Anti-choice pro-aborts
As an aside, today’s award for MSM anti-life bias goes to the Associated Press, which by word two (!) of a Feb. 8 article showed malice toward the pro-life position:
A disturbing number of U.S. doctors do not feel obligated to tell patients about medical options they oppose morally, such as abortion and teen birth control, and believe they have no duty to refer people elsewhere for such treatments, researchers say.
Congratulations, AP!
The piece was on a study conducted by University of Chicago researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found “52% of the physicians… reported objections to abortion for failed contraception, and 42% reported objections to contraception for adolescents without parental consent.”
Asked NEJM, “Should physicians have the right to refuse to discuss, provide, or refer patients for medical interventions to which they have moral objections? The medical profession appears to be divided on this issue.”
Not really. It is only anti-lifers who appear to oppose a physicians’ right to choose.
Both ethicists quoted in the NEJM study protesting a doctor’s right not to participate in the Culture of Death were themselves members of that culture….
For instance, Dr. R. Alta Charo, Professor of Law and Bioethics at the infamously liberal University of Wisconsin at Madison, “criticize[d] those medical professionals who would claim ‘an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good,'” stated the study.
Charo, who herself claims an unfettered right to personal autonomy – but only when it comes to abortion, previously served as a Clinton appointee to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. After that commission expired and Bush appointed pro-life Dr. Leon Kass as chair of his newly created Council on Bioethics, Charo complained Kass was “unhappy with the enhanced degrees of personal freedom that things like the feminist movement and the reconfiguration of human families have brought to us.”
Then there is Professor Julian Savulescu, Chair in Practical Ethics of the University of Oxford, who argued, according to the NEJM study, “a doctor’s conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care.”
Savulescu, who doesn’t own one, has previously argued that “abortion and embryo destruction prevent a future of value, but that does not make them wrong,” and “killing a fetus is like failing to conceive a baby.”
Well, only if you think what is never was, or perhaps what your definition of “is” is. But I digress.
Once again we see the other side showing it is only pro-“choice” if death is chosen.
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.
I don’t think it’s true to say “the other side is only pro-choice is dealth is chosen.” They are saying that to be pro choice means that doctors have to educate women about their options. No doctor should be forced to perform an abortion, or help a teen get birth control, but to “believe they have no duty to refer people elsewhere for such treatments” is, without a doubt, “disturbing.”
Hi Hal,
(me again!!!!) you do like pro-abort bs when it’s around, eh?? Let’s pretend I am a Jew in Nazi Germany, would you expect my doctor to tell me of doctors who-would-provide-other-options? You take the belief (and it is just a belief) that death is a ‘good’ optional preference to life …. prove it!
Hello,
Mr. McDonell, I’m not quite sure I understand what you are saying, but Hal’s argument makes perfect sense. By refusing to offer women options and information, Doctors are not fulfilling their duty as trained professionals. Personal feelings should be left out of discussions with patients, and if a doctor doesn’t want to perform an abortion, they should give them the name of another doctor. Otherwise, those doctors aren’t really pro-choice; they’re deciding the future of their patients by refusing to give them options!
And on another note, I don’t know why you’re so angry that pro-choice doctors are criticizing pro-life doctors. If the situation were turned around (pro-life doctors criticizing those who are pro-choice), you would be praising them and you know it.
Hi Leah,
You make a fundamental error in equating ethics with feelings, Ethics as a philosophy has been around for thousands of years before what we know as medicine even existed. It is a knock-down INTELLECTUAL process that often lay people have attached their ‘feelings’ to. The reason why they are called professionals is that their argumentation is they have ethics without feelings as guide.
A ‘scientific’ claim that there are all sorts of pre- and post-abortion issues (not experienced by every woman) have been neglected/ignored by most medical professionals. Do you know many doctors that spend this time educating both themselves and their patients? Are they ridiculed as being old-fashioned fuss-pots, not to be listened to anyway? Is it easier (called peace) to not make waves?
John:
“Is it easier (called peace) to not make waves?”
Well, I guess that depends on the end result. If the end result is ignorance, I would have to say no. And if I’m guilty of mixing feelings with ethics, then you are too and so is everyone else in the world. Whether you tie in religious or non-religious beliefs with abortion, those are still personal feelings. From the AP Article, it seems like those pro-life doctors consider their feelings before ethics.
