Pro-Life and the dreaded abortion question

[TrickyIssues]

OK, now I'm REALLY out. No more postings from me- I'm actually physically shaking. Ya'll can keep at this if you want.

Dude,

Ummm... I think you're overthinking. How about: I'm scared that being aborted would have hurt? How about: I hate knowing that my mother not only didn't love me, not only didn't want me, but actually seriously considered paying someone to destroy me? How about: it's not necessary to be Christian to think a fetus should have a moral status- Hippocrates included a prohibition again abortion in the original Hippocratic oath (Google it).

Seesh, give a girl a little leeway to have a certain degree of attachment to her life.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[8744]

Hi all,

I usually post on this forum under another name, but these are rough times in which to be pro-life and- since schools have been known to visit these forums from time to time- I thought it'd be wise to post under a new name.

That said, I'm set to apply in the cycle of 2007. I'm also pro-life. In fact my mother very nearly chose to abort me (she gave me to another family instead), so as you can imagine I've very, VERY pro-life. Nearly ending up in a biohazard bag will have that effect on a person.

That said, I'm not sure what to do about the oh-so-common abortion question. The "proper" answer has been discussed at length in the Topics in Healthcare forum and was summarized by ofthesun as follows:



I would first attempt to confirm through conversation that she was competent to make the decision herself, ensuring there were no mental deficits or emotional imbalances that would prevent her from making proper informed consent.

Next, I would want to ensure that her request is not the product of her suffering any abuse, asking if she can tell me a little about her experience so far. I would encourage her, making sure she understood why I was asking. I would try my best to ensure she was in whatever sexual relationship she was entering for healthy reasons.

Following that, I would check if she has talked about this with her parents. If she would be comfortable with it, I would encourage her to bring them into the consideration. If not, I would ask if she has any other adult guardian that she would feel comfortable knowing, say an aunt of uncle or Big Brother or Sister.

If there was no one she felt she would be comfortable with getting support from, I would feel best contacting social services and bringing in someone to help her make this decision (only with her ok of course - forcing social services involvement would be equal to forcing parents I think.), so she doesn't feel like she rushed into a huge decision all by herself.

Lastly, I would want to confirm my legal obligations with a lawyer or ethics council.

Barring any unforeseen circumstances along the way, I would then prescribe whatever birth control/ abortion.

Personally, however, I would do nothing of the kind. If faced with that situation I would do only what was absolutely required of me by my hospital and by the law- which is probably to explain that my beliefs prevent me from providing that sort of care and referring elsewhere. And- if hospital policy would let me get away with it- I'd tell the girl my story and how I personally feel about this issue as an almost-abortee.

So the question is: what do I do about interviews? As I see it, I have 3 options:

1) Tell the truth. But my telling the truth seems unlikely to result in admittance given the current political climate in the Northeast (where I live).
2) Lie through my teeth, give the answer posted above, and try not to hate myself.
2) Choose to apply only to schools that do not report abortion questions in
the Feedback section of SDN. This what I'm currently planning, but it seems awfully craptacular to have to limit myself to schools based on this issue.

Thoughts?

http://pandabearmd.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_pandabearmd_archive.html

Scroll down to the article entitled "A Subversive Thought." You neither have to discuss or refer for an abortion if you don't want to. This is the law in 48 of the states and I betcha' in the two where it is not various pro-life groups would love a "test case" to pass legislation.

You do not have to justify your beliefs to anyone or apologize for them.

Now, I predict the usual SDN outrage that anyone would refuse to offer, discuss, or perform an abortion but the law is the law. (Although even if it weren't the law I'd still refuse because in this, as in all things I answer to a higher power, not the friggin' AMA.)

 

[8744]

I usually post on this forum under another name, but these are rough times in which to be pro-life and- since schools have been known to visit these forums from time to time- I thought it'd be wise to post under a new name.

Bull. I am at Duke. My program is very pro-choice but I am not shy about being pro-life and I will refuse categorically to have anything to do with abortion at all. These are not rough times to be pro-life. Pro-life is a mainstream position as is, unfortunately, pro-choice.

I wouldn't even talk about this in an interview and they will not ask you just like they won't ask you about your political affilliations. Still, if you are asked and you sense that the interviewer is a cheese-eating liberal fascist, just give the usual mamby-pamby gutless answer that you, yourself are against abortion but it's a personal choice. In other words, go ahead and lie if it is required to get into medical school but once in tell 'em to **** off.

It's OK. Tell 'em yer' Uncle Panda said they were a bunch of wankers.

 

[8744]

There is nothing wrong with answering that you are personally anti-abortion but that you would comply with state regulations and facility policy in your care of the patient. (Some states apparently don't require you to refer -- though I doubt the NE states are among them.)

If a school would reject you for this answer, it's not a school it sounds like you'd want to be at anyway.

I personally feel that it would be inappropriate for you to tell your personal story, but that's simply my opinion.

You are ignorant of the true situation as are most medical students, pre-meds, and even physicians. Most of the states, 48 I believe, have laws that specifically protect a physician form legal jeapordy if he refuses to do so much as either refer of discuss abortion. IN many states it is also illegal to discuss abortion in the public hospitals.

I'm amazed at the level of ignorance on this subject.

Still, I don't think lecturing the patient about your personal beliefs is called for. If a patient asks you, jsut say it is against your religious or moral beliefs and leave it at that.

 

[8744]

I do take issue with GYNs who won't do them, because it really is an integral part of GYN health care

Again, Bull. There are many pro-life OB-Gyns. Elective abortion (elective I said, not in the case of things like ectopic pregnancies and etc.) is not an integral part of GYN health care unless you have a different definition for the word "integral."

Additionally, training in elective abortion can be refused at many if not most OB-Gyn residency prorams.

My wife's OB/Gyn is very pro-choice and looks at her colleagues who perform elective abortions as butchers.

You folks are pretty narrow-minded, living as you do in something of a bubble.

 

[PariPari]

It's just like ANY OTHER ethics question.
What you answer is based on personal beliefs, at the time of answering. There needn't be a back story, especially one you're not comfortable discussing w/ total strangers (hence the new alias).
If you are against it in all forms/circumstances & believe that no matter how every situation differs, go ahead and tell the interviewer, that you believe it to be wrong (pls don't say a sin, wrong will do), & you'll have no part to it & you would not feel comfortable refering them to another service b/c of this. Doctors are people as well, hippocratic oath says nothing about you HAVE to do elective procedures. & if you feel there will be harm done by doing so, then fine, just don't be sanctimonious (?) about it.

This is not quite the same, but the ethics question I got & hated dealt w/ a patient wanting a DNR, but the family wanting all life saving measures...The patient happened to be 16. GREAT huh, b/c legally informed consent begins at 18 or something. I don't believe in quantity over quality (personal reasons as well) & feel that it draws out the trauma (emotional & physical) of the family, etc...and I justified how I'd handle the situation well enough (w/o going into my personal experience w/ the situation) that my interviewer remarked she hadn't ever looked at it that way and she never had anyone w/ the answer I game...

Point is, I didn't lie to tell her what she "wanted" to hear, but at the same time I wasn't preachy about my answer (though it may seem like it here) & declared all other approaches wrong.

