Weekend question
USA Today reported August 2, “doctors are becoming more assertive in refusing to treat patients for religious reasons,” expanding on refusing to commit abortion to refusing artificial insemination, refusing to prescribe the morning-after pill, refusing to administer chicken pox and measles vaccines that were developed with aborted fetal tissue, and refusing assisted suicide.
The State-Journal Register reported August 3 that a federal judge has ruled IL pharmacists can refuse to dispense the morning-after pill.
One of the problems, according to John Lynch, Washington Hospital Center medical director, as quoted by CNN, is, “Our technology is ahead of our morals. From an ethical point of view, we haven’t learned when to use our technology.”
In light of exploding technology and evolving morals, and bearing in mind there is a growing shortage of medical professionals in all fields, how do you think the question of health care ethics should be handled?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is a very interesting question Jill. I guess I could agree that doctors can refuse treatment for religious reasons if they so wish. Someone can always go to another doctor or hospital, they can go to another pharmacy to get prescriptions. But what happens to small towns who only have one doctor, or one pharmacy? All these individuals are denied the right to these services. Also part of me feels that it is the right of the patient to have all options offered to him or her. I think it is the duty of the doctor to tell his/her patients about ALL options even the ones they may disagree with. And if they don’t want to do that, perhaps they should consider a new profession.
New Update:
After speaking with my mother I have found out the following information about the young girl with the missing aunt.
The aunt was speaking with the girls mother at the time of the collapse on a cell phone. She was on the bridge and called her sister. She was at a dead stop because of the traffic. Suddenly the cell phone went dead. As of Thursday morning or Friday (I’m not sure which day), the aunt was still missing. I am not sure if I will be able to get any more information. I thought the youth was from my mom’s youth group. But she was from another youth group. My mother was on a mission trip with several youth groups. If I do hear anything I will let you know. But I guess it doesn’t look good.
What if that Doctor is a Jehovah’s Witness and does not believe in blood tranfusions. Would you still think it’s ok for that Doctor to deny care?
There is a standard of care for patients, and in general if a person is going to have a hard time living up to that, then I agree that they should consider a new profession, or not go into it in the first place.
That said, I bet there’s always going to be gray areas here.
Doug
I can see how a doctor can refuse performing a specific procedure, but I don’t like the way they worded that: refusing to treat PATIENTS for religious reasons. When does treatments turn into prejudices? How can we stop a potentially slippery slope?
Prettyinpink: I can see how a doctor can refuse performing a specific procedure, but I don’t like the way they worded that: refusing to treat PATIENTS for religious reasons. When does treatments turn into prejudices? How can we stop a potentially slippery slope?
“Prejudices” sounds rather bad, but we all do it, we all pre-judge things; we’ve thought about them in the past and have our opinions.
If a doctor, for example, thinks that a given woman having an abortion is bad, it may be understandable if he has certain beliefs, but the matter is not really about him.
In this case it is about the woman, and there are cases of danger to the mother or severe enough fetal deficencies where few people indeed would think it a bad thing to end the pregancy. Should the doctor’s beliefs prevent him from doing what is right, in this case? Good grief I hope not, and I hope that such people don’t become doctors in the first place.
Doug
test
Doug:
Abortion is murder.
It’s always wrong so take you moral relativism somewhere else.
His Man: Abortion is murder.
Nope. Murder is a legal term. You may not like the idea of abortion but in no way does that make it “murder. Stating such falsehoods does nothing for your credibility
It’s always wrong so take you moral relativism somewhere else.
Wrong again. Many times abortion is right, and moreover – the best way to go with an unwanted pregnancy.
@Doug,
“Nope. Murder is a legal term. You may not like the idea of abortion but in no way does that make it “murder. Stating such falsehoods does nothing for your credibility”
Sorry Doug,
His Man is correct. The word ‘credibility’ is itself based in certainty … at least a normative word and is not relativistic. Since you claim no such base exists then you cannot site him for lack of credibility. But we sure could question any of your opinions.
John: His Man is correct.
Nope – the law is what determines murder or not, not his opinion of abortion.
The word ‘credibility’ is itself based in certainty … at least a normative word and is not relativistic.
The point is that it may be true that he doesn’t like abortion, wishes people wouldn’t end pregnancies, etc., but it is not true that abortion is murder. Even when abortion was illegal in the US, it was not held to be murder.
Since you claim no such base exists then you cannot site him for lack of credibility. But we sure could question any of your opinions.
Baloney – where do you see me claiming “no such base exists”? You most definitely can question my opinions (feel free). That doesn’t mean that pretending about a thing being murder makes one look better in an argument. Murder is defined in the law and abortion does not qualify.
I am not saying it is impossible that it ever could be held to be murder. But it is not that way now in the United States.
A very important ethical principle is relevant here. And it is something that American society used to take as an obvious one, especially regarding professionals such as doctors and lawyers who deal with morally significant issues all the time as part of their profession. The principle goes something like this: the client/patient, has no right to try and force a doctor (or lawyer) to do something that is deeply at odds with his own conscience.
A truly free society must respect the consciences of each individual citizen. If a physician will not have anything to do with abortion because he believes it to be an act that kills an innocent unborn child (a position I agree with), any person who would try to force such a physician against his will to participate in such a thing is willing to engage in the most morally heinous form of violation of another person’s moral autonomy–something we supposedly value in America. From the point of view of the physician who opposes abortion, forcing him to participate in abortion would be morally similar to holding a gun to his head and telling him to inject a lethal poison into an innocent 3 year old. For the doctor, the situation is morally the same–others trying to orchestrate the situation so that by an abuse of power they force him to commit an act of supreme moral evil.
Do we really want an American society where certain political groups force our most respected professionals to routinely violate their consciences in a most violent and severe way? What would it do to the legal and medical professions as a whole if it became common for some of them to acquiesce in doing things that repulsed them morally? Eventually this would bring about an overall deadening of any strong moral compass at all in them.
Would you remove a lawyer’s right to reject a particular client for reasons of personal conscience? Would you force a physician to prescribe a treatment he believed would harm his patients? “Do no harm” is a bedrock of the medical profession. Should we say that only a political body can interpret what this means; that the doctor’s own personal sense of right and wrong has no relevance? What is being argued for here by some, is nothing less than the replacement of individual conscience by the collective rule of a particular social group. Wouldn’t this be a great abuse of political power?
