Pro-choicers Deny Doctors Right To Choose Life

[cmotherofpirl]

Exactly why I won't respond to his argument.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote]Madame V is not participating in this thread so there is no reason for you to even mention her.[/quote]

But that doesn't stop him from doing it in numerous other threads, either.

[quote]Frankly I believe that question is irrelevant anyway. The discussion here is about ONE moral belief. Doctors should NOT be forced to perform abortions.[/quote]

Exaaaaaactly.

[quote]By the way, your reaction to Winchester was completely inappropriate. This is not the Lame Board, this is a serious discussion on an important issue.[/quote]

And this was explicitly warned against by the moderators just a couple days ago. Members were asked to STOP doing this in all forums except the Lame Board.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1807907' date='Mar 15 2009, 07:40 PM']I think Hassan's asking a reasonable question. No, the scale of gravity does not compare whatsoever (murder vs. blood transfusion) but if either of them violates ones moral principles then I think its a viable question. In America, whether I agree with it or not, freedom to practice one's religion uninhibited is "supposed" to be one's right, whether that's refusing to perform an abortion or refusing to give a blood transfusion. Typically I tend to think the right to freedom of religion extends as far as it needs to, until it begins to affect another person. In most cases, probably, someone who wants to procure an abortion or a blood transfusion will be able to go to another doctor if one refuses to do so. I'm not so sure how this applies in a smaller locale where only one doctor is available and he refuses to give the service. But in general, if it doesn't affect someone else, a person should be permitted to refuse something that goes against their beliefs.[/quote]

Repeat, repeat, repeat: Abortion is NOT a life-saving medical procedure. I am not even personally convinced it should rightfully be called "health care" or even "medical care". While granted, there are some abortions performed in cases where the mother's life is truly in danger, these cases are rare and do not represent the greater--by far--majority of reasons why women have abortions. Abortion is about convenience and little else. Putting abortion in the same category as blood transfusions is a moot argument, plain and simple. HisChildForever was right: If Hassan, or anyone else, wanted to ask about the issue of conscientious objection in providing medical services, the question should have been asked outright, rather than drumming up an argument that more than likely doesn't exist (starting off asking about Jehovah's Witnesses, only to be informed that JW's are not doctors) is only about trying to throw a wrench in the discussion of doctors being forced to perform abortions, i.e., creating an argument for no other reason than to ARGUE, thereby attempting to deflect discussion from the real topic.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1807963' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:04 PM']Sometimes I hate living in Canada.[/quote]


Sometimes I hate living in America. Let's just keep telling ourselves that at least we are not in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, or Sudan.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807977' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:09 PM']I would generally agree with this. If a doctor does not wish to perform an abortion and there are willing doctors around to do it I would hope that doctor would never be forced to violate their beliefs. If a Muslim or Jewish doctor doe not want to be involved in an operation where pig organs are used I feel this is reasonable.[/quote]

*sigh*

Please leave Jews out of the examples involving pigs. Jews don't have any problem dealing with pigs. They simply don't eat pig products. They are not against owning pigs, touching pigs, talking about pigs, owning piggy banks, or using pig organs in surgery. It's Muslims who pitch a fit about pigs to the point of Muslim cashiers refusing to even ring up purchases of wrapped bacon. Not Jews. That's twice now that you have used a group of people and their "beliefs" incorrectly to support your argument.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1808031' date='Mar 15 2009, 07:42 PM']It makes me think. Pro-choicers claim that the right to "choose" IS in the women's best interests, but are they ACTUALLY [b]more[/b] concerned with their agenda?[/quote]


Right. Personally, I think there is no such thing as "pro-choice", but I use the phrase because of its commonly understood usage. In reality though there is no such thing. One is either pro-life or pro-abortion. I simply am in awe of the pro-choicers who defend abortion to the teeth but then get mortally offended at the argument that they are really only pro-abortion. They love to insist that they truly support the right to choose either birth or abortion, but they are not protecting and defending the right to choose birth, but the right to choose abortion. They may be pro-choice but the only CHOICE they advocate is abortion, thus making them truly pro-abortion.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1808112' date='Mar 15 2009, 10:42 PM']From the executive director of an abortion clinic:

"We in the movement, those of us in the clinics at the beginning, were so caught up in the early euphoria about winning a right to an abortion, we weren't listening to what the patients were saying. They weren't talking about abortion in the same way we were. They weren't talking about the constitution or women's rights. And many of them weren't talking about a bunch of cells, either. They might call it 'my baby,' even though they were firm about going through with the procedure. Many of them expressed relief, but many also talked about sadness and loss. And we weren't paying attention."

