Abortion II

[Rían]

The point is that you don't HAVE arguments, Coffeehouse - you just state your opinions as if they are incontestable fact, and when people rightly question the validity of your statements, you say that they don't "get it".

I'd like to hear your thoughts on my observations on science.

And I think a woman has the right to choose - she can choose to not have sex if she doesn't want to risk getting pregnant. Rape is a special case - the VAST majority of abortions are from consensual sex.

And abortion is NOT only about the woman's body - there's also the baby's body, as well as the man who was involved (why do we hear so little about him?)

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The point is that you don't HAVE arguments, Coffeehouse - you just state your opinions as if they are incontestable fact, and when people rightly question the validity of your statements, you say that they don't "get it".

I'd like to hear your thoughts on my observations on science.

And I think a woman has the right to choose - she can choose to not have sex if she doesn't want to risk getting pregnant. Rape is a special case - the VAST majority of abortions are from consensual sex.

And abortion is NOT only about the woman's body - there's also the baby's body, as well as the man who was involved (why do we hear so little about him?)

Rian, I have one, single, consistent argument that to me lends the weight on the question of abortion. If you can't handle that argument, that's fine. If you want to offer me a convincing counter-weight then you better offer some insights into why my argument that a woman's right to choose rests on her right to self-determination is wrong. I'm not going to repeat my argument yet again, you'll have to figure it out for yourself (hint: Sovereignty of body)

But save me distortions on what I've written, it makes for a poor strategy.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Rape is a special case - the VAST majority of abortions are from consensual sex.

So, would you support abortion as a possibility in the case of rape?

[Linaewen]

Currently, in my state of Victoria, a bill is waiting to be passed through the upper house of Parliament. It essentially decriminalises abortion (for which no one has been prosecuted for over 20 years), but surprisingly that is not the most controversial issue. There is a huge fuss about one of the provisions, which states that a doctor with a moral objection to performing abortions must refer the patient to someone who doesn't share that objection. So, there is much debate as to whether this constitutes a violation of the freedom to conscience. Critics of the provision say that it makes someone with a moral objection complicit in an action they find abhorrent, like someone opposed to torture being forced to send the torturee (I think I made that word up) to someone else, knowing the consequences.

What do you guys think? Personally, I'm pro-choice, but I think the provision needs to be changed, if not removed. I agree that it does undermine the freedom of conscience. (I also feel that the bill is less likely to be passed with that provision in force, but I don't want to discuss the issue of abortion per se right now).

[Curufin]

I can see both sides on that - it's similar to the controversy here in the US a while back that Walgreen's pharmacists don't have to dispense contraceptives to patients if they have moral objections.

And although I can see both sides, mostly I disagree with this, and here's why. It is not the place of the doctor (or pharmacist) to make moral judgments for the patient. If something is legal, and a patient goes to a doctor/pharmacist requesting a legal procedure, then they have the right to receive that service.

It's not any different in my mind to me having to sell cigarettes at Walgreens - I have a moral objection to people smoking (especially around children, or while pregnant). I don't have the right to refuse the sale of cigarettes.

[Earniel]

I think the provision is not a bad one. I can see the conflict for the doctors, but it also (IMO) avoids another possible moral conflict. If the patient has her mind made up to have an abortion, what would any doctor prefer: That the patient is referred to someone capable or that she goes looking on her own for someone less qualified but more willing to do the abortion where she might end up damaging her health, and instead of one victim you might have two? That's not going to sit lightly on anyone's [Hippocratic] oath either.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I think the provision is not a bad one. I can see the conflict for the doctors, but it also (IMO) avoids another possible moral conflict. If the patient has her mind made up to have an abortion, what would any doctor prefer: That the patient is referred to someone capable or that she goes looking on her own for someone less qualified but more willing to do the abortion where she might end up damaging her health, and instead of one victim you might have two? That's not going to sit lightly on anyone's Hypocratic oath either.

You'd think not. Yet the common belief among many anti-choice activists seems to be "let the punishment fit the crime"...gets very Old Testament, very fast.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You'd think not. Yet the common belief among many anti-choice activists seems to be "let the punishment fit the crime"...gets very Old Testament, very fast.

Be that as it may, no doctor who has taken the oath of Hippocrates can ascribe to that vision, surely? It'd be the very thing they tried to avoid by refusing to do any abortions.