Which would you prefer? A culture which respects the moral compass of its professionals even if you disagree with them? Or, a society which targets and kills the moral conscience of its most respected and morally influential professionals, so what you end up with is doctors and lawyers with little to no sense of personal conscience at all. If you think hard about this, I hope you would prefer doctors and lawyers with a strong sense of personal conscience, rather than to have it drubbed out of them by force.
The price of maintaining this level of freedom in society is that sometimes the moral compass of a particular doctor will disagree with yours on a particular issue. It is extremely important, if our country is to remain genuinely free, that we be willing to endure this price.
Also, relevant to this whole topic, is that in discussions of this sort, proponents of abortion and other acts such as euthanasia, talk about these issues as though they are in a historical vacuum. It is not a small point to recognize that until very recent decades, the vast vast majority of the medical profession was in solid agreement that certain things were simply wrong–including abortion. So when pro-abortion folks speak in a way that suggests they would force a doctor against his will to participate in an act which for him would be an act of killing the innocent, they should recognize this important context, that they are trying to force something that only 50 or so years ago would have been against the consciences of nearly all respected members of the medical profession. The recent shift of trying to force acceptance of such acts upon medical professionals is an aberration historically speaking. Taking doctors of the past into consideration, physicians today who oppose abortion and euthanasia and the morning after pill, stand united with the large majority of the profession.
Hi Doug,
HisMan assumes that murder is human death caused directly by another human … it is in this sense Biblical. Are you emphasizing the point that ‘murder’ in the US-constitution is the only term that is of merit in the English world? I think there are plenty of people who embrace a non-US-constitution definition of ‘murder’ and this even preceded said constitution.
Please, do us all a favour … I posted about HisMan’s ‘credibility’, which imo is superb! Yours is ????
John, I saw this comment of yours on an earlier thread, so I hope you won’t mind if I reply here. I don’t know how long old threads go on, or what is considered the best/most polite way to do things here (other than not be pro-choice heh heh heh). If there is a better way to do it, I’d appreciate input from anybody.
I enjoy your posts and those of others here. Most places I’ve argued, pro-lifers give up too easy and/or the argument from both sides degenerates into rank name-calling and general disarray.
the potential of just one human brain is astounding. Richard Restack made this analogy if we could take the very smallest particle (a quark) in the universe, jam them all together to fill the whole universe (30 million light years across), … (a that number could be written with a ‘1’ followed by a ‘0’ written at a rate of a single digit per second), this number would take 4 minutes. Each human brain has the potential of ?????, that number would take 16 years to write at the same pace – 12 hours each day. And this is only if we think each neuron (brain cell) operated as a simple switch that goes either ‘off’ or ‘on’. Most neurons can signal in 50 different ways … and some even 1000. To me abortion support is supreme ignorance of human giftedness.
Okay, we’re mighty complex. We have lots of potential. That goes both ways, though – we can go good or go bad. There are people where many others would feel it would have been best had they not been born.
I’d say we don’t know what a person’s influence on the world will be. I see it coming down to question of real need. Do we really need one more birth? Especially if the pregnant woman doesn’t want to do it?
Population pressure is rising, worldwide, and to some extent we are having negative effects on our world. More sheer numbers is not necessarily a good thing, all in all, forever. The “be fruitful and multiply” deal – I think we’ve got that covered already.
So, is that one birth going to be a net positive for the world, or a net negative? Do we need to gamble on that enough that we deny the womman her desire to end her pregnancy?
Doug
John: HisMan assumes that murder is human death caused directly by another human … it is in this sense Biblical.
Well, it’d have been nice if he had said “from a Biblical perspective” or something. I disagree to some extent even there – not all human killing human was considered murder in the Bible. Murder was illegal killing or killing held to be harmful to the community, and that did not include abortion.
“Thou shalt not kill” really means “Thou shalt not murder,” which is the actual wording in some Bible versions and the intent in all of them. Killing, per se, was not prohibited in the Bible, there. Heck, the Bible is chock-full of killing, orders to kill, rules for killing, etc.
Are you emphasizing the point that ‘murder’ in the US-constitution is the only term that is of merit in the English world? I think there are plenty of people who embrace a non-US-constitution definition of ‘murder’ and this even preceded said constitution.
No, I’m saying that in the United Stated abortion is not murder. Had HisMan said that abortion was murder in some other place in the world where it really is, that’d have been different.
Please, do us all a favour … I posted about HisMan’s ‘credibility’, which imo is superb! Yours is??
If you see me make factual errors, don’t hesitate to point them out. I am saying that stating falsehoods and being factually incorrect does not make one “credible.”
I realize that there are many disagreements here. That there are unprovable facets of belief that lead to the arguments. There are also things that are true for all of us, and that’s a good starting point. It is true for all of us that abortion is not murder in the US. It is not our feelings of good/bad/right/wrong that determines what is murder here, it is the law.
Doug
I guess nobody wants to answer the blood transfusion question. Are you scared you might contradict yourselves?
Sorry Julie,
but just as people are not ‘forced’ to abide by the dictates of orthodoxy – ie. inoculations. Any physician can opt out of any procedure whether it be for religious reasons or whether it be financial considerations. Most doctors would not be too keen about the remote possibility of being shot for committing abortions. And yet some do like the financial rewards.
Many doctors see first-hand the devastation (including possible sterility) from using BC. They know it to be poor medicine. Are we to demand that doctors practice poor medicine?
hi again Doug,
just saw your posting – Posted by: PorkLoin at August 5, 2007 01:08 PM
the brain has immense potential … hardly ever used. The rough estimate is we use about 5% of our abilities now. We cannot access the other 95% if we are dead, now can we! So (among other things) abortion cuts us off from our potential!
Are we not even permitted to hope that our society can still progress? Because I am disabled, I know first-hand what living a life filled with fear is – I am much-less than perfect = released by death so ‘society’ thinks.
So, this means that a Muslim doctor can refuse to treat a Jewish (or otherwise non-Muslim) patient on the basis that the patient is an infidel and thus not worthy of treatment?
Ehhh, this is a slippery slope. You need to consider the moral issues you may face in any career you take up. For example, I knew a girl who was with me in a couple year of theatre- and twice, she got roles that she was ‘morally uncomfortable’ with. In one she had to play a flirtatious woman. In another, she had to do a vaudeville like dance. I thought it was the stupidest thing I’d ever seen. If you’re going to have objections to things you will be required to do, then find something else to DO. If you don’t want to give innocuations, don’t be a pediatrician, don’t want to give out a birth control pill, DON’T BE A PHARMACIST. They’re are medical alternatives to every aspect of this, but after a certain point, it just gets ridiculous. Other people’s religious views could start affecting my personal health. Not OK. I want my flu shot. I should be able to get it. I don’t think I’m obligated to bleed to death- I need to have access to a blood transfusions. It’s fine if you don’t want them- but the people who’s JOB it is to provide certain services should do what they get paid to do, or they should find an alternative profession where it isn’t an issue of morality.
