Abortion is morally wrong

[Losty]

---

you cannot if they die in the meantime. You can refuse if you have valid reasons, but there aren't any valid reasons to refuse to give surgery to someone who's life is in eminent danger, or are there? If it is an emergency you cannot refuse. An abortion is not generally an emergency. Why are you comparing the incomparable? Do you think forcing all doctors to give abortions would work? Think better.

---

You are right, you've successfully changed my mind. This is something that rarely happens

I'm not comparing the incomparable. I'm questioning why a doctor should have the right to refuse treatment selectively to patients. Where does the level of objection end.

And again, it depends on the condition of the patient.

A less drastic version of the example: If I refuse to treat a person because of their political leanings/their gender/or because I don't like the look of them they can always go to another surgeon, right?

Don't try to tell me to think clearly in an attempt to belittle me. It won't work. And, frankly, if we start down that trail, you'll lose.

---

I'm in love with you for your remarkable ability to butcher a quote

[Dystopia]

[hide]

you cannot if they die in the meantime. You can refuse if you have valid reasons, but there aren't any valid reasons to refuse to give surgery to someone who's life is in eminent danger, or are there? If it is an emergency you cannot refuse. An abortion is not generally an emergency. Why are you comparing the incomparable? Do you think forcing all doctors to give abortions would work? Think better.

---

You are right, you've successfully changed my mind. This is something that rarely happens

I'm not comparing the incomparable. I'm questioning why a doctor should have the right to refuse treatment selectively to patients. Where does the level of objection end.

And again, it depends on the condition of the patient.

A less drastic version of the example: If I refuse to treat a person because of their political leanings/their gender/or because I don't like the look of them they can always go to another surgeon, right?

Don't try to tell me to think clearly in an attempt to belittle me. It won't work. And, frankly, if we start down that trail, you'll lose.

You are committing the false dilemma fallacy. You are comparing two different situations. Refusing to treat a patient because of their political affiliations, gender or appearance is discriminatory and now allowed by law for obvious reasons (everybody has the right to healthcare independently of race, financial condition, etc). Refusing to perform an abortion because you genuinely believe you are committing murder or something alike is completely different considering it requires terminating an unborn fetus' existence. Some doctors take the Right to Live of their ethics code so far that they don't want to perform abortions. This is a respectable decision and it is not discriminatory, you aren't discriminating pregnant women because they are females or anything, you are merely refusing because you don't want to kill the unborn baby. Why should we be against this?

Like I said, refusing treatment is not allowed if it contains discrimination, refusing abortion is not discrimination since you refuse abortion to ALL pregnant woman (objection of conscience requires you maintain a constant coherent behavior, you cannot obviously just refuse abortion for 50% women and perform on the other 50%) because you believe to be committing murder

The case you mentioned would be yours to win from the beginning, but if it was my case of refusing to perform an abortion because my ethics/religion/morals/principles are against it, do you think you would get the court to sentence me to perform the abortion? The answer is no

I'd like to ask you, in a society ruled by the law and human rights, what sense does it make to force your citizens to go against their most basic linear principles? This is against human dignity

How do you propose solving this according to your opinion? Forcing doctors to give abortions? I'm 100% sure most of them would rather be jailed.

Again I'm not saying objection of conscience is infinite, but it is allowed in a democratic state as it should be, refusing abortion won't harm the pregnant woman since she can require another doctor who is ok with such procedure to do it, therefore no one's right or liberty will get hurt.

[The Valkyrie]

---

I'm not comparing the incomparable. I'm questioning why a doctor should have the right to refuse treatment selectively to patients. Where does the level of objection end.

And again, it depends on the condition of the patient.

A less drastic version of the example: If I refuse to treat a person because of their political leanings/their gender/or because I don't like the look of them they can always go to another surgeon, right?

Don't try to tell me to think clearly in an attempt to belittle me. It won't work. And, frankly, if we start down that trail, you'll lose.

---

I'm in love with you for your remarkable ability to butcher a quote

Yup, for some reason I've managed to do so on multiple forums.

I don't thik I'll bother quoting anymore.

---

Blackout: NO! I'm bringing up the simple point that doctors should NOT be allowed to pick and choose which patients they treat simply because they object to the treatment required.

It doesn't matter if it's an abortion or treating an ingrown toenail. In almost ANY situation a patient can go and see a different doctor. But what if ALL doctors object to the treatment? Why should the patient be forced to leave their city, state, or country just because a doctor objects?

Seriously, this isn't difficult.

Now, I've already stated that I'm being pedantic with my examples. But they ALL equate to refusing treatment.

I've also stated that a doctor's first concerns should be the treatment of a living, breathing patient over a cluster of cells.

And no, despite my objections to a patient I would not refuse treatment, and I'd be up before a disciplinary tribunal, quite rightly, if I did so.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why shouldn't doctors be able to choose, on religious grounds, say, who they treat? Are their rights forfeit as soon as they become doctors?

---

Hobby Lobby precedent ftw.

---

[Ravenshire]

Because the church has no business sticking their nose in political affairs. The church is there to guide the religious people in following god on their own free will. Not to abuse their station and try to influence laws to force people to follow their rules.

They need to either stfu or pick a side and fund it. They can't have no contraceptives and no abortion. It's not rational.

But, how can they bring about the return of the dark ages if they're not involved in lawmaking the way they were then?!?

Can you imagine how frightening the power of the church would be if they had the lawmaking power they had then coupled with the technology to enforce it we have today? *shudders*

[Losty]

Why shouldn't doctors be able to choose, on religious grounds, say, who they treat? Are their rights forfeit as soon as they become doctors?

---

Hobby Lobby precedent ftw.

---

Try googling "slippery slope"

[Dystopia]

I'm in love with you for your remarkable ability to butcher a quote

Yup, for some reason I've managed to do so on multiple forums.

I don't thik I'll bother quoting anymore.

---

Blackout: NO! I'm bringing up the simple point that doctors should NOT be allowed to pick and choose which patients they treat simply because they object to the treatment required.

It doesn't matter if it's an abortion or treating an ingrown toenail. In almost ANY situation a patient can go and see a different doctor. But what if ALL doctors object to the treatment? Why should the patient be forced to leave their city, state, or country just because a doctor objects?

Seriously, this isn't difficult.

Now, I've already stated that I'm being pedantic with my examples. But they ALL equate to refusing treatment.

I've also stated that a doctor's first concerns should be the treatment of a living, breathing patient over a cluster of cells.

And no, despite my objections to a patient I would not refuse treatment, and I'd be up before a disciplinary tribunal, quite rightly, if I did so.

Again some doctors consider a cluster of cells a person. We may not agree with this but we can't change it. You made a good question, what if all doctors refuse treatment? Well there would be 2 options, either abortion wouldn't be legal or some of them would be forced to do it, but then again, wouldn't they prefer to be jailed? This is irrelevant since a considerable amount are fine with performing an abortion. Again, what harm is there if a specialized clinic exists to avoid doctors in hospitals refusing? We are still protecting the rights of everyone. If a woman wants to abort, she is sent to those clinics.

Look I understand your argument but imagine this - You consider abortion murder and the state forces you to perform it, imagine you genuinely think of abortion the same way you think about qualified murder.. Would you like it? Of course not.

I've already said, objections of conscience are not limitless, but objection to abortion poses no danger to society since there is always professionals that do not object performing such practices. This isn't a matter of the object of treatment, it's a matter of some professionals considering they are taking away a human life, they shouldn't be forced to do it, it sounds like a dictatorship of the 'political correct' opinion to me.

My view is correct according to my constitution and law. Even the doctors code says any doctor can object to perform an abortion when legal.

[Losty]

Because the church has no business sticking their nose in political affairs. The church is there to guide the religious people in following god on their own free will. Not to abuse their station and try to influence laws to force people to follow their rules.

They need to either stfu or pick a side and fund it. They can't have no contraceptives and no abortion. It's not rational.

But, how can they bring about the return of the dark ages if they're not involved in lawmaking the way they were then?!?

Can you imagine how frightening the power of the church would be if they had the lawmaking power they had then coupled with the technology to enforce it we have today? *shudders*

I can imagine how frightening the world would be, but I'd rather not because it's too scary.

[Dystopia]

Why shouldn't doctors be able to choose, on religious grounds, say, who they treat? Are their rights forfeit as soon as they become doctors?

---

Hobby Lobby precedent ftw.

---

Try googling "slippery slope"

The slippery slope argument won't work here. Abortion is one case, each case is a different case, like I said political convictions or gender are not equal to considering abortion murder. We are talking about the deepest principles some people have. You might think this argument would work and give origin to a huge amount of objections, but it wouldn't happen since the law doesn't allow a doctor to refuse treatment as a general rule, it is allowed if there are justifiable reasons to object treatment.

[The Grand Nudger]

Abortion? Who said anything about abortion?

but it wouldn't happen since the law doesn't allow a doctor to refuse treatment as a general rule, it is allowed if there are justifiable reasons to object treatment.

Is the doctors 1st amendment right not a justifiable reason?