(July 1, 2014 at 6:05 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 6:01 pm)blackout94 Wrote: No but if they believe abortion equals murder or at least is ethically contrary to the doctor's ethical code/principles (this was discussed after abortion was legalized) they have the right to refuse it, you can't force someone to go against their convictions, it's called objection of conscience. Some of them are not really against abortion, but simply have some doubts and are not comfortable doing it. Specialized clinics have doctors or nurses that perform abortions without problems, this why we solve the problem of some doctors being against it.

The reflection of 3 days is mandatory to make sure there is no going back, they just don't want people (women) to regret their decisions, it's merely a safety mechanism, a psychologist will just listen to the woman and her arguments and then advise impartially without taking a pro life or pro choice stance

I'll remember that next time I'm required to perform surgery on some criminal.

"Objection of conscience". . .

C'mon you are comparing two different situations. Performing a surgery means saving a life, nothing else is at stake. Performing an abortion for some people means murdering or taking/terminating a life. You might not like it or disagree but people have the right to be against the ethics of abortion, if a doctor doesn't want to perform it, why force them? Just like I can refuse to go to war because my ethics are against it, I can refuse to marry 2 gays if my religion is against it, I can refuse to provide military service if my ethics is against it, the list goes on. In a democratic state ruled by the law according to fundamental rights people have the right to not get their principles hurt trough coercion.

(July 1, 2014 at 6:08 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 6:05 pm)Beccs Wrote: I'll remember that next time I'm required to perform surgery on some criminal.

"Objection of conscience". . .

C'mon you are comparing two different situations. Performing a surgery means saving a life, nothing else is at stake. Performing an abortion for some people means murdering or taking/terminating a life. You might not like it or disagree but people have the right to be against the ethics of abortion, if a doctor doesn't want to perform it, why force them? Just like I can refuse to go to war because my ethics are against it, I can refuse to marry 2 gays if my religion is against it, I can refuse to provide military service if my ethics is against it, the list goes on. In a democratic state ruled by the law according to fundamental rights people have the right to not get their principles hurt trough coercion.

But where do we end objections.

We had an ethics debate when I was in med school regarding a case in London where UK Muslim medical students who were women refusing to wear short sleeves because it was against their religion. Long sleeves can get dipped into injuries and carry contamination.

THe general consensus was that if their religious views were put before the needs of their patients then they should find something else to do and stay out of medicine.

Yes, I'm being pedantic though technically, refusing to perform life saving surgery on a hardened criminal could well save the lives of others.

So the question remains: where do we stop allowing objections to overcome the needs of the patient?

Yes, minors should be allowed to have abortions without their parents' consent. A fetus has no right to take over a minor's uterus any more than an adult's.

Also, a psychological test or reflection period is just insulting. Like women going for abortions haven't thought through the consequences already.

Fuck me.

(July 1, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 6:08 pm)blackout94 Wrote: C'mon you are comparing two different situations. Performing a surgery means saving a life, nothing else is at stake. Performing an abortion for some people means murdering or taking/terminating a life. You might not like it or disagree but people have the right to be against the ethics of abortion, if a doctor doesn't want to perform it, why force them? Just like I can refuse to go to war because my ethics are against it, I can refuse to marry 2 gays if my religion is against it, I can refuse to provide military service if my ethics is against it, the list goes on. In a democratic state ruled by the law according to fundamental rights people have the right to not get their principles hurt trough coercion.

But where do we end objections.

We had an ethics debate when I was in med school regarding a case in London where UK Muslim medical students who were women refusing to wear short sleeves because it was against their religion. Long sleeves can get dipped into injuries and carry contamination.

THe general consensus was that if their religious views were put before the needs of their patients then they should find something else to do and stay out of medicine.

Yes, I'm being pedantic though technically, refusing to perform life saving surgery on a hardened criminal could well save the lives of others.

So the question remains: where do we stop allowing objections to overcome the needs of the patient?

You made a very good question. Of course objections are not infinite. Let's take the case of abortion or even gay marriage - Doctor refuses to give an abortion, is he endangering the life of the woman? In most cases no, unless her life is at stake, he is just refusing personally to give an abortion, she won't die from it and she can ask another doctor who is comfortable with it, that way everybody is happy. The same applies for gay marriage, a guy refuses to marry two gays, the couple asks another official to do it and he accepts, there will always be people that accept to marry them so everybody gets happy. In the surgery case you refuse and the patient dies if there is no other doctor to perform it. If you refuse abortion the woman most times won't die, even if she was forced to have a baby she most likely wouldn't die from it unless she made an illegal clandestine abortion, but if this happened it wouldn't the doctor who refused's fault.

Objections, put it simply, end when more important rights are at stake. Let's imagine a Jehovah's witness parent refusing a minor a blood transfusion - In this cased it should not be allowed. But in the case of abortion, there is no reason to not allow it since it's still a controversial issue. The case you quoted of Muslim women should not be allowed if they endanger the patient's life, and the case of the murderer depends on the jail time and if he can be rehabilitated or not.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:53 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:48 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Remember the part where I'm married to a catholic girl?
I saw how it worked from the other side.... and the typical pictures were circulating in pamphlets against abortion... The ones where you see fetuses being cut to pieces while still inside the woman's belly... something that is only done by the 20th week of gestation... not the 10th, which is what was proposed, back then.
Lies and false information was given to the pro-lifers... The game is always the same, ever since the first religion...

