Why is this nonsense still being argued?

(July 2, 2014 at 6:53 am)blackout94 Wrote: Now directed at you pocaracas, did you know our prime minister thought of making abortion costly? In other words, we all pay for free healthcare a symbolic amount, maybe 5€ for consults and appointments, and poor people don't pay anything, it's never 100%. Abortion is 100% free but they thought of eliminating that privilege trough making it pay as much as other procedures have to pay too by a matter of equality.

Yeah... I think when something is completely free, people abuse it.
There should be a cost associated with the procedure.
Even more if it's done in a private clinic.

(July 2, 2014 at 6:53 am)blackout94 Wrote: Not all new school doctors are against abortion, there will always be some ok, some against, some that are not ok, as long as we have people to perform it, it will not become a problem. Live I've already said forcing people is not the answer according to human rights.

I agree.
It's just that, if abortion was already a part of society for a long time, then doctors would know that they're expected to perform abortions and such objections would be nearly non-existent.

(July 2, 2014 at 3:46 am)pocaracas Wrote: Abortion in Portugal is a fairly new business, and "old school" doctors are still practicing. This, I guess, is the main reason why "objection of conscience" is allowed for abortion cases.
Of course, this also gives new doctors leeway for such objections and thus the system gets perpetuated... sometimes, evolution sucks.

My wife recently had an abortion here in Korea. Her regular doctor wouldn't do it, because she's Christian. Although it was a little inconvenient, I completely respect the right of a doctor to decide what constitutes the greater good, or what level of harm is acceptable, etc.

---

(July 2, 2014 at 7:41 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Why is this nonsense still being argued?

Because people think differently about it.

(July 2, 2014 at 8:27 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 6:53 am)blackout94 Wrote: Now directed at you pocaracas, did you know our prime minister thought of making abortion costly? In other words, we all pay for free healthcare a symbolic amount, maybe 5€ for consults and appointments, and poor people don't pay anything, it's never 100%. Abortion is 100% free but they thought of eliminating that privilege trough making it pay as much as other procedures have to pay too by a matter of equality.

Yeah... I think when something is completely free, people abuse it.
There should be a cost associated with the procedure.
Even more if it's done in a private clinic.

(July 2, 2014 at 6:53 am)blackout94 Wrote: Not all new school doctors are against abortion, there will always be some ok, some against, some that are not ok, as long as we have people to perform it, it will not become a problem. Live I've already said forcing people is not the answer according to human rights.

I agree.
It's just that, if abortion was already a part of society for a long time, then doctors would know that they're expected to perform abortions and such objections would be nearly non-existent.

I discovered the portuguese law already solved the problem of objection. The thing is, the doctor who objects has the right to do so, BUT he also has the duty to send immediately the patient to another doctor who will willingly perform an abortion. This solves the issue, the conscious objector
fulfills his right, the pregnant woman fulfills hers, no problems, everybody is satisfied. This solves the issue of woman having to look for another clinic far away while potentially passing the temporal limit to have an abortion.

Yes it's true, but some doctors consider that abortion violates the right to live, it's something controversial and we cannot force people to think otherwise and impose our ideas.

The solution the law presented solves the issue properly, every doctor can object, but the patient must be sent to an appropriate doctor to terminate her pregnancy. I think this solution is good and gives society an equilibrium because no one gets their rights hurt. The law shouldn't look to satisfy more certain interests, but to fulfill both sides as equally as possible.

As for private clinics there is always cost involved, private entities benefit from the obvious economic freedom. Only those who can afford go to private health care. I went several times because public was too inefficient

---

(July 2, 2014 at 7:41 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Why is this nonsense still being argued?

The issue is already solved.

(July 1, 2014 at 2:47 pm)blackout94 Wrote: I'm not saying all pro lifers agree with these 3 exceptions

Except that you did in the post I was responding to:

Post #502 on page 51 of this thread:

Quote:Well it's still a though question to decide when we can consider an unborn child a human, this is why I can't take a position. I'll be pro choice, then, sounds more reasonable. I think all pro lifers will agree with me that any women should be able to abort in case of rape, life endangering or malformation of the fetus, these are cases that even anti abortion legislation allow frequently since they are the exception and not the norm.

Which was the line I bolded in my post and the whole reason I even responded to it. You said that you thought ALL pro-lifers would agree that there should be rape, life-endangerment and malformation exceptions to abortion bans and I demonstrated that ALL pro-lifers definitely DO NOT agree with you.

Quote:Even my girlfriend, a militant pro lifer agrees perfectly that these 3 exceptions should be allowed.

Your girlfriend is not representative of all pro-lifers.

Before you make absolute claims like "all of [anybody] says or does [X]" do a little research, or be more cautious and use words like "many" or "most" instead of "all."

Quote:One thing everybody should remember is that there is always a general rule AND exceptions, exceptions exist because they are different cases that require different treatment

Try explaining this to Todd Akin.

(July 2, 2014 at 9:24 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 3:46 am)pocaracas Wrote: Abortion in Portugal is a fairly new business, and "old school" doctors are still practicing. This, I guess, is the main reason why "objection of conscience" is allowed for abortion cases.
Of course, this also gives new doctors leeway for such objections and thus the system gets perpetuated... sometimes, evolution sucks.