ETA: in the time i took to write this little spiel, things got crazy

 

[odrade1]

Dude,

Ummm... I think you're overthinking.

How about: I'm scared that being aborted would have hurt?

How about: I hate knowing that my mother not only didn't love me, not only didn't want me, but actually seriously considered paying someone to destroy me? (That having been said, my adoptive family loves me very much and I love them. 'Twas far better to grow up with them than ne'er grow up at all!)

How about: it's not necessary to be Christian to think a fetus should have a moral status- Hippocrates included a prohibition again abortion in the original Hippocratic oath (Google it).

Seesh, give a girl a little leeway to have a certain degree of attachment to her life.

If the abortion was late enough, I'm sure it would have hurt. But it wouldn't have been scary (as we usually mean scary).



The hippocratic oath should only be taken to be moderately symbolic/traditional element, and not an actual code of conduct/professional expectations. The oath also prohibits paying for or charging for medical education! Doesn't it also prohibit taking money for treating others? You get my point.

I affirm the value of life, and the worth of people. Yet I don't universally support every "life" initative, since they tend to be blind to quality of life issues, which I think are fundamental to moral decision making about healthcare, and because they also typically embrace what I believe to be mystically motivated & accidentally false views of personhood.

You're right, you don't have to be a christian to think that fetuses have some kind of (even significant) moral status. I think fetuses have a moral status, just not the same as you or I. I also dont' think that it is always right to have an abortion, though I do believe that the choice about whether it is right or not is best decided by the mother.

You have obviously given thought to this subject (even if we disagree), so I would bet that you would do fine if asked an interview question about it. Depending on how many schools you interview at, you may not have it come up at all. Also, as conservative as medicine is, I don't think you would surprise or offend the interviewer, even if he/she disagreed philosophically.

Good luck in your application. You seem concientious, which makes you someone I wouldn't mind having as a colleague!

I'm leaving the country for two weeks now, so if I don't respond I'm not being rude! Aufwiedersehen!

 

[hardy]

How about: it's not necessary to be Christian to think a fetus should have a moral status- Hippocrates included a prohibition again abortion in the original Hippocratic oath (Google it).

No, but then you have to believe in Apollo, Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea

 

[BooMed]

Has anyone even been asked about abortion in an interview?

 

[u_r_my_serenity]

Many med students on both sides of the issue gain acceptance every year, and there are Ob/Gyns who refuse to do the procedure. Odds are you won't be asked. I wouldn't be too worried about expressing your anti-abortion view if you are asked. Whatever you say, however, try not to appear that you are a religous fanatic who will base medical decisions on a 2000 year old book instead of sense, reason, and logic.

Most (great) physicians in history such as William Osler or Avicenna, for example, created a standard in which the modern day practice of medicine strives to emulate (but hopelessly falls short). Your role is not to judge or choose rights for the patient, but to remain objective and empathetic.

Whatever patient scenario you are given (controversial or not), the physician is to take the patient as a whole human being and only administer what is ultimately beneficial. If the physician is to determine what constitutes a benefit, he must do so in accordance with some science or art that he possesses. What science or art does the physician possess that would enable him to divide between the beneficial and the deleterious? It could only be his knowledge of anatomy, injury and disease, and medicines and treatments.

It is not a wrong answer to decide against the abortion as long as you have gone through this process with your particular patient. It is a wrong answer if you came to this conclusion based on sheer emotion or beliefs based on "faith" or a "higher power" (meaning no evidence).

 

[8744]

....try not to appear that you are a religous fanatic who will base medical decisions on a 2000 year old book instead of sense, reason, and logic.


...It is not a wrong answer to decide against the abortion as long as you have gone through this process with your particular patient. It is a wrong answer if you came to this conclusion based on sheer emotion or beliefs based on "faith" or a "higher power" (meaning no evidence)....

This is just wrong on so many levels. Your disdain for religion is obvious and certainly you may believe as you please. On the other hand you are probably neither old enough nor wise enough to dismiss religious beliefs as fanaticism. Cutting the heads off of innocent women in the name of Allah is fanaticism. Objecting to abortion on moral and religious grounds is not.

You also show a tremendous lack of respect for your patients (assuming you have any patients yet). They are not idiots. You do not have to go through a process. They know they're pregnant, they know how they got pregnant, and they will make a rapid decision about keeping or aborting the baby. In fact, if they want to abort the baby it would be hard for you to convince them to keep it and what sick individual would try to convince a woman who wanted to keep the baby to abort it?

You also are drunk with your own power as a physician. You are not their moral arbritor and it is not your place to impose your morality on them by projecting your views on their decision. They do not need your help deciding right from wrong. For all your supposed impartiality you have just categorically rejected the driving force of many of your fellow citizens and a large part of the world. You might view the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) a just an ancient book but it is life to its believers.

You will have a very patronizing attitude towards your patients. This is going to come off as kind of comical as it usually does when some 24-year-old third year medical student lectures someone twice or three times his age about almost anything at all.

 

[SMRT]

While I disagree with Panda Bear on the choice issue (I am pro-choice) I have to agree here wrt u_r_my_serenity's comments.

Physicians, just like everyone else, are free to disagree with abortion on whatever grounds they choose. In their role as a physician however, they need to acknowledge these beliefs to a patient and refer them on elsewhere if they cannot care for the them, as others have mentioned.

Whatever patient scenario you are given (controversial or not), the physician is to take the patient as a whole human being and only administer what is ultimately beneficial. If the physician is to determine what constitutes a benefit, he must do so in accordance with some science or art that he possesses. What science or art does the physician possess that would enable him to divide between the beneficial and the deleterious? It could only be his knowledge of anatomy, injury and disease, and medicines and treatments.

It is not a wrong answer to decide against the abortion as long as you have gone through this process with your particular patient. It is a wrong answer if you came to this conclusion based on sheer emotion or beliefs based on "faith" or a "higher power" (meaning no evidence).

Whether it be abortion or any other issue, YOU (the physician) do not get to make the decision. The patient makes the decision based on the information you gave them. Sometimes (often, even) they will make a decision you don't agree with. It's called patient autonomy.

 

[IAMS]

I believe what is best for the patient should transcend whatever personal beliefs the physician has. Any action is ultimately the patient's choice, not yours. Do with it what you will.

 

[8744]

While I disagree with Panda Bear on the choice issue (I am pro-choice) I have to agree here wrt u_r_my_serenity's comments.

Physicians, just like everyone else, are free to disagree with abortion on whatever grounds they choose. In their role as a physician however, they need to acknowledge these beliefs to a patient and refer them on elsewhere if they cannot care for the them, as others have mentioned.



Whether it be abortion or any other issue, YOU (the physician) do not get to make the decision. The patient makes the decision based on the information you gave them. Sometimes (often, even) they will make a decision you don't agree with. It's called patient autonomy.

With respect, you are wrong. Your belief that a physician must refer a woman for abortion has no basis in law and therefore, while I respect your beliefs in this matter, is nothing but your opinion based on no better or no worse evidence than my religious beliefs.

The patient can make their own decision. I believe this completely. but in this case they can make it without my help as pregnancy is not a disease and therefore requires no cure.

 

[8744]

I believe what is best for the patient should transcend whatever personal beliefs the physician has. Any action is ultimately the patient's choice, not yours. Do with it what you will.

