Doctors' beliefs impacting on abortion provision

[Sociobiology]

when they got their specialty in prenatal care they had no idea abortions would be involved? then they are obviously to stupid to practice medicine.

They had no idea elective abortions would be involved.

see above statement.

[Keronians]

Being told to give the name of a doctor who IS willing to perform abortions is perfectly fair.

I disagree with you. It's just that simple. A doctor has the right to object to a practice.

To the first part, I've been repeating that since I entered this thread. To the second part, they have the right to object on a personal level but not on a professional level. They don't even have the right to try convincing the patient otherwise based on their beliefs.

Yes, I agree with you on that part. They also don't have the right to coerce the patient.

But they do have the right to conscientously object to killing a human, and tell their patient that they should go see Dr X instead.

[Keronians]

They had no idea elective abortions would be involved.

see above statement.

How so?

[Wiztopia]

As already said before, no doctor should be allowed to refuse to give medical treatment because of personal beliefs.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

To the first part, I've been repeating that since I entered this thread. To the second part, they have the right to object on a personal level but not on a professional level. They don't even have the right to try convincing the patient otherwise based on their beliefs.

Yes, I agree with you on that part. They also don't have the right to coerce the patient.

But they do have the right to conscientously object to killing a human, and tell their patient that they should go see Dr X instead.

My word, all that arguing and we agree? Wünderbar! Of course, that's only as long as there's an alternative available; should the patient be remote enough, or their needs specialised enough that the doctor is the only viable option within a necessary time-frame, the doctor would have to perform whatever action was required.

[Sociobiology]

when they got their specialty in prenatal care they had no idea abortions would be involved? then they are obviously to stupid to practice medicine.

see above statement.

How so?

a medical specialty is not something you just get over a weekend, they would have been trained to preform abortions usually multiple forms, including elective. to miss this they must be unfit to be a doctor. It is like becoming a vet and then going "I didn't know I'd be working on dogs." I added the statement back in since you cut it out.

[Keronians]

when they got their specialty in prenatal care they had no idea abortions would be involved? then they are obviously to stupid to practice medicine.

How so?

a medical specialty is not something you just get over a weekend, they would have been trained to preform abortions usually multiple forms, including elective. to miss this they must be unfit to be a doctor. It is like becoming a vet and then going "I didn't know I'd be working on dogs." I added the statement back in since you cut it out.

Considering that elective abortion in Spain was illegal until last year, I'm fairly certain most doctors in fact, were not expecting to have to perform elective abortions, even if they were trained to be able to perform abortions.

[Sociobiology]

a medical specialty is not something you just get over a weekend, they would have been trained to preform abortions usually multiple forms, including elective. to miss this they must be unfit to be a doctor. It is like becoming a vet and then going "I didn't know I'd be working on dogs." I added the statement back in since you cut it out.

Considering that elective abortion in Spain was illegal until last year, I'm fairly certain most doctors in fact, were not expecting to have to perform elective abortions, even if they were trained to be able to perform abortions.

then they are free to stoop being doctors.
one of the basic parts of medicine is that it changes if they cannot handle that they are free to become veterinarians.
your a doctor you don't get to pick and choose what procedure to preform, just as a cop does not get to pick which laws to enforce, or just a fire fighter does not get not put out a fire because he/she does not like the building on fire.

[Keronians]

Considering that elective abortion in Spain was illegal until last year, I'm fairly certain most doctors in fact, were not expecting to have to perform elective abortions, even if they were trained to be able to perform abortions.

then they are free to stoop being doctors.
one of the basic parts of medicine is that it changes if they cannot handle that they are free to become veterinarians.
your a doctor you don't get to pick and choose what procedure to preform, just as a cop does not get to pick which laws to enforce, or just a fire fighter does not get not put out a fire because he/she does not like the building on fire.

Fire fighters do refuse to put out fires.

You're a doctor and you treat patients in need of treatment. If you don't want to treat someone not in need of a procedure, then you are perfectly entitled not to, as long as you give the name of one who will.

[Sociobiology]

then they are free to stoop being doctors.
one of the basic parts of medicine is that it changes if they cannot handle that they are free to become veterinarians.
your a doctor you don't get to pick and choose what procedure to preform, just as a cop does not get to pick which laws to enforce, or just a fire fighter does not get not put out a fire

Fire fighters do refuse to put out fires.

fire fighters refuse to put out first that pose a direct threat to them to put out, like say a store full of ammunition or kerosene. They do not refuse to put out a fire in a porno shop because they have a problem with porno.

[Wiztopia]

Fire fighters do refuse to put out fires.

fire fighters refuse to put out first that pose a direct threat to them to put out, like say a store full of ammunition or kerosene. They do not refuse to put out a fire in a porno shop because they have a problem with porno.

