I will laugh my butt off if all you debaters who act all-knowing about this controversial issue never took a biomedical ethics class in the first place. And a comment to the moderator in this thread, I fail to see the comparison b/w a doctor denying an abortion to a doctor denying someone because he is black. The rationality behind that is ludicrous. When a doctor denies an abortion surgery, it is because of his belief to preserve life. When a doctor denies someone because of skin tone, that is racism, no matter what his beliefs are. FkidBut in both cases the doctor is acting on the belief that his belief is more important than whatever laws he needs to obey. That's the similarity.
Obama to end health-care conscience rights- Doctor, Nurse, Cardinal criticize mo
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="thepwninator"]If they are government-funded, it's a different story, but if they are not, then no one has any right to their time if the practitioners do not choose to give it to them.Engrish_MajorThe bill is not forcing private practicioners to perform abortions. I was responding to "doctor's aren't meant to be free-they serve the people" in the post I was quoting. Nothing more, nothing less.
Its a good thing in my opinion.
All doctors should leave their religious beliefs at home while they do their job.
Am I the only one who understands the point of this entire post? The other three replies I saw were completely off the mark.
aliblabla2007
[QUOTE="Fkid"]I will laugh my butt off if all you debaters who act all-knowing about this controversial issue never took a biomedical ethics class in the first place. And a comment to the moderator in this thread, I fail to see the comparison b/w a doctor denying an abortion to a doctor denying someone because he is black. The rationality behind that is ludicrous. When a doctor denies an abortion surgery, it is because of his belief to preserve life. When a doctor denies someone because of skin tone, that is racism, no matter what his beliefs are. ChiliDragonBut in both cases the doctor is acting on the belief that his belief is more important than whatever laws he needs to obey. That's the similarity. aliblabla2007: Looks like ChiliDragon got the point I was trying to make as well. I really should have used a better example. Everyone's too hung up on the specific examples of the black guy and the drug addict being denied treatment to see that in all three cases I listed, the commonality was a doctor exercising his own morality in conflict with the laws of the society in which he practices medicine.
I really should have used a better example.nocoolnamejim
Like blood transfusions and a doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness?
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] chilidragon, please, let us reason together. I want to ask you how a fetus can possibly be the same as a mole. After all, a fetus IS a different body. It has a different circulatory system, it has a different nervous system, a different genome, all that! But a mole doesnt, it doesn't even have the potential to have any of those things, let alone the strong potential to turn into a human being!All rights are fundamentally property rights, that's part of your schtick isn't it? So why can't a woman evict a fetus from her womb? Because, by consensually engaging in unprotected sex without use of contraceptives, she implicitly partially gives rights over her womb to the sperm cells of the male and, by extension, the product of one of said sperm cells and one of her own eggs. It's an entirely different case in the situation of a broken condom or failed contraceptives, however.thepwninator
I disagree with that, but, from a purely legal standpoint, that position is absurd. There's no way a court of law could adequately determine whether contraceptives were used or not.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I really should have used a better example.Oleg_Huzwog
Like blood transfusions and a doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness?
I'm not very familiar with the religion in question. Sounds like a potentially better example. Want to lay out the details? If nothing else, the conversation has been going in circles for a couple of pages now and it might take us in a fresh direction.Before we continue, I'm really going to advise you to stop saying things like "you don't get that do you" and "I'm surprised you don't even know what the point of contention is to begin with". It's textbook trolling. Statements designed solely to aggravate or offend. Try and be more polite. My arguments seem ridiculous to you because you disagree with them and have such strong views on abortion. In any event, a doctor treats a drug addict by I imagine weaning the drugs out of the addicts system or pumping their stomach if they had an overdose. If you want to know for certain ask a doctor. That isn't at all the point. The specific medical procedure doesn't change the fact that refusing to treat a drug addict because the doctor finds the drug addict not worth it would again, be exercising his or her own moral judgment against the laws of society.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
If you don't understand that, mechanically, something that was once alive (prven by the fact of its beating heart) is no longer alive after a procedure, then I can't help you. Something that was alive once is not alive any longer, whether it's a tree or a blade of grass or an insect or a human. It's dead. You don't get that, do you? It's not a moral question, it's a fact. Alive - DEAD.
Your point is still completely ignorant of this.
The doctor is making a choice based on the guideline of what he sees and what he KNOWS with MEDICAL CERTAINTY is alive. There's a heartbeat. It's alive, remember? Dead things don't have heartbeats. Cars don't have heartbeats. A safety deposit box doesn't have a hearbeat. A living thing does. The doctor makes a decision with that in mind -- he or she could go either way, but it's ultimately a personal decision based on what constitutes life and whether or not they can be selective in their mindset that all life should be preserved.
And the druggie question is still unanswered.What medical procedure can a doctor offer a drug addict? It's a really flimsy, lame attempt at tying two unrelated things together. Your arguments seem ridiculous to me, because they are ridiculous.
aliblabla2007
Addressing your point - which is summarized by, once again, "it isn't the same because abortion = murder" just restated, the key word you just used was "something". "Something that was once alive". Not "a human being that was once alive" but rather "something that was once alive". Which, again, brings me back to my overall point that you still have not answered, which is, once again: The laws of the society we live in do not define fetuses as human beings.
