember that there is an art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug...Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life..."

Although I gather some of you prescribe to the traditional version: "...Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy..."

Indeed, the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath does not address abortion at all. I believe that the medical world has been given little instruction on how to proceed in the "my morals" vs. "patient abandonment" issue.

Because I'm a molecular psychiatrist at heart, if a woman came to me wanting an abortion, there would be some serious discussion. You see, I see people as a sum of their motivations and psychology, not their actions or intended actions. How did she come to this conclusion? What factors played into making this decision? Is she aware of her options? I can indeed counsel her in this respect without making known my OWN opinions. I'm not trying to talk her out of it, just helping her sort through it.

An option for those who have a problem referring her to an abortion provider, may be to refer her to a counselor of some sort, or Planned Parenthood, as mentioned earlier. Please don't abandon these women because they want an abortion. Save for those who treat abortion like birth control, many do not, but are scared, and that seems like the only plausible alternative to situations like abusive spouses, strict parents, or unplanned pregnancies. There is a great deal of shame and despair in these women. If nothing else, help her with that. Please.

For the record, I am pro-choice, anti-abortion, and a mother of three. I was pregnant by the time I was seventeen. I have truly "been there."

 

[MoosePilot]

No, my logic is fine. Do you not see that by not telling a patient a possible course of action that that is equivalent to denying patient autonomy.

This isnt a difficult concept. As doctors we help patients make decisions for themselves. By denying patients even the option (you dont have to PERFORM it, mind you), you are inherently coercing the patient.

So yes, by not telling a patient about all the viable options because of your own beliefs (that you obviously believe are superior to theirs-- which is the reason you didnt provide the option in the first place), you are indeed attempting to play god and are denying the patient autonomy.

You can try to spin it anyway you want to, but the bottom line is that by knowingly refusing to tell the patient a possible option simply because your own beliefs, you automatically are imposing your beliefs on the patient and are coercing the patient to a specific course of action.

Patients respect doctors opinions and trust us to do what is in THEIR best interest. Religous fanatical doctors who refuse to name all possible options are in direct violation of that trust, and it is truly a crimson mark on our profession that some feel they are so superior to their patients that they can make decisions for them not in the best interest of the patient, but in the best interest of the doctor.

We're not fanatics. You want us to have to actively participate in something we find morally distasteful. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Patients need to be proactive about their own care. A patient who got attached to the idea of an abortion chose their treatment plan without me, so they can implement it without me. Why do you think they're independent enough to choose abortion without my involvement, but not independent enough to find a provider if I am not qualified and/or choose not to do this elective procedure.

What form of duress are we supposed to be under as physicians that we are required to do something morally repugnant when someone's life is not even at stake?

 

[LloydDObler]

Not against birth control...

Sorry, it is a "tough call" for you to prescribe the pill. I am asking what methods aren't a tough call for you.

 

[Medikit]

We're not fanatics. You want us to have to actively participate in something we find morally distasteful. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Morally distasteful is putting it lightly. Morally reprehensible would be more accurate.



Pro-Choicers: Pro-lifers believe abortion is murder. Every time you say "abortion", in our heads it is the moral equivalent of murder. When I help a patient get the abortion they desire it is akin to helping a person find a contract killer. Do you have any idea how messed up a situation this is for us?

 

[MoosePilot]

Sorry, it is a "tough call" for you to prescribe the pill. I am asking what methods aren't a tough call for you.

It's a tough call making the value judgement as to which moment life begins and whether that makes me a hypocrite for being "ok" with certain types of birth control pills. Once I made that decision, I made that decision. Action stemming from that decision isn't going to be a problem, but that doesn't mean the central decision wasn't a conflict for me.

I really support any birth control methods other than abortions. I generally think of the "morning after" pill as an extremely early abortion, but I haven't done any research on its mechanism of action.

 

[N-toxicologist]

...Patients need to be proactive about their own care. A patient who got attached to the idea of an abortion chose their treatment plan without me, so they can implement it without me. Why do you think they're independent enough to choose abortion without my involvement, but not independent enough to find a provider if I am not qualified and/or choose not to do this elective procedure.

