The Abortion Wars Get Technical

Enough of rights - what about obligations?
With apologies to Tertullian, "that is a woman which is going to be one"

To CPmondello

You are proof that we live in a society that wants to do what it wants without anyone suggesting otherwise. Until someone can conclusively say that they are not killing what would become a human being, then someone needs to advise that person of what she is doing. This is a serious matter, and it would appear a very small inconvenience comparatively speaking, to have to someone ask "are you sure?". People tape record your entering into an agreement to purchase from a telemarketer, just to make sure that later on, you knew what you were getting into. But in this case, you make christians religious fanatics because they want to make sure that a person knows that she is about to kill another human being which she might regret later? Talk about swalling a camel and straining at the gnat!

Scientifically, abortion is murder.
It has nothing to do with religion.
It just happens to be LEGAL murder.
So why shouldn't doctors have to inform their patients so they can make an educated choice??

I have a medical condition that requires tightly controlling my hormones, i.e. taking birth control pills. I have been harrassed, condescended to and outright denied what is for me life-saving medication. The irony? I'm not currently having sex with anyone. George Bush is going to kill even more people than he already has with this bill.

why wasnt my previous comment posted? this is bullsh!t

I think the level of entitlements and contrived rights of collective groups has hit a fever pitch when a woman believes she's entitled to override the individual's right to choose. I thought America was a country built on individual rights. Why then, are we dissecting society into groups and assigning rights to collectives? And now there's confusion as to whose right's come first. This is a very slippery slope. Bad things happen when the "rights" of the collective (whether a minority of majority) override true individual rights.

If a particular kind of work has tasks that run counter to an individual's belief system, the individual is free to choose to work for another employer. If you oppose the use of electric cattle prods in the meat industry, do not apply to work in a slaughter house where they are used. If you oppose humans building extravagant homes in remote places, do not work for the construction companies that build them. Jobs are for people who perform them. Because this is a country built on the idea of a free market, anti-abortion individuals are free to open their own clinic that does not provide services with which they disagree.

An individual's personal beliefs should not prevent a business from following it's mission statement or achieving it's goals. Individuals should take personal responsibility and not place themselves in a position where they have to perform functions that disagree with their beliefs. Don't be a guard on death row if you don't believe in the death penalty. If your religion forbids drinking alcohol or promoting others to do it, don't apply to work at a liquor store, refuse to sell it and require the owner to hire people until he/she finds someone that will. Now an owner is unable to fire those who do not do the job and provide no value to the business.

What is next? Will we have soldiers who refuse to fire a particular weapon in battle? Will we have doctors who alter the medical care/information provided to their clients based on the religious views of the client? Both situations are inline with the ideas behind this law. The freedom does lie with the individual but not to define the role of a position they apply for. Their freedom is to work for a given employer or not.

MacLean: Yes a woman has a right to chose her course of her treatment. But a provider who is opposed to a certain treatment should NOT BE compelled to provide it. The woman is still free to go to any other provider. As a WOMAN and a PROVIDER, I feel really irritated when my choices of how I practice my religion and my ethics are limited by someone else's beliefs; and that too when that someone else could just as well receive the treatment of their choice with another provider.

While I certainly wouldn't agree that we should be killing these people; the reminder that these people are the enemies of our essential liberties should not be ignored. "Christian" Fundamentalists will do anything to strip Americans of their freedoms.

This Christian Taliban war on America needs to stop. Next they will be demanding the right to burn women as witches. There is just no evil, no lie that is beyond there ability. Time to get out your guns and start taking these people out!

BTW, of course any doctor should give birth control pills to anyone who asks. But they can be forced to kill a baby, that´s totally different...

A woman's constitutional rights should be protected. It's the right of choice. Some may say that abortion/emergency contraception/birth control takes the rights away from a "human being", but sometimes it comes down to whose right is greater I guess. Do you deny services as a health care provider that someone who is standing right in front of you is requesting? Or do you ignore them because they "might" have a child in nine months and you want to protect the possible child???s rights?
Doctor???s take a Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, but sometimes it cannot be avoided. Someone should not have to force information out of their doctor, spend time trying to find a different doctor who will freely give out information, or risk receiving faulty information just to make an informed decision? No, information should be equally available to anyone who asks for it. A lot of small town clinics are full of prolife people and getting an abortion is already a giant blackmark on your community record. If small town clinics come together and refuse information as a whole? That would be covered by this law. And small town America would be the poorer for it.