Yeppers MKeller,
…. there are any number of reasons a doctor now that can have a doctor refuse a patient … just not having enough time; not getting paid enough; the patient has a communicable disease … AIDS, ebola ; the patient’s distress lies outside the Dr’s expertise – eg. psychiatry; etc
Hurgugugh…no. No John. That’s a myth that started when an autopsy was being performed centuries ago and barely touching a portion of the brain made a powerful muscle contraction. We use all of our brain. Our brain has no ‘appendix’. It’s since been adopted by a lot of people to explain ‘psychic powers’ or other abilities that are developed through energy manipulation or intuition.
http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-myth2
I would like to kick the person who started that myth. It’s rampant.
Doctors should be able to refuse to practice any medicine that involves destoying human life.
Cancer treatment destroys human life all the time. Chemo kills you faster than the cancer usually does (not always the case however, sometimes the cancer is faster than the chemo).
I say we ban cancer treatment.
*eyeroll*
“Other people’s religious views could start affecting my personal health. Not OK.”
Then find another Doctor…. I don’t want the government forcing Pharmacists to sell human pesticides like the morning-after pill, etc.
“Cancer treatment destroys human life all the time. Chemo kills you faster than the cancer usually does”
We’re not talking about cells, etc. We’re talking about practices that delibrately end human life to establish treaments.
@Jasper: But doctors prescribe cancer treatments that can (and often do) kill you.
And please note I’m being facetious.
jasper- maybe they should find another profession. Going into a profession you know exactly what is expected of you. If you can’t deal with it, you should find another area to work in.
John: the brain has immense potential … hardly ever used. The rough estimate is we use about 5% of our abilities now. We cannot access the other 95% if we are dead, now can we! So (among other things) abortion cuts us off from our potential!
Are we not even permitted to hope that our society can still progress? Because I am disabled, I know first-hand what living a life filled with fear is – I am much-less than perfect = released by death so ‘society’ thinks.
Agreed – abortion ends the potential, for good or or for bad. Yet most pregnancies are being willingly continued now, about 75% in the US, so I don’t think we need more “rolls of the dice” to the extent that we deny abortion to a woman who wants one.
Yes, of course we’re permitted to hope that society can progress. I don’t see blindly expanding the population forever as going hand-in-hand with that, though.
Honest question here, and I don’t mean to pry or be insensitive. Do you really feel that society thinks you would be “released by death” or that you “should be released”?
Doug
In emergency situations doctors are required to help a patient regardless of his/her hiv status, ability to pay, ect. No patient can be turned away from receiving emergency care. Also, most clinics do not allow doctors to turn AIDS patients away just because that patient has AIDS. Making a law that states a doctor does not have to treat a patients if the treatment conflicts with religous beliefs will create a slippery slope. For example, many rural community hospital emergency departments only have one emergency medicine doctor on at a time. What if that doctor is a Jehovah’s Witness and a patient bleeds out because that doctor doesn’t believe in blood transfusions? Is that ok. Or if a doctor refuses to end an ectopic pregnancy, it ruptures, and a woman dies? Or what if a trauma surgeon refused to treat a gay man who was just in a car accident? Doctors are taught not to push their beliefs on anyone. By restricting birth control, that is what they are doing. If someone is not comfortable with dispensing birth control, they should not a pharmacist. If a doctor does not want to prescribe birth control pills, they shouldn’t specialize in OB/GYN or family practice.
Julie: What if that Doctor is a Jehovah’s Witness and does not believe in blood tranfusions. Would you still think it’s ok for that Doctor to deny care?
Julie, good example. I said there would be gray areas, but you picked a good question where IMO few people would think it’s okay to deny care.
I’m pro-choice but if a doctor is really opposed to abortion, I wouldn’t make them perform them.
In-between those are cases where it’s more of a toss-up, IMO again.
Doug
@Julie: As far as I know, doctors who are Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their families…I don’t think they would deny non-Jehovah’s Witnesses blood transfusions because they know not everybody agrees.
Hi Erin,
perhaps you do a disservice. I tell folks even cockroaches don’t eat white flour nor sugar. They ain’t that stupid! Body builders have made some vast improvements in their muscle mass, can we not alter our mental abilities in much the same way … exercise and utilize?
The brain has a vast potential … my Dad used to tell us of this farmer who used to add the numbers on freight trains as the cars passed – each car had six digits and the freight train was at times 100 cars long – when asked why he did it … ‘Oh, just to keep me alert!’ was the usual reply.
We have little idea what genius really is – but I think I know how to fabricate it. And it sure isn’t by constantly short-changing it by continuously running deficits of very important nutrients.
Don’t sweat the small stuff …. do I think the other 90% involves psychic powers – no … not the kind you normally think of anyway.
A clue … written language developed sometime in the past 5000 years. Yet humans as homo sapiens sapiens existed for many, many millennia before that time … same intellectual potential as us. How did they communicate without written words … perhaps without need for words at all? Have written words actually made us ignorant?
“@Julie: As far as I know, doctors who are Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their families…I don’t think they would deny non-Jehovah’s Witnesses blood transfusions because they know not everybody agrees.”
not everyone agrees with denying birth control or the morning after pill.
I don’t agree that doctors should be forced to perform procedures either, but if a law stating doctors could deny care based on religous beliefs, it could cause a lot of problems. Esp in rural areas.
John, I think you’re a very smart man, but sometimes your waxing philosophical warps into preachy abstract nonsense. I know genius- Albert Einstien. Mozart. Stephen Hawkings. Goddard. Homer. Sophacles. I think you don’t give enough credit to the massive amount that humans ALREADY comprehend and can learn. How did we previously communicate? How do apes communicate? Animalistic forms of communication. Crude drawings. Pointing. Grunting. Body language. Your theories on nutrients are all well and good, but they have nothing to do with our potential in terms of use of brain power. We use all our brain. Of course we don’t use it all conciously- you don’t have to think about breathing, or remembering everything every single instant, or how to regulate your heartbeat. Humans aren’t potential, they simply are.