Therefore when a doctor, applying his own morality that says that they are refuses to perform an abortion because of his own personal belief then he is applying his own moral judgment in contradiction of the government and legal system that licenses him to practice medicine and therefore must be willing to accept whatever the legally prescribed consequences of that refusal if the "conscience" exception is rolled back. Just the same way that a doctor refusing to treat a black person because he is black and his religion happens to think that black skin is the mark of the devil or a doctor refusing to treat a drug addict because he thinks that they are worthless would be applying their own moral judgments. Logically, all three of these things: 1. Refusing to treat a pregnant woman with an abortion because he thinks abortion is murder of a human being 2. Refusing to treat a black person because he thinks black skin is the mark of the devil 3. Refusing to treat a drug addict because he thinks they are worthless Are all different variations of a doctor exercising his own moral code in conflict of society's. One appears more ridiculous to you because of your own moral beliefs on abortion, but logically they are identical.
Am I the only one who understands the point of this entire post? The other three replies I saw were completely off the mark.
well did you see my point regarding his post-modern arguments and the problems with cultural relativism?[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I really should have used a better example.nocoolnamejim
Like blood transfusions and a doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness?
I'm not very familiar with the religion in question. Sounds like a potentially better example. Want to lay out the details? If nothing else, the conversation has been going in circles for a couple of pages now and it might take us in a fresh direction. Jehovah's witnesses take very seriously the command not to eat animal blood in Leviticus. They believe that recieving blood transfusions counts as eating animal blood, hence they can't recieve blood transfusions.I think the problem with this particular example is merely the motivation behind the two scenarios. In the scenario wherein the Doctor refuses to perform an abortion, the doctor is motivated by his conviction to protect human life. In the scenario with the Jehovah's witness, his motivation is purely religious.
These two cannot be equal as the motivation, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it, is nobler than the Jehovah's witness scenario.
How about this, all doctors take a hypocratic oath that states they must act in the best interest of both patients and anyone that might be in need of their services when they are present. In the case of abortion, taking contraceptives and birth control out of the equation for a minute, if it was a normal first or second trimester abortion there wouldn't be any emergency, if there's no doctor willing to do it present big deal, find a clinic that will do it because it's not coming out anytime soon. The only case I can see where a doctor would be forced to perform an abortion is if the mother's life is in danger. If the mother's life is in danger and the mother wants to have an abortion to safeguard herself, wouldn't a refusal to do so be a violation of the hypocartic oath?
I'm not very familiar with the religion in question. Sounds like a potentially better example. Want to lay out the details? If nothing else, the conversation has been going in circles for a couple of pages now and it might take us in a fresh direction. Jehovah's witnesses take very seriously the command not to eat animal blood in Leviticus. They believe that recieving blood transfusions counts as eating animal blood, hence they can't recieve blood transfusions.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]
Like blood transfusions and a doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness?
danwallacefan
I think the problem with this particular example is merely the motivation behind the two scenarios. In the scenario wherein the Doctor refuses to perform an abortion, the doctor is motivated by his conviction to protect human life. In the scenario with the Jehovah's witness, his motivation is purely religious.
These two cannot be equal as the motivation, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it, is nobler than the Jehovah's witness scenario.
It's nobler because you say it is. How is it any nobler to follow your own moral beliefs, than to follow those you believe are right because of your religion? It is not, nor is it any less noble. In either case, you are acting based upon your moral beliefs, regardless of from where they derive.
Pro-lifers believe it's okay to abort if the mother's life is in danger.How about this, all doctors take a hypocratic oath that states they must act in the best interest of both patients and anyone that might be in need of their services when they are present. In the case of abortion, taking contraceptives and birth control out of the equation for a minute, if it was a normal first or second trimester abortion there wouldn't be any emergency, if there's no doctor willing to do it present big deal, find a clinic that will do it because it's not coming out anytime soon. The only case I can see where a doctor would be forced to perform an abortion is if the mother's life is in danger. If the mother's life is in danger and the mother wants to have an abortion to safeguard herself, wouldn't a refusal to do so be a violation of the hypocartic oath?
theone86
So then in what situation would they be forced to perform an abortion? If they work at an abortion clinic? If they work at a hospital or medical facility? How hard is it to say, "I'm going to get another doctor to perform the procedure?" I thought that was common practice, for doctors to trade and pass off patients?
I'm not very familiar with the religion in question. Sounds like a potentially better example. Want to lay out the details? If nothing else, the conversation has been going in circles for a couple of pages now and it might take us in a fresh direction. Jehovah's witnesses take very seriously the command not to eat animal blood in Leviticus. They believe that recieving blood transfusions counts as eating animal blood, hence they can't recieve blood transfusions.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]
Like blood transfusions and a doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness?
danwallacefan
I think the problem with this particular example is merely the motivation behind the two scenarios. In the scenario wherein the Doctor refuses to perform an abortion, the doctor is motivated by his conviction to protect human life. In the scenario with the Jehovah's witness, his motivation is purely religious.
These two cannot be equal as the motivation, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it, is nobler than the Jehovah's witness scenario.