On another note. If ???any health-care worker may refuse to perform procedures, offer advice or dispense prescriptions, if doing so would offend their ???religious beliefs or moral convictions,??? ??? what???s to stop those healthcare workers from going beyond abortions, birth control and the like? So a doctor thinks homosexuality is a sin and any gay person who gets an STD is being punished by a higher power. He???s got a patient who had been open with him about being a homosexual. This patient gets an STD, doesn???t matter where it???s from. This doctor thinks homosexuality is morally wrong. This doctor might consider it ???morally wrong??? to give information out about treatment of said STD when the patient is being punished for a ???morally wrong??? act. From what I???ve seen of this law???it???s very vague. It???s opening up a ton of slippery slopes for misinformation.

A woman's constitutional rights should be protected. It's the right of choice. Some may say that abortion/emergency contraception/birth control takes the rights away from a "human being", but sometimes it comes down to whose right is greater I guess. Do you deny services as a health care provider that someone who is standing right in front of you is requesting? Or do you ignore them because they "might" have a child in nine months and you want to protect the possible child???s rights?
Doctor???s take a Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, but sometimes it cannot be avoided. Someone should not have to force information out of their doctor, spend time trying to find a different doctor who will freely give out information, or risk receiving faulty information just to make an informed decision? No, information should be equally available to anyone who asks for it. A lot of small town clinics are full of prolife people and getting an abortion is already a giant blackmark on your community record. If small town clinics come together and refuse information as a whole? That would be covered by this law. And small town America would be the poorer for it.

On another note. If ???any health-care worker may refuse to perform procedures, offer advice or dispense prescriptions, if doing so would offend their ???religious beliefs or moral convictions,??? ??? what???s to stop those healthcare workers from going beyond abortions, birth control and the like? So a doctor thinks homosexuality is a sin and any gay person who gets an STD is being punished by a higher power. He???s got a patient who had been open with him about being a homosexual. This patient gets an STD, doesn???t matter where it???s from. This doctor thinks homosexuality is morally wrong. This doctor might consider it ???morally wrong??? to give information out about treatment of said STD when the patient is being punished for a ???morally wrong??? act. From what I???ve seen of this law???it???s very vague. It???s opening up a ton of slippery slopes for misinformation.

An MD interpreted my lab work indicating I was pregnant with a Downs Syndrome child. He attempted to schedule me for an abortion that afternoon insinuating that "the sooner the better" procedure would relieve me from a "terrible burden" for my husband and me. My twin sons will be 15 this month and do well in school. Informed women make better decisions.

comment to turk96: if you thought eating meat was truly morally wrong and you get a job in a slaughterhouse where your job is to kill things, you are a moron. A doctor is supposed to help preserve life, so sorry if they didn't think they were going to be forced to perform abortions.

reply to phannah : Just because a procedure is "legal" doesn't mean everything. There are many "legal" procedures that a doctor would not do because of other circumstances. Doctors go to years and years of school (do you even realize how many?) to be better able to decide when to do a certain procedure. I know this is a little off the topic of "abortion", but it's important to realize; I want my doctor recommending procedures to me, not far-removed law-makereply to phannah : Just because a procedure is "legal" doesn't mean everything. There are many "legal" procedures that a doctor would not do because of other circumstances. Doctors go to years and years of school (do you even realize how many?) to be better able to decide when to do a certain procedure. I know this is a little off the topic of "abortion", but it's important to realize; I want my doctor recommending procedures to me, not far-removed law-makers.

If a doctor thinks - with very good reason - that performing an abortion is, in fact, to kill a human child. nobody can force him to do that. Doctors are there to save life, of everybody, they are not there to kill babies!!!

And of course, if some girl wants to kill her own baby, she must be informed of what she is doing. It´calMURDEMURDER

This is just another example of government sticking its nose into a women's business. If a doctor is not willing to perform legal medical procedures he or she should not be in the medical field.

Have you noticed the connection of Mr. Brum, head of the John Hopkins board, and Planned Parenhood? Don´t you consider there may be any bias in the conclusions of a board financed with money of P.P:? That is something that I know from Spain...