@Julie,
I just listened to a specialist in endocrinology (a specialist in hormones) say indirectly that because there was a 23% failure rate in the first 12 months re. BC contraception, it wasn’t such good medicine. I also asked you, if you wish doctors be free to practice poor medicine. The BC pill = poor medicine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tKxWrNNCig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJYdfgjQdIc
Hi Doug,
sorry I’m a slow typist … my disease affects my motor-control.
……… and yes indeed, it has kept me wondering just what will finish/terminate me first – my disease or my society wanting me out-of-my-misery. Right now, they are on the back-stretch neck-to-neck.
Doug, you seem to be very bright. Please read some UN population demographic projections until 2050. These folks (a pro-abortion organization) are projecting a massive bust to the population bubble worldwide. The continuous rant about overpopulation will come to haunt the world very soon … the USA too. This is made even worse as we practice more brain-drain immigration from 3rd world nations.
You might not agree with the pill, and that’s great. But that does not give you the right to say that no one should take it, and it does not give doctors the right to refuse to prescribe it, if that’s what the patient wants. Doing so is akin to doctors refusing to preform tubal ligations on women under 30 because they might “change their minds,” or doctors refusing to preform tubal ligations on women because they believe women should have children, or doctors refusing to preform tubal ligations on women for any other reason than a legitimate medical concern.
If a doctor advises against a treatment for a legitimate medical concern, i.e. kidney dysfunction for pills with progesterone components, that’s one thing. But religious leanings should not affect how a person does their job.
Why is not Erin a genius? If such was possible, would you try it out?
Genius only at times makes you liked. It can also make you a performance target … Jesus, Socrates.
“@Jasper: But doctors prescribe cancer treatments that can (and often do) kill you.”
Not intentionally Rae.
@Jasper: I was being facetious about that. I didn’t mean it.
@Rae,
even if facetious, you are much closer to reality than you think. A doctor named Ralph Moss was specifically hired by the Sloan – Kettering Institute to cast dispersion on all cancer treatments used by alternative medicine, even the ones showing a lot of promise.
Rae,
HI MY LOVE…I was soooo excited to see your name…
Erin, Rae, Julie,
The problem with your reasoning is that not all doctors that refuse to do abortions are doing it on religious grounds. Being pro life is not a “religious” issue. While many, many pro-lifers are people of faith, this is coincidence, or at the very least, incidental. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists…all of these groups have strong pro-life numbers in them. Killing an innocents human being is a moral issue, not a religious one.
Since most religions are “moral compasses” it is no surprise that they weigh in on this “moral” issue, but to call the life issue a religious one, I believe, is a mistake.
Therefore doctors that refuse to do abortions are refusing on moral grounds and not religious ones.
As far as I know, Jehovah’s witnesses are the only religion that doesn’t believe in getting blood transfusions and therefore this could be considered a “religious” reason…
Erin,
Humans aren’t potential, they simply are.
Well now, if you really believe that, then what is this argument I hear that unborn babies aren’t persons even tho they are human? Which is it, you can be human without being a person (humans that are potential persons) or Humans already arepersons.
The subconscious strikes again!
Also guys,
Giving a blood transfusion is something that would save a persons life. Giving someone an abortion is something that would take their life.
Right now, women have to travel great distances to get abortions because not all doctors perform them.
If a doctor tells a hospital up front that he won’t perform abortions, then the hospital has the option of not hiring him.
If a doctor knows that he won’t be performing abortions and sets up a private practice in a rural area, then that should be his “CHOICE”…
Not all doctors do all things…If I want a doctor to treat a skin disorder, I can’t force my gynecologist to do it. He doesn’t “do” skin. If I want my teeth cleaned I don’t go to the veterinary office. A doctor should/must have the right to decide which procedures he will and won’t do based on any criteria he wants. Hospitals don’t have to hire a doctor that won’t perform functions that the hospital does…
If I want an abortion or tubal ligation or vasectomy done, I won’t be going to a Catholic Hospital to do it…I’ll go down the street to another hospital.
If I need a certain cancer treatment, chances are my nearest hospital won’t offer it. Didn’t we just read about someone that had to travel to China for an adult stem cell treatment because it wasn’t offered here. A friend of mine is taking her father 60 miles away every week to receive a new cancer therapy that isn’t offered where she lives. Every hospital/doctor can’t be forced to offer/perform every possible treatment available. Practically speaking, it just can’t be done!
Doug,
I don’t know how long old threads go on, or what is considered the best/most polite way to do things here (other than not be pro-choice heh heh heh). If there is a better way to do it, I’d appreciate input from anybody.
I enjoy your posts and those of others here. Most places I’ve argued, pro-lifers give up too easy and/or the argument from both sides degenerates into rank name-calling and general disarray.
You did exactly what you should do…move the comment to a more relevant post. Jill usually posts 2 or 3 new articles everyday and things can move pretty quickly. If it looks like a post might be dropped, you should absolutely move it to a more recent post…
I’m so glad that you noticed that we rarely resort to name calling here. Everyone has their own style of expressing themselves and sometimes things can get pretty heated, but we absolutely do not tolerate foul language, blasphemy or blatant name calling.
We are committed to real dialogue and hope to learn from each other. If you recall the day that you first joined us, three people were also joining us that tried using the tactics that you mention. Vitriol, hatred, and mean posturing techniques usually go unrewarded here. We’ll allow a little leeway when you’re new, because we understand that a certain amount of testing must take place, (and we have a resident name caller (where is he anyway) that we extend exceptional leniency to, as within his
button pushing there is usually something with merit), but for the most part we respect each other here. I hope you stick around and tell your friends that if they are looking for honest debate, you’ve found the place…
If a doctor knows that he won’t be performing abortions and sets up a private practice in a rural area, then that should be his “CHOICE”…
Not all doctors do all things…If I want a doctor to treat a skin disorder, I can’t force my gynecologist to do it. He doesn’t “do” skin. If I want my teeth cleaned I don’t go to the veterinary office. A doctor should/must have the right to decide which procedures he will and won’t do based on any criteria he wants. Hospitals don’t have to hire a doctor that won’t perform functions that the hospital does…
If I want an abortion or tubal ligation or vasectomy done, I won’t be going to a Catholic Hospital to do it…I’ll go down the street to another hospital.
If I need a certain cancer treatment, chances are my nearest hospital won’t offer it. Didn’t we just read about someone that had to travel to China for an adult stem cell treatment because it wasn’t offered here. A friend of mine is taking her father 60 miles away every week to receive a new cancer therapy that isn’t offered where she lives. Every hospital/doctor can’t be forced to offer/perform every possible treatment available. Practically speaking, it just can’t be done!
