Ethics question on abortion?

[surftheiop]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm correct in thinking that abortions are pretty much solely performed by OB/GYN's, right?


So for those of us who have ethical problems with it can just avoid that field and we won't have to worry about getting put in a tough spot.


Although I do find it odd though that NICU is going to be busting their butts taking care of a 23 week premie, but 3 and 1/7 week before people claim its not human and can be aborted w/o moral problems.

 

[kansaskid]

I think if I were answering this question I would frame my answer based upon the current standards of bioethical principles. I admit there would be a fair amount of gender/feminist justice theory behind it, but within that framework, the morally correct answer would be to assist the minor in whatever legal processes were available to her to the best of my ability as her physician. Upwards of 35 states have parental involvement laws and even many states with parental consent legislation have safety nets in place of judicial bypass as well as exceptions to the law when medical emergency or abuse, assault, or neglect are present.

So yes, follow the law, but based upon agreed ethical standards (assigning full moral status to the minor but not to the embryo/fetus, etc) her ability to receive an abortion should not be hindered. And I also believe that as a physician it is my moral responsibility to fight against gender injustices in the health care system and many parental involvement laws are just that.

 

[Dianyla]

I'm correct in thinking that abortions are pretty much solely performed by OB/GYN's, right?

Nope. I've seen MDs from Family Med and IM as well as ObGyn. Also, Nurse Practitioners and Certified Nurse Midwives.

So for those of us who have ethical problems with it can just avoid that field and we won't have to worry about getting put in a tough spot.

There are plenty of practitioners in the specialties I mentioned above who prefer to not do these procedures. As LizzyM described above, an individual physician's conscientious/moral objections are legally protected. FWIW, I don't believe there is any medical specialty that is free of ethical dilemmas.

Although if you avoid all specialties involving coochies, you certainly stand a higher chance of avoiding coochie-related ethical dilemmas.

ETA: Small print disclaimer: However if you, yourself, possess a coochie and engage in sexuality with sperm-bearing persons (or conversely if you yourself possess sperm and engage in sexuality with someone in possession of a coochie) then you're still at risk of a possible coochie-related ethical dilemma at some point in your future life. May cause cancer in the state of California.

 

[lacrossefiend73]

I'm correct in thinking that abortions are pretty much solely performed by OB/GYN's, right?


So for those of us who have ethical problems with it can just avoid that field and we won't have to worry about getting put in a tough spot.


Although I do find it odd though that NICU is going to be busting their butts taking care of a 23 week premie, but 3 and 1/7 week before people claim its not human and can be aborted w/o moral problems.

Family planning fellowships (which include abortion training) are geared towards OB/GYN and family med docs.

And I would think if you were in primary care, the issue would come up.

The NICU doc is doing their job... just as the abortion provider would be doing their job.

 

[surftheiop]

The NICU doc is doing their job... just as the abortion provider would be doing their job.

yeah, im just saying from a philosophical standpoint its weird that a couple of weeks is the difference between destroying malignant tissue and caring for a life.

 

[DrBowtie]

yeah, im just saying from a philosophical standpoint its weird that a couple of weeks is the difference between destroying malignant tissue and caring for a life.

By the same token you could just draw the distinction as in utero vs. outside the uterus w/umbilical cord cut.

 

[surftheiop]

By the same token you could just draw the distinction as in utero vs. outside the uterus w/umbilical cord cut.

I agree that the line is inherently arbitrary no matter where its drawn (even for the pro-life people, conception is a somewhat arbitrary line).

Like in your example, what if the umbilical cord wasn't cut yet?

 

[surftheiop]

Also, I will try to get this thread go back to intended discussion and leave the abortion debate behind.

I don't want to send this thing to a flame war and end up getting locked.


Back on discussion.

So long as we aren't getting into crazy Nazi Germany hypotheticals, I think the only reasonable answer is to follow the law whenever there is a law governing a decision.

 

[Dianyla]

So long as we aren't getting into crazy Nazi Germany hypotheticals, I think the only reasonable answer is to follow the law whenever there is a law governing a decision.

