'Liberty University College of Osteopathic Medicine Earns Accreditation'

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ButterButter said:
What do you mean? Who has no issue with it?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I worded that pretty poorly. There are no issues with taking call on Sunday’s for the vast majority of religious physicians. I personally know physicians who are high level leadership in their local congregations who will get up and leave mid service because they have to deliver a baby, incoming trauma, emergency consult, etc.
Members don't see this ad.
 
osteodoc7 said:
To those against abortions but would be willing to perform the procedure in cases of rape, I would love to understand the reasoning. The abortion stance really comes down to philosophy, is the fetus life or is it not. If you are against abortions, I would hope it is because you believe the fetus to be life. So if the fetus is life what difference does it make if it was a result of rape? You can't start justifying "murder" because the woman was raped. That "life" had no say on the circumstances if was created.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between having a pregnancy imposed on you vs. willingly becoming pregnant. If you invite me to visit your house, you have no right to attack and remove me as though I'm a trespasser. But if I trespass onto your property (even if I do so against my will -- say, someone picks me up and throws me through your window), you have no obligation to keep me there.

A baby who is a product of rape is a trespasser that was imposed upon the woman's body. A baby who is a product of consensual sex is an invited guest. That's the moral difference.
 
Osminog said:
There's a difference between having a pregnancy imposed on you vs. willingly becoming pregnant. If you invite me to visit your house, you have no right to attack and remove me as though I'm a trespasser. But if I trespass onto your property (even if I do so against my will -- say, someone picks me up and throws me through your window), you have no obligation to keep me there.

A baby who is a product of rape is a trespasser that was imposed upon the woman's body. A baby who is a product of consensual sex is an invited guest. That's the moral difference.
Click to expand...

If you consider abortion to be wrong because a fetus is an innocent life then it shouldn’t make a difference. Being the product of rape would make it no less innocent.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The analogy seems off. Anyone wanting an abortion would argue that the child is trespassing. The child was not welcomed, they did not invite them in the house. The pregnancy was not wanted.
Also, with your analogy the trespasser was the rapist not the child. The child has no say whether to be an invited guest or not. Those decisions were not within its capabilities. So again, its seems difficult to kill a child or "trespasser" for reasons not due to its own fault. Don't kill the child because its "father" was trespassing.
 
Steve_Zissou said:
If you consider abortion to be wrong because a fetus is an innocent life then it shouldn’t make a difference. Being the product of rape would make it no less innocent.
Click to expand...

If I am walking down the street and a stranger picks me up and throws me through your window, I am not at fault. I am innocent, because it was not my intention to trespass into your home. But you, as the home owner, are not obligated to let me stay inside your home after I am thrown inside.
 
Osminog said:
If I am walking down the street and a stranger picks me up and throws me through your window, I am not at fault. I am innocent, because it was not my intention to trespass into your home. But you, as the home owner, are not obligated to let me stay inside your home after I am thrown inside.
Click to expand...

The person doesn’t die in that scenario though. We’re talking about murdering an innocent baby!!!


To be clear, this is not my argument. This is me parroting other’s arguments.
 
Physicians aren't obligated to perform any procedures or prescribe any meds, regardless of their reasons. I know some family docs that refuse to prescribe controlled substances simply because they don't feel comfortable in their abilities to discern which patients need them.

OB/GYN residencies typically allow residents to opt out of abortion training. Plan B is irrelevant because it's an OTC drug. However, I do think OB/GYN generalists that refuse to prescribe ANY form of birth control would struggle to maintain a sufficient client base. There may be young patients that don't want birth control at any point in their lives, but they seem to be the vast minority (even among religious patients). In my experience, most of the conservatively religious OB/GYNs tend to subspecialize so they don't have to face this type of dilemma.

EDIT: anyway, back on topic to liberty!
 
Last edited:
osteodoc7 said:
The analogy seems off. Anyone wanting an abortion would argue that the child is trespassing. The child was not welcomed, they did not invite them in the house. The pregnancy was not wanted.
Also, with your analogy the trespasser was the rapist not the child. The child has no say whether to be an invited guest or not. Those decisions were not within its capabilities. So again, its seems difficult to kill a child or "trespasser" for reasons not due to its own fault. Don't kill the child because its "father" was trespassing.
Click to expand...

Sex is an activity that can lead to pregnancy, and this is common knowledge among those who partake in it. When a woman engages in consensual sex, she implicitly accepts a risk of becoming pregnant; that's part of the deal.

The child's intentions, or lack thereof, are completely irrelevant. If you are pushed into someone's car or someone's house without the consent of the property owner, you are trespassing -- even if you did not choose to trespass. In such a scenario, the property owner has a right to have you leave his or her property, and if you are unwilling or physically unable to leave, then the property owner has the right to have you physically removed. In the case of pregnancy by rape, a woman has a right to have the trespassing fetus physically removed from her body.
 
