Abortion is morally wrong

[rexbeccarox]

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.

(bold mine)

What's your girlfriend's position on the legality of abortion?

[Dystopia]

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.

A doctor that disapproves abortion would argue that such practice is against the 'Standard' of medicine because it impossibility the fetus' life. Not putting my nose between you two, but just saying even the standards aren't 100% objective. The problem where I live is the article saying 'Doctors must always preserve life' - For doctors against abortion, this article gives them protection if they consider a fetus as a live organism with person-hood.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

b-mine.

There are unspoken assumptions here, and out of hand dismissals of any other alternative. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking you to apply your argument -in favor- of something objectionable, and then tell us what you think. It's a thought experiment.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and I get that you think this is unique, a special case. But that sets off alarm bells, doesn't it? We're going to let one specific organization waive rights but not the others, on the weight of an argument that could...even if we don't want to...be applied to them?

-refraining from klan jokes here is tearing me apart btw.

[Dystopia]

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.

(bold mine)

What's your girlfriend's position on the legality of abortion?

Honestly we haven't discussed much of abortion in terms of legality, only the ethics, me and my friends like debating ethics of controversy matters, we enjoy having these conversations. I could ask her, but my guess is she is against liberalization (any woman being able to abort without giving a justification), I think a big part of her reason is because she loves children, she wants to be a primary teacher or kindergarten worker, she can't cope with the act of aborting in it's essence; she is also against abortion being 100% free while regular SNS patients need to pay medical care, at least in a symbolic amount. That being said, she supports legalization for the 3 exceptional cases we've already mentioned in this thread

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

b-mine.

There are unspoken assumptions here, and out of hand dismissals of any other alternative. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking you to apply your argument -in favor- of something objectionable, and then tell us what you think. It's a thought experiment.

But as I stated in my last post, I would consider healthcare to be uniquely necessary. It's something that everyone needs. If it's a thought experiment that you want, I suppose I will have to fail, because I can't think of something objectionable that I would substitute for healthcare in a hypothetical. My argument is specifically for healthcare standards, that's it.


And, @ Blackout (i still don't know how to reply to two posts in one reply, stupid me)

Maybe I'm not being as clear as I could be. If a doctor refuses to perform any medical procedure based on anything except medical reasons (religious views, etc), that's fine. I just don't think they should be able to fly the banner of the AMA, as they would be going against its ethics code (which they subscribe to in entering the organization). I'm not calling for forcing a doctor by law to perform an abortion or a blood transfusion or providing condoms or anything else that might grind against one's religious beliefs, they just don't get to say that they align with the AMA's (a very well-respected organization) code.




And with that I actually have to head out, work calls. Wish I had more time but I don't. God willing (hah), I'll be able to get back to this tomorrow.

[rexbeccarox]

Blackout, do you see the problem here, taking into account what I bolded and what you presume to be your girlfriend's position?

Do you think that only people who don't like children or aren't teachers get abortions? How can you support someone who's position is to impose her own views on others? I know you aren't your girlfriend, but you've stated you respect her position. It's not a position, rather it's an imposition if she doesn't respect other women enough to make decisions for themselves.

[The Valkyrie]

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.

And that's HER choice. If she would be willing to die to bring a potential person into the world, it's her choice.

And that's the magic word, once again: CHOICE.

Pro-birthers are against the woman's right to choose.

[Dystopia]

Blackout, do you see the problem here, taking into account what I bolded and what you presume to be your girlfriend's position?

Do you think that only people who don't like children or aren't teachers get abortions? How can you support someone who's position is to impose her own views on others? I know you aren't your girlfriend, but you've stated you respect her position. It's not a position, rather it's an imposition if she doesn't respect other women enough to make decisions for themselves.

I will ask her later on the matter. I respect her position because it is not based on god or mortal sins, it is justified on the simple fact she values more the right to live of the fetus when opposed to carrying out a pregnancy (she rightfully points out not allowing abortions is not forcing motherhood since you can give your son/daughter to adoption right after birth) for 9 months. I also respect she points out flaws in the system, eg abortion being totally free while the state cuts back pre-birth or after-birth pensions to support motherhood. In a country like mine, where we run out of young people and the population is growing older and older continuously, why isn't our government providing means for couples to raise kids? I think it is disgraceful to have to abort just because you don't have the financial means, the state should provide and help people who are in these situations, considering our demographics.

I think with a little of logical thought and conversations she will agree with me on liberalization, but she will always be against the ethics or the act.

---

b-mine.

There are unspoken assumptions here, and out of hand dismissals of any other alternative. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking you to apply your argument -in favor- of something objectionable, and then tell us what you think. It's a thought experiment.

But as I stated in my last post, I would consider healthcare to be uniquely necessary. It's something that everyone needs. If it's a thought experiment that you want, I suppose I will have to fail, because I can't think of something objectionable that I would substitute for healthcare in a hypothetical. My argument is specifically for healthcare standards, that's it.


And, @ Blackout (i still don't know how to reply to two posts in one reply, stupid me)

Maybe I'm not being as clear as I could be. If a doctor refuses to perform any medical procedure based on anything except medical reasons (religious views, etc), that's fine. I just don't think they should be able to fly the banner of the AMA, as they would be going against its ethics code (which they subscribe to in entering the organization). I'm not calling for forcing a doctor by law to perform an abortion or a blood transfusion or providing condoms or anything else that might grind against one's religious beliefs, they just don't get to say that they align with the AMA's (a very well-respected organization) code.




And with that I actually have to head out, work calls. Wish I had more time but I don't. God willing (hah), I'll be able to get back to this tomorrow.

Ok. I don't know about the AMA since I'm not an american, so I will just abstain from this conversation.

[Jackalope]

Maybe I'm not being as clear as I could be. If a doctor refuses to perform any medical procedure based on anything except medical reasons (religious views, etc), that's fine. I just don't think they should be able to fly the banner of the AMA, as they would be going against its ethics code (which they subscribe to in entering the organization).

Are you suggesting that the AMA code of ethics prohibits physicians from choosing whom to have as patients and that if a patient demands a procedure that the physician finds morally objectionable, that they cannot decline to treat the patient (in a non-emergency situation)?


If so, it would appear that the AMA disagrees.


http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physicia...thics.page?

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

Other pages at the AMA indicate that physicians are indeed allowed to conscientiously object to and decline to provide treatment they find objectionable. I'm on my phone and its a pain to provide a lot of links and quotes.