The key here is elective. You're assuming these women have made an informed decision. Most have NOT. It's our responsibility to help people in crisis. Unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is a crisis. If nothing else, recommend psychiatric counseling, but please don't assume they've "made up their mind" without a little investigation. Many women know of two options: have it and keep it or abortion. It's our duty to educate and inform. You can do this without referring her directly to a provider or the yellow pages.

What form of duress are we supposed to be under as physicians that we are required to do something morally repugnant when someone's life is not even at stake

I don't believe we're required to anything against our morals, but patient abandonment must be avoided. What about counselors who have child molestors and rapists as clients? They are required to refer the patient and tell them why they're being referred. I trust you'll be able to find a way to care for the patient without compromising your morals, until the Supreme Court tells us how, anyway.

 

[MoosePilot]

Morally distasteful is putting it lightly. Morally reprehensible would be more accurate.



Pro-Choicers: Pro-lifers believe abortion is murder. Every time you say "abortion", in our heads it is the moral equivalent of murder. When I help a patient get the abortion they desire it is akin to helping a person find a contract killer. Do you have any idea how messed up a situation this is for us?

Exactly. To avoid the conversation being heated, I normally don't bring up this point, because I assume pro-choice folks don't see or understand this point of view or they wouldn't be on their side and when someone calls me a "supporter of murder" (which does happen) I tend to get peeved, so I try not to say that of others who don't feel that way at all.

 

[stoic]

It's true, emergency contraception works exactly like normal oral contraception. In fact, emergency contraception is actually the same hormones that are given for oral contraception, just in higher doses. Many physicians will give a sample of bc pills and provide special instructions on how to take them in order to get the same dose as the morning after pill instead of writing for a morning after pill.

 

[N-toxicologist]

Morally distasteful is putting it lightly. Morally reprehensible would be more accurate.



Pro-Choicers: Pro-lifers believe abortion is murder. Every time you say "abortion", in our heads it is the moral equivalent of murder. When I help a patient get the abortion they desire it is akin to helping a person find a contract killer. Do you have any idea how messed up a situation this is for us?

Yes, I do understand (read my above post). I personally would not choose abortion for myself (I have three beautiful kids), but I don't believe in the government telling me not to. I have separated the two issues, and while it is hard for me to hear of anyone having/wanting an abortion, I'm more concerned with helping the patient. If we cannot agree on a suitable treatment, I must refer her elsewhere. I feel the same about assisted suicide.

 

[MoosePilot]

The key here is elective. You're assuming these women have made an informed decision. Most have NOT. It's our responsibility to help people in crisis. Unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is a crisis. If nothing else, recommend psychiatric counseling, but please don't assume they've "made up their mind" without a little investigation. Many women know of two options: have it and keep it or abortion. It's our duty to educate and inform. You can do this without referring her directly to a provider or the yellow pages.

I agree. I'm completely open to caring for my patient to the best of my ability. I'm there with the options I can recommend, referrals to the best providers of those options, ways to pay for medical care, and ways to best survive after the birth with limited resources. It's a responsibility for those of us who oppose abortion to provide alternatives and not be callous to pregnant women without a support structure. I completely acknowledge that. However, there comes a point when a patient will tell you they're not interested in further alternatives/counseling. That may come very early in the discussion. If they're very determined about that, I don't have much more to give.

I don't believe we're required to anything against our morals, but patient abandonment must be avoided. What about counselors who have child molestors and rapists as clients? They are required to refer the patient and tell them why they're being referred. I trust you'll be able to find a way to care for the patient without compromising your morals, until the Supreme Court tells us how, anyway.

I believe doctor/patient confidentiality has a clause that if you think your patient is going to do something to hurt themself or someone else you can report them, although I may be mistaken. I'd be sure of that before working with a molestor or rapist. However, by caring for them, I'm decreasing the likelihood of something bad happening, not assisting in preparations for it. If I helped a molestor commit his crime, that would bother me. But if I do my best to help him with his issues seeking to alleviate the behavior, I'm not violating my morals.

 

[LloydDObler]

Morally distasteful is putting it lightly. Morally reprehensible would be more accurate.