Steve_Zissou said:
The person doesn’t die in that scenario though. We’re talking about murdering an innocent baby!!!

To be clear, this is not my argument. This is me parroting other’s arguments.
Click to expand...

It's not murder. There's a difference between killing someone and letting someone die. If I have a heart attack and my life depends on someone next to me who knows CPR, that doesn't mean that the person is obligated to perform CPR on me (as long as that person didn't intentionally cause me to have the heart attack in the first place). Likewise, in the case of rape, if a fetus' life depends on nourishment from the mother's body, that doesn't mean that the mother is obligated to offer this nourishment at her own expense.
 
Osminog said:
If I am walking down the street and a stranger picks me up and throws me through your window, I am not at fault. I am innocent, because it was not my intention to trespass into your home. But you, as the home owner, are not obligated to let me stay inside your home after I am thrown inside.
Click to expand...
So in this analogy, the one throwing you in my house is the rapist, you are the child, my womb is the house and I am the owner of the house. So if we consider this in terms of real circumstances....
Facts:
-The victim of rape knows that the rapist meant wrong.
-I know the child is not invited
-Though the child is not invited, they are innocent.
So considering all this.
So if I'm sitting on my porch and I witness those nasty boys pick you up and forcefully throw you through my window ( I know you are innocent). I become pissed because I have an uninvited visitor. (I'll take your analogy further). The visitor is injured and can not remove itself from the premise. If it could leave the premise, it honesty might not ever want to see you again but it is helpless to remove itself. Though I know you are innocent and it wasn't your fault these douches tossed you through the window, I grab my gun and let it have it because well... you weren't welcomed.
Sounds off
 
Osminog said:
Sex is an activity that can lead to pregnancy, and this is common knowledge among those who partake in it. When a woman engages in consensual sex, she implicitly accepts a risk of becoming pregnant; that's part of the deal.

The child's intentions, or lack thereof, are completely irrelevant. If you are pushed into someone's car or someone's house without the consent of the property owner, you are trespassing -- even if you did not choose to trespass. In such a scenario, the property owner has a right to have you leave his or her property, and if you are unwilling or physically unable to leave, then the property owner has the right to have you physically removed. In the case of pregnancy by rape, a woman has a right to have the trespassing fetus physically removed from her body.
Click to expand...

This makes the case for elective abortion as well then.

Consider someone who leaves their door unlocked when they leave for work. There’s an implicit risk that someone could enter their property and try to take up residence between the time they leave for work and come back. Although it was a risk they took by leaving the door unlocked, they still have the right to remove anyone trespassing on their property.

The problem with all these analogies is that they’re not perfect by any means and they hinge on definition disagreements and axiomatic differences.
 
This thread has veered far off topic of the school.

If it doesn't get back on track immediately , it's going to be locked and contributing parties dinged for derailing.

You're welcome to start a new thread on the other subject over in the socio political forum.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Osminog said:
It's not murder. There's a difference between killing someone and letting someone die. If I have a heart attack and my life depends on someone next to me who knows CPR, that doesn't mean that the person is obligated to perform CPR on me (as long as that person didn't intentionally cause me to have the heart attack in the first place). Likewise, in the case of rape, if a fetus' life depends on nourishment from the mother's body, that doesn't mean that the mother is obligated to offer this nourishment at her own expense.
Click to expand...

So elective abortion isn’t murder then either and it’s just about forcing the mother to carry to term?
 
wholeheartedly said:
This thread has veered far off topic of the school.

If it doesn't get back on track immediately , it's going to be locked and contributing parties dinged for derailing.

You're welcome to start a new thread on the other subject over in the socio political forum.
Click to expand...

We bled over, sorry. I will stop contributing to the political discourse.
 
sb247 said:
How about you just tend to your own business and respect everyone’s autonomy. Voluntary interaction is a better way to do things
Click to expand...
Easy for you to say. Too bad there are patients behind those choices
 
AlbinoHawk DO said:
Any evidence at all that denial of evolution and outright lying about the facts of science goes on the classrooms of LLU or BYU? Because if they do, I'll gladly say the same thing of their graduates.
Click to expand...

I went to BYU and I know exactly what was taught in terms of Evolution. BYU may be one of the most religious Universities in the country, but it is not close minded nor short sided. I took a very extensive Evolutionary Biology course by a Mormon Professor who passionately believed in almost every concept of evolution. Current church doctrine says that each person needs to search out science for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Now of course, you're going to run into Mormons who don't believe in Evolution, but that's their thing. But I can guarantee that BYU is not ignoring Evolution at all, and they definitely don't twist it in any way. I personally believe that anyone who doesn't recognize the innumerable evidence for evolution, is lying to themselves.
 