Thanks for the details Dan. I think that this example DOES work. In both cases, the doctor is refusing treatment because his own personal views are in conflict with the laws of society. In one case, the reason is purely religious and the other case - while it is likely that the doctor's religion is a factor - that isn't necessarily exclusively the case. However they both boil down to a doctor exercising his own moral judgment on the matter over what society has already decided. One other thing I want to clarify, just as others in the thread have stated, I am NOT taking a moral stance on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. That wasn't the topic of the thread. I'm taking a stance on whether refusing to perform an abortion would be against the law - and why that would be the case - if the "conscience" exemption is removed. And that is because, really, a fetus is not recognized as a human being in our system of laws. Otherwise every doctor who performed an abortion would be prosecuted as a murderer. Rightly or wrong, that is our society's present view.Ironic Typo of the Month...? :DHow about this, all doctors take a hypocratic oath that states they must act in the best interest of both patients and anyone that might be in need of their services when they are present. In the case of abortion, taking contraceptives and birth control out of the equation for a minute, if it was a normal first or second trimester abortion there wouldn't be any emergency, if there's no doctor willing to do it present big deal, find a clinic that will do it because it's not coming out anytime soon. The only case I can see where a doctor would be forced to perform an abortion is if the mother's life is in danger. If the mother's life is in danger and the mother wants to have an abortion to safeguard herself, wouldn't a refusal to do so be a violation of the hypocratic oath?
theone86
Exactly, why don't they just do that? This law is enforcing them to do it against their will. But leave it to seculars to support a law, so long as it's hostile towards religion.So then in what situation would they be forced to perform an abortion? If they work at an abortion clinic? If they work at a hospital or medical facility? How hard is it to say, "I'm going to get another doctor to perform the procedure?" I thought that was common practice, for doctors to trade and pass off patients?
theone86
coolnamejim and chessmaster, please, spare me the cultural relativism.
coolnamejim and chessmaster, please, spare me the cultural relativism.
danwallacefan
What? You mean now we aren't allowed to argue against you?
Give me a break...
Dr. Here.
As a physician I have the right to refuse doing a procedure that I am moraly opposed to. The only times where I have a moral obligation to do so is when the patients lif is in danger and If there is no other person around who can do so.
Abortions are for the most part elective procedures meaning that you can program when and where ahead of time. So if I refuse then the patient has enough time to seek other sources of "help".
Second not all doctors perform abortions. this falls under the specialty of Obgyn's. So if I am in another specialty area for example internal med. Im not necesarly qualified to perform such procedures. So I would not be required to do so.
If I were an OBGYN, then I guess at some point Id have to learn to do such procedure as part of my training. and there are cases in which the physician does nothing to provoke the abortion we just go ahead and finish what already started. these are called spontaneous abortions. And as a matter of fact when I was in Med school I had the chance to assist and then perform a few of these procedures.
In the case of spontaneous abortion the Physician dose not provoke the abortion, so I had no problem and was in fact eager to learn.
As far as working in an abortion clinic and causing abortions in otherwise healthy patients, that should only be on a voluntary basis and no physician should be required to do so or face recrimination for refusing.
I know as a doctor I should not judge a patient, but come on....People for the most part can choose to be more carefull and can avoid abortions, through many methods. Why should I be forced to do something which I find moraly repugnant, just to fix a mistakes of someone else who could havealso been engaged in immoral/careless behavior.
but then again I think it would be more tragic to have these women brining unwanted children to this world to continue the cycle of ignorance, poverty, over population etc etc...but I just dont want to be the one performing the abortions and Its my goddamn right to refuse to do so!!!
[QUOTE="theone86"]Exactly, why don't they just do that? This law is enforcing them to do it against their will. But leave it to seculars to support a law, so long as it's hostile towards religion. Read up. I discussed a similar idea a few pages back.So then in what situation would they be forced to perform an abortion? If they work at an abortion clinic? If they work at a hospital or medical facility? How hard is it to say, "I'm going to get another doctor to perform the procedure?" I thought that was common practice, for doctors to trade and pass off patients?
Famiking
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
coolnamejim and chessmaster, please, spare me the cultural relativism.
chessmaster1989
What? You mean now we aren't allowed to argue against you?
Give me a break...
Chessmaster, you and Jim tried to say that the doctor who refuses to perform the abortion because "society says that abortion is okay". That is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism of course has one massive flaw, the reformer's dilemma. See, if we assume such anethic, then we have to lable reformers like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. as evil because their messages went against cultural norms.EDIT: Jim was the only one who appealed to cultural relativism. You on the other hand appealed to individual relativism. This of course is ridiculous as it flies in the face of our moral intuitions. Not all moral laws are equal. The command by Leviticus to not wear two different types of cloth is not the same as our moral intuition that taking human life is wrong.
[QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.chessmaster1989
Yeah, this lol.
Heheh this. Sometimes people take These beliefs too far. Yeah I respect beliefs and I understand their points of views seriously, but this is kind of rediculous, would you rather have a child suffer a sucky life? I'm adopted because I was an accident (Though my real parents were in their 20s) and I think I'd rather die than go through that again. It's logical sometimes it's kind of needed for everything's good, if God exists, he knows this. Don't get me wrong though, if the doctor doesn't want to do it, (Pretty sure they would feel it's murder, which I can also understand) let them have no buisness with it and have another professional do it. Ugh, then again I can't really blame them if they strictly believe that to such a fault. I wouldn't really support abortion if the person pregnant was like, around 16ish though, they would need help supporting the child though, which I think Obama mentioned something like that himself actually. I dunno, just my thought on it.Alright folks. Good luck with the debate. I'm going to go watch the Laker game. One last thing before I go: [QUOTE="Famiking"][QUOTE="theone86"]Exactly, why don't they just do that? This law is enforcing them to do it against their will. But leave it to seculars to support a law, so long as it's hostile towards religion. Read up. I discussed a similar idea a few pages back.So then in what situation would they be forced to perform an abortion? If they work at an abortion clinic? If they work at a hospital or medical facility? How hard is it to say, "I'm going to get another doctor to perform the procedure?" I thought that was common practice, for doctors to trade and pass off patients?
nocoolnamejim
Does anyone remember what page that was on? I was gone from the discussion for a bit and I don't like sifting through pages in topics that are ongoing, it puts me one step behind everyone.
edit: "I really should have used a better example. Everyone's too hung up on the specific examples of the black guy and the drug addict being denied treatment to see that in all three cases I listed, the commonality was a doctor exercising his own morality in conflict with the laws of the society in which he practices medicine."