Pro-Choicers: Pro-lifers believe abortion is murder. Every time you say "abortion", in our heads it is the moral equivalent of murder. When I help a patient get the abortion they desire it is akin to helping a person find a contract killer. Do you have any idea how messed up a situation this is for us?

If abortion is murder then why is it OK when the mother's life is at risk? One life is more important than another? How do those of you with this belief justify this scenario?

If abortion is murder, than 1 out of 4 women are murderers. I personally have never interacted with someone who has murdered someone (according to my definition, anyway.) I think it would be very hard to be friends with someone I know killed another person on purpose. How do you deal with this, since you presumably know women who have had abortions (assuming you know more than 4 women, that is...)?

 

[LloydDObler]

Where in the crap did you get that statistic? 1 out of 4 seems pretty high to me.

That stat is widely available all over the place. Here's one version. It states that 35% of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45.


http://www.prochoice.org/

 

[Medikit]

If abortion is murder then why is it OK when the mother's life is at risk? One life is more important than another? How do those of you with this belief justify this scenario?

If abortion is murder, than 1 out of 4 women are murderers. I personally have never interacted with someone who has murdered someone (according to my definition, anyway.) I think it would be very hard to be friends with someone I know killed another person on purpose. How do you deal with this, since you presumably know women who have had abortions (assuming you know more than 4 women, that is...)?

I don't really understand what you're asking. You mean how can I be friends with someone who does something wrong? If I wasn't I wouldn't have any friends. When it comes to abortion I have to understand that people don't feel the same thing I feel when they approach the subject. Even though to me they are comitting murder, to them they are not. I would consider them a confused person who is comitting murder without realizing that's what they are doing. I can be friends with that person but we probably wouldn't talk about abortion very often.

When the mother's life is in danger I'm killing one person to save another rather than lose both. I would do this in cases that don't involve abortion.

I'm not sure if http://www.prochoice.org/ is the best place to rely on for your information.

 

[TRUE]

I don't think any good doctor would perform any procedure that was against his/her religious or moral beliefs, no matter what. I know i never would.

There are emergency procedures that you might have to perform even though they may be against your moral/religoius beliefs. While sometimes you might be able to refer the case to another physician, what if you are the chief tramua surgeon and the case is yours to do? Refusing service is not only unethical, it is illegal (if it is an emergency procedure).

It is my belief that my personal standards and morals are just that, PERSONAL. I will not enforce them on anyone else. As a physician, it your responsiblity to give the best care possible to a patient, whether or not you agree with their morals.

 

[LloydDObler]

I don't really understand what you're asking. You mean how can I be friends with someone who does something wrong? If I wasn't I wouldn't have any friends. When it comes to abortion I have to understand that people don't feel the same thing I feel when they approach the subject. Even though to me they are comitting murder, to them they are not. I would consider them a confused person who is comitting murder without realizing that's what they are doing. I can be friends with that person but we probably wouldn't talk about abortion very often.

When the mother's life is in danger I'm killing one person to save another rather than lose both. I would do this in cases that don't involve abortion.

I'm not sure if http://www.prochoice.org/ is the best place to rely on for your information.

Actually for abortion info., I'd say it is. The National Abortion Federation is one of the main organizations that complies abortion numbers in the US. And I can't imagine that they'd inflate their numbers!!

Anyway, for me murder goes beyond doing something wrong. I could be friends with someone who shoplifted sunglasses, but murder? I don't think so.

 

[Medikit]

Actually for abortion info., I'd say it is. The National Abortion Federation is one of the main organizations that complies abortion numbers in the US. And I can't imagine that they'd inflate their numbers!!

Anyway, for me murder goes beyond doing something wrong. I could be friends with someone who shoplifted sunglasses, but murder? I don't think so.

Certainly I would probably have a hard time with someone who had an abortion and actually believed abortion was murder when they got the abortion. It would be akin to seeing a vegetarian who believed animals were morally equivalent to people killing an animal. I would have a hard time with anyone who would simply ignore their own moral values that easily.

Legally there is a difference between shoplifting sunglasses and murder. I have different emotional reactions to each of them as well. But I don't believe there is a spiritual difference.

