And this doesn't even begin to cover people who work hard and live in bum-fuck nowhere and have to take time off of work and travel a couple of hours to get to their nearest doctor. But hey, it's okay if their doctor just says no, right, because their patient can totally afford to keep visiting doctors that are further and further away until they find out the truth, right? Right?
I have an idea. If you can't afford to visit a doctor then don't have unprotected sex.
You are trying to portray pregnancy as some kind of disease that afflicts people at random. I think women who want an abortion should take some responsibility and find a nice, willing doctor to perform the procedure. If you give me a phone and a phone book I can find you the number for an abortion clinic and a recommended doctor in minutes.
I think that imposing a minor inconvenience on women seeking an abortion is worth protecting the integrity of doctors who strongly believe abortion is wrong. It seems pretty reasonable to me.. :shrug:
So you think this needs to be enforced by the government, gdorf? Doctors aren't obligated by any law to do whatever their patients tell them to do. So why do we need this government rule?
gdorf wrote:I think that imposing a minor inconvenience on women seeking an abortion is worth protecting the integrity of doctors who strongly believe abortion is wrong. It seems pretty reasonable to me.. :shrug:
The condom never breaks. The pill is 100% effective. A woman is never raped. All human beings are knowledgeable about contraceptive procedures and their very real risks. A woman can always afford to be on maternity leave. This new rule will never ever ever be abused for cases that it was never intended to be aimed at.
Want me to tell you a few more fairy tales?
And Integrity? A doctor who refuses to disclose treatment options because of a moral objection has...well...something...but sure as hell not "integrity" in any medical practicing sense of the word. If you're talking about 'self integrity' as if that is any use to their patients at all, nobody held a gun to their head and told them to go practice medicine.
The condom never breaks. The pill is 100% effective. A woman is never raped. All human beings are knowledgeable about contraceptive procedures and their very real risks. A woman can always afford to be on maternity leave. This new rule will never ever ever be abused for cases that it was never intended to be aimed at.Want me to tell you a few more fairy tales?
So what? That doesn't change the fact that a willing and able doctor is a phone call away!
There is no point forcing the issue on doctors with conservative values when there are viable alternatives. Its a give and a take. Although you don't seem to place much value in dignity, I think its worth slightly inconveniencing a few women to respect the doctors who firmly believe abortion is murder.
This new rule will never ever ever be abused for cases that it was never intended to be aimed at.
I actually agree with you. I think the law needs specific language that protects doctors from having to take part in an abortion or provide specific information about an abortion. This should not be a catch all conscience blanket that can be reinterpreted on a whim.
Damnit gdorf, this is utterly ridiculous. Doctors already aren't forced to perform procedures against their will. What part of that are you not getting? But no, let's make a new law anyway, despite the fact that it serves no purpose aside from the potential for misuse.
AlexMax wrote:And Integrity? A doctor who refuses to disclose treatment options because of a moral objection has...well...something...but sure as hell not "integrity" in any medical practicing sense of the word.
Agreed. (wow, is that a first?)
As a doctor, you have one purpose. To help others. If a particular procedure makes you feel morally uncomfortable, you don't withold all information. You go get another doctor to take on their case, one who has no moral objection to it.
This law has so many potential abuses it's not funny. Bad idea. Very bad idea.
gdorf wrote:I actually agree with you. I think the law needs specific language that protects doctors from having to take part in an abortion or provide specific information about an abortion. This should not be a catch all conscience blanket that can be reinterpreted on a whim.
And if it's actually specific to abortions, it would be a clear target for dismissal based on Roe vs. Wade. I'm glad we could come to an understanding. 😊
Roe V. Wade = Women have a right to an abortion.
Doctors should not have a duty to perform them.
Beldaran wrote:Roe V. Wade = Women have a right to an abortion.Doctors should not have a duty to perform them.
THEY DON'T! Christ, where do you people get these ideas!? Sorry, it's just that I've been trying over and over again to explain that doctors aren't forced to perform abortions, or any procedures really, against their will. I don't know how else to say it, but this idiotic ruling serves no purpose, as it's not establishing anything new. The only possible two purposes for its existence that I can see are misuse and as an attempt to stir up controversy.
rock_nog wrote:THEY DON'T! Christ, where do you people get these ideas!? Sorry, it's just that I've been trying over and over again to explain that doctors aren't forced to perform abortions, or any procedures really, against their will. I don't know how else to say it, but this idiotic ruling serves no purpose, as it's not establishing anything new. The only possible two purposes for its existence that I can see are misuse and as an attempt to stir up controversy.
It seems to be doing a pretty good job of stirring up controversy in this thread.
rock_nog, I do agree with you here. This rule changes absolutely nothing. Like what was said before, if a doctor doesn't want to get involved with abortions, s/he should not work at an abortion clinic.
Also, think about this one: if a doctor was uncomfortable with performing an abortion, would he be able to work at 100% efficiency if he were forced?
Archibaldo wrote:Also, with out abortions, we wind up with people like Pryme8. Think about it.
Without abortions, we also wind up with people like Pamela Stenzel.
Given that abortion is legal, I guess we're stuck with people like her no matter what.
Yeah, carmage has a point. One of the only places that one can get an abortion is at an abortion clinic. So, if a doctor is opposed to abortions, why would he work at an abortion clinic? Unless, because now he's protected by law, he can get a job there and never have to work... because he's opposed to abortions.
I get it now, its a big conspiracy for doctors who have yet to enter the job market. They can get a job at an abortion clinic, and because they are protected by law, they don't have to perform these operations and therefore, they don't have to work as much. It genius!
Man, typing drunk is hard, it took me like 5 minutes to type this post...
Well, look at the bright side. You saved yourself the time of having to think about what you said. =)