Thank you, MK, for a voice of reason! I can’t believe that some people here think that doctors should be forced to do something that they know is wrong. It’s amazing how women should all have “choice”….but why not doctors?
Rae, it is so good to see you back! :)
Doug, welcome! :)
John: Please read some UN population demographic projections until 2050. These folks (a pro-abortion organization) are projecting a massive bust to the population bubble worldwide. The continuous rant about overpopulation will come to haunt the world very soon … the USA too. This is made even worse as we practice more brain-drain immigration from 3rd world nations.
John, I’m familiar with them – this stuff interests me. They’re calling for a lot of population gain, to over 9 billion, and around 9.22 billion in the year 2075, then pretty steady after that, with little ups and downs.
Why do you think that “rants” about overpopulation will come back to haunt us? Heck, even with 6+ billion we’re already really inpacting the world’s environment, resources, etc., and on a per-capita basis we use more resources every year. Energy and water alone are going to be two huge issues going forward.
Doug
MK: what is this argument I hear that unborn babies aren’t persons even tho they are human? Which is it, you can be human without being a person (humans that are potential persons) or Humans already arepersons.
In this argument the unborn are certain human, as in the adjective. Personhood is something else, a societal construct, an attributed status. It’s possible to be human without being a person.
Doug
Doug,
Believe me, I am well versed in that logic (or should I say “illogic”…
My point was, that Erin used the phrase, ” Humans aren’t potential, they simply are.”
Which is exactly what we keep saying…they “are”.
That, as far as we are concerned, should be the end of the argument. If humans just “are”, then how does she justify killing them. If they “aren’t” because they aren’t persons then they would be “potential” persons…which she claims they aren’t…
I was being facetious…And Erin knows it. Hence the “subconscious” line…I just think she tripped herself up there…
Doug,
It’s possible to be human without being a person.
We don’t think so. We don’t believe that there is any difference between a human and a person. We think that that is a distinction that the pro-choice side came up with to justify something that their consciences would otherwise reject. I believe we call that, rationalization…
Ahhhh, and if that could be proven either way, we would no longer need Jill…
I think if your career path clashes so violently with your morals than you ought to go into a bit of soul searching as to why you were so set on this career path in the first place.
Keller,
Doctors become doctors to save lives. I doubt that other than the rare few (mr. tiller, for example) that any of them would claim otherwise.
To ask a man (or woman) that has dedicated his entire life to saving people from death, to then turn around and willfully end lives is a bit more than asking them to “adapt” their morals. We’re not asking them to use “A” drug instead of “B” drug. We’re asking them to go against EVERYTHING that they stand for.
If the law said that they had to kill all blonde people or short people, and they refused would you say that they were being unreasonable?
Isn’t this what happened in Nazi Germany? Insisting that doctors perform duties that were directly opposed to their moral code, or be killed themselves?
JK, did doctors always have to use abortive remedies, euthanize patients, etc ? I do not see why any doctor must do something that was not always required, or anything that goes against the original hippocratic oath.
Keller,
Why don’t all television stations show porn? Why shouldn’t ABC and NBC be forced to show this, even though they know it would bad for business, and go against what they believe is right? Shouldn’t they have the right to decide what they show on their own television networks?
Shouldn’t doctors have a choice in which procedures they will do? I don’t want to go to a heart specialist for bi-pass surgery knowing he’s only doing it because he had no choice. I want to go to him because he believes in what he is doing, and is good at it!
That’s why doctors choose “specialties”…because it’s what they want to do, as opposed to what they must do…do you honestly think that it shouldn’t be this way?
@Doug,
those population demographic forecasts are important. Many pro-choicers here find in them some justification for abortion. It was very surprising to see your figures … the ones I am familiar with do cite a world population rise to 9 billion or so … but also speak of ‘a bust’ or rapid decline in the decades to follow. It’s almost like the fear of an exponential increase is very much reminiscent of a Malthusian prediction where demand outstrips the commodity-input. However, an even sharper downturn has this population explosion followed immediately by an implosion. This seems then to be a ‘spike’. Nowhere have I read that a figure remotely close to 9 billion will be maintained.
It is very hard to get any sort of balanced insight either way when extremes are all that is cited. From what I understand, 2.2 children per woman is what is needed to just maintain present population levels. Many European countries have a 1.3 – 1.5 level and are dying/fading out. Quebec, Canada has replacement levels of 1.4 . Even the USA (even with high immigration) is 2.0 and is the highest in the developed countries.
The same impacts on highly populated societies will mean????? as the working force ages without actual support. Will seniors be refused meds or food? China’s 1-Child policy will mean an extra 30 million males in a few years. It is expected that most of these will find a home in the army. So, now we have 30 million armed, frustrated men …. is our best just-close-our-eyes and pretend all is OK?
I’d like to redraw attention to Br. Francis’ 8/5, 12:32p, comment, which I would recommend not glossing over.
I knew Br. Francis before he was a bro and just my friend Scott at Priests for Life. He is one of two people I think I’ve mentioned before I can freely discuss Catholic/Protestant issues, the other being my friend Andrew, who also posts here every now and then, also formerly with PFL.
Both Andrew and Br. Francis are profound pro-life apologists, from whom I can only learn and not teach. Whenever either have anything to say, I pay attention. On this topic, Br. Francis had great thoughts and questions.
I agree, Jill! He made some excellent points!
BTW, Less, it’s great to see you back!
Lol, oh, MK, always trying to trip me up. I wasn’t focusing on any aspect of fetal development. I’m talking about a fully developed human brain. A brain doesn’t have ‘potential’ to use ‘more’ of itself. You use all of your brain. You can learn new things, create new links, or store more information, but everything is THERE already. It’s a basic organ. It doesn’t have any ‘appendix’, there is no area of the human brain that goes unused. If frustrated me that John was going on about how all people have so much ‘potential’ that they haven’t unlocked because they don’t eat right, or because they only use 10% of their brains- which is a terribly, horrribly wrong assumption and an urban legend. People who don’t reach their ‘potential’ either lack the circumstance or the drive. That’s all. John, I’m not a genius, because genetically, I don’t have the inclinations it takes to become a genius. I don’t understand the finer aspects of science. Math kind of makes me want to kill myself. I love words, I love humanism, love history- but it takes a balance and understanding of way more than that to a genius make.