I declare this thread Godwinned! 😀

 

[morning]

And the presented situation doesn't really sound like an ethical issue. It's more or less do you break the law. The minor girl isn't described as in a life or death situation.

Pregnancy always carries some risk of death, however small. And not always from the actual physiological process. You have no idea what might or might not go down in hypothetical minor female's life if someone knew she had become pregnant. There was a young woman in Arizona, recently, who was murdered by her father (run over by an SUV in her driveway) just for speaking to boys.

 

[surftheiop]

Pregnancy always carries some risk of death, however small. And not always from the actual physiological process. You have no idea what might or might not go down in hypothetical minor female's life if someone knew she had become pregnant. There was a young woman in Arizona, recently, who was murdered by her father (run over by an SUV in her driveway) just for speaking to boys.

This is just awful logic, should we ban parents from seeing minors report cards just because it catalyzes* child abuse on occasion?

*originally I said "causes", but if someone is crazy enough to beat their kid over a report card or run someone over with an SUV, they just needed a slight push over the edge

 

[Morsetlis]

Follow the law and best practices. You can't be faulted for following the masses. Remember Nazi Germany!

 

[morning]

This is just awful logic, should we ban parents from seeing minors report cards just because it causes child abuse on occasion?

The law in this case usually does allow a minor to see a judge in order to circumvent consent (which is the discussion I was in the middle of - you might want to read up a bit more), so no, it's not awful logic. There are provisions specifically for what I was talking about, so if you think it's truly illogical, you might want to take it up with your congressman. I'm pretty sure the ethical questions surrounding abortion are a bit deeper than "lolz but wut about this situation that has absolutely nothing to do with pregnancy and abortion?"

By the way, if a report card is going to cause child abuse, then yes, parental rights are usually terminated. Oh no, back to the original question about who to contact when you're not sure what to do or say to a patient!

 

[surftheiop]

The law in this case usually does allow a minor to see a judge in order to circumvent consent (which is the discussion I was in the middle of - you might want to read up a bit more), so no, it's not awful logic. There are provisions specifically for what I was talking about, so if you think it's truly illogical, you might want to take it up with your congressman. I'm pretty sure the ethical questions surrounding abortion are a bit deeper than "lolz but wut about this situation that has absolutely nothing to do with pregnancy and abortion?"

By the way, if a report card is going to cause child abuse, then yes, parental rights are usually terminated. Oh no, back to the original question about who to contact when you're not sure what to do or say to a patient!

If you were just advocating going to a judge then I have no problem (as that is indeed part of the law). I know several people in here were advocating just breaking the law because they felt the law was wrong.

 

[lacrossefiend73]

Just a bit about the impact of parental involvement laws (sorry if 2008 is not recent enough for anyone): http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2008/10/16/Parental_Involvement2008.pdf

The bit at the bottom has to do w/ what morning was saying.

 

[The right Path]

Just a heads up: The Alan Guttmacher Institute is funded by abortion providing facilities. It is not going to report anything that could potentially decrease its income. Always good to know the interest of your sources.

Whatever the law says about parental notification, proper assessment of risk for violence, or other social/family problems should be done by a thorough, scrupulous provider that truly has his/her patient's best interest at heart.

 

[lacrossefiend73]

Just a heads up: The Alan Guttmacher Institute is funded by abortion providing facilities. It is not going to report anything that could potentially decrease its income. Always good to know the interest of your sources.

Oh I knew. Have to kind of expect that, though... I would think you'd be hard pressed to find it otherwise in this area. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Same as drug companies funding research of their drugs and producing papers from the studies.

 

[dentoin]

As You should be specific with the law while in interview.

Regards,
DentoIn

 

[LizzyM]

so we don't get embroiled in further debate of abortion...

Let's say that physician assisted suicide is now permitted in your state for people 18 years of age and older who are competent to make decisions for themselves.

how would you answer a 55 year old woman with a cancer diagnosis and a prognosis of less than 6 months who asked you for help in commiting suicide?

would you give a 17 year old with a prognosis of less than 6 months the means to commit suicide if this minor otherwise fit within the state law governing assisted suicide?

would you do so for a 19 year old with profound ******ation and a prognosis of less than 6 months if the parents asked you to do so?