Were you referring to this?
Dr. Here.
As a physician I have the right to refuse doing a procedure that I am moraly opposed to. The only times where I have a moral obligation to do so is when the patients lif is in danger and If there is no other person around who can do so.
Abortions are for the most part elective procedures meaning that you can program when and where ahead of time. So if I refuse then the patient has enough time to seek other sources of "help".
Second not all doctors perform abortions. this falls under the specialty of Obgyn's. So if I am in another specialty area for example internal med. Im not necesarly qualified to perform such procedures. So I would not be required to do so.
If I were an OBGYN, then I guess at some point Id have to learn to do such procedure as part of my training. and there are cases in which the physician does nothing to provoke the abortion we just go ahead and finish what already started. these are called spontaneous abortions. And as a matter of fact when I was in Med school I had the chance to assist and then perform a few of these procedures.
In the case of spontaneous abortion the Physician dose not provoke the abortion, so I had no problem and was in fact eager to learn.
As far as working in an abortion clinic and causing abortions in otherwise healthy patients, that should only be on a voluntary basis and no physician should be required to do so or face recrimination for refusing.
I know as a doctor I should not judge a patient, but come on....People for the most part can choose to be more carefull and can avoid abortions, through many methods. Why should I be forced to do something which I find moraly repugnant, just to fix a mistakes of someone else who could havealso been engaged in immoral/careless behavior.
but then again I think it would be more tragic to have these women brining unwanted children to this world to continue the cycle of ignorance, poverty, over population etc etc...but I just dont want to be the one performing the abortions and Its my goddamn right to refuse to do so!!!
Pythos77
I pretty much agree with that, however I think we need the language of the bill to go any farther with this aspect. I highly doubt the bill forces people to perform abortions when there is another doctor without moral issues present within a reasonable amount of time. I don't know that abortion is the issue here, I think it's more the pharmacies distributing contraceptives and day after pills. That brings me back to a totally different argument of the video store. If it's part of my job description and they will but it somewhere else and I am not someone who determines what we stock, do I have a right to refuse to sell something? I don't think so.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.OICWUTUDIDTHAR
Yeah, this lol.
Heheh this. Sometimes people take These beliefs too far. Yeah I respect beliefs and I understand their points of views seriously, but this is kind of rediculous, would you rather have a child suffer a sucky life? I'm adopted because I was an accident (Though my real parents were in their 20s) and I think I'd rather die than go through that again. It's logical sometimes it's kind of needed for everything's good, if God exists, he knows this. Don't get me wrong though, if the doctor doesn't want to do it, (Pretty sure they would feel it's murder, which I can also understand) let them have no buisness with it and have another professional do it. Ugh, then again I can't really blame them if they strictly believe that to such a fault. I wouldn't really support abortion if the person pregnant was like, around 16ish though, they would need help supporting the child though, which I think Obama mentioned something like that himself actually. I dunno, just my thought on it. Your post was so absurd, I just dont know where to begin[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
coolnamejim and chessmaster, please, spare me the cultural relativism.
danwallacefan
What? You mean now we aren't allowed to argue against you?
Give me a break...
Chessmaster, you and Jim tried to say that the doctor who refuses to perform the abortion because "society says that abortion is okay". That is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism of course has one massive flaw, the reformer's dilemma. See, if we assume such anethic, then we have to lable reformers like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. as evil because their messages went against cultural norms....wow... where to begin...
To begin with, the United States Supreme Court allowed abortion, not society. If society as a whole were okay with abortion, the debate would be more or less nonexistant. This simple fact invalidates your comparison to Ghandi and MLK. For another thing, your first sentence doesn't contain a complete idea, so I don't know what you are saying.
The reason I support not allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions due to moral objections is for several reasons. The first is that the patient's rights should take priority over the doctor's rights, given that the patient may suffer actual consequences through not having the abortion, whereas the doctor will only suffer moral consequences. Physical and actual consequences here should clearly take priority over moral ones. For another, allowing doctors to refuse abortions is a clear attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade, and provide a way of refusing abortions.
Heheh this. Sometimes people take These beliefs too far. Yeah I respect beliefs and I understand their points of views seriously, but this is kind of rediculous, would you rather have a child suffer a sucky life? I'm adopted because I was an accident (Though my real parents were in their 20s) and I think I'd rather die than go through that again. It's logical sometimes it's kind of needed for everything's good, if God exists, he knows this. Don't get me wrong though, if the doctor doesn't want to do it, (Pretty sure they would feel it's murder, which I can also understand) let them have no buisness with it and have another professional do it. Ugh, then again I can't really blame them if they strictly believe that to such a fault. I wouldn't really support abortion if the person pregnant was like, around 16ish though, they would need help supporting the child though, which I think Obama mentioned something like that himself actually. I dunno, just my thought on it. Your post was so absurd, I just dont know where to begin I'm not really into debating. Leave it with the great Clint Eastwood.[QUOTE="OICWUTUDIDTHAR"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Yeah, this lol.
danwallacefan
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
coolnamejim and chessmaster, please, spare me the cultural relativism.
danwallacefan
What? You mean now we aren't allowed to argue against you?
Give me a break...