And I’d like to comment on this, too:
“Charo complained Kass was ‘unhappy with the enhanced degrees of personal freedom that things like the feminist movement and the reconfiguration of human families have brought to us.'”
I really don’t see what’s wrong with “enhanced degrees of personal freedom.” We do live in a democracy in the 21st century.
And to Jill:
You make a really good point. However, if the woman’s life were at stake, it would be somewhat irresponsible of the doctor to not suggest someone that performs abortions safely. And looking back at the comment, why do pro-life doctors have no obligation to tell pregnant women what their options are? Is there a doctrine somewhere stating that? I’m curious myself.
Hal, it has always been legal for doctors to save mothers’ lives if forced to make a choice. Doctors always have, and doctors always will. The life issue is not germane here.
As for the medicinal doctrine, it is the Hippocratic Oath, which states, “Do no harm….” The original Hippocratic Oath also included this: “Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.” See Wikipedia.
Leah,
in actual terms – I too am led by ‘feelings’ but then read some & look around to see if these feeling are verified by logic. The stance that Hal takes is that there is not two present in any pregnancy but one … this is not at all verifiable by medical science. We pro-lifer’s contend that there are two beings ((one of which is highly dependant on the other)) but there are still two.
To conclude I (have the right to) MAY attach any value (or no value) to another human life is problematic. Can’t have it either way! Pro-lifers often say a pre-born child is a ‘victim’, while pro-abortionists characterize the very same being as ‘part of MY body’…. sort of like an appendix. Who is correct?
Strangely enough, pro-lifers have science to back their ‘feelings’ …. what does pro-aborts have but loud voices. No politician can ever pass a law that will reverse the tug of gravity … why try??????????? is my self-esteem impinged that the law of gravity exists?
Leah,
yes I am guilty of trying to impute my own guilt onto others where it does not belong … this concept arises when two factions (or views) collide.
I am also very (sometimes too) close to the pro-abortion mentality that perceives death as a ‘solution’. I am ‘close’ because I am obviously physically disabled and there have been numerous calls to improve humanity by my removal.
I really have a problem with thinking that its OK to impart a wonderful value to some children and totally withhold most value from another child in the same family. Hal says that he is indeed awestruck by the beauty of his daughters, but in the same breath holds that aborting his own child was fine with him.
What am I to do with this? … yep your willingness to find that another human has limited value, emboldens others to devalue me! I do not perceive pro-life folks are my saviors … but maybe by shedding some of the notion that anyone (I would love to be considered precious as Hal’s girls are.) is fit to judge another’s value … I can just relax and be. Here’s a wee poem that I wrote some time ago:
Friend
Along destiny’s pathways, a summit beckons;
‘Come! A gift are you ..
for this time, this space ..
… my gift to you.’
This space for you .. to be,
a fortress? .. walls high
to prevent pain’s knock and tear’s parting ..
Yet spring .. may your space be
where flowers paint the breeze
with sparkle and dizzy fragrance,
Where a child lives free …
Hands seeking other hands ..
other shoulders ..
other spaces ..
This time for you .. to be
a clock .. perfect .. ‘tic-tic’
to silence.
A machine’s pace, to cast off love’s chosen moments.
Yet a dance .. may your time be
where waltzes fill the floor
with flowing grace and dazzling beauty;
and celebration springs ever new
heart flowing through other hearts
other waters
other times.
‘Come .. be’
a space so filled .. so free
that silence speaks, and peace reigns.
A time beyond time .. joy filled
when love flows and eternity begins.
‘Come .. be .. friend.’
by John McDonell, 1990
To Jill:
Well, I don’t really like Wikipedia as a source, but I went there and looked at it anyway. Funny that there’s now controversy surrounding the Hippocratic Oath, but obviously not all doctors take that oath…I can’t really think of much else to say; my brain is tired and I’ve been doing homework all weekend.
To John:
That’s a very pretty poem, and thank you for sharing your point of view: I feel like I understand your views on the subject more clearly than before. However, pro-abortion is not quite the same as pro-choice: pro-abortion implies that such people see it as the only solution, while pro-choice people respect a woman’s right to her own private decisions (whether she has the baby or does not). At least, that’s the way I take it.