 

[DrBowtie]

so we don't get embroiled in further debate of abortion...

Let's say that physician assisted suicide is now permitted in your state for people 18 years of age and older who are competent to make decisions for themselves.

how would you answer a 55 year old woman with a cancer diagnosis and a prognosis of less than 6 months who asked you for help in commiting suicide?

would you give a 17 year old with a prognosis of less than 6 months the means to commit suicide if this minor otherwise fit within the state law governing assisted suicide?

would you do so for a 19 year old with profound ******ation and a prognosis of less than 6 months if the parents asked you to do so?

Yes, No, No?

 

[morning]

so we don't get embroiled in further debate of abortion...

Let's say that physician assisted suicide is now permitted in your state for people 18 years of age and older who are competent to make decisions for themselves.

how would you answer a 55 year old woman with a cancer diagnosis and a prognosis of less than 6 months who asked you for help in commiting suicide?

would you give a 17 year old with a prognosis of less than 6 months the means to commit suicide if this minor otherwise fit within the state law governing assisted suicide?

would you do so for a 19 year old with profound ******ation and a prognosis of less than 6 months if the parents asked you to do so?

I would support all of these in theory (except maybe the 17 year old) and would happily vote for a law allowing physician-assisted suicide, but I don't think I could bring myself to do it myself. I would wonder for the rest of my life whether someone had made a mistake - or some treatment could have been discovered - and the patient could have survived, even if that was incredibly unlikely and unrealistic. However, I would refer the patient to someone who WOULD do it. I don't think there's anything logically inconsistent with "I don't agree / here's someone who does"...it's admitting you don't know everything, aren't God and could be mistaken in your views.

 

[medschoolfamily]

That's a nice lecture about the process to someone who went through it now 3 years ago.

You don't need to be a drone, but you should acknowledge that 100% you follow the law and exhibit common sense. In these ethical situations, check your idealism at the door. This will be addressed in your med school classes.

Read my posts, I said to 100% follow the law, then go on to state your opinion.

 

[LizzyM]

Yes, No, No?

Why "no?" in the third instance? On what do you base your decision?

What should society do about a physician who says "no" to all three scenarios and offers alternatives to PAS?

 

[surftheiop]

Why "no?" in the third instance? On what do you base your decision?

What should society do about a physician who says "no" to all three scenarios and offers alternatives to PAS?

Why should society have to do anything? Just because its legal for a physician to do something is there any reason he must do it?

 

[LizzyM]

Why should society have to do anything? Just because its legal for a physician to do something is there any reason he must do it?

Well, society (or a subset of society, for the benefit of society) decides who is licensed to practice as a physician....

And I agree that just because it is legal doesn't mean that it is obligatory. However, there are some who make it seem as if it is for some procedures

 

[surftheiop]

Well, society (or a subset of society, for the benefit of society) decides who is licensed to practice as a physician....

And I agree that just because it is legal doesn't mean that it is obligatory. However, there are some who make it seem as if it is for some procedures

Not saying this is my stance (because its not).

But hypothetically, if someone interviewing at med school said they would not assist in suicide, regardless of its legality, is that going to be frowned on?

 

[Trexate]

Not saying this is my stance (because its not).

But hypothetically, if someone interviewing at med school said they would not assist in suicide, regardless of its legality, is that going to be frowned on?

Red state or blue state?

 

[surftheiop]

Red state or blue state?

Thats sort of my point, seems like there is a great deal of personal opinion related to these sort of things and I don't know why they are being used to judge candidates

 

[LizzyM]

We've been told at my school that we shouldn't ask "medical ethics" questions at interview because 1) students haven't been to med school yet, and 2) there are problems with judging applicants for holding a legitimate opinion on a topic where there are differences of opinion in society.