There are fire fighters who refuse to put out a fire and watch houses burn down just because somebody didn't pay a fire tax.

[Arkinesia]

Link

Pregnant women could find it harder in future to obtain an abortion because of the growing number of doctors who are opposed to carrying out terminations.

A survey of medical students has found that almost half believe doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform any procedure to which they object on moral, cultural or religious grounds, such as prescribing contraception or treating someone who is drunk or high on drugs.

Abortion provoked the strongest feelings among the 733 medical students surveyed, according to the study in the Journal of Medical Ethics. "The survey revealed that almost a third of students would not perform an abortion for a congenitally malformed foetus after 24 weeks, a quarter would not perform an abortion for failed contraception before 24 weeks and a fifth would not perform an abortion on a minor who was the victim of rape," said researcher Dr Sophie Strickland.

"In light of increasing demand for abortions, these results may have implications for women's access to abortion services in the future," she added.

Concern about termination services is rising, with fewer doctors willing to perform the procedure, according to the Department of Health. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has voiced concern about the "slow but growing problem of trainees opting out of training in the termination of pregnancy and is therefore concerned about the abortion service of the future".

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "Abortion is taught increasingly infrequently in medical school, and students may not be required to engage much with the reasons why a woman may find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and the distress this may cause. All of us involved in women's reproductive healthcare need to ensure that young doctors understand why women need abortions, and that this is a profession to be proud of."

Some 45.2% of those surveyed believed doctors should have the right to refuse to treat someone when doing so clashed with their personal beliefs, but 40.6% disagreed. "Once qualified as doctors, if all these respondents acted on their conscience and refused to perform certain procedures, it may become impossible for conscientious objectors to be accommodated in medicine," said Strickland.

Backing for a doctor's right to refuse to perform any procedure was highest among Muslim medical students, at 76.2%. Some 54.5% of Jewish students also thought doctors should have the right to refuse, as did 51.2% of Protestants and 46.3% of Catholics.

Guidance drawn up by the General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors, advises doctors to refer a patient to a colleague if they object to a certain procedure or treatment.

"However, we also make clear that doctors have an overriding duty to provide care for patients who are in need of medical treatment, whatever the cause of that medical need. It is not acceptable to opt out of treating a particular patient or group of patients because of personal beliefs or views about them, for example if they misuse drugs or alcohol," said Dr Peter Rubin, the GMC's chair.

The British Medical Association said that while doctors and medical students can refuse to participate in treatments they are uncomfortable with, patients must not be harmed or affected by their decision. They must also give patients enough information so they can seek treatment elsewhere within the NHS, according to a spokesman for the doctors' union's medical ethics committee.

The Department of Health said: "Patients' clinical needs always come first, and practising doctors understand this. It is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief and the law does not entitle people to apply such beliefs in a way which impinges upon other people, even if they claim that their religion or belief requires them to act in this way.

"All patients have a right to a comprehensive and fair NHS. The NHS constitution, white paper and the Equality Act provide the legal framework and principles that underpin the way the NHS should provide its services and support its staff."

Quite frankly, any medical student who thinks they can refuse treatment due to their own beliefs, etc. is not fit to be a doctor. In any healthcare system, public or private, the rights and/or needs of the patient must always - always - be put above the personal beliefs of the person treating them.

Oh great now men gets the right to deside over our bodies aswell... personally if my doctor refuse i will strangle him >.>

Or you could be sane and go to another doctor.

[Sociobiology]

fire fighters refuse to put out first that pose a direct threat to them to put out, like say a store full of ammunition or kerosene. They do not refuse to put out a fire in a porno shop because they have a problem with porno.

There are fire fighters who refuse to put out a fire and watch houses burn down just because somebody didn't pay a fire tax.

your talking about private fire departments.
Spain's healthcare is a single payer public system.
also source , to see if they was no repercussions for the fire fighter in question.

[Wiztopia]

There are fire fighters who refuse to put out a fire and watch houses burn down just because somebody didn't pay a fire tax.

your talking about private fire departments.
Spain's healthcare is a single payer public system.
also source , to see if they was no repercussions for the fire fighter in question.

http://www.usatoday.com/communities/ond ... city-fee/1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/0 ... 50272.html

[Nulono]

It is a scientific fact that the child is as much of a human as the mother. That it is legal is irrelevant to morality.