I think you have your answer, Erin.

More here: [url="http://post-gazette.com/pg/04020/263254.stm"]http://post-gazette.com/pg/04020/263254.stm[/url][/quote]

As sad as that is, at least some pro-choice individuals are recognizing that this is MORE than a political issue.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1808118' date='Mar 15 2009, 10:54 PM']so then...

i am guessing by your lack of response to Winchesters post, it isn't inappropriate in the same ways as Hassan's? how could that be? it is a pointless and funny post, like Hassan's.


i guess it is only inappropriate when the person posting it doesn't agree with you.[/quote]

And what is [i]your[/i] post contributing to this thread, may I ask? Who are you, anyway?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1808114' date='Mar 15 2009, 09:48 PM']Not hardly the same thing. The overwhelming majority of abortions are not life-saving, as a blood transfusion is. And even those abortions that are "life-saving" do not have to be performed by a doctor with a conscience clause against performing them. Abortions have to be scheduled, regardless of what they are for. No one gets rushed to the ER to have an abortion. A woman wanting an abortion for a so-called life-saving reason can schedule with a doctor willing to perform abortions. There are plenty of them. Forcing doctors to do them who don't want to do them is disgusting and fascist.[/quote]


Do you understand what a hypothetical question is?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1808117' date='Mar 15 2009, 09:53 PM']Of course you were. Next time just try crafting one that would actually work in the real world, not in a fantasy world.[/quote]


Sure Madam V. Just like "Of course" I'm actually a Muslims, don't have Jewish family, and was never a Catholic. I guess you figure if you make enough baseless conjectures about my hidden motives, beliefs, and intentions you'll actually be right every now and again. Unfortunatly, as so often in the past, you are incorrect. I have laid out my tatics and motives in very clear terms and even provided rational for them. I don't know if you and Erin consider obstinance a virtue or what exactly the reason that you two must discern some hidden motive either way it's just a bit sad.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1808119' date='Mar 15 2009, 09:56 PM']Exactly why I won't respond to his argument.[/quote]


You won't respond to my question because of what you believe my motives are? Is it not a reasonable question to be asked regardless of my motives? Let's say the dynamic duo are correct and I really have persisted because I have some rabid desire to craft an obviously flawed analogy to somehow make the "Catholic position" look absurd (even though I have already said I partly agree with it). Does that invalidate all of the issues I have brought up? Does it absolve you of actually engaging the potential difficulties which follow from your position?

[Winchester]

There's no difficulty. Abortion is the same as cosmetic surgery--it's elective. Many doctors don't perform cosmetic surgery. Are we going to force all surgeons to perform boob jobs? Surgeons pick and choose operations all the time, is abortion going to be the only one they can't opt out of? There are many hospitals that lack many very important services--emergency rooms that cannot deal iwth trauma. Why is abortion a sacred cow?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1808131' date='Mar 15 2009, 10:06 PM']Repeat, repeat, repeat: Abortion is NOT a life-saving medical procedure.[/quote]

Actually it can be, but why let silly facts stand in the way ab absolutism!

[quote]I am not even personally convinced it should rightfully be called "health care" or even "medical care". While granted, there are some abortions performed in cases where the mother's life is truly in danger, these cases are rare and do not represent the greater--by far--majority of reasons why women have abortions. Abortion is about convenience and little else.[/quote]

hm, let me see if I follow. Aborion categorically is not a lifesaving procedure. Sometimes the mothers life is endanger (then what would we call a proedure which removes her life from that danger?) but that israre. Abortion is about convenience and little else.

hm

[quote]Putting abortion in the same category as blood transfusions is a moot argument, plain and simple.[/quote]

Depends on what category that is.