Where you might be asked how you would act in a difficult situation, you should have a rationale for your answer, you should not flip-flop if the interviewer probes a bit (it seems like you will change your positions with the wind just to say what you think that they want to hear), but you should be able to incorporate new information and be flexible, if that is indicated.

If you have a well thought out reason for refusing to participate in a legal activity, for participating in something that is legal or advocating for a change in the law (or supporting the status quo), that's all we're looking for.

 

[DrBowtie]

Why "no?" in the third instance? On what do you base your decision?

What should society do about a physician who says "no" to all three scenarios and offers alternatives to PAS?

Patient's MR. Your scenario stated the decisionmust be made in competant mental status. Guess it depends on the parents poet of attorney rights.

 

[LizzyM]

Patient's MR. Your scenario stated the decisionmust be made in competant mental status. Guess it depends on the parents poet of attorney rights.

Good answer. I was confused by the "?" I'm also confused by the parents poet of attorney rights. Typo? If you are going to follow the law, it would seem to be "No, period."

 

[DrBowtie]

Good answer. I was confused by the "?" I'm also confused by the parents poet of attorney rights. Typo? If you are going to follow the law, it would seem to be "No, period."

Good ole IPhone fat finger. Parent's POWER of attorney.

 

[bamtuba]

The easy answer is to follow the law - however, you may be faced with a follow up question regarding your own personal beliefs and feelings.

There is no blanket response - the issue is highly charged with emotions and religious convictions. In the end, you can only do what is applicable with the law and your own views.

If abortion is something you struggle with, it would be best to choose a field without the possibility of facing those views.

I might be reading this the wrong way, but if not, this is false.

Whether you agree or disagree with ANY particular procedure does not limit your ability to be a good physician. It just means that you need to know your limitations and serving your patient's interests by sending them to someone who can help where you cannot. Of course there are exceptions, but in general don't let a belief about a controversial topic completely scare you away.

And in the interview be yourself while being respectful of others' beliefs and the law of the land.

 

[bamtuba]

Personally I've always thought the idea of refusing to participate but refering is inane. The central argument of the pro-life movement is that a fetus is a human life, possessed of a soul, and endowed with all the basic and inalienable rights which that implies. I can understand people who don't agree with that, but agreeing with it and then refering your patient to an abortion provider anyway seems like the height of moral cowardice. "I think you're murdering an innocent child and absolutely refuse to participate, but I hear the guy down the hall is great". What?

Not really. I could argue that taking a life when one is sworn to "do no harm" is the "height of moral cowardice," but what good would that do? It won't change the law, nor prevent patients from finding someone willing to perform an abortion. It would be the "height of moral cowardice," in my opinion to allow a patient to try to kill an unborn child with a coat hanger in lieu of trying to share another point of view with them (ie. it would be pretty messed up to tell the person "hell no, you would be committing murder, get out of my office"). However,with my beliefs, if a patient is bent on getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy, I would try to give them educated alternatives (ie. help them to figure out if abortion is really the best solution, which really it RARELY is...) and any help they need short of sending them "down the hall," but at the end of the day as patient advocate I would give them the information they are seeking (ie. where to go to get what they want) and let them make their own adult decisions.

 

[randombetch]

legality is a different thing than morality.

But following the law is almost always the ethical thing to do.

 

[rbnsafsadgf]

But following the law is almost always the ethical thing to do.

Not a student of history, eh?

 

[surftheiop]

Not a student of history, eh?

for someone with that screen name you sure don't put much faith in the authority of the government....

 

[lacrossefiend73]

Not really. I could argue that taking a life when one is sworn to "do no harm" is the "height of moral cowardice," but what good would that do? It won't change the law, nor prevent patients from finding someone willing to perform an abortion. It would be the "height of moral cowardice," in my opinion to allow a patient to try to kill an unborn child with a coat hanger in lieu of trying to share another point of view with them (ie. it would be pretty messed up to tell the person "hell no, you would be committing murder, get out of my office"). However,with my beliefs, if a patient is bent on getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy, I would try to give them educated alternatives (ie. help them to figure out if abortion is really the best solution, which really it RARELY is...) and any help they need short of sending them "down the hall," but at the end of the day as patient advocate I would give them the information they are seeking (ie. where to go to get what they want) and let them make their own adult decisions.