 

[Noeljan]

Hold up Lloyd
so first you say that a physician should be non judgmental and respect one's beliefs, but then you say how could someone who didn't believe in abortion ever consider being friends with someone who did?? Don't these two statements somewhat conflict. I would think that an open minded pro choicer such as yourself wouldn't see that as out of the ordinary as so many women have had abortions (as you pointed out). Yet how could a closed minded pro lifer like myself even consider being civil to people who have had abortions?
Well i will tell you this, even though I feel abortion is murder I believe people make mistakes. yes sometimes disgusting horrible ones, but does that mean I feel that none of these people have any good left in them worthwhile? Does this mean if I have been friends with someone, or better yet related to someone who has had abortions not to save their own lives I should just turn my back on them forever? Just so you know, I do ask a lot of questions to the people I know who have them. I really, really try and get inside their head and try and see it from what they were thinking (which for someone reason some people that are pro choice seem to have a hard time even trying to do, yet pro lifers are somehow the judgmental extremists who are crazy and lack compassion). Most of the women I know don't think of abortion as murder, and the ones who do/did don't seem to care. I like to think of it as ignorance because you are ending a life and they were the ones who never seem to be responsible and sleep around (I am just saying in my experiences). I do care about them as people, and try and offer my insight but I do allow them to express how they feel. A person very close to me cried to me a day after she gor her first abortion (she already had one child from a teenage pregnancy, but surprise doesnt seem to learn). You know what I did? I just put my arms around her and let her cry. Does this make me less of a person bc I am able to do this with someone who has done such an aweful thing? I don't think so.
Getting back to your other question on how it is ok to abort when the mother's life is at stake. Well my friend sometimes we need to use ethics. One of the lives has to end and here I feel the mother's life takes priority. As someone pointed out before there are other non abortion cases where one life in danger is ended and helped to save another. What about someone who is donating organs on life support? I am sure there are going to be times in the abortion senario (though very rare contrary to what a lot of pro choicers would like to point out)

 

[LloydDObler]

Hold up Lloyd
so first you say that a physician should be non judgmental and respect one's beliefs, but then you say how could someone who didn't believe in abortion ever consider being friends with someone who did?? Don't these two statements somewhat conflict. I would think that an open minded pro choicer such as yourself wouldn't see that as out of the ordinary as so many women have had abortions (as you pointed out). Yet how could a closed minded pro lifer like myself even consider being civil to people who have had abortions?
Well i will tell you this, even though I feel abortion is murder I believe people make mistakes. yes sometimes disgusting horrible ones, but does that mean I feel that none of these people have any good left in them worthwhile? Does this mean if I have been friends with someone, or better yet related to someone who has had abortions not to save their own lives I should just turn my back on them forever? Just so you know, I do ask a lot of questions to the people I know who have them. I really, really try and get inside their head and try and see it from what they were thinking (which for someone reason some people that are pro choice seem to have a hard time even trying to do, yet pro lifers are somehow the judgmental extremists who are crazy and lack compassion). Most of the women I know don't think of abortion as murder, and the ones who do/did don't seem to care. I like to think of it as ignorance because you are ending a life and they were the ones who never seem to be responsible and sleep around (I am just saying in my experiences). I do care about them as people, and try and offer my insight but I do allow them to express how they feel. A person very close to me cried to me a day after she gor her first abortion (she already had one child from a teenage pregnancy, but surprise doesnt seem to learn). You know what I did? I just put my arms around her and let her cry. Does this make me less of a person bc I am able to do this with someone who has done such an aweful thing? I don't think so.
Getting back to your other question on how it is ok to abort when the mother's life is at stake. Well my friend sometimes we need to use ethics. One of the lives has to end and here I feel the mother's life takes priority. As someone pointed out before there are other non abortion cases where one life in danger is ended and helped to save another. What about someone who is donating organs on life support? I am sure there are going to be times in the abortion senario (though very rare contrary to what a lot of pro choicers would like to point out)

I don't know where this is coming from. I was asking what I believe are legitimate questions in an attempt to understand this issue, as I am surrounded by anti-choice people at my school. I still am having trouble understanding how someone who thinks having an abortion is the same as cold blooded murder can then be friends with someone who has had them. I appreciate the responses I have received, though. I guess I am glad that you are able to be friends with these women. And I am sure that they appreciate your questioning their motives after the fact.