Alright, Champ, calm down. We're not arguing the requirement of a foetus for human rights. The doctors operate within a system which, in keeping with the laws of the country and the ethical consensus of most of the globe, has legalised abortion. If a patient wishes to use these rights afforded to them then it is the patient who has the choice, not the doctor. Now, doctors obviously have ethical convictions themselves and must follow their own moral obligations but it cannot in ANY WAY infringe on the rights of the patient. As a doctor it's not your role to sermonise, obfuscate or otherwise deny a patient access to care. If a doctor has a problem with that then they can find a colleague who doesn't or, if one isn't available, do the job they're paid to do. Of course, the easiest way to avoid dealing with the abortion issue on a personal level is to avoid that area of medicine. Take up orthopaedics.

Again, it being legal does not make it okay. A doctor should be allowed to respect the rights of the fetus.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Link

Pregnant women could find it harder in future to obtain an abortion because of the growing number of doctors who are opposed to carrying out terminations.

A survey of medical students has found that almost half believe doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform any procedure to which they object on moral, cultural or religious grounds, such as prescribing contraception or treating someone who is drunk or high on drugs.

Abortion provoked the strongest feelings among the 733 medical students surveyed, according to the study in the Journal of Medical Ethics. "The survey revealed that almost a third of students would not perform an abortion for a congenitally malformed foetus after 24 weeks, a quarter would not perform an abortion for failed contraception before 24 weeks and a fifth would not perform an abortion on a minor who was the victim of rape," said researcher Dr Sophie Strickland.

"In light of increasing demand for abortions, these results may have implications for women's access to abortion services in the future," she added.

Concern about termination services is rising, with fewer doctors willing to perform the procedure, according to the Department of Health. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has voiced concern about the "slow but growing problem of trainees opting out of training in the termination of pregnancy and is therefore concerned about the abortion service of the future".

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "Abortion is taught increasingly infrequently in medical school, and students may not be required to engage much with the reasons why a woman may find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and the distress this may cause. All of us involved in women's reproductive healthcare need to ensure that young doctors understand why women need abortions, and that this is a profession to be proud of."

Some 45.2% of those surveyed believed doctors should have the right to refuse to treat someone when doing so clashed with their personal beliefs, but 40.6% disagreed. "Once qualified as doctors, if all these respondents acted on their conscience and refused to perform certain procedures, it may become impossible for conscientious objectors to be accommodated in medicine," said Strickland.

Backing for a doctor's right to refuse to perform any procedure was highest among Muslim medical students, at 76.2%. Some 54.5% of Jewish students also thought doctors should have the right to refuse, as did 51.2% of Protestants and 46.3% of Catholics.

Guidance drawn up by the General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors, advises doctors to refer a patient to a colleague if they object to a certain procedure or treatment.

"However, we also make clear that doctors have an overriding duty to provide care for patients who are in need of medical treatment, whatever the cause of that medical need. It is not acceptable to opt out of treating a particular patient or group of patients because of personal beliefs or views about them, for example if they misuse drugs or alcohol," said Dr Peter Rubin, the GMC's chair.

The British Medical Association said that while doctors and medical students can refuse to participate in treatments they are uncomfortable with, patients must not be harmed or affected by their decision. They must also give patients enough information so they can seek treatment elsewhere within the NHS, according to a spokesman for the doctors' union's medical ethics committee.

The Department of Health said: "Patients' clinical needs always come first, and practising doctors understand this. It is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief and the law does not entitle people to apply such beliefs in a way which impinges upon other people, even if they claim that their religion or belief requires them to act in this way.

"All patients have a right to a comprehensive and fair NHS. The NHS constitution, white paper and the Equality Act provide the legal framework and principles that underpin the way the NHS should provide its services and support its staff."

Quite frankly, any medical student who thinks they can refuse treatment due to their own beliefs, etc. is not fit to be a doctor. In any healthcare system, public or private, the rights and/or needs of the patient must always - always - be put above the personal beliefs of the person treating them.

I feel morally inclined to give such doctors a roundhouse kick, but does anyone know if the Hippocratic oath says that doctors fully have the right to refuse treatment? If it does then, fine, doctors should be entitled to their own freedom too if it does not oppose the ethics of their own occupation. I apologize if such evidence has been brought up before, it's pretty intimidating to flip through 27 pages. Point out the page number please if it indeed has been brought up? Thanks.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Alright, Champ, calm down. We're not arguing the requirement of a foetus for human rights. The doctors operate within a system which, in keeping with the laws of the country and the ethical consensus of most of the globe, has legalised abortion. If a patient wishes to use these rights afforded to them then it is the patient who has the choice, not the doctor. Now, doctors obviously have ethical convictions themselves and must follow their own moral obligations but it cannot in ANY WAY infringe on the rights of the patient. As a doctor it's not your role to sermonise, obfuscate or otherwise deny a patient access to care. If a doctor has a problem with that then they can find a colleague who doesn't or, if one isn't available, do the job they're paid to do. Of course, the easiest way to avoid dealing with the abortion issue on a personal level is to avoid that area of medicine. Take up orthopaedics.