I like most of what you said... but on the bolded part, how'd you come to that conclusion? (Not trying to pick a fight... just want to know your thoughts.)

 

[Morsetlis]

Not a student of history, eh?

Medical school application is not reinventing the wheel ;p

 

[Mackey]

for someone with that screen name you sure don't put much faith in the authority of the government....

He could be a stuffed tiger.

 

[bamtuba]

I like most of what you said... but on the bolded part, how'd you come to that conclusion? (Not trying to pick a fight... just want to know your thoughts.)

Fair enough. My mother aborted my younger sibling because she was an alcoholic emotional mess who decided (in a fit of rage) to abort my younger sibling because she basically wanted to get back at my father. This is my personal reason for being anti-abortion with the exception that there is a life or death scenerio.

A LOT of people who have never actually dealt with abortion PERSONALLY have NO IDEA how this procedure affects those involved later in life. It is horrible. My mother regrets it to this day, and let's just say I have some mixed feelings of a)feeling sorry for her and b)wondering "what if that were me," or "wonder what my little brother/sister would be doing in life right now." My mother had no financial considerations in play nor any health related reasons to have the procedure. And no one getting paid to do the procedure ever made sure she had any good reason to just abort her pregnancy.

Many make this decision never considering adoption as an alternative because they are scared/nervous/uneducated about the other possibilities. What scares the hell out of me is that many organizations and political groups WANT to create a society wherein abortion is viewed as "the easy choice." It's all around us. "Hey, don't tell your parents you ever were pregnant, why should they know about this procedure" when schools can't even give Tylenol to kids without parental permission. "Hey, let's try to make it REQUIRED that medical students perform an abortion to graduate (ie. Hillary Clinton's idea a while back) when we know some people disagree with it and have good reason to do so." Agree or disagree with abortion, great, but don't literally force beliefs on parents/physicians.

No matter what you believe about this topic everyone should educate themselves about the different parts of this debate and stop making it purely about women's rights, religious ideaology, and the like and spend some time with those who have been affected by abortion, particularly later in life. Even Roe in Roe v. Wade now speaks out against abortion.

Not trying to pick a fight either, nor will I respond to attacks on my position, but since I was asked I will gladly share.

 

[rbnsafsadgf]

Medical school application is not reinventing the wheel ;p

Nor is medical school for people who have no idea about the social and historical context in which they will be practicing medicine.

 

[surftheiop]

Fair enough. My mother aborted my younger sibling because she was an alcoholic emotional mess who decided (in a fit of rage) to abort my younger sibling because she basically wanted to get back at my father. This is my personal reason for being anti-abortion with the exception that there is a life or death scenerio.

A LOT of people who have never actually dealt with abortion PERSONALLY have NO IDEA how this procedure affects those involved later in life. It is horrible. My mother regrets it to this day, and let's just say I have some mixed feelings of a)feeling sorry for her and b)wondering "what if that were me," or "wonder what my little brother/sister would be doing in life right now." My mother had no financial considerations in play nor any health related reasons to have the procedure. And no one getting paid to do the procedure ever made sure she had any good reason to just abort her pregnancy.

Many make this decision never considering adoption as an alternative because they are scared/nervous/uneducated about the other possibilities. What scares the hell out of me is that many organizations and political groups WANT to create a society wherein abortion is viewed as "the easy choice." It's all around us. "Hey, don't tell your parents you ever were pregnant, why should they know about this procedure" when schools can't even give Tylenol to kids without parental permission. "Hey, let's try to make it REQUIRED that medical students perform an abortion to graduate (ie. Hillary Clinton's idea a while back) when we know some people disagree with it and have good reason to do so." Agree or disagree with abortion, great, but don't literally force beliefs on parents/physicians.

No matter what you believe about this topic everyone should educate themselves about the different parts of this debate and stop making it purely about women's rights, religious ideaology, and the like and spend some time with those who have been affected by abortion, particularly later in life. Even Roe in Roe v. Wade now speaks out against abortion.