EDIT: Jim was the only one who appealed to cultural relativism. You on the other hand appealed to individual relativism. This of course is ridiculous as it flies in the face of our moral intuitions. Not all moral laws are equal. The command by Leviticus to not wear two different types of cloth is not the same as our moral intuition that taking human life is wrong.
In your opinion, yes. You must understand, though, that morality is relative. I could very well argue that stealing is worse than murder (which, by the way, I do not think), and nothing you could say would contradict that moral belief.
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Your post was so absurd, I just dont know where to begin I'm not really into debating. Leave it with the great Clint Eastwood.[QUOTE="OICWUTUDIDTHAR"] Heheh this. Sometimes people take These beliefs too far. Yeah I respect beliefs and I understand their points of views seriously, but this is kind of rediculous, would you rather have a child suffer a sucky life? I'm adopted because I was an accident (Though my real parents were in their 20s) and I think I'd rather die than go through that again. It's logical sometimes it's kind of needed for everything's good, if God exists, he knows this. Don't get me wrong though, if the doctor doesn't want to do it, (Pretty sure they would feel it's murder, which I can also understand) let them have no buisness with it and have another professional do it. Ugh, then again I can't really blame them if they strictly believe that to such a fault. I wouldn't really support abortion if the person pregnant was like, around 16ish though, they would need help supporting the child though, which I think Obama mentioned something like that himself actually. I dunno, just my thought on it.OICWUTUDIDTHAR
Clint Eastwood is debating here :o!
...oh wait...
:P
That's a double-edged sword.
Besides, I think another point people haven't touched on yet is that outlawing abortions (yes, I know we're not talking about outlawing, but the comparison works for my example) doesn't decrease the number of abortions performed significantly. What it does is create a black market that is accessible to only the rich and force poorer people to pursue back alley abortions which are, frankly, pretty disgusting affairs and can turn out to be just as gruesome as those shcok value abortions pro-lifers show you (can't remember if those were the third-trimester ones or specific methods of abortion).
Heheh this. Sometimes people take These beliefs too far. Yeah I respect beliefs and I understand their points of views seriously, but this is kind of rediculous, would you rather have a child suffer a sucky life? I'm adopted because I was an accident (Though my real parents were in their 20s) and I think I'd rather die than go through that again. It's logical sometimes it's kind of needed for everything's good, if God exists, he knows this. Don't get me wrong though, if the doctor doesn't want to do it, (Pretty sure they would feel it's murder, which I can also understand) let them have no buisness with it and have another professional do it. Ugh, then again I can't really blame them if they strictly believe that to such a fault. I wouldn't really support abortion if the person pregnant was like, around 16ish though, they would need help supporting the child though, which I think Obama mentioned something like that himself actually. I dunno, just my thought on it. Your post was so absurd, I just dont know where to begin[QUOTE="OICWUTUDIDTHAR"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Yeah, this lol.
danwallacefan
Well, tell us what you think is wrong about it, then.
I'm not really into debating. Leave it with the great Clint Eastwood.[QUOTE="OICWUTUDIDTHAR"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Your post was so absurd, I just dont know where to begin
chessmaster1989
Clint Eastwood is debating here :o!
...oh wait...
:P
What? You're not Clint Eastwood IRL? ..O_oThat's a double-edged sword.
Besides, I think another point people haven't touched on yet is that outlawing abortions (yes, I know we're not talking about outlawing, but the comparison works for my example) doesn't decrease the number of abortions performed significantly. What it does is create a black market that is accessible to only the rich and force poorer people to pursue back alley abortions which are, frankly, pretty disgusting affairs and can turn out to be just as gruesome as those shcok value abortions pro-lifers show you (can't remember if those were the third-trimester ones or specific methods of abortion).
theone86
Outlawing abortions is one of the stupidest ideas possible, for the exact reasons you describe.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="OICWUTUDIDTHAR"] I'm not really into debating. Leave it with the great Clint Eastwood.OICWUTUDIDTHAR
Clint Eastwood is debating here :o!
...oh wait...
:P
What? You're not Clint Eastwood IRL? ..O_oUnfortunately, no :(.
Chessmaster, you and Jim tried to say that the doctor who refuses to perform the abortion because "society says that abortion is okay". That is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism of course has one massive flaw, the reformer's dilemma. See, if we assume such anethic, then we have to lable reformers like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. as evil because their messages went against cultural norms.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
What? You mean now we aren't allowed to argue against you?
Give me a break...
chessmaster1989
...wow... where to begin...
To begin with, the United States Supreme Court allowed abortion, not society. If society as a whole were okay with abortion, the debate would be more or less nonexistant. This simple fact invalidates your comparison to Ghandi and MLK. For another thing, your first sentence doesn't contain a complete idea, so I don't know what you are saying.
The reason I support not allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions due to moral objections is for several reasons. The first is that the patient's rights should take priority over the doctor's rights, given that the patient may suffer actual consequences through not having the abortion, whereas the doctor will only suffer moral consequences. Physical and actual consequences here should clearly take priority over moral ones. For another, allowing doctors to refuse abortions is a clear attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade, and provide a way of refusing abortions.
Government is a way for society to organize itself. Ergo, when the supreme court or congress decides to legalize something, society in essense is saying that that something (in this case, abortion) is okay. Jim was appealing to the fact Socieyt says that abortion is okay.Now the point I was getting at is that we have to label reformers as evil because what they were saying was immoral by their society's standards.
Now let us pick apart your reasons for coercing OBGYNs to perform abortions
"The first is that the patient's rights should take priority over the doctor's rights"
would you care to back up that statement?