The Nibbler said:
I went to BYU and I know exactly what was taught in terms of Evolution. BYU may be one of the most religious Universities in the country, but it is not close minded nor short sided. I took a very extensive Evolutionary Biology course by a Mormon Professor who passionately believed in almost every concept of evolution. Current church doctrine says that each person needs to search out science for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Now of course, you're going to run into Mormons who don't believe in Evolution, but that's their thing. But I can guarantee that BYU is not ignoring Evolution at all, and they definitely don't twist it in any way. I personally believe that anyone who doesn't recognize the innumerable evidence for evolution, is lying to themselves.
Click to expand...

A good friend of mine got his BS in Genetics (at least I think it was genetics) from BYU. Very well versed in evolution and arguably one of the most intelligent guys I’ve ever met.

That being said, BYU is very different from LU, PCC, Bob Jones, etc
 
It's lupus! said:
Ugh. You're missing my point. You're statement is true but this isn't about what's legal or not legal or required or not required. It's a matter of an option not being available on the basis that the physician refuses. Where does that leave a patient that doesn't have any other option but that physician? I'm not saying what is right or wrong I'm merely asking for thought on it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using SDN mobile
Click to expand...
So I have to prescribe narcotics to patients that are already on them merely because it's rural and they have no other option?
 
sb247 said:
Patients don’t control me like a puppet. If what they want is against my better judgement it isn’t happening. Being able tonsay no is part of being a good doctor
Click to expand...
Right. As long as you direct someone to the appropriate resources then it's all good.



Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile
 
Drrrrrr. Celty said:
Right. As long as you direct someone to the appropriate resources then it's all good.



Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile
Click to expand...
with the caveat that it's not my job to play detective for them.....if what they want is at a known location, I can let them know. But I'm not morally responsible for going on a treasure hunt for someone willing to meet their demands.
 
sb247 said:
with the caveat that it's not my job to play detective for them.....if what they want is at a known location, I can let them know. But I'm not morally responsible for going on a treasure hunt for someone willing to meet their demands.
Click to expand...
you'll have knowlege to refer patients.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile
 
sb247 said:
Doc, I neeeeeed my oxys. If you won’t write them you have to find me someone who will.

Nope
Click to expand...
you refer to pain management who can work to potentially treat or coordinate their addiction?

I'm very confused why you think an addicted individual is unworthy of treatment.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile
 
Drrrrrr. Celty said:
you refer to pain management who can work to potentially treat or coordinate their addiction?

I'm very confused why you think an addicted individual is unworthy of treatment.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile
Click to expand...

I think his point was if he is the sole provider that this addicted individual has access to he is not under any obligation to prescribe the person a controlled substance. In a broader scheme you’re absolutely right you’d refer them out to pain management for help with their problem, but just because you are a physician doesn’t entitle the drug seeker to your prescribing them drugs (which I believe we can all agree on).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
How has this thread veered off topic? The entire thread was created to bash an institution because of its religious affiliation and political views. The thread was never intended to discuss LUCOM match, clinical sites, board scores etc... simply its religious beliefs. In fact, sdn has tried to bash LUCOM in terms of those parameters and often must revert back to simply bashing its views because let's just be honest...thats what really matter to this thread and sdn members.
If politics and religious opinions is considered off topic, I would argue that all LUCOM hate threads should be closed.
 
Drrrrrr. Celty said:
you refer to pain management who can work to potentially treat or coordinate their addiction?

I'm very confused why you think an addicted individual is unworthy of treatment.

Sent from my SM-G950U using SDN mobile
Click to expand...
No one. No one. Is “worthy” of forcing my hand in the manner you suggest. Doesn’t matter if it’s abortion, opioids, tylenol, a work note, etc etc

You said I should be responsible to provide elective abortion because there might not be anyone else around to do it. I’m not. If there is someone around known to do it I cn refer you but I’m not responsible for finding you an abortion. If you want opioids I don’t think you should have or I don’t prescribe I can refer you but it’s not my job to guarantee someone gives pills to you.

I’ll provide all the medically appropriate care that both fits within my moral standards and that you can afford. If that’s not what you want, I’ll refer you down the street and you can try your luck there
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
2025 Summer Scholars: Ohio University Heritage College of Osteo Med
Replies
0
Views
743
Ellisonralph
E
wysdoc
Official 2025 Osteopathic Match Lists
Replies
49
Views
42K
SmileyBaaj
S
D
Official 2024 Osteopathic Match Thread
2 3
Replies
101
Views
73K
wysdoc
wysdoc
M
Master of Science in Precision Medicine at AZCOM
Replies
7
Views
1K
AlbinoHawk DO
AlbinoHawk DO
DoctorDean
Osteopathic Medical Student Opportunity-OMS1/OMS2
Replies
11
Views
2K
DoctorDean
DoctorDean
Top