Again, it being legal does not make it okay. A doctor should be allowed to respect the rights of the fetus.

Oh bore off. If you're not going to read my posts then don't bother responding to them. Here's a little hint as to what you missed:

Now, doctors obviously have ethical convictions themselves and must follow their own moral obligations but it cannot in ANY WAY infringe on the rights of the patient. As a doctor it's not your role to sermonise, obfuscate or otherwise deny a patient access to care.

[Nulono]

Link

Pregnant women could find it harder in future to obtain an abortion because of the growing number of doctors who are opposed to carrying out terminations.

A survey of medical students has found that almost half believe doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform any procedure to which they object on moral, cultural or religious grounds, such as prescribing contraception or treating someone who is drunk or high on drugs.

Abortion provoked the strongest feelings among the 733 medical students surveyed, according to the study in the Journal of Medical Ethics. "The survey revealed that almost a third of students would not perform an abortion for a congenitally malformed foetus after 24 weeks, a quarter would not perform an abortion for failed contraception before 24 weeks and a fifth would not perform an abortion on a minor who was the victim of rape," said researcher Dr Sophie Strickland.

"In light of increasing demand for abortions, these results may have implications for women's access to abortion services in the future," she added.

Concern about termination services is rising, with fewer doctors willing to perform the procedure, according to the Department of Health. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has voiced concern about the "slow but growing problem of trainees opting out of training in the termination of pregnancy and is therefore concerned about the abortion service of the future".

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "Abortion is taught increasingly infrequently in medical school, and students may not be required to engage much with the reasons why a woman may find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and the distress this may cause. All of us involved in women's reproductive healthcare need to ensure that young doctors understand why women need abortions, and that this is a profession to be proud of."

Some 45.2% of those surveyed believed doctors should have the right to refuse to treat someone when doing so clashed with their personal beliefs, but 40.6% disagreed. "Once qualified as doctors, if all these respondents acted on their conscience and refused to perform certain procedures, it may become impossible for conscientious objectors to be accommodated in medicine," said Strickland.

Backing for a doctor's right to refuse to perform any procedure was highest among Muslim medical students, at 76.2%. Some 54.5% of Jewish students also thought doctors should have the right to refuse, as did 51.2% of Protestants and 46.3% of Catholics.

Guidance drawn up by the General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors, advises doctors to refer a patient to a colleague if they object to a certain procedure or treatment.

"However, we also make clear that doctors have an overriding duty to provide care for patients who are in need of medical treatment, whatever the cause of that medical need. It is not acceptable to opt out of treating a particular patient or group of patients because of personal beliefs or views about them, for example if they misuse drugs or alcohol," said Dr Peter Rubin, the GMC's chair.

The British Medical Association said that while doctors and medical students can refuse to participate in treatments they are uncomfortable with, patients must not be harmed or affected by their decision. They must also give patients enough information so they can seek treatment elsewhere within the NHS, according to a spokesman for the doctors' union's medical ethics committee.

The Department of Health said: "Patients' clinical needs always come first, and practising doctors understand this. It is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief and the law does not entitle people to apply such beliefs in a way which impinges upon other people, even if they claim that their religion or belief requires them to act in this way.

"All patients have a right to a comprehensive and fair NHS. The NHS constitution, white paper and the Equality Act provide the legal framework and principles that underpin the way the NHS should provide its services and support its staff."

Quite frankly, any medical student who thinks they can refuse treatment due to their own beliefs, etc. is not fit to be a doctor. In any healthcare system, public or private, the rights and/or needs of the patient must always - always - be put above the personal beliefs of the person treating them.

I feel morally inclined to give such doctors a roundhouse kick, but does anyone know if the Hippocratic oath says that doctors fully have the right to refuse treatment? If it does then, fine, doctors should be entitled to their own freedom too if it does not oppose the ethics of their own occupation. I apologize if such evidence has been brought up before, it's pretty intimidating to flip through 27 pages. Point out the page number please if it indeed has been brought up? Thanks.

Abortion itself opposes the ethics of medicine.

[Furious Grandmothers]

I feel morally inclined to give such doctors a roundhouse kick, but does anyone know if the Hippocratic oath says that doctors fully have the right to refuse treatment? If it does then, fine, doctors should be entitled to their own freedom too if it does not oppose the ethics of their own occupation. I apologize if such evidence has been brought up before, it's pretty intimidating to flip through 27 pages. Point out the page number please if it indeed has been brought up? Thanks.

Abortion itself opposes the ethics of medicine.

It does? Why?

[The Tribes Of Longton]

I feel morally inclined to