"given that the patient may suffer actual consequences through not having the abortion, whereas the doctor will only suffer moral consequences."
pray tell, what are "moral" and "actual" consequences, and what is the difference between the two? Of course, the only consequences of not getting an abortion would be an inconvenience to the mother, whereas the doctor would be coerced into performing an elective procedure he himself finds repugnant. So given that, how do you justify your contention that these particular "actual" consequences take precedent over "moral" consequences?
"Physical and actual consequences here should clearly take priority over moral ones."
again, why? What is your argument for this?
"For another, allowing doctors to refuse abortions is a clear attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade, and provide a way of refusing abortions."
Roe V. Wade only struck down state laws prohibiting abortions as laws which infringed upon a patient's right to privacy. Pray tell, how is the patient's right to privacy infringed by a Doctor's refusal to perform an elective procedure with which he strongly disagrees?
[QUOTE="theone86"]
That's a double-edged sword.
Besides, I think another point people haven't touched on yet is that outlawing abortions (yes, I know we're not talking about outlawing, but the comparison works for my example) doesn't decrease the number of abortions performed significantly. What it does is create a black market that is accessible to only the rich and force poorer people to pursue back alley abortions which are, frankly, pretty disgusting affairs and can turn out to be just as gruesome as those shcok value abortions pro-lifers show you (can't remember if those were the third-trimester ones or specific methods of abortion).
chessmaster1989
Outlawing abortions is one of the stupidest ideas possible, for the exact reasons you describe.
Well howdy doody let's legalize the beating of wives:D! After all, even if you outlaw domestic violence, husbands will still beat their wives:D!What? You're not Clint Eastwood IRL? ..O_o[QUOTE="OICWUTUDIDTHAR"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Clint Eastwood is debating here :o!
...oh wait...
:P
chessmaster1989
Unfortunately, no :(.
I'm dissapointed.People try to frame this as sort of a moral issue, but to me it seems like it's just another attempt to use tricky circumvention to limit access to certain services despite RvW saying such activity is unconstitutional. If this law is going to take pro-life doctors and arbitrarily force them to do abortions then I'm totally against it. I don't think that's what this law is trying to do. I think what this law is trying to do is ensure that if a woman wants to have an abortion or obtain morning after pills or other substances that have come under criticism but are still legal, she will be able to have access to them. Like I said, I just don't see any scenario in which a doctor cannot pass an abortion procedure off unless it's an emergency.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
That's a double-edged sword.
Besides, I think another point people haven't touched on yet is that outlawing abortions (yes, I know we're not talking about outlawing, but the comparison works for my example) doesn't decrease the number of abortions performed significantly. What it does is create a black market that is accessible to only the rich and force poorer people to pursue back alley abortions which are, frankly, pretty disgusting affairs and can turn out to be just as gruesome as those shcok value abortions pro-lifers show you (can't remember if those were the third-trimester ones or specific methods of abortion).
danwallacefan
Outlawing abortions is one of the stupidest ideas possible, for the exact reasons you describe.
Well howdy doody let's legalize the beating of wives:D! After all, even if you outlaw domestic violence, husbands will still beat their wives:D!So, pray tell,if I can prove that legalizing wife beating will actually cause domestic violence to go down would you be in favor of it?
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Chessmaster, you and Jim tried to say that the doctor who refuses to perform the abortion because "society says that abortion is okay". That is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism of course has one massive flaw, the reformer's dilemma. See, if we assume such anethic, then we have to lable reformers like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. as evil because their messages went against cultural norms.
danwallacefan
...wow... where to begin...
To begin with, the United States Supreme Court allowed abortion, not society. If society as a whole were okay with abortion, the debate would be more or less nonexistant. This simple fact invalidates your comparison to Ghandi and MLK. For another thing, your first sentence doesn't contain a complete idea, so I don't know what you are saying.
The reason I support not allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions due to moral objections is for several reasons. The first is that the patient's rights should take priority over the doctor's rights, given that the patient may suffer actual consequences through not having the abortion, whereas the doctor will only suffer moral consequences. Physical and actual consequences here should clearly take priority over moral ones. For another, allowing doctors to refuse abortions is a clear attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade, and provide a way of refusing abortions.
Government is a way for society to organize itself. Ergo, when the supreme court or congress decides to legalize something, society in essense is saying that that something (in this case, abortion) is okay. Jim was appealing to the fact Socieyt says that abortion is okay.The decisions of the Supreme Court reflect their interpretation of the Constitution and how it applies to certain issues. It is not representative of society as a whole, especially since the USSC justices are appointed.
Now the point I was getting at is that we have to label reformers as evil because what they were saying was immoral by their society's standards.
Not at all. Morals change; besides which, law is not based entirely upon morality. Do you honestly think that slavery was based on the idea that enslaving Africans was morally right? They did not find it morally objectionable (but certainly profitable), that is all.
Now let us pick apart your reasons for coercing OBGYNs to perform abortions
"The first is that the patient's rights should take priority over the doctor's rights"
would you care to back up that statement?
I explain that statement below.
"given that the patient may suffer actual consequences through not having the abortion, whereas the doctor will only suffer moral consequences."
pray tell, what are "moral" and "actual" consequences, and what is the difference between the two? Of course, the only consequences of not getting an abortion would be an inconvenience to the mother, whereas the doctor would be coerced into performing an elective procedure he himself finds repugnant. So given that, how do you justify your contention that these particular "actual" consequences take precedent over "moral" consequences?
As I said, the mother must bear the inconvenience of raising a child, which is an arduous and expensive process. The doctor may not be happy with performing the abortion, but it will not lead to over a decade of labor and expenses associated with raising a child.