MK, Bethany,
This is exactly what I was saying. If it is against your moral code to perform abortions or hand out birth control, then don’t work at Planned Parenthood, or a County hospital. Work at a Catholic hospital, or a private practice, or any other place where you would not be asked to do what your morals require you not to do.
Working in a place where you know many women would come to seek abortions, but refusing to provide them that service on moral grounds is the same as if a network executive who disliked strong language, violence and promiscuous sex on television were to take a job at HBO or Showtime and try to block the programming that these networks have been showing for years. People know that they can get a certain kind of programming from HBO and Showtime, just like they know they can get family oriented programming from other networks. It is very similar for doctors, there are many avenues a doctor can take to help people and save lives without having to compromise their morals, if they are so inclined.
The problem is within small communities where there exists only one hospital, or only one or a handful of pharmacies. If small town pharmacists are allowed by LAW to refuse to hand out birth control on moral grounds, it drastically affects the lives of the women who, for their own reasons, personal or otherwise, rely on the use of birth control. That’s when one person’s choice can also infringe on the rights and choices of others.
This is exactly what I was saying. If it is against your moral code to perform abortions or hand out birth control, then don’t work at Planned Parenthood, or a County hospital. Work at a Catholic hospital, or a private practice, or any other place where you would not be asked to do what your morals require you not to do.
I agree about not working at Planned Parenthood, but I don’t think that doctors who want to work for a county hospital should be discriminated against because they adhere to the hippocratic oath, the true, unchanged hippocratic oath, that is.
Are we living in another century, where a woman cannot go out of town to get her prescriptions? And there’s even the option of going online for prescriptions now, isn’t there? What is holding a woman back from getting what she supposedly “needs”? Where does anyone have the “right” to force their doctor to do fulfill their every “need”?
If there is no brain surgeon in your city, does it infringe on your rights if your town doctor refuses to do brain surgery on you?? Or do you simply find someone who can, elsewhere?
I never said they should be discriminated against, but you do have to think about the situations you would likely come into contact with if you worked in say, an inner city County hospital. If you still chose to work there you could, perhaps, pass off tasks you were morally opposed to upon other colleagues, but simply turning away a woman seeking an abortion at a hospital that performs them would in fact be discriminatory upon the woman and thus grounds of a lawsuit.
To put it sort of bluntly, brain surgery is a much more complex kind of procedure than abortion. Neurosurgeons have to go through years of training before they even think of operating on a person’s brain. Med students are (for the most part, I think) taught abortive procedures, and allowed to perform them (at the very least in residency, then).
So therefore, asking a town doctor, podiatrist, pediatrician, dentist, ER resident, etc. to operate on your brain, and they in turn refusing to do so, is not infringing upon your rights, because it is not their specialty, and I, for one, would like only an experienced neurosurgeon opening up my skull. :-)
exactly JKeller,
this ‘small-towness’ is opposed to the misconception that an independent life is that of an isolate. Other peoples’ opinion always impinge on your own [That is not only expected; but hoped- for by many. It is assurance that someone belongs.] … something like a large family. Oh, there is a strong sense of security/safety too where people are so much trusting each other, they need not lock any doors. They do not live in fear of rejection, either.
Seems like a better place to be human – no?
I never said they should be discriminated against, but you do have to think about the situations you would likely come into contact with if you worked in say, an inner city County hospital. If you still chose to work there you could, perhaps, pass off tasks you were morally opposed to upon other colleagues, but simply turning away a woman seeking an abortion at a hospital that performs them would in fact be discriminatory upon the woman and thus grounds of a lawsuit.
I see the point you are making, but I believe that the best solution to this would be for abortion to be illegal, except in the case of saving a mother’s life. The answer to this is not to make every doctor be forced to go against his or her moral convictions to do abortions. That is wrong. No one should be forced, or pressured, to kill human beings.
This (making abortion illegal) would solve the problem you mentioned above, as a doctor would not be coerced or forced into performing abortions that are morally wrong.
I don’t believe the same as you. I do not think that it is necessary for women to have abortions. I think that hospitals, and their patients, would do just fine if abortion were illegal except in the case of saving a mother’s life…just as it was before abortion became legalized.
Bethany, I’m curious: if abortion is illegal, what punishment do you envision the mother receiving? As most illegal activities have some sort of consequences, usually jail time, there would have to be some punishment. The case is similar to that of a for-hire murder: and in the majority of these cases, the one who ordered the hit ends up have a far more severe sentence than the for-hire murderer. Thus, while the doctor who preformed the abortion would likely receive some jail time, the mother would receive the majority of the punishment.
Thus, I am curious: what punishment do you expect the mothers will receive?
Less,
Sentencing is done by a judge based on a lot of different things. Motive and intent are just a few.
If a woman has an illegal abortion, chances are she was under great duress and was not out to “kill” her child the way Charles Manson was. Therefore, taking into consideration the uniqueness of the crime, I would say that only the abortion provider and all others who aided him/her should do jail time.
If there was to be any punishment for the woman, I guess some sort of fine might apply.
But we are not out to throw half of America in Jail. We are out to save babies…and incarcerating the so-called doctors that perform abortions would do the trick. We’re not heartless souls that want to see already stressed out women, punished. We just want the slaughter of millions upon millions of children to stop…
Legitimate doctors would not perform them because they would risk losing their licenses, which would leave the pond scum, and they probably shouldn’t be allowed to practice legitimate medicine anyway!
JK,
Val has asked me to ask you to email me so I can give you her email so you can email her about her dad and Cynthiana…cuz her firewalls are keeping her from posting here…
Thanks
Less, 100 percent what MK said…she took the words out of my mouth (and said it a little better than I probably would have).
Bethany,
Hah! this time I answered before YOU could ask the question!
Wait, so abortion is murder…but the woman who actively seeks out alleged murder is just stressed out and should just have a fine? What if a woman’s husband particularly stressed her out: would you give her just a fine as well? Women are well aware that an abortion will terminate the pregnancy, killing the fetus. To say otherwise is extremely patronizing and insulting to the woman’s intelligence. Should I actively seek out an abortion, I would do so precisely because it would kill the fetus, thus terminating the pregnancy. I really can’t conceive of a woman who wouldn’t know the same.
Is it not part of the pro-life mantra that a life is a life, no matter how far along in the developmental process? How is it, then, that a woman who kills her child just as surely as Manson killed his victims would get away with just a fine? If the woman is truly acting in a psychopathic manner, as MK is utterly convinced, would that not be a reason for severe punishment?