Not trying to pick a fight either, nor will I respond to attacks on my position, but since I was asked I will gladly share.

This is a good perspective.

Something I found interesting was when many pro-choice people got bent out of shape when Mrs. Tebow talked about how she CHOSE not to abort Tim.

Sometimes pro-choice activists almost make it sound like abortion is a good thing, which is just appalling. Thankfully most pro choice people seem to realize that abortion is an awful, awful thing, but they feel that people should have the right to make that decision themselves.

(I think this is evidenced by the fact that the majority of pro-choice people would NEVER consider abortion as an option in their own lives)

 

[Daedra22]

I feel that it is the duty of a physician to provide options and explain them honestly. To offer an opinion goes too far--patients put a great deal of trust in their physicians, and to try to persuade them on such a personal issue seems like an abuse of that power, to me. I've known women who were persuaded out of an abortion who regretted it, and I've known women who were talked into an abortion an regretted it. Both of these scenarios are sad.

Refusing to perform an abortion is another matter. I could see where someone wouldn't want to do that, even if they were pro-choice. It is very different than telling a woman that abortion is immoral or that she "cannot" have one.

 

[kansaskid]

It's also important in a discussion of abortion issues, to take into consideration that not all women view the procedure as a "horrible, difficult choice" that will "affect them for the rest of their lives". For some women, it's just the best option for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it's trivial for them, just that not all women experience extreme guilt about it. And that certainly doesn't make them unethical or immoral people.

 

[298609]

so we don't get embroiled in further debate of abortion...

Let's say that physician assisted suicide is now permitted in your state for people 18 years of age and older who are competent to make decisions for themselves.

how would you answer a 55 year old woman with a cancer diagnosis and a prognosis of less than 6 months who asked you for help in commiting suicide?

would you give a 17 year old with a prognosis of less than 6 months the means to commit suicide if this minor otherwise fit within the state law governing assisted suicide?

would you do so for a 19 year old with profound ******ation and a prognosis of less than 6 months if the parents asked you to do so?

the first three cases we looked at in med ethics....with the now famous patients names removed. nice, LizzyM 🙂

 

[lacrossefiend73]

Many make this decision never considering adoption as an alternative because they are scared/nervous/uneducated about the other possibilities. What scares the hell out of me is that many organizations and political groups WANT to create a society wherein abortion is viewed as "the easy choice." It's all around us. "Hey, don't tell your parents you ever were pregnant, why should they know about this procedure" when schools can't even give Tylenol to kids without parental permission. "Hey, let's try to make it REQUIRED that medical students perform an abortion to graduate (ie. Hillary Clinton's idea a while back) when we know some people disagree with it and have good reason to do so." Agree or disagree with abortion, great, but don't literally force beliefs on parents/physicians.

I started reading this book today on my flights home called "This Common Secret" which is about the life of the author who is an abortion provider. I'm over half-way through and it's pretty fantastic. She talks a lot about the counseling process at her clinics and how they turn people away that show they are not ready for this irreversible process. It's all about good counseling so relief is the outcome, not regret.

Something I found interesting was when many pro-choice people got bent out of shape when Mrs. Tebow talked about how she CHOSE not to abort Tim.

Sometimes pro-choice activists almost make it sound like abortion is a good thing, which is just appalling. Thankfully most pro choice people seem to realize that abortion is an awful, awful thing, but they feel that people should have the right to make that decision themselves.

(I think this is evidenced by the fact that the majority of pro-choice people would NEVER consider abortion as an option in their own lives)

Not that I'm positive on this, but I know a lot of pro-choicers didn't like the commercial since it had a "pro-life" spin (not a fan of the pro-life term... since we all are technically pro-life) when it was in fact pro-choice... like you said, she chose not to have an abortion.

Not to be morbid, but abortion is good for many, many women. Do most pro-choicers wish abortion didn't have to exist? Sure. But it does have to exist and will always exist when there are unwanted pregnancies and pro-choicers just want there to be safe options for the women in need.