"Physical and actual consequences here should clearly take priority over moral ones."
again, why? What is your argument for this?
Because they, by definition, have actual effects, in a physical sense. Moral ones do not, and therefore cannot be considered on par.
"For another, allowing doctors to refuse abortions is a clear attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade, and provide a way of refusing abortions."
Roe V. Wade only struck down state laws prohibiting abortions as laws which infringed upon a patient's right to privacy. Pray tell, how is the patient's right to privacy infringed by a Doctor's refusal to perform an elective procedure with which he strongly disagrees?
Exactly, Roe v. Wade permitted abortion, by means of prohibiting its prohibition. Allowing people to choose to refuse this provides a means of circumventing it. What if a hospital manager only hired doctors who were morally opposed to abortion? See the problem?
Well howdy doody let's legalize the beating of wives:D! After all, even if you outlaw domestic violence, husbands will still beat their wives:D![QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Outlawing abortions is one of the stupidest ideas possible, for the exact reasons you describe.
theone86
So, pray tell,if I can prove that legalizing wife beating will actually cause domestic violence to go down would you be in favor of it?
hypothetical scenarios like this are irrelevant and dont deserve an answer. There really areonly two waysto reduce the amount of abortions and they are education and low cost high-quality, widely availablebirth control.But I think that ANY action in which a person infringes upon another person's rights is to be outlawed. that is the purpose of Government.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
That's a double-edged sword.
Besides, I think another point people haven't touched on yet is that outlawing abortions (yes, I know we're not talking about outlawing, but the comparison works for my example) doesn't decrease the number of abortions performed significantly. What it does is create a black market that is accessible to only the rich and force poorer people to pursue back alley abortions which are, frankly, pretty disgusting affairs and can turn out to be just as gruesome as those shcok value abortions pro-lifers show you (can't remember if those were the third-trimester ones or specific methods of abortion).
danwallacefan
Outlawing abortions is one of the stupidest ideas possible, for the exact reasons you describe.
Well howdy doody let's legalize the beating of wives:D! After all, even if you outlaw domestic violence, husbands will still beat their wives:D!Oh, please, that was just pathetic.
Outlawing abortions will inevitably lead to people who want abortions doing them under illegal, and therefore inherently more dangerous, conditions. If abortion is legal, the conditions under which they are performed can be monitored, and it can be ensured that the safest procedures are used and the most competent doctors are employed. In no way does outlawing domestic violence create these conditions.
Your analogy is ridiculous.
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Well howdy doody let's legalize the beating of wives:D! After all, even if you outlaw domestic violence, husbands will still beat their wives:D!
danwallacefan
So, pray tell,if I can prove that legalizing wife beating will actually cause domestic violence to go down would you be in favor of it?
hypothetical scenarios like this are irrelevant and dont deserve an answer. There really areonly two waysto reduce the amount of abortions and they are education and low cost high-quality, widely availablebirth control.But I think that ANY action in which a person infringes upon another person's rights is to be outlawed. that is the purpose of Government.
I need better emoticons. How exactly do I express extreme condescendence in my laughter? Hypotheticals are central to forming moral positions seeing as how morality is a code of what you would or would not do in situations that could exist but are, at the moment, hypothetical.
Hypotheticals aside, educated people can become pregnant, people who use control can become pregnant. Outlawing abortion, as observed from when abortion was orginally outlawed in certain states across the U.S., does not cause any significant decrease in the number of abortions performed, it simply effects quality. That means that the babies are still going to die, only now the mother is much more prone to infection, mutilation, and death than before, and that those consequences are passed on almost exclusively to a poor demographic.
Also, yes, I said originally outlawed. Abortion was completely legal in many forms unti the early-mid 1800's, states didn't start outlawing it unti about the 1830's. According to your statement about reformers being evil, if that's true then anyone who doesn't support abortion is technically evil because abortion was socially acceptable before it was unacceptable.
Let us pick apart each and every point.
The decisions of the Supreme Court reflect their interpretation of the Constitution and how it applies to certain issues. It is not representative of society as a whole, especially since the USSC justices are appointed.chessmaster1989
The point I was making is primarily a philosophical one, based on the premise that Government exists by the consent of the People.
Not at all. Morals change; chessmaster1989
and that doesn't matter if one assumes cultural relativism. Ghandi and Martin Luther King were immoral relavent to THEIR society's standards. Ergo, since they disagreed with their societies, we have to label them as evil.
moreover, the existence of disagreements between cultures disproves cultural relativism. For if morals are contingent upon society, then there should be no moral disagreements between two societies.
besides which, law is not based entirely upon morality. Do you honestly think that slavery was based on the idea that enslaving Africans was morally right? They did not find it morally objectionable (but certainly profitable), that is all.chessmaster1989
Some actually did hold that the enslavement of Africans was morally right. However most believed that it was not morally wrong. The law permitting slavery, of course, was based upon this then-accepted moral principle.
Now let us pick apart your reasons for coercing OBGYNs to perform abortions"The first is that the patient's rights should take priority over the doctor's rights"
would you care to back up that statement?
I explain that statement below.
"given that the patient may suffer actual consequences through not having the abortion, whereas the doctor will only suffer moral consequences."
pray tell, what are "moral" and "actual" consequences, and what is the difference between the two? Of course, the only consequences of not getting an abortion would be an inconvenience to the mother, whereas the doctor would be coerced into performing an elective procedure he himself finds repugnant. So given that, how do you justify your contention that these particular "actual" consequences take precedent over "moral" consequences?