Here, blackout, enjoy: http://portugalprovida.blogspot.pt/

I don't remember such pictures, I was a kid back then, heck I wasn't even in high school, I really can't say anything about it, but I recall (I'm assuming you are portuguese too) PCP and BE (no offense but I despise both parties equally, they have no utility) being very vocal about legalizing abortion as a supreme woman right. Is your marriage good even though you think differently? My girlfriend is also a christian.

Yeah... those parties are a bit dumb, but the others aren't that much greater, also... I always find it difficult to vote in this country. I tend to go for some obscure minority.
Yes they were very vocal. So were the churches, where all the old people go... the same old people who vote... unlike the young people who prefer to go to the beach or sleep in after getting drunk on the previous Saturday.
It was my impression that, had the young people voted (young is under 40) the result would have been very different.
And yes, my marriage is good, in spite of the difference of opinion on a few subjects... But I'm no example for anyone, really. I'm the exception that proves the rule!

(July 1, 2014 at 6:21 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Yes, minors should be allowed to have abortions without their parents' consent. A fetus has no right to take over a minor's uterus any more than an adult's.

Also, a psychological test or reflection period is just insulting. Like women going for abortions haven't thought through the consequences already.

Fuck me.

Ok I was just curious about your opinion. But why can a minor have an abortion without consent but can't buy a house or celebrate a business? Even marriage before 18 years old needs parental consent. I'm not against it either but why allow an exception? What's the argument? Kids need parents consent for several surgeries too.

It's not a psychological test, it's just a few reflection sessions, what harm can it make? Most times it will make you better informed about the consequences, advantages and disadvantages of it. Not all woman know perfectly what having an abortion means, not everyone is well informed, this is just a matter of safety.

---

(July 1, 2014 at 6:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:53 pm)blackout94 Wrote: I don't remember such pictures, I was a kid back then, heck I wasn't even in high school, I really can't say anything about it, but I recall (I'm assuming you are portuguese too) PCP and BE (no offense but I despise both parties equally, they have no utility) being very vocal about legalizing abortion as a supreme woman right. Is your marriage good even though you think differently? My girlfriend is also a christian.

Yeah... those parties are a bit dumb, but the others aren't that much greater, also... I always find it difficult to vote in this country. I tend to go for some obscure minority.
Yes they were very vocal. So were the churches, where all the old people go... the same old people who vote... unlike the young people who prefer to go to the beach or sleep in after getting drunk on the previous Saturday.
It was my impression that, had the young people voted (young is under 40) the result would have been very different.
And yes, my marriage is good, in spite of the difference of opinion on a few subjects... But I'm no example for anyone, really. I'm the exception that proves the rule!

Yes our problem is old people voting in the same parties over and over again. I am young and I've voted 2 times so far, I will always do it since I consider voting a duty, I too went for a minority less known party, there are some parties with nice ideologies to fit everybody's opinion without considering the big 5 parties in the parliament. Being the exception is good.

(July 1, 2014 at 6:01 pm)blackout94 Wrote: A psychologist will just listen to the woman and her arguments and then advise impartially without taking a pro life or pro choice stance.

I was going to respond to something else but....

Wait what?

First of all, mister worried about taxes, a fucking psychologist on every abortion is - very -expensive.

Secondly, mister human being, how would you feel about - legally - having to visit a psychologist at some point in your life when you have to make a really, really, really difficult decision?

Objections, put it simply, end when more important rights are at stake. Let's imagine a Jehovah's witness parent refusing a minor a blood transfusion - In this cased it should not be allowed. But in the case of abortion, there is no reason to not allow it since it's still a controversial issue. The case you quoted of Muslim women should not be allowed if they endanger the patient's life, and the case of the murderer depends on the jail time and if he can be rehabilitated or not.
And there's the crux of it: "more important rights are at stake"

The more important rights here are that of the living, breathing woman over those of a cluster of cells.

(July 1, 2014 at 6:04 pm)blackout94 Wrote: So if there are no clinics how does a woman abort? If it's legal there should be at least private entities providing it.

That's the thing - they can't make it illegal, so some try to make it impossible to obtain.

That's Texas for you.

(July 1, 2014 at 6:48 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 6:01 pm)blackout94 Wrote: A psychologist will just listen to the woman and her arguments and then advise impartially without taking a pro life or pro choice stance.

I was going to respond to something else but....

Wait what?

First of all, mister worried about taxes, a fucking psychologist on every abortion is - very -expensive.

Secondly, mister law student, I could very well be ten times as crazy as any woman wanting an abortion and take my axe and just murder someone. Should a psychologist just listen to me and my arguments and then advise impartially?

Thirdly, mister human being, how would you feel about - legally - having to visit a psychologist at some point in your life when you have to make a really, really, really difficult decision?

Reflection is there to prevent people from committing acts without thinking, it's just an insurance or safety measure, yes most women think about it and the consequences but there will always be some who don't think clearly about it. It's just a safety mechanism, will it hurt you? No it won't.

As for taxes, I don't mind paying a psychologist since advice by a professional is precious and helps people making better decisions.

If I had to visit a psychologist, I would be happy, I've been to psychologists and usually I am able to just express my thoughts and listen to the psychologist's advice, it has helped me overcome problems and make better decisions.

This is an issue, let's say this - Should woman who suffered rape be forced to go to a specialist to be treated? Some people would argue that forced rehabilitation works best, others will argue you cannot force someone to it. I chose the later

This is my opinion and I won't change it, when we are talking about such a decision, a period of reflection considering some people are not intelligent enough to consider the matter and think about the cons and pros properly is adequate

But we could argue if it should be optional or mandatory. It's a though issue and honestly I'm done arguing on abortion, I will continue to doubt it's ethics but support legalization, that's my position. I think I'll go criticize theists and religion now.