And I don't think anyone ever truly considers abortion until they get placed in that situation. People say they would never get an abortion because they think they will never be put in that situation.

It's also important in a discussion of abortion issues, to take into consideration that not all women view the procedure as a "horrible, difficult choice" that will "affect them for the rest of their lives". For some women, it's just the best option for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it's trivial for them, just that not all women experience extreme guilt about it. And that certainly doesn't make them unethical or immoral people.

👍

 

[Perrotfish]

It's also important in a discussion of abortion issues, to take into consideration that not all women view the procedure as a "horrible, difficult choice" that will "affect them for the rest of their lives". For some women, it's just the best option for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it's trivial for them, just that not all women experience extreme guilt about it. And that certainly doesn't make them unethical or immoral people.

Not to be morbid, but abortion is good for many, many women. Do most pro-choicers wish abortion didn't have to exist? Sure. But it does have to exist and will always exist when there are unwanted pregnancies and pro-choicers just want there to be safe options for the women in need.

I think you guys are going after a strawman here. No one, either pro-life or pro-choice, is arguing that abortions aren't occasional good for women (other than in a spiritual sense). The procedure safely gets rid of the cause of a very inconvienant situation. What pro-life groups are arguing is that it is good for the woman at the expense of a child's life, no different from giving birth to the child and then tossing it in a dumpster. One person's convenience can obviously never be the justification for another person's execution, so the pro-life movement argues that the mother's improved circumstances after an abortion don't justify the procedure.

 

[kc2lvh]

Not to be morbid, but abortion is good for many, many women. Do most pro-choicers wish abortion didn't have to exist? Sure. But it does have to exist and will always exist when there are unwanted pregnancies and pro-choicers just want there to be safe options for the women in need.
👍

Let's not get caught up in the semantics of whether or not abortion is ethical. If you bring up the Tim Tebow commercial's point, Jimmy Kimmel shows the counterpoint, and the argument goes nowhere. It's really impossible to say exactly when life starts, and the only real definite line is conception... so should we all stop using condoms and put it in God's hands?

When it comes down to it, it's about personal responsibility. Now I'm pro-choice (far be it for me to tell a woman what to do with her body), but as adults we are fully aware of the consequences of unprotected sex, and if you take the risks you should be prepared to accept the consequences. Abortion shouldn't be your "fallback plan" because it teaches us and our children that our actions don't have long lasting consequences.

As far as minors go, it's not a doctor's job to intervene in a situation involving domestic abuse. While I would feel obligated to provide an abortion as an alternative to some more drastic measures a minor might take, it would also be my responsibility to inform social services of a potentially dangerous environment. They're trained to deal with it, I'm not.

So the short answer to the original question - you give the kid the abortion, you tell the parents because they're a minor, and if you think the kid doesn't have a safe environment to live in, you inform the people trained to deal with it.

 

[Dianyla]

I started reading this book today on my flights home called "This Common Secret" which is about the life of the author who is an abortion provider. I'm over half-way through and it's pretty fantastic. She talks a lot about the counseling process at her clinics and how they turn people away that show they are not ready for this irreversible process. It's all about good counseling so relief is the outcome, not regret.

Ooh, I'll have to pick that up. Many people who are anti-abortion seem to think that anyone can just waltz into a clinic and get a wham-bam-thankya-ma'am special. What I can say is that everyone's got their own reasons for feeling quite certain that this was the best choice, and it is never made lightly. The bottom line is that once a person has become pregnant, their only three options (abort, adopt, keep & raise) are all very difficult paths to walk.

And I don't think anyone ever truly considers abortion until they get placed in that situation. People say they would never get an abortion because they think they will never be put in that situation.

Right. Consider the statistics that estimate approximately a third of all women in the U.S. will have an abortion by the end of their fertile years. I would guarantee that almost every single person reading this post knows one or more women who have had an abortion. It could be your mother, your sister, your girlfriend.

When I started volunteering as a patient advocate at an abortion clinic and mentioned it over lunch to a group of female friends, I was surprised at how many of them piped up to mention how they'd had one at one point or another in their lives.