I have no idea what your last point is trying to convey.

 

[Medikit]

I don't know where this is coming from. I was asking what I believe are legitimate questions in an attempt to understand this issue, as I am surrounded by anti-choice people at my school. I still am having trouble understanding how someone who thinks having an abortion is the same as cold blooded murder can then be friends with someone who has had them. I appreciate the responses I have received, though. I guess I am glad that you are able to be friends with these women. And I am sure that they appreciate your questioning their motives after the fact.

I have no idea what your last point is trying to convey.

It's not the same as cold blooded murder. For the child there's no difference between 1st degree and manslaughter but for the guilty party there is. In this case the person doesn't even think they are murdering. I am surrounded by anti-life people at my school, it's allowed me to have a very keen perspective on the issue. I'm surprised that you don't have the same.

 

[MoosePilot]

If abortion is murder then why is it OK when the mother's life is at risk? One life is more important than another? How do those of you with this belief justify this scenario?

If abortion is murder, than 1 out of 4 women are murderers. I personally have never interacted with someone who has murdered someone (according to my definition, anyway.) I think it would be very hard to be friends with someone I know killed another person on purpose. How do you deal with this, since you presumably know women who have had abortions (assuming you know more than 4 women, that is...)?

If the mother's life is at risk, so is the child's. So if you have to ultimately choose between saving the mother or saving no one, it's preferable to me to save one life than none.

If 1 of 4 women are murderers, omitting other forms of murder, then it doesn't follow that they're distributed evenly throughout the population. I've never had a woman admit to me that they had an abortion. So it doesn't come into play.

However, if my friend murdered someone and there was no legal ramification (incarceration complicates things and isn't relevant), I'd still try to be his friend. How could I abandon my friend? Doesn't mean I'd like his action, but how can anyone find redemption without support? The same goes for a friend who had an abortion.

 

[electric]

Do you think that your viewpoint on this might prevent a woman from admitting to you that she had an abortion, Moosepilot?

I think, ultimately, women who want to have children make the best mothers. Not women that don't want to be pregnant.

Someone mentioned earlier about 3 reasons that they felt were appropriate for having an abortion. Could they expand on that?

 

[MoosePilot]

Do you think that your viewpoint on this might prevent a woman from admitting to you that she had an abortion, Moosepilot?

I think, ultimately, women who want to have children make the best mothers. Not women that don't want to be pregnant.

Someone mentioned earlier about 3 reasons that they felt were appropriate for having an abortion. Could they expand on that?

They might indeed. I'd just as soon not know, so if it does, it's not a loss.

As far as women who want to have children making the best mothers, that's probably true. My mother wasn't any good at it. I wouldn't trust her with a dog. However, I'd a million times rather be born and given the chance to try to live, with all the pain, sweat, and work that entails than not be given the chance. So I don't know what that saying really means or how it matters.

 

[electric]

I think it matters in terms of how many women end up pregnant and don't want to be. I think it matters because I know if I had a child, it would be because I want to, not because I got knocked up and don't know what to do about it.

What about the possibility of putting a sign up in the waiting room if you don't wish to perscibe the morning after pill or any other contraceptive?

(My campus is actually facing this dilemma right now; our female physican doesn't prescribe the morning after pill. Our campus is rather isolated, which just adds to the issue.)

 

[LloydDObler]

(My campus is actually facing this dilemma right now; our female physican doesn't prescribe the morning after pill. Our campus is rather isolated, which just adds to the issue.)

SO FRUSTRATING!!! Of course, it doesn't matter that the FDA doesn't classify EC as an abortafacient, or that prescribing it could actually (and does, I am sure) prevent ACTUAL abortions!

There are lots of places you can get Plan B on-line. I know this doesn't help in a pinch, but at least women could have it for the future, just in case.

 

[LloydDObler]

What about the possibility of putting a sign up in the waiting room if you don't wish to perscibe the morning after pill or any other contraceptive?

I agree completely. Then women know what they're getting into when they go to the doctor for help. This is especially important for Gyns and FPs.