Yes. But the patient should not drag the physician into what he may consider to be an immoral act, in this case participating in any way in a practice which he might consider to be a crime.

You folks are terrifically condescending. You ascribe no free will to your patients. I repeat. They are not stupid. They may not understand fetal circulation but they know what abortion is and if they don't know where to get one (assuming it is legal in their state) they can easily find plenty of people willing to assist them.

I believe in personal responsibilty. Most abortions are for convenience sake as babies are a lot of work and not everybody wants the repsonsibilty. Still, since I was not allowed to screen the young lady's boyfriends or play any role in discouraging her from getting pregnant why involve me in the festivities now? The mother and father of the baby made a decision to have sex. The woman decided that the father of her baby was a suitable companion and decided that she didn't need contraception. Unfortunately in our decadent society she can decide to kill her unborn baby. Fantastic. Bully for her. She can damn well make the decision to do it without my help.

 

[IAMS]

You sound more like a minister than a physician.

Teaching responsibility is one thing, but not necessarily the most important issue here. I'm not sure how you can help someone if you can't get over the "wrongness" of their actions. Can you connect with an overweight patient to see that their size is a symptom of other problems in their lives? Sometimes it helps to deconstruct the "problem" and provide guidance and maturity. Sure there are always alternatives, but there might be a case where it might be necessary to discuss all the options - how would you be able to counsel someone if you can't admit that?

 

[CTSballer11]

A tough time to be pro-life? Are you kidding me. As Denzel Washington would say "man up".

 

[8744]

It's called patient autonomy.

We pay a lot of lip service to this concept. In practice it means nothing as the current paradigm in medicine is for the physician to be a constant nag to his patients on everything from smoking to spanking their children. Heck, we're even supposed to ask them about guns in the house which I refuse to do unless a patient and I are chatting about the finer points of miltary rifles.

I have one patient who has asked me to stop mentioning his weight. He's fat, of course, but as he told me that while he understands the impact on his health, he likes to eat more than he wants to diet, he has no intention of losing weight, and has he asked me, "would you kindly **** off."

I had another patient on the neonatal service who asked me to keep the lactation consultants out of her room as she was not, under any circumstances, going to breast feed. The lactation consultant was trying to make the patient feel guilty for not breast feeding. (They are breast feeding Nazis here at Duke.) I am a big proponent of breast feeding myself and my wife is very involved in the La Leche league but if the patient doesn't want to do it that's fine too.

 

[SMRT]

The woman decided that the father of her baby was a suitable companion and decided that she didn't need contraception.

54% of women obtaining abortions were using contraception during the month they conceived. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002 Nov-Dec;34(6):294-303.

 

[8744]

You sound more like a minister than a physician.

Teaching responsibility is one thing, but not necessarily the most important issue here. I'm not sure how you can help someone if you can't get over the "wrongness" of their actions. Can you connect with an overweight patient to see that their size is a symptom of other problems in their lives? Sometimes it helps to deconstruct the "problem" and provide guidance and maturity. Sure there are always alternatives, but there might be a case where it might be necessary to discuss all the options - how would you be able to counsel someone if you can't admit that?

Not in the slightest. I am a good but sometimes wayward son of the Greek Orthodox Church and like most Americans am not excessively preoccupied with religion as it applies to daily life. Still, I can identify the big moral issues and while I often eat meat on Fridays there are some things the rightness or wrongness of which are a no-brainer.

I am not teaching responsibility to my patients. Don't you see? That's not your job and if you think it is you have an over-blown sense of both your own powers of persuasion and your authority as a physician. It is patronizing to suppose that you are more mature than your patients by virtue of your medical degree.

Now, surely we agree that people do many things of which we disapprove. But it's their business. Sure, I throw a little fatherly guidance (I'm 42 with my own family) at my teenage patients but it is gently given and never overbearing. They're going to make their own mistakes and hopefully learn from them. It is our culture of irresponsibilty that coddles their egos and convinces them that they are not responsible agents which stunts their maturation as adults.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

54% of women obtaining abortions were using contraception during the month they conceived. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002 Nov-Dec;34(6):294-303.

That's their problem.

Abstinence: 100%.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Not in the slightest. I am a good but sometimes wayward son of the Greek Orthodox Church and like most Americans am not excessively preoccupied with religion as it applies to daily life. Still, I can identify the big moral issues and while I often eat meat on Fridays there are some things the rightness or wrongness of which are a no-brainer.

I am not teaching responsibility to my patients. Don't you see? That's not your job and if you think it is you have an over-blown sense of both your own powers of persuasion and your authority as a physician. It is patronizing to suppose that you are more mature than your patients by virtue of your medical degree.

Now, surely we agree that people do many things of which we disapprove. But it's their business. Sure, I throw a little fatherly guidance (I'm 42 with my own family) at my teenage patients but it is gently given and never overbearing. They're going to make their own mistakes and hopefully learn from them. It is our culture of irresponsibilty that coddles their egos and convinces them that they are not responsible agents which stunts their maturation as adults.

This is all part of the mental illness - abortion - euthanasia - 'quality not quantity' - the englightened will decide - mentality. Very totalitarian and scary as hell.

 

[8744]

54% of women obtaining abortions were using contraception during the month they conceived. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002 Nov-Dec;34(6):294-303.

Not my problem.

 

[8744]

Not my problem.

You see? Your baby, your responsibility. Life can suck.

 

[u_r_my_serenity]

This is to Panda:

You do not have to go through a process? Do you believe these scenarios are the same? (1) a sixteen year old comes in for an elective abortion because she's scared, (2) a college student becomes pregnant as the result of a rape, (3) a young couple wants an abortion after they discover the fetus has holoprosencephaly. Let me guess, they are all identical in your eyes from a moral standpoint and no thought or evaluation is needed. Physicians do not need to weigh risk versus benefit; they only need to consult the good book.

Your elementary arguments in favor of patient autonomy are not of consequence. No one has ever argued in favor of unquestioning physician decisions. The scenario implies a patient wish for abortion. You keep defending things not under attack because you fear to face the facts of the matter. Switch the sceanrio if it's confusing you. Two patients come to your office wanting you to comlpetley remove their big toe. One patient has gout and the other has an infection unresponsive to antibitoics with a history of diabetes mellitus. Are you going to remove them both?

Why don't you explain in a scientific fashion, or even a philosophical one, at what point during human pregnancy a life form is created that deserves equal rights and protections as that of a human being. Do you believe physicians should make decisions based on evidence and fact or on feelings and dogma?

Does an early embryo with no organs, no brain, no nervous system, no ability to sense pain or think- qualify as being human?

Yes it does, Dr. Panda. And what's the evidence? Because a recent study published in the Bible shows that life begins at conception.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

This is to Panda:

You do not have to go through a process? Do you believe these scenarios are the same? (1) a sixteen year old comes in for an elective abortion because she's scared, (2) a college student becomes pregnant as the result of a rape, (3) a young couple wants an abortion after they discover the fetus has holoprosencephaly. Let me guess, they are all identical in your eyes from a moral standpoint and no thought or evaluation is needed. Physicians do not need to weigh risk versus benefit; they only need to consult the good book.