Leah,
If a woman is making this decision about herself alone – I might (but not likely) agree. However, as I said there are two beings involved here, at least. Any decision has impact far beyond her control. Her decisions are the only ones germane, though …. because whatever she chooses is OK. Then, after a baby is born, the child is properly met by you with indifference … he/her is a take it or leave it! Or at what point has his/her life become worthwhile?
Say a woman is driving a car with three children in it and decides ‘enough is enough’, so deliberately slams into a wall, killing everyone. Are we to say ‘Well it must be 0K because #1: she made a choice!’? No way …. there are two things that say this situation is any different than an abortion … when a car is travelling fast ALL passengers are dependent on the driver. The differences are that the passengers now have value separate from the driver’s intent. Where did this ‘value’ come from? many pro-choicers contend that such value came only at birth … so then a trip down the birth canal marks a baby as worthy of life, my esteem/my protection ??????
John,
I understand what you’re saying- that one woman’s choice affects two people, not just hers. However, circumstances do arise when women have no other choice, and it’s not a choice that is taken lightly. Stereotyping a group of people based on this belief will not further anyone’s values in society (and I’m not saying that you are stereotyping anyone in particular, it’s just that it is so commonly done today). In addressing where the “value” came from, well the last statement you made seems to make sense to me. I’m a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and I also don’t want to force people into a course of action. Like I said, it’s a woman’s private decision on whether or not to continue a pregnancy. I don’t think I’ll change my views on this one…
Hi Leah,
I assumed you are an American with a constitution (the document that touts separation of church & state). In it, rights are ‘inalienable’ values. This means that values are intrinsic to being a living human. If a baby is killed via abortion his/her rights are destroyed/removed in that process. This is what many pro-life people mean when they ask: ‘Forgotten someone … ?’
There is little doubt that there are incredibly bad situations that this decision has to be made in … and there are no doubt many decisions that are not serious but frivolous. It does not matter in theory and in fact, because the rights of another trumps everything. If a person is struggling we offer help (as other humans do). We do not isolate the woman because no human decision is ever insular in its effects.
For instance, after decades of piecing together divergent biological material, it seems that there are two distinct phases during pregnancy where depression is marked. These two periods are exactly paralleled by the need for high amounts of zinc during fetal development.
Armed with such knowledge, do I attempt to ‘treat’ this depressions with abortion (as is done now) or support the period of emotional turmoil with zinc? [It is clear that the decision to abort is rarely lucid and unemotional … which is a contra-indication (BIG TIME) of any medical surgical optional procedure.]
John:
I am a big supporter of the separation between church and state. I am also a supporter of other “inalienable” rights, the rights of free choice and the ability of women to make their own decisions. Now I realize that you or Jill or someone else is going to go ballistic and list off a number of contradictions to my statement (for example, “the baby should have the ability to make decisions as well”). I used to be pro-life and I am well aware of the arguments used.
With the zinc and pregnany argument, I have to ask whether or not taking zinc would damage the fetus. I remember learning in my biology class that a medicine was developed decades ago to combat morning sickness, but the babies were then born with undeveloped arms and legs (in the pictures, they kind of looked like fins on fish). Nevertheless, it’s still the mother’s private decision.
The only workable solution is to let the woman make the decision with the advice of who she wants to hear from: her doctor, family, friends, and/or church. That’s how it’s going to happen regardless of the law anyway. Some will choose abortion, some not.
Hi Leah and Hal,
I am not ballistic … but I sure ain’t an impassioned individualist either … perhaps Leah you could re-read the US constitution and not invent rights which are not there. I am very close to this ‘independence’ image that you somehow believe is Nirvana … the putting into practice the idea of ‘independence’ (for us disabled folk and likely fetuses too) is as close to isolation as it gets. We somehow become special; then, put-on-a-pedestal; and finally have-eggs-thrown-at them, or hanged, or aborted, or ….
Most folks do not believe me, so I use a very small example ::: one’s shoelaces. Did you make them? … maybe the colour/ … the plastic tip? … how about the weave design? …. then how about the fabric of choice? … on and on. All humans in a modern society live inter-dependently NOT independently. As such, we form laws reflecting the way we actually do live, not some Utopian dream that should not be and (hopefully) never will exist.
as for as the zinc goes: the problem you are remembering Leah is a drug called Thalidomide. Zinc is a nutrient like calcium and water that is one of the keys ingredients in sustaining life. Like water though, it too can be overdone and is why very conservative amounts have been established for many, many years to guide folks about proper intake.