[quote]HisChildForever was right: If Hassan, or anyone else, wanted to ask about the issue of conscientious objection in providing medical services, the question should have been asked outright, rather than drumming up an argument that more than likely doesn't exist (starting off asking about Jehovah's Witnesses, only to be informed that JW's are not doctors) is only about trying to throw a wrench in the discussion of doctors being forced to perform abortions, i.e., creating an argument for no other reason than to ARGUE, thereby attempting to deflect discussion from the real topic.[/quote]


I had no idea that's what I wanted to do. You shoul be a Psychology Professor.


Srsly

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1808131' date='Mar 15 2009, 11:06 PM']Repeat, repeat, repeat: Abortion is NOT a life-saving medical procedure. I am not even personally convinced it should rightfully be called "health care" or even "medical care". While granted, there are some abortions performed in cases where the mother's life is truly in danger, these cases are rare and do not represent the greater--by far--majority of reasons why women have abortions. Abortion is about convenience and little else. Putting abortion in the same category as blood transfusions is a moot argument, plain and simple. HisChildForever was right: If Hassan, or anyone else, wanted to ask about the issue of conscientious objection in providing medical services, the question should have been asked outright, rather than drumming up an argument that more than likely doesn't exist (starting off asking about Jehovah's Witnesses, only to be informed that JW's are not doctors) is only about trying to throw a wrench in the discussion of doctors being forced to perform abortions, i.e., creating an argument for no other reason than to ARGUE, thereby attempting to deflect discussion from the real topic.[/quote]

I agree with MV here.

I see both sides have legitimate things to say, but I also doubt Hassan's reasons for saying them...

Hassan do you even genuinely care why cmom holds the views she does? Why?

It does kind of look like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. And you still haven't responded to HCF, MV, and another posts about the two being totally different things. You just keep telling them they don't "know you." Well ok, but if you were really interested in the discussion and not anything else (like you try to say you are) then why aren't you keeping to the discussion and just ignoring their comments that are about you? Why don't you answer their legitimate replies.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1808193' date='Mar 16 2009, 12:23 AM']hm, let me see if I follow. Aborion categorically is not a lifesaving procedure. Sometimes the mothers life is endanger (then what would we call a proedure which removes her life from that danger?) but that israre. Abortion is about convenience and little else.

hm [/quote]

It has been shown that if we don't just try to "help the woman get rid of the problem: child" and more "help the woman bear her child" that both lives can possibly be saved.

However,

What is an abortion? The killing of a child.

What does a "pro-choice" doctor do to "save" the mother: kills the child.

What does the Catholic doctor do, that respects life and refuses to do an abortion: tries all possible to save both before removing the tube, not killing the child.

No Catholic doctor is going to perform an abortion nor do they have to. An informed Catholic doctor who would never perform an abortion knows how to deal with an ectopic pregnancy: do all possible to save both. remove the tube. Do not ever kill the child.

The mother is not saved by the death of the child but by the removal of the tube, with is not an "abortion." Because the death of the child in this case is a side effect which is not intended, and because the saving of the mother's life is not brought about by the death of the child, such a removal of the damaged portion of the tube is morally permissible. The ethical rule that applies here is called the Principle of the Double Effect."

Edited March 16, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1808136' date='Mar 15 2009, 10:13 PM']*sigh*

Please leave Jews out of the examples involving pigs. Jews don't have any problem dealing with pigs. They simply don't eat pig products. They are not against owning pigs, touching pigs, talking about pigs, owning piggy banks, or using pig organs in surgery. It's Muslims who pitch a fit about pigs to the point of Muslim cashiers refusing to even ring up purchases of wrapped bacon. Not Jews. That's twice now that you have used a group of people and their "beliefs" incorrectly to support your argument.[/quote]


Actually there are plenty of Muslim scholars who say such an operation is accectable if the goal is to save a human life. I don't care, for the purpose of this discussion, about the general agreement of religious authorities for religion x with regards to issue y. I am concerned with doctors who believe action y is contrary to his religious faith or moral principals, rightly or wrongly, and to what extent their personal aversion allows them to circumvent their regular duties as doctors. I don't care what a Rabbi or a Cleric would say, if a Jewish doctor, incorrectly or correctly, believes that action x is contrary to his religion to what extent should he be allowed to exempt skirt his medical duties?