The only difference is the reason for which the abortion is being performed. In the first, the foolish young girl was horny and either did not protect herself or the protection failed. She's afraid of what other people will think and of what her parents will say/do. In the second, the raped woman wants revenge on her killer by (vicariously) slaughtering his child. In the third, the couple wants to avoid the unpleasantness of bearing and/or raising a disfigured, deformed, human being. The reasons are as irrelevant as the reason for which someone commits murder. Sometimes its jealousy, sometimes its robbery, and sometimes its abortion (!!!), but regardless of the reason, the act is the same.

Why don't you explain in a scientific fashion, or even a philosophical one, at what point during human pregnancy a life form is created that deserves equal rights and protections as that of a human being. Do you believe physicians should make decision based on evidence and fact or on feelings and dogma?

There is scientific evidence that a developing baby inside of the uterus is in fact a separate entity and a living human. That is what the science says. You are adding extra things so that you can justify the murder of inconvenient babies who can't even protest in defense (i.e. scream).

Does an early embryo with no organs, no brain, no nervous system, no ability to sense pain or think- qualify as being human?

Yes. It is physically a human being, and it is a living thing. It is not a corpse, it is not an animal, it is not an appendage or organ or tissue or a tumor. Therefore, it is a human being.

 

[u_r_my_serenity]

It is physically a human being, and it is a living thing. It is not a corpse, it is not an animal, it is not an appendage or organ or tissue or a tumor. Therefore, it is a human being.

If we use your definition plants are human beings, too. It is usually a mistake to define something as what it is not. Why don't you give me a definition of what a human being is so that I could recognize one in any scenario. Make sure you include a microscopic cluster of 16 cells with no ability for thought, pain, emotion, or human form in that definition.

There is scientific evidence that a developing baby inside of the uterus is in fact a separate entity and a living human.

Can you point me towards a credible study so that I can read this evidence for myself? Keep in mind no one is saying a fetus is not a "separate entity" (so is a tuberculoma), but I'm interested to see a study that says it's a "living human."

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

If we use your definition plants are human beings, too. It is usually a mistake to define something as what it is not. Why don't you give me a definition of what a human being is so that I could recognize one in any scenario. Make sure you include a microscopic cluster of 16 cells with no ability for thought, pain, emotion, or human form in that definition.

For one thing, plants aren't made by the union of a human sperm and a human egg. Now, I suppose you do accept that you and I are humans and that humans (in born form) do of course exist. The species of the offspring is the same as the species of it's parents (if identical), or is a hybrid if the species are very closely related.

So, we agree that the offspring of two human beings, or rather, the complementary gametes of two humans, specifically the sperm and the egg, is indeed human.

We also agree that the developing human in the womb is genetically distinct from his/her mother.

We also agree that he/she is biologically alive, that his/her cells are living, that they are composed in tissues, organs, and systems, into a distinct entity from the mother that 'houses' him/her.

Therefore, I conclude that it is a human being.

We could set forth what makes a human being:

1.) It is living. It responds to stimuli in such a way as to best enable itself (as far as it is able) to survive, whether by growth, attrition, flight, defense, metabolism, etc.

2.) It is descended of two human beings, i.e. by the union of two cells.

And that's it.

 

[8744]

This is to Panda:

You do not have to go through a process? Do you believe these scenarios are the same? (1) a sixteen year old comes in for an elective abortion because she's scared, (2) a college student becomes pregnant as the result of a rape, (3) a young couple wants an abortion after they discover the fetus has holoprosencephaly. Let me guess, they are all identical in your eyes from a moral standpoint and no thought or evaluation is needed. Physicians do not need to weigh risk versus benefit; they only need to consult the good book.

Your elementary arguments in favor of patient autonomy are not of consequence. No one has ever argued in favor of unquestioning physician decisions. The scenario implies a patient wish for abortion. You keep defending things not under attack because you fear to face the facts of the matter. Switch the sceanrio if it's confusing you. Two patients come to your office wanting you to comlpetley remove their big toe. One patient has gout and the other has an infection unresponsive to antibitoics with a history of diabetes mellitus. Are you going to remove them both?

Why don't you explain in a scientific fashion, or even a philosophical one, at what point during human pregnancy a life form is created that deserves equal rights and protections as that of a human being. Do you believe physicians should make decisions based on evidence and fact or on feelings and dogma?

Does an early embryo with no organs, no brain, no nervous system, no ability to sense pain or think- qualify as being human?

Yes it does, Dr. Panda. And what's the evidence? Because a recent study published in the Bible shows that life begins at conception.

Whoa, buddy. You missed my point. We're not arguing here on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. I think it's wrong, of course, but I'm not holding my breath in the expectation that it will be banned any time soon. Other than lobbying my legislators to ban the practice my only recourse is to keep my own personal spiritual house in order by refusing to take any part at all in the practice including silently consenting by referring or presenting an option which I view as a crime against humanity.

But you don't view it like that which, in this argument, is cool. Obviously I am making decisions for myself based on what you call dogma. If you don't believe the teachings of your religion then why be religious? (Well, that's why God invented Episcopalians...to give atheists something to do on Sunday.)

Your confusion arises from your inability to open your mind to ideas different from yours. In this you are something of an extremist. It's not enough that you believe what you do but those of us who don't are an affront to your sensibilities and must be forced to conform to your ideology which, as it is based on reason and logic is both reasonable and logical and therefore perfect.


Your atheism, by the way, puts you in a very small minority of Americans. I hope you don't plan on denigrating the Bible or the Koran in your practice.

 

[u_r_my_serenity]

We could set forth what makes a human being:

1.) It is living. It responds to stimuli in such a way as to best enable itself (as far as it is able) to survive, whether by growth, attrition, flight, defense, metabolism, etc.

2.) It is descended of two human beings, i.e. by the union of two cells.

And that's it.

LOL you used the words "human being" in the defenition for "human being". Good one. I am through talking to you. I'm going out.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

LOL you used the words "human being" in the defenition for "human being". Good one. I am through talking to you. I'm going out.

LOL to you. If you want to define a human being as something that is conscious or can think rationally, you'd have the right to slaughter every newborn, senile old person, mentally ******ed person, etc. on the planet. Are they not human, either? Or are we Nazis?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Besides, the principles are these:

1.) A living thing responds to a stimulus in such a way to best preserve itself or its progeny.

2.) A living things belongs to the species that its parent(s) belong to. E. coli is descended from other E. coli, not from S. typhi.

3.) A human being is a living physical entity, classified as an animal, a mammal, and a primate, that possesses a spritual dimension that reflects and imitates, in a striking way, its Creator - God.

All other definitions of human fall short or are circular, as you correctly point out.

 

[Rockhouse]

LOL you used the words "human being" in the defenition for "human being". Good one. I am through talking to you. I'm going out.

Alright, here we go, definition of a human being: Of the genus species homo sapien, having a unique genetic makeup makes it an "individual." Point me to science that says Embryo's cannot sense "pain" as abstract as that is. It reacts to negative (painful) stimuli. Does a human embryo have an essence like you and me? I guess we will never know. But it is unique in the fact that it possses that potential, and nothing else does.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Whoa, buddy. You missed my point. We're not arguing here on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. I think it's wrong, of course, but I'm not holding my breath in the expectation that it will be banned any time soon. Other than lobbying my legislators to ban the practice my only recourse is to keep my own personal spiritual house in order by refusing to take any part at all in the practice including silently consenting by referring or presenting an option which I view as a crime against humanity.