My wife recently had an abortion here in Korea. Her regular doctor wouldn't do it, because she's Christian. Although it was a little inconvenient, I completely respect the right of a doctor to decide what constitutes the greater good, or what level of harm is acceptable, etc.

---

(July 2, 2014 at 7:41 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Why is this nonsense still being argued?

Because people think differently about it.

Was your 'regular doctor' even qualified to perform abortions? OB/GYN's are the docs that perform abortions, if they have some compunction about abortion they shouldn't specialize in an area that is dedicated almost exclusively to womens' sexual health.

(July 2, 2014 at 10:53 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 9:24 am)bennyboy Wrote: My wife recently had an abortion here in Korea. Her regular doctor wouldn't do it, because she's Christian. Although it was a little inconvenient, I completely respect the right of a doctor to decide what constitutes the greater good, or what level of harm is acceptable, etc.

---

Because people think differently about it.

Was your 'regular doctor' even qualified to perform abortions? OB/GYN's are the docs that perform abortions, if they have some compunction about abortion they shouldn't specialize in an area that is dedicated almost exclusively to womens' sexual health.

Her regular doctor was her OB/GYN. She had in fact performed a similar procedure before my 2nd was born due to an embryo that didn't "take." Keep in mind that Korea has laws as well to reduce/prevent selective (i.e. not medically required) abortions, which are really a euphemism for "I want a boy." But we had already been talking about how much more we could/should be doing for our already living children, and it didn't seem right to dilute our efforts even more.

(July 2, 2014 at 10:51 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 2:47 pm)blackout94 Wrote: I'm not saying all pro lifers agree with these 3 exceptions

Except that you did in the post I was responding to:

Post #502 on page 51 of this thread:

Quote:Well it's still a though question to decide when we can consider an unborn child a human, this is why I can't take a position. I'll be pro choice, then, sounds more reasonable. I think all pro lifers will agree with me that any women should be able to abort in case of rape, life endangering or malformation of the fetus, these are cases that even anti abortion legislation allow frequently since they are the exception and not the norm.

Which was the line I bolded in my post and the whole reason I even responded to it. You said that you thought ALL pro-lifers would agree that there should be rape, life-endangerment and malformation exceptions to abortion bans and I demonstrated that ALL pro-lifers definitely DO NOT agree with you.

Quote:Even my girlfriend, a militant pro lifer agrees perfectly that these 3 exceptions should be allowed.

Your girlfriend is not representative of all pro-lifers.

Before you make absolute claims like "all of [anybody] says or does [X]" do a little research, or be more cautious and use words like "many" or "most" instead of "all."

Quote:One thing everybody should remember is that there is always a general rule AND exceptions, exceptions exist because they are different cases that require different treatment

Try explaining this to Todd Akin.

Sometimes I just use the wrong words. Sorry if I offended you. What I meant is even a pro lifer that thinks abortion is wrong should agree that those 3 situations are exceptions, even countries (the example of portugal) where abortion was illegal in the past allowed these exceptions. Let me rephrase it - A reasonable pro life will agree that there are exceptions. I simply used the words wrongly, I didn't literally mean there aren't some nutjobs that think women shouldn't abort even if they got raped. As for the general rule V exceptions, exceptions exist because the situations that fit the general rule are not equal. The classical example is murder - Murder is taking the life of another person, putting it simply, but it I do it in self defense, it is an exception because the situation is different.

---

(July 2, 2014 at 10:53 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 9:24 am)bennyboy Wrote: My wife recently had an abortion here in Korea. Her regular doctor wouldn't do it, because she's Christian. Although it was a little inconvenient, I completely respect the right of a doctor to decide what constitutes the greater good, or what level of harm is acceptable, etc.

---

Because people think differently about it.

Was your 'regular doctor' even qualified to perform abortions? OB/GYN's are the docs that perform abortions, if they have some compunction about abortion they shouldn't specialize in an area that is dedicated almost exclusively to womens' sexual health.

Fatanfaitless you made a really good point, doctors that aren't fine with abortion shouldn't have determined specializations. That solves the problem.

(July 2, 2014 at 12:24 pm)blackout94 Wrote: Fatanfaitless you made a really good point, doctors that aren't fine with abortion shouldn't have determined specializations. That solves the problem.

-by insisting that doctors ought to waive their 1st amendment right if they want to be in a particular field. A right that you can waive isn't much of a right at all. Can I voluntarily waive some other right I have for increased economic opportunity? Can I sell myself, for example?

(July 2, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 12:24 pm)blackout94 Wrote: Fatanfaitless you made a really good point, doctors that aren't fine with abortion shouldn't have determined specializations. That solves the problem.

-by insisting that doctors ought to waive their 1st amendment right if they want to be in a particular field. A right that you can waive isn't much of a right at all. Can I voluntarily waive some other right I have for increased economic opportunity? Can I sell myself, for example?

Where I live you can sell yourself, it's called prostitution.
Can you sell yourself as human being? No, if you referring to slaving and losing rights.