Frankly, if all that was implemented was a fine, abortion would not stop. There would still be doctors that would preform it, and there will always been women who seek it out: particularly if, despite the claim that abortion is murder, no real punishment is doled out.
Conundrumes like this honestly make me question the motivations of the pro-life position. You say that abortion is murder, but those that actively seek out the murder are simply stressed, and shouldn’t be punished.
@Doug,
I am returning to last night’s discussion re. HisMan. I think I owe HisMan/you/others an apology for leaving this idea too open. Mainly the reason why I appreciate HisMan’s input so much is that he understands basic scripture as they were written and not just a fuzzy kind of moral system as just one of many systems.
He lives ‘in Jesus’ and hence His moral compass is Jesus Himself. Jesus is His base and as such is a very active and dynamic one.
In St. John’s gospel, there is a strange conversation between Pilate and Jesus. Jesus says that ‘I have come into the world to bear witness to the Truth’. Pilate looking at this beat-up and scourged fellow (I guess he thought such a statement was absolutely absurd) responds “Truth. What is that?” Pilate missed it & we all still do. Truth is not a ‘what’ but a ‘who’. And, that ‘who’ is Jesus.
Jesus is HisMan’s base … his credibility. Therefore, I will take Hisman’s input over all others. He does make some minor debatable errors imo, but these are very rare. So when you question HisMan’s credibility, you are very close to questioning Jesus credibility … the One who is Truth.
Less, there are so many women who have been deceived and lied to about abortion. They are not all like you. They do not all plan out their abortions, being totally fine with abortion, knowing fully what they are getting themselves and their baby into.
A great number of women have genuinely believed that their child was nothing more than “tissue”, or a “product of conception”, then later realized the truth- after the deed was already done. Their lifetime of grief and suffering is more than enough punishment, in my opinion. (an abortionist, in my opinion, has no such excuse. They see the baby. They have to reassemble the pieces…they have to dispense of the body. They have no excuse.)
Women don’t have windows in their wombs, and they can be misled about whether their baby is a baby or not… (especially since abortion providers are adamant about hiding the simplest ways of knowing that truth- the ultrasound- from their patients).
Unlike an infanticide situation, where there is no way a mother could possibly mistake the child as anything but a human being, it IS possible that a woman who has an abortion is not completely convinced that what is inside her is a human being.
THIS is one difference….this is why we give the woman a benefit of a doubt, and this is why we consider many women second victims of abortion.
Hi Less,
you have articulated this problem very well. In the vast majority of legal systems a punishment of some sort is doled-out. In some faiths there is the addition of forgiveness. [This is not often in use in the USA but State governors can grant clemency and commute the sentence of death to life imprisonment; or, a president when leaving office often ‘forgives’ some outrageous offenders – and they cannot ever be tried!]
Then there is the case of South Africa. They wished to heal their nation and move forward. After decades of apartheid-rule (where many abdominal/egregious things happened, they decide to have a truth and Reconciliation Commission … brilliant, truly brilliant!
Maybe some form of this same process needs to be implemented (here) to heal … deeply HEAL American society and individuals.
MK, what’s your email address? I can’t get to it by clicking your name in the sidebar because I don’t have a .Mac email account (and have yet to figure out a way around this)
Keller,
mkhastings at ameritech dot net.
Less,
There would still be doctors that would preform it, and there will always been women who seek it out: particularly if, despite the claim that abortion is murder, no real punishment is doled out.
I already pointed out why doctors would not continue to perform abortions…
Legitimate doctors would not perform them because they would risk losing their licenses, which would leave the pond scum, and they probably shouldn’t be allowed to practice legitimate medicine anyway!
They would also want to avoid jail time…
As for and there will always been women who seek it out:
I addressed this also.
Abortion is a unique crime. It calls for unique responses. Yes women will still seek them out. They have ALWAYS sought them out. In every age and every country from the beginning of time. As I said, our goal is not to incarcerate half of America!
Punishment is meant to do one of two things. Separate criminals from society, and prevent the crime from reoccurring, and teach the perpetrator not to recommit the crime. By jailing the doctor, I think we accomplish at least the first one.
Smoking Marijuana is a crime. But we don’t throw every marijuana smoker in jail, even if they are caught. That would be counterproductive. But we do jail the sellers of large quantities of marijuana.
You are not the norm when it comes to abortion. Quite honestly, I find your views extreme. Most of the girls on here that are pro choice, believe abortion should be limited in some ways…be it age of the child, only in case of rape or incest, etc. You and Diane are the only two that fully admit the child is a person but still don’t think he/she deserve the same treatment that you do. I think your views are in the minority. I hope your views are in the minority. Truthfully, if a women was charged with the “Crime” of abortion, and she, like you, said that she fully understood that what she did was take another persons life, and she had no remorse and would do it again, then perhaps jail would be a viable alternative. But for the most part, I think women have convinced themselves that these are not persons, or even humans, and don’t understand that what they have done is commit murder. You might think that I’m insulting them, but I prefer to think I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. If you prove me wrong, then I would have to rethink my view.
Query: when younger I was taught that many US farmers were paid NOT to grow crops. I always found this insane at a time when famine was rampant.
I wonder if now those programs still exist today while many believe that we don’t/can’t produce enough food to feed everyone? Is overpopulation a convenient myth to rationalize the gift of abortion?
Yes, John,
My dad, for one, has been paid (a paltry sum) by the government to stop growing tobacco in recent years.
Doug: It’s possible to be human without being a person.
MK: We don’t think so. We don’t believe that there is any difference between a human and a person. We think that that is a distinction that the pro-choice side came up with to justify something that their consciences would otherwise reject. I believe we call that, rationalization…
I would say that you wish for right-to-life to be attributed to the unborn. Personhood is an idea, and it really is a societal construct. Not saying it’s impossible that it could be granted to the unborn, though that’d open up a massive can o’ worms. Personhood is a status, not a state of physical reality. On the physical reality we don’t disagree much at all. Doug
John: those population demographic forecasts are important. Many pro-choicers here find in them some justification for abortion. It was very surprising to see your figures … the ones I am familiar with do cite a world population rise to 9 billion or so … but also speak of ‘a bust’ or rapid decline in the decades to follow. It’s almost like the fear of an exponential increase is very much reminiscent of a Malthusian prediction where demand outstrips the commodity-input. However, an even sharper downturn has this population explosion followed immediately by an implosion. This seems then to be a ‘spike’. Nowhere have I read that a figure remotely close to 9 billion will be maintained.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf John, this is where I read it, I think – it’s not opening up for me tonight. It did say the earlier forecasts have been revised. There’s still many questions, and nobody knows what conditions will prevail as the decades go by.