But you don't view it like that which, in this argument, is cool. Obviously I am making decisions for myself based on what you call dogma. If you don't believe the teachings of your religion then why be religious? (Well, that's why God invented Episcopalians...to give atheists something to do on Sunday.)

Your confusion arises from your inability to open your mind to ideas different from yours. In this you are something of an extremist. It's not enough that you believe what you do but those of us who don't are an affront to your sensibilities and must be forced to conform to your ideology which, as it is based on reason and logic is both reasonable and logical and therefore perfect.


Your atheism, by the way, puts you in a very small minority of Americans. I hope you don't plan on denigrating the Bible or the Koran in your practice.

The idea that a doctor should be an amoral robot that performs his/her patients' wishes regardless of moral considerations, is disgusting and insane.

 

[8744]

..The scenario implies a patient wish for abortion. You keep defending things not under attack because you fear to face the facts of the matter...

If they want an abortion they will usually ask. If they don't they won't. From experience I can tell you that it is clear when a woman wants to keep her baby and almost as clear when she doesn't.

You don't have to talk her into either option although the few times my opinion has been asked I always say, most emphatically, that she should keep the baby and, if she is like most mothers, will never regret that decision.

If they ask for an abortion I just say that my religious beliefs don't allow me to discuss this and that the clinic will have to assign here a new doctor. Unfortunately it is not my clinic (one of the reasons I am leaving). If it was my clinic I'd politely tell her that while we'd love to have her as a patient, my clinic neither provides nor refers for elective abortion for moral and religious reasons.

 

[8744]

This is to Panda:

You do not have to go through a process? Do you believe these scenarios are the same? (1) a sixteen year old comes in for an elective abortion because she's scared, (2) a college student becomes pregnant as the result of a rape, (3) a young couple wants an abortion after they discover the fetus has holoprosencephaly. Let me guess, they are all identical in your eyes from a moral standpoint and no thought or evaluation is needed. Physicians do not need to weigh risk versus benefit; they only need to consult the good book.

Your elementary arguments in favor of patient autonomy are not of consequence. No one has ever argued in favor of unquestioning physician decisions. The scenario implies a patient wish for abortion. You keep defending things not under attack because you fear to face the facts of the matter. Switch the sceanrio if it's confusing you. Two patients come to your office wanting you to comlpetley remove their big toe. One patient has gout and the other has an infection unresponsive to antibitoics with a history of diabetes mellitus. Are you going to remove them both?

Why don't you explain in a scientific fashion, or even a philosophical one, at what point during human pregnancy a life form is created that deserves equal rights and protections as that of a human being. Do you believe physicians should make decisions based on evidence and fact or on feelings and dogma?

Does an early embryo with no organs, no brain, no nervous system, no ability to sense pain or think- qualify as being human?

Yes it does, Dr. Panda. And what's the evidence? Because a recent study published in the Bible shows that life begins at conception.

Let's say you are right. Is it your mission in life to eradicate every wrong idea? Sounds pretty zealous to me. One might even say puritanical.

 

[MattD]

If I had been aborted, I (as odrade today) would not have lost anything, and would not have known the difference. Who I am would not have existed, and would not have been around to have lost anything for being aborted. Sure, I (as odrade) wouldn't be here today, but that doesn't mean that some real harm was done to me. If my parents had copulated at a different moment in time, or any number of things happened in my mother's pregnancy, there would not have been born a little baby odrade. This doesn't mean that I had a near-death experience at conception, or through gestation. Do you really believe that hell is full of the souls and minds of all the aborted (both medically and spontaneously) fetuses? If you don't believe in souls, it makes even less sense to talk about the losses of (unrealized) future goods to fetuses who are aborted.

You have to be sapient to be subjected to an experience of nearly ending up in a biohazard bag. Fetuses are not sapient. They cannot look forward to tomorrow, worry about the past, or feel badly about being aborted. Having a heart beat, or even brainwaves is not sufficient in this way. My dogs are alive, and have a moral status, but they are not sapient in the way that an adult human is. Fetuses are alive, and have a moral status, but they are not sapient in the way that an adult human is. The OP nearly didn’t exist (due to a close call) but the OP was not nearly killed. There was no there there, to begin with. Something was nearly killed (a fetus) but the OP was not nearly killed. The fetus lead to the OP, but the OP was not present when her mom was considering the abortion.

Obviously, pro-lifers will disagree with this view.
On a related, yet separate note:
I have always thought that Christians especially should be more willing to embrace a notion of personhood obtaining at early childhood (or at least early infancy). Remember that god gets to choose when people get their personhood/soul/whatever. Why not believe that he set it up in a way that minimizes souls in hell rather than maximizes the number of souls in hell? Later personhood (instead of immediate personhood) would be the world god would have chosen, had he/she an interest in reducing the number of souls in hell. Presumably, this would be a good thing. Why do I say this?

Bazillions of fetuses have been naturally (spontaneously) aborted through time, and according to the typical Christian view, these all have souls. Also the typical Christian view is that all humans are inherently sinful, and needing of salvation. This isn’t to say that we are innocent till we do something naughty, rather, we enter the universe from the moment of our creation, a broken thing in need of redemption. I don’t think Christians can coherently argue that fetuses aren’t sinful, if they are persons. Now, fetuses aren’t baptized (if you believe that saves them), nor are they old enough to either choose salvation (or if you are a Calvinist, to accept God’s offered grace).
Notice that if this is the way god set things up, he set things up in a way that packs the seats of hell with fetuses. (Which is, frankly, icky.) If you believe in the omnibenevolence of god, and you are trying to figure out his position on the obtaining of personhood in fetuses/babies/humans, then it is reasonable to believe that he puts the personhood in later, not sooner. The funny thing is that this immediate personhood idea is not the ancient, established Judeochristian view on the subject. It just happens to be the view that people are reading into scripture these days.
If I were to believe in god, it would have to be a god that doesn’t try to maximize the number of babies/children in hell. But then that’s just my view on the matter.

Interesting. I wonder if you could clarify whether you actually agree with Warren's argument for abortion (and whether she likes it or not, the necessity of permitting infanticide under her argument), or if you're just suggesting that Christians should believe such a thing as a necessary consequence of their theology?

Anyway, I feel compelled to clear up some misconceptions about Christianity I THINK I detected in your post. While there are certainly many different interpretations of scripture, unfortunately the ones who are the most outspoken are typically in the minority in their beliefs. I will not try to speak for 'most' Christians, as I don't claim to have done any sort of study to see what beliefs are in the majority, but I will summarize what I and most people of faith that I know believe. First, despite what Calvin may have said about babies going to hell, it's just not true. Christians do believe in an omnibenevolent and completely just God, and as a result He cannot possibly punish an individual for a crime the he/she did not know was a crime, that crime being the non-acceptance of salvation. A lack of knowledge of the word of God, or an inability to understand it, does not condemn one to hell. Only the knowing rejection of salvation is punished. Those who claim that babies go to hell seem to be viewing hell as a default and heaven as a reward for the 'special' ones. These also tend to be the ones talking about a lack of free will and the sinfulness of boasting, which is funny since they are boasting that they are specially 'elected' and will go to heaven because they 'chose' to accept salvation..... I and others believe that the opposite is true, with heaven being the default and hell more of a punishment. I feel like this is more in the line with scripture. God, being benevolent, WANTS everyone to go to heaven, which is the whole reason he sent Jesus to us. Any other interpretation makes no sense, at least to me.