I realise I misspelt the good man's name in my previous post, will edit.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I can see both sides on that - it's similar to the controversy here in the US a while back that Walgreen's pharmacists don't have to dispense contraceptives to patients if they have moral objections.

And although I can see both sides, mostly I disagree with this, and here's why. It is not the place of the doctor (or pharmacist) to make moral judgments for the patient. If something is legal, and a patient goes to a doctor/pharmacist requesting a legal procedure, then they have the right to receive that service.

Wait… perhaps Im missing something but why in the world would you go to a doctor not for an abortion unless you know they are in that line of business? Does anyone really just randomly target any doctor in the phone book and demand an abortion? Wouldn’t you want a specialist in that considering the danger of the procedure? I mean I wouldn’t insist angrily that my proctologist do triple bypass on me… And why in the world would someone call themselves an abortion doctor if they have a moral objection to abortion? This seems to me much ado about nothing. If you want an abortion find a womans clinic or abortion specialist you know performs that kind of service. Or is it because its been “illegal” that no one is in the book for that?

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

Rape or no rape, love or no love...the cell becomes a human. it is ALIVE. all life if precious, no matter the state it is in. I wonder...do you all know that where I live women are aloud to have abortions when their child is 8 months?!!? CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS GOING ON? Even a five month old baby has a chance at life. Abortion is morally wrong and is murder. It also affects the women. Women go into depression and guilt for YEARS. Help save a life and please help stop the Massacre of Abortion.

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

can i not give my opinion? maybe it is a subject worth debating. why start a thread without thinking people with have strong feelings. It would be extremely wrong of me NOT to express an opinion on something that IS NOT RIGHT.

....plus I've had one of my own, and its something I want all girls to avoid...

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

What is your opinion on this?

[Curufin]

If you'd read any of this thread at all, you would know my opinion on abortion.

I am proud to say that I am 100% pro-choice.

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

Reasons? What do you think about the children being aborted 8 months?
Would you kill an 8 month out of the womb too?

[Curufin]

Reasons? Let me state them before you do, make it easier on you, okay? I'm a horrible heathen baby killer and I'm going straight to hell.

Really - would you even listen if I gave my true reasons?

[Curufin]

And wrong in such a way that it affects society? I see abortion as having a much larger effect on society, by depriving it of a future member, then an aging hippie lighting up a joint in Haight-Ashbury. This is especially true given the alarmingly low birth rates in the Western world (particularly in Europe).

Er, low birth rates are a good thing, while we're consuming resources at such a terrible speed. And birth rates are not low in Africa, Latin America and Asia, so I don't think we have to worry about going extinct any time soon - unless your point is somehow that a Western birth is somehow more important/more use to society than a non-Western birth?

[Curufin]

Rape or no rape, love or no love...the cell becomes a human. it is ALIVE. all life if precious, no matter the state it is in. I wonder...do you all know that where I live women are aloud to have abortions when their child is 8 months?!!? CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS GOING ON? Even a five month old baby has a chance at life. Abortion is morally wrong and is murder. It also affects the women. Women go into depression and guilt for YEARS. Help save a life and please help stop the Massacre of Abortion

*sigh*

EAR, I'm going to try to be nice here, as I think you're obviously pretty young.

Posts like this aren't really appropriate in debate threads. You're coming across more like a crusader than a debater, and using the words and caps, etc. is going to make people angry.

People don't necessarily agree with you, and have good reasons for not agreeing with you.

Having passion is a good thing, but please try to tone it down a bit before you start a flame war?

*bites tongue before she says more*

[Curufin]

It is not right to you.

And I never said you couldn't express your opinion.

Just knock off the caps and the exclamation points, and try to be reasonable about it!

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

I would really. Remember, I've had an abortion. She was 4 months.

[Curufin]

And I'm sorry - because abortion is a tragedy. I don't think anyone on either side of the debate would argue that it isn't. I hope you got the support you needed and are coping alright.

I'm pro-choice because I don't think it's the place of the government to intrude on such a personal and private matter. The government should not be telling people when to have babies, or when not to have babies.

The perfect solution would, of course, be a sex-education program that makes abortion a moot point - a program that teaches children both the dangers of sex as well as the best ways at preventing pregnancy if they choose to be sexually active. Not abstinence only - but a comprehensive sex-ed program that covers all ends.

But as long as the GOP refuses to do this, their stand against both abortion and birth control is unconscionable. You can't have one or the other. You can't tell kids that they can't have abortions, but not teach them how to prevent pregnancy. It's unfair in a myriad of ways.