As I said, the mother must bear the inconvenience of raising a child, which is an arduous and expensive process. The doctor may not be happy with performing the abortion, but it will not lead to over a decade of labor and expenses associated with raising a child.chessmaster1989
So I ask why are moral consequences only moral consequences? Any type of coercion that doesn't involve preserving another person's basic rights (You shall not punch your neighbor in the face is a form of coercion) is in itself a moral consequence. Furthermore, you are eliminating the doctor's freedom of thought. THAT is an actual consequence which takes precedent over the mother's right not to be inconvenienced by her own irresponsibilities.
"Physical and actual consequences here should clearly take priority over moral ones."again, why? What is your argument for this?
Because they, by definition, have actual effects, in a physical sense. Moral ones do not, and therefore cannot be considered on par.chessmaster1989
Again, forcing a doctor to perform a procedure is itself coercion. Coercing a man to do a procedure he finds morally repugnant is a infringing upon the Doctor's basic right to freedom of thought. The Creation of a tyranny is vastly more "actual" than the infringing upon the mother's "right" to convenience.
"For another, allowing doctors to refuse abortions is a clear attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade, and provide a way of refusing abortions."GREAT! I wish more hospital managers discriminated against pro-choice doctors. Allowing doctors to refuse to perform an abortion is in no way circumventing the law against banning abortion. This is not a prohibition of abortion any more than not forcing stores to sell liquor is a prohibition on alcohol.Roe V. Wade only struck down state laws prohibiting abortions as laws which infringed upon a patient's right to privacy. Pray tell, how is the patient's right to privacy infringed by a Doctor's refusal to perform an elective procedure with which he strongly disagrees?
Exactly, Roe v. Wade permitted abortion, by means of prohibiting its prohibition. Allowing people to choose to refuse this provides a means of circumventing it. What if a hospital manager only hired doctors who were morally opposed to abortion? See the problem?
chessmaster1989
hypothetical scenarios like this are irrelevant and dont deserve an answer. There really areonly two waysto reduce the amount of abortions and they are education and low cost high-quality, widely availablebirth control.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
So, pray tell,if I can prove that legalizing wife beating will actually cause domestic violence to go down would you be in favor of it?
theone86
But I think that ANY action in which a person infringes upon another person's rights is to be outlawed. that is the purpose of Government.
I need better emoticons. How exactly do I express extreme condescendence in my laughter? Hypotheticals are central to forming moral positions seeing as how morality is a code of what you would or would not do in situations that could exist but are, at the moment, hypothetical.
Hypotheticals aside, educated people can become pregnant, people who use control can become pregnant. Outlawing abortion, as observed from when abortion was orginally outlawed in certain states across the U.S., does not cause any significant decrease in the number of abortions performed, it simply effects quality. That means that the babies are still going to die, only now the mother is much more prone to infection, mutilation, and death than before, and that those consequences are passed on almost exclusively to a poor demographic.
Also, yes, I said originally outlawed. Abortion was completely legal in many forms unti the early-mid 1800's, states didn't start outlawing it unti about the 1830's. According to your statement about reformers being evil, if that's true then anyone who doesn't support abortion is technically evil because abortion was socially acceptable before it was unacceptable.
you shoulden't deal with outlandish hypotheticals because we are dealing with the real world, not your fantasy world, that was my point about not answring it. and I answered it below anyway, ANY action in which a person infringes upon another person's basic rights is to be outlawed. That is the purpose of government.My support for the criminalization of abortion is ultimatelyoneof principle.Furthermore, my point about reducing the amount of abortions through education and birth control seems to have flown right over your head[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] hypothetical scenarios like this are irrelevant and dont deserve an answer. There really areonly two waysto reduce the amount of abortions and they are education and low cost high-quality, widely availablebirth control.
But I think that ANY action in which a person infringes upon another person's rights is to be outlawed. that is the purpose of Government.
danwallacefan
I need better emoticons. How exactly do I express extreme condescendence in my laughter? Hypotheticals are central to forming moral positions seeing as how morality is a code of what you would or would not do in situations that could exist but are, at the moment, hypothetical.
Hypotheticals aside, educated people can become pregnant, people who use control can become pregnant. Outlawing abortion, as observed from when abortion was orginally outlawed in certain states across the U.S., does not cause any significant decrease in the number of abortions performed, it simply effects quality. That means that the babies are still going to die, only now the mother is much more prone to infection, mutilation, and death than before, and that those consequences are passed on almost exclusively to a poor demographic.
Also, yes, I said originally outlawed. Abortion was completely legal in many forms unti the early-mid 1800's, states didn't start outlawing it unti about the 1830's. According to your statement about reformers being evil, if that's true then anyone who doesn't support abortion is technically evil because abortion was socially acceptable before it was unacceptable.
you shoulden't deal with outlandish hypotheticals because we are dealing with the real world, not your fantasy world, that was my point about not answring it. and I answered it below anyway, ANY action in which a person infringes upon another person's basic rights is to be outlawed. That is the purpose of government.My support for the criminalization of abortion is ultimatelyoneof principle.Furthermore, my point about reducing the amount of abortions through education and birth control seems to have flown right over your head That position is intellectually at odds with itself. In one sentence you state "ANY action in which a person infringes upon another person's basic rights is to be outlawed". Then almost literally the next sentence you support the criminalization of abortion. If I don't accept your viewpoint that abortion = murder because I don't accept that a fetus is a baby, then all that I am left to conclude is that you support the government infringing upon the basic rights of women in this country to decide what happens to their bodies.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment