Abortion is morally wrong

[FatAndFaithless]

The AMA specifically? Because it works with the government (federal and state sometimes) in constructing ethics codes, oversight committees, investigations, and standards. The AMA is bound by law and has an active role in discussing medical law, something I don't think you could attribute to your example of a slavery organization or torturers organization.

That's the position that they find themselves in because of their history, yes. But if we are allowing this sort of justification - is it not imaginable to you that other associations could have had a similar history? That the existence of the one (in this case) at least makes the existence of the other a possibility. Would a professional organization with the same status and historical heft of the ama - which centered around some otherwise objectionable profession- enjoy the same weight of persuasive power in this claim?

That's a huge 'if'. Assuming that there was such a thing as a torturer's association...that had been around and robust for as long as the AMA...was bound by law (which by definition a torturer's club isn't)...took an active role in oversight of its operations with assistance from the government...performed a vital civil service (again, torturers not so much)... then maybe? I don't think that's really a very good analogy, since it would assume that this <insert shitty practice here> association would have survived the constantly progressing moral landscape of our society and government, which groups like an association for torturers would not have done.

I don't think you can reduce healthcare and its ethics as a whole down to an analogy to something as single-pointed as "The torturer's association"

[The Grand Nudger]

To lighten the mood - we have reached page 69 as of the time I posted. Congratulations everyone - here's a cigar - do with it what you will.

That's a huge 'if'. Assuming that there was such a thing as a torturer's association...that had been around and robust for as long as the AMA...was bound by law (which by definition a torturer's club isn't)

They are only bound by law -to be outside of law- because we say that a conflict of rights exists. They can not waive, or someone else's right cannot be waived, and this prevents their business from operating.

If the argument you've offered about the amas standards and collusion with law is a persuasive argument - then there's no reason that these sorts of organizations shouldn't exist - bound by law- within the law. You're essentially saying that your argument is only true for the ama and not some other organization with the same attributes in the same situation.

I understand that you don't feel that there are any, or should be any - but there's no reason that there couldn't be any - if I'm persuaded by what you offered.

[Losty]

Page number 69

[Clueless Morgan]

Yes it's her choice. But pro lifers will say that abortion is not reasonable.

And I would ask for justification for that assertion because I think their position is unreasonable and tramples the rights of a good portion of the population to determine what happens to their own bodies.

You could say having a choice is reasonable because it makes everyone happy

I don't know that I would characterize having the ability to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy as "happy," I think it's necessary but regrettable.

My preference would be that every pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy (and was uncomplicated and healthy) and any woman who didn't want to get pregnant wouldn't have to worry about having to make the choice to abort or not. But that's not reality.

Abortion is necessary as a health and safety precaution for women. It's happened for as long as civilization has been around, and probably for millennia before that. If you make abortion illegal all that will happen is that abortions will become unregulated, will go underground and many, many more women will unnecessarily die as a result of botched procedures or post-procedure complications.

[FatAndFaithless]

To lighten the mood - we have reached page 69 as of the time I posted. Congratulations everyone - here's a cigar - do with it what you will.

That's a huge 'if'. Assuming that there was such a thing as a torturer's association...that had been around and robust for as long as the AMA...was bound by law (which by definition a torturer's club isn't)

They are only bound by law -to be outside of law- because we say that a conflict of rights exists. They can not waive, or someone else's right cannot be waived, and this prevents their business from operating.

If the argument you've offered about the amas standards and collusion with law is a persuasive argument - then there's no reason that these sorts of organizations shouldn't exist - bound by law- within the law. You're essentially saying that your argument is only true for the ama and not some other organization with the same attributes in the same situation.

I understand that you don't feel that there are any, or should be any - but there's no reason that there couldn't be any - if I'm persuaded by what you offered.

My point is that something like your torturer's club or slavery organization could never reach the same level or status or situation as the AMA in our society. The AMA isn't perfect, but it's gotten to the level of regard it has today because it (generally) operates on the interests of the patients it serves over the last 165 years.

But again, lets get away from the slavery/torture associations because I'm still unclear on some stuff. You don't think that voluntary entry into a well regarded and overseen association constitutes waiving a right if it conflicts with their ethics code. Fine, I see what you're saying, I just disagree. Do you have a method that you would like to use?

[Dystopia]

Yes it's her choice. But pro lifers will say that abortion is not reasonable.

And I would ask for justification for that assertion because I think their position is unreasonable and tramples the rights of a good portion of the population to determine what happens to their own bodies.

A pro life freak would call you a murderer and dismiss your argument immediately. My girlfriend's argument, for instance, is that from her perspective a fetus, being your future biological son, is more important than your whole life, she'd prefer dying from complications if it was a risky pregnancy than to have an abortion. She may not agree with me completely and I may not want to lose her, but I respect her position.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't think that voluntary entry into a well regarded and overseen association constitutes waiving a right if it conflicts with their ethics code. Fine, I see what you're saying, I just disagree. Do you have a method that you would like to use?

No, I think that it does, but I'm uncomfortable with how that might be applied to other rights and professional associations. What can and cannot be waived by whom, for what. I don't think that I have a suitable solution, personally. I'm just pointing out why yours might be too fragile to survive the application of legal force. I fear that if we tried to use that tool, it would break - while ruining some other part of the piece we're working on.

[FatAndFaithless]

You don't think that voluntary entry into a well regarded and overseen association constitutes waiving a right if it conflicts with their ethics code. Fine, I see what you're saying, I just disagree. Do you have a method that you would like to use?

No, I think that it does, but I'm uncomfortable with how that might be applied to other rights and professional associations. What can and cannot be waived by whom, for what. I don't think that I have a suitable solution, personally. I'm just pointing out why yours might be too fragile to survive the application of legal force.

Woah woah, I didn't say anything about legal force. I just think that if someone is given a membership of a well-regarded organization like the AMA, then acts contra to its policies and viewpoints, they simply lose their membership, and can't claim to be a member of the AMA anymore.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm saying that -if this- were the standard (the ama standard of excellence) by which one could waive a right - wouldn't it also apply to those other objectionables (i leave what to your imagination).

I know that you can't imagine that such an association might find a way to exist - but your standard allows it to. A failure of imagination does not support a point.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm saying that -if this- were the standard (the ama standard of excellence) by which one could waive a right - wouldn't it also apply to those other objectionables (i leave what to your imagination).

I know that you can't imagine that such an association might find a way to exist - but your standard allows it to. A failure of imagination does not support a point.

I still don't agree with your point. This isn't a club of a hobby that someone might find objectionable. This is standards of healthcare, something that we need. A service that's as vital as medicine needs to have strict standards that everyone operating in the field needs to follow. I still don't think you can compare medicine to any sort of objectionable club or organization. I'd even go so far as to say it's unique in its neccesity, and thus needs strongly observed standards.