As far as “justification for abortion,” I’m not saying we “need” to end pregnancies. Heck, if somebody wants to have kids, go ahead and have ’em. I’m saying that world population pressure certainly argues for not continuing unwanted pregnancies. No matter what, we don’t need “more” for the sake of more. I think that in future decades, there will be more alarm over population pressure and we may see more things like China’s “One Child” policy. Regardless of actual figures, whether it’s 7 billion, 9 billion, 10 billion, etc., I think it’s a given that we face some real crises. Even just at today’s population, we’re using more and more resources at a faster and faster rate. China and India, with over 3 billion people between them, are just now beginning to really consume.
The US, with less than 5% of world population, uses 40% of world resources. If the rest of the world were to consume as we do, it’d take 8 times the production, with zero population growth from right now. I am not saying that will happen, but the multiples are indeed going to change, and the crunch is coming with or without population growth.
The same impacts on highly populated societies will mean????? as the working force ages without actual support. Will seniors be refused meds or food? China’s 1-Child policy will mean an extra 30 million males in a few years. It is expected that most of these will find a home in the army. So, now we have 30 million armed, frustrated men …. is our best just-close-our-eyes and pretend all is OK?
Who knows? In no way do I think that blindly increasing the population at an even faster rate of growth than what is current is any type of reasonable “solution.”
Doug
John: I am returning to last night’s discussion re. HisMan. I think I owe HisMan/you/others an apology for leaving this idea too open. Mainly the reason why I appreciate HisMan’s input so much is that he understands basic scripture as they were written and not just a fuzzy kind of moral system as just one of many systems.
Okay….
He lives ‘in Jesus’ and hence His moral compass is Jesus Himself. Jesus is His base and as such is a very active and dynamic one.
In St. John’s gospel, there is a strange conversation between Pilate and Jesus. Jesus says that ‘I have come into the world to bear witness to the Truth’. Pilate looking at this beat-up and scourged fellow (I guess he thought such a statement was absolutely absurd) responds “Truth. What is that?” Pilate missed it & we all still do. Truth is not a ‘what’ but a ‘who’. And, that ‘who’ is Jesus.
To be blunt, that’s unprovable, subjective stuff. If we all thought the same thing from the get-go, we wouldn’t be arguing. As I’ve said before, we all make unprovable assumptions, and it’s where those assumptions diverge that the arguments start. One’s unprovable, subjective belief in no way constitutes any meaningful argument with another person, necessarily.
Jesus is HisMan’s base … his credibility. Therefore, I will take Hisman’s input over all others. He does make some minor debatable errors imo, but these are very rare. So when you question HisMan’s credibility, you are very close to questioning Jesus credibility … the One who is Truth.
Holy Crow, man, I think you’re going over the top. I DO NOT question his credibility about most Biblical stuff. But as far abortion being murder, he’s wrong, there. And there are a few areas of the Bible where I do often see inconsistent application by pro-lifers, i.e. the “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” etc.
Doug
Thanks for raising the issue, Jill. Should a person’s desire for some form of medical care force the doctor to act against his or her conscience?
I believe the answer is a clear and resounding “No.”
I have a recent blog entry on the subject at http://blog.letherlive.org/2007/07/freedom-of-conscience-vs-right-to.html
Thanks,
Wesley
Wesley, that was an excellent article. Thank you for sharing it.
Wesley, great post, particularly this point: “We expect doctors to follow this principle in prescribing treatment to be sure the cure is not worse than the disease. Based on this principle, American Medical Association policy prohibits doctors from being involved in executions.”
Didn’t know that. Oh, the evergrowing dichotomies.
@Doug,
guess you were answering just as I was going to bed …
I made a distinction between ‘Truth’ as a ‘who’ and ‘truth’ as a ‘what’. Most often, these two are seen as the same thing, and Truth (religious Christianity) = ‘truth’ (philosophical/academe/legal/etc.). There is a profound basic difference between the two. ‘Truth’ with (a capital ‘T’) is to be followed, once found. And ‘truth’ is to be sought after. [It probably can be distinguished as is ‘wisdom’ from ‘knowledge’.]
Much to often human beings feel that input of Truth is strictly about faith and therefore, has no place in a rational discussion. This concept is a wee bit thin when you comprehend the provision of God. It is this power that holds all the universe in actuallity … our existence, our memories, our vocabulary, our ability to communicate, a distinction between subjective and objective and, our rationality … and to then exclude this input as ‘not applicable’ is indeed strange … ‘intellectual-arrogance’ may suit better.
[I am not saying such exclusion has not been attempted often before. But such an exclusion makes the seeking of truth (small ‘t’) trivial.]
Each one of us is a unique being and we perceive our reality and our relationships within that reality uniquely. Your distinction between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ is a philosophical distinction that does not weigh heavily in reality, but is merely an ‘intellectual status’, as is the word ‘seat’ in ‘seat-of-government’. Most words are about this unseen reality. It being a subjective-truth in no way deminishes this.
As just one small example, married-love … matter of fact any love … can such be proved? is it subjective? is abortion about loving/not-loving? are laws about community caring/loving? If the answer to the above is a decided ‘yes’; then inputs such as Hisman’s not be disregarded but actually sought out. Abortion IS murder …. continuing to deny such in American law is a problematic can-of-worms.
How about doctors who perform sex change operations? You don’t find that every day. I’m sure you would find plenty who wouldn’t touch that with a 10 foot pole. Should they have the right to say “no thanks”…..Absolutely!
John:As just one small example, married-love … matter of fact any love … can such be proved? is it subjective? is abortion about loving/not-loving? are laws about community caring/loving? If the answer to the above is a decided ‘yes’; then inputs such as Hisman’s not be disregarded but actually sought out. Abortion IS murder …. continuing to deny such in American law is a problematic can-of-worms.
I’d say yes it can be proved. The person in question can be asked. Brain chemicals can be measured. Objectively, it can be said that love is there (or not there). Objectively, it can be said there is such a thing as love. Being blunt again, this has nothing to do with religious mumbo-jumbo.
Abortion is about valuation. It is weighing all the negatives and positives one perceives. Again, has nothing necessarily to do with religion. If somebody values their fetus positively, on balance (whether or not their religious beliefs come into play) then I’d say that abortion is a bad choice for them.
And no, (of course) abortion is not “murder.”
Doug