As far as baptism is concerned, people are not saved through baptism. Baptism is an outward and public display of one's acceptance of salvation, but is not a PART OF the salvation. Those who believe that infant baptism 'covers' children until they reach an age of accountability are being silly, and are missing the point of baptism.

Going back to the abortion topic, anti-abortionists (the ones who are so due to religious beliefs, at least) do believe that a fetus is a person and has a soul at the moment of conception. This does not necessarily follow to 'all dead fetuses go to hell', as mentioned above. This is also why they (we)believe that abortion is equivalent to infanticide is equivalent to murder of any other person. Those Christians (in the minority, I believe) who hold that there is no moral right to the use of lethal force in an act of self defense would hold that abortion is allowable under no circumstances. Those who do not hold such would certainly hold that abortion is permissible as necessary to protect the mother from harm. However, inconvenience is not the same as harm, and responsibility for one's actions is the very point of morality. I personally view psychological harm to be just as valid as physical harm, and would not object to abortion in the case of rape. I do not believe that incest is a valid reason for abortion, however, assuming that the incest consisted of consentual sex and the fetus did not have any genetic defect rendering it nonviable.

You make the claim that anti-abortionist views that life begins at conception is based on a mystical belief. I counter that pro-abortionist views that life begins at (or after!) birth is based on an arbitrary and equivocal mental construct of convenience. Science, however, provides a concrete determinant. The biological difference between humans and non-humans is genetic, and a person inherits his/her genetic code, and thus his humanity, at conception. This is a concrete biological milestone.

Finally, many of your premises have no support, such as the claim that a fetus has no sentience. Is there evidence for this? You also claim that had you been aborted, you would have lost nothing, and never known the difference. I say that you WOULD have lost a great deal, that being the goods of your entire life experience. I'd also point out that if you were murdered tomorrow, you would not know the difference either. This doesn't mean it's ok for you to be murdered. Also, if you don't believe in souls, you claim that it doesn't make sense to talk about the loss of future goods to a fetus. Well, by the same token it doesn't make sense to talk about the loss of future goods to an adult either, if a soul is somehow necessary for future good.

Sorry for the long post, and I certainly don't intend to flame ANYONE, so I hope no offense has been taken, but I'm sensitive to the fact that Christians are portrayed as kooks so much of the time (for good reason, as most of the outspoken ones ARE kooks, and the non-kooks tend to keep to themselves) and wanted to clarify at least some of my own beliefs. I'm no biblical scholar, and will not attempt to engage in battles of scripture quotation or any of that silliness. These are simply my viewpoints, and I do not feel that they are extreme or fanatical in any way.

By the way, we're all presumably intelligent people around here, so I'd like to suggest that the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion be used to describe viewpoints. This is just a pet peeve of mine, so feel free to ignore me. However, pro-life, anti-life, pro-choice, and pro-life are all emotionally charged political terms which serve only to polarize the issue and confuse people. So there

 

[MattD]

Again, Bull. There are many pro-life OB-Gyns. Elective abortion (elective I said, not in the case of things like ectopic pregnancies and etc.) is not an integral part of GYN health care unless you have a different definition for the word "integral."

Additionally, training in elective abortion can be refused at many if not most OB-Gyn residency prorams.

My wife's OB/Gyn is very pro-choice and looks at her colleagues who perform elective abortions as butchers.

You folks are pretty narrow-minded, living as you do in something of a bubble.

Sorry for the sequential posts....

I'm just curious, you said your wife's OB/GYN was very pro-choice AND that she views elective abortion as butchery. Isn't the very definition of "pro-choice" that someone believes a woman should have the choice to have abortion-at-will? If you mean that she believes that medically necessary abortion is permissible, but that she views elective abortion is impermissible, then that seems to me to be more of a "pro-life" viewpoint. Can you clarify?

 

[Hurricane95]

Excellent post MattD, I agree entirely. You wrote out exactly my thoughts, had I not been too lazy to sit down and type them.

 

[MattD]

Excellent post MattD, I agree entirely. You wrote out exactly my thoughts, had I not been too lazy to sit down and type them.

I spent a lot of time thinking and typing... I"m sure I'd have been well served to spend more time thinking. However, I'm neither a theologian nor a philosopher (is that a double negative?????), so people can take it as they will

 

[ruglazier]

I read none of the posts in this thread, just the title, my advice is that schools should want you for you and it is not in anyone's best interest to place a student anywhere on false pretences. So simply be honest, be yourself, and know why you feel as you do about given issues.

 

[8744]

Sorry for the sequential posts....

I'm just curious, you said your wife's OB/GYN was very pro-choice AND that she views elective abortion as butchery. Isn't the very definition of "pro-choice" that someone believes a woman should have the choice to have abortion-at-will? If you mean that she believes that medically necessary abortion is permissible, but that she views elective abortion is impermissible, then that seems to me to be more of a "pro-life" viewpoint. Can you clarify?

Typo. I meant pro-life.

 

[u_r_my_serenity]

Science, however, provides a concrete determinant. The biological difference between humans and non-humans is genetic, and a person inherits his/her genetic code, and thus his humanity, at conception. This is a concrete biological milestone.

Simply having the human genome cannot be enough. There are many instances in which we "kill" something containing the human genome. Have you ever given blood?

And what will you say when we possess the technology to change the genome in utero? Examples include removing the gene responsible for Huntington's Disease and replacing the genes responsible for the structure of pancreatic islet cells in type I diabetics. This is not science fiction. Will we take away the humanity of the fetus?

For the sperm and the egg thing, consdier this: We have already fertilized frog eggs with another female's genetic information. Humans have a mechanism of imprinting to prevent this, but research is already underway to overcome it. The research is being done for other uses, but this means that two lesbian women would be able to have a child together that is part of both of them with respect to genetic makeup. No sperm is ever needed.

There is also the ability to replace an egg nucleus with the same genetic information of the mother- a clone. All of these children will have effectively bypassed the traditional conception event.

In any of the examples above, do you think you have the right to just walk up and kill the "thing" that has been produced in this manner?

No, you don't. And in every example the living thing would be a human being because a human being is not defined as the process in which it came about but in what it ultimately is.

A molar pregancy was created at conception. It has living cells that each contain the human genome. It descended from "two human beings". It grows and responds to its environment. But it is not a "living human being" and intuitively anyone can see why.

And Dr. Panda will tell any patient that mentions abortion to get the Hell out/find a new doctor (but he won't help that happen) regardless of the reason (because no "process" is needed), and I'm the extremist. Yeah that makes sense. It is sad that there are subjects that are just too sensitive to be brought up in the physician patient relationship. I wonder what you'll say when a gay man asks you for advice on safe sex.

You are the one with the closed mind. If you don't believe this then pose a thought experiment to yourself. Is there any amount of scientific-based logic that could change your position? I wonder if you have the guts to ask yourself this and answer it honestly.

Life does not begin; it continues. If you ever genuinely understand that statement (it seems simple on the surface but is not), you will see the tragic flaw in just about every arguement you have made. You probably won't.

 

[Rockhouse]

Simply having the human genome cannot be enough. There are many instances in which we "kill" something containing the human genome. Have you ever given blood?

And what will you say when we possess the technology to change the genome in utero? Examples include removing the gene responsible for Huntington's Disease and replacing the genes responsible for the structure of pancreatic islet cells in type I diabetics. This is not science fiction. Will we take away the humanity of the fetus?

For the sperm and the egg thing, consdier this: We have already fertilized frog eggs with another female's genetic information. Humans have a mechanism of imprinting to prevent this, but research is already underway to overcome it. The research is being done for other uses, but this means that two lesbian women would be able to have a child together that is part of both of them with respect to genetic makeup. No sperm is ever needed.

There is also the ability to replace an egg nucleus with the same genetic information of the mother- a clone. All of these children will have effectively bypassed the traditional conception event.

In any of the examples above, do you think you have the right to just walk up and kill the "thing" that has been produced in this manner?

No, you don't. And in every example the living thing would be a human being because a human being is not defined as the process in which it came about but in what it ultimately is.

A molar pregancy was created at conception. It has living cells that each contain the human genome. It descended from "two human beings". It grows and responds to its environment. But it is not a "living human being" and intuitively anyone can see why.

And Dr. Panda will tell any patient that mentions abortion to get the Hell out/find a new doctor (but he won't help that happen) regardless of the reason (because no "process" is needed), and I'm the extremist. Yeah that makes sense. It is sad that there are subjects that are just too sensitive to be brought up in the physician patient relationship. I wonder what you'll say when a gay man asks you for advice on safe sex.

You are the one with the closed mind. If you don't believe this then pose a thought experiment to yourself. Is there any amount of scientific-based logic that could change your position? I wonder if you have the guts to ask yourself this and answer it honestly.

Life does not begin; it continues. If you ever genuinely understand that statement (it seems simple on the surface but is not), you will see the tragic flaw in just about every arguement you have made. You probably won't.

Well, I think that settles it, you are an idiot. And not because of your views, so much as your hypocrisy and short-sightedness. Giving blood and removing and embryo are not anywhere near the same thing... unless you think there is some process for growing up a blood cell to a unique human being. Nor is homosexuality in the same area of thought, except that you might say that religious people tend to be pro-life and anti gay-marriage. Beyond that, none of us would say that being a homosexual's doctor is the same as, in our opinions, being willing to aid in murder. That is just foolish. Ultimately, we may have the technological capability to bypass imprinting. But as far as that goes, someday we will probably have the technology to raise a fetus outside the human body. With the current definition of life by the pro-choice crowd being "viable outside of the mother," it is really only a matter of time until that is backed right up until conception. We don't know how soon that will be, but it is limited only by technology. A hundred years ago a 2 month premature baby would have never have survived, so I guess a hundred years ago it wasn't really a "baby" dying, rather just a fetus, so no shake. But now, there are lots a premature "babys" dying. And be one with your choice, that is cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But don't be so *****ic as to assume you are any less closed minded than everyone else on here. Which is fine really, because the only point of having an open mind is to be able to someday close it around percieved truth/belief, religious or otherwise. You have simply closed your mind around the idea abortion is not murder, which is not having an "open" mind, just a different opinion on the matter. And I ask you to take a simple thought experiment: Is there any amount of scientific evidence that could convince you life begins at conception? Probably not. At least square with it, and don't assume that you are on a higher intellectual plane because you can see the truth that all the pro-lifers can't see.

 

[8744]

And Dr. Panda will tell any patient that mentions abortion to get the Hell out/find a new doctor (but he won't help that happen) regardless of the reason (because no "process" is needed), and I'm the extremist. Yeah that makes sense. It is sad that there are subjects that are just too sensitive to be brought up in the physician patient relationship. I wonder what you'll say when a gay man asks you for advice on safe sex.

You see, this is your extremism talking and your lack of maturity. To decline to participate in an act which you consider immoral is not the same as telling someone to "get the hell out."

You are an extremist because you are absoutely intolerant of views other than your own. You are immature because you think that a disagreement on a moral issue is the same as telling you to "go to hell." Obviously, your ego is so fragile that it cannot tolerate any challenges.

Without too much effort, I can probably think of a few things which you would refuse to do if asked because they would violate your personal morality. They may not involve medicine, but then there is no requirement, legal or otherwise, that you check your morality at the door of your clinic. By ancient convention we reserve our judgement on our patient's behavior to the extent that we should never condemn them for their lifestyle choices. It's simply none of our business unless it has an effect on their health.

On the other hand we don't have to either participate in or abet their lifestyle decisions of which we disapprove. The key concept which you refuse to grasp is that referral is a form of participation.

 

[8744]

Well, I think that settles it, you are an idiot. And not because of your views, so much as your hypocrisy and short-sightedness. Giving blood and removing and embryo are not anywhere near the same thing... unless you think there is some process for growing up a blood cell to a unique human being. Nor is homosexuality in the same area of thought, except that you might say that religious people tend to be pro-life and anti gay-marriage. Beyond that, none of us would say that being a homosexual's doctor is the same as, in our opinions, being willing to aid in murder. That is just foolish. Ultimately, we may have the technological capability to bypass imprinting. But as far as that goes, someday we will probably have the technology to raise a fetus outside the human body. With the current definition of life by the pro-choice crowd being "viable outside of the mother," it is really only a matter of time until that is backed right up until conception. We don't know how soon that will be, but it is limited only by technology. A hundred years ago a 2 month premature baby would have never have survived, so I guess a hundred years ago it wasn't really a "baby" dying, rather just a fetus, so no shake. But now, there are lots a premature "babys" dying. And be one with your choice, that is cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But don't be so *****ic as to assume you are any less closed minded than everyone else on here. Which is fine really, because the only point of having an open mind is to be able to someday close it around percieved truth/belief, religious or otherwise. You have simply closed your mind around the idea abortion is not murder, which is not having an "open" mind, just a different opinion on the matter. And I ask you to take a simple thought experiment: Is there any amount of scientific evidence that could convince you life begins at conception? Probably not. At least square with it, and don't assume that you are on a higher intellectual plane because you can see the truth that all the pro-lifers can't see.

Right. I'm against gay marriage but why would this prevent me from treating a homosexual patient? I don't see why that would even come up in a typical patient encounter as it is irrelevant to the purpose of the visit. It's a free country. If a patient is so stridently pro-gay marriage that he won't come to my clinic then that's his problem, not mine. His lifestyle has nothing to do with me and it's not likely he'll ask me for advice on the good gay bars in town.

U_r_my_serenty's world view precludes the possibilty of civil behavior between people who disagree on important social issues which is why I call him an extremist.

 

[8744]

You are the one with the closed mind. If you don't believe this then pose a thought experiment to yourself. Is there any amount of scientific-based logic that could change your position? I wonder if you have the guts to ask yourself this and answer it honestly.

Nope. Faith and love for Christ trumps science every time. But then, I'm not running around claiming to be open-minded, a character trait which is not the ultimate virtue you suppose it to be.

I'm open-minded enough to tolerate different ideas but tolerating them is not the same as believing them. You may believe what you want and go to the Devil for all I care. I don't lose sleep over your views or spend my life as you do worked up into a puritanical rage over some contrary opinions.

"Scientific-based logic." Is there a more blood-soaked phrase in modern history?

 

[8744]

...Life does not begin; it continues. If you ever genuinely understand that statement (it seems simple on the surface but is not), you will see the tragic flaw in just about every arguement you have made...

What in the world are you talking about? Did this come to you in a bong-induced trance? Jeez. For a someone who renounces religion you certainly have a real transcendental thing going on here.

That's the kind of pap I'd expect to hear in a freshman philosophy class. I think I once picked up a dumb but very pretty girl using a similar line.

 

[MattD]

Simply having the human genome cannot be enough. There are many instances in which we "kill" something containing the human genome. Have you ever given blood?

I will only respond to the portions of your post which appeared directed at me, as I have no interest in getting into the battle over physician behavior you are having with Panda. If anyone would like to hear my opinion on that matter, feel free to ask.

I do agree with you that simply having the human genome is not enough. For example, I do not have a problem with the abortion of an anencephalic fetus. In addition to the human genome I would add the necessity of viablility as a requirement to preclude abortion. I think I alluded to this in the previous post, but didn't state it explicitly enough. In this context, however, I do not define viability as the ability to survive outside of the womb at that present moment, but rather I define it as the potential to survive outside of the womb at some point in the future if allowed to gestate to or near to term. In other words, a fetus with a fatal birth defect can be aborted, as there is no appreciable benefit to be gained which might outweigh the risks of pregnancy.

I'd like to point out that my religious views do not influence my belief that life begins at conception. That belief is solely due to conclusions drawn from my current knowledge of biology. My religious beliefs do in fact influence my belief that murder is immoral, although it is certainly not the only reason I believe so. So religion only leads me to object to abortion inasmuch as it would equally lead me to object to the murder of an adult human.

As far as your argument concerning genetic manipulation is concerned, it kind of misses the point. I never stated that it was necessary for a being to have the specific genetic data of their parents, who there must be two of, and who must be of the opposite sex, to be human. I simply said that humanity is determined by the presence of a genome that is representative of homo sapiens. A genetic defect does not remove that humanity any more than the correction of that defect would. Giving blood is not a valid counterexample, not is removing an organ or tumor, disposing of cell cultures, or any other similar action, because those tissues do not possess the potential to mature into a person. A clone would certainly be a person, as would someone treated for genetic defect.

I would define in vitro fertilization and cloning as events of conception. I do not personally require the sperm/egg link. I'm not sure yet how I feel about the idea of human cloning, but I am sure of the fact that if I decide that I don't support it, it will be the act of cloning that I don't support. I would certainly hold no animosity toward the human created by the act. But again, I'm not sure if I support human cloning or not, I need to think about it more.

I never accused you of having a closed mind; in fact, I wasn't even responding to you when I made my post. I have an open mind inasmuch as I am willing to listen to and evaluate arguments against my beliefs, and I am willing to integrate new information into my belief system even if it conflicts with my existing beliefs, provided that I am convinced of the truth of the new idea. However, having an open mind does not mean the same thing as having no belief system in place. You can have both, and I in fact do. Could any amount of scientific evidence convince me that I'm wrong? Sure it could. Do I believe that this evidence exists? No. If you think that you can provide evidence that my position is wrong, feel free to present it for evaluation. If your evidence is convincing then you will have converted me. However, appeals to intuition are rarely valid, as intuition leads to different conclusions amongst different people. Arguing by presenting a vague, mystical sounding statement, stating that it proves all my ideas wrong if only I could understand it, then claiming that I never will understand it is just plain silly. If you would like to enlighten me I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter, however, it appears to me that the only consequence you can draw from the statement is that not only abortion but also contraception is morally wrong, as they both prevent the 'continuation' of life. Is that your argument?

Don Marquis has one of the most cogent arguments against abortion that I've seen, and it is one that resonates greatly with my own beliefs. Perhaps you'd be interested in reading it (the paper is only about 8 pages long) and discussing your thoughts on it? I'd certainly be willing to review anything you'd like to present as well.

Cheerio and good day

 

[u_r_my_serenity]

Nope. Faith and love for Christ trumps science every time.

"Scientific-based logic." Is there a more blood-soaked phrase in modern history?

Then there is no further arguement. Either your beliefs are on a solid foundation, or they are not. Yours are not. Science by its very nature is based on sense, reason, and logic.

You have only religion - the wish to explain what was previously unexplainable. All that you know about physics, chemistry, and biology indicate that although our world is complex, it needs no divine creator to keep it running.

Moral maxims do not tell us how to feel, they tell us how to act. Thus, they should be based on some logic, and not arbitrarily chosen. Most of the moral code you now live by was written hundreds of years ago with no one's interest in mind except those who were in power or those who hoped to gain power from them.

Your belief system has directed man to acts such as burning Giordano Bruno alive for championing the idea that the Earth rotates around the sun and not the other way as Christianity has historically taught. His writings are still on the forbidden list of the Vatican today.

Your belief system has caused mass rejection and criticism of evolution when it is one of the simplest ideas in natural science. Even today we have politicians trying to infiltrate the curriculum with "intelligent design".

The age of the Earth. The age of the universe. The manner in which the diversity of life today came about. What humans descended from. Your belief system has systematically been wrong on virtually every account, and for good reason.

As for me, I do not claim to be infallible, and in fact I know that with great probability that something I believe is incorrect. If you were to present a case for why something I state is in error then I will consider your vantage point provided it is seeded in fact. I will not simply believe something without reason, and I require a certain amount of objectivity to take something seriously.

Further, I do not have a problem with differing view points. What I have a probelm with is physicians not basing their medical decisions on evidence be it for the efficacy of a medicine or a discussion of patient options. I feel that when physicians and scientists argue about something they should be arguing what the evidence does or does not show. You bypass this idea altogether and state an outdated tome trumps using your own mental faculties "every time".

I have no problem whatsoever being against abortion. I do not feel I will be punished for having that belief in an afterlife I have never seen (have you seen it?). I have not been contacted by God instructing me either way is right (have you been contacted?). All you have to do is state clearly and logically why abortion equates to murder and I will change my position.

Being able to do this simple task should be an automatic requirement if you're going to force a couple to care for a fetus who will be born with, say, alobar holoprosencephaly. The parents will incur incredible monetary and emotional cost. They will spend virtually every minute of every day caring for a child who has an 80% chance of dying by the age of one year and invariabely dies young if it survives beyond that. A child who is destined for gross mental ******ation and frequent seizures throughout the day. A child who will be horribly disfigured, perhaps with one cyclops eye. A child who will likely have a pituitary defect leading to problems with virtually every system of the body and requiring a vast number of physician visits to many different specialists. A child who will live a life of pain to parents who now lead a life of pain. The very least you, the physician who is supposed to be improving health, could do is state why they must endure all of this when we have the technology to lessen this pain and cost.

To MattD: I never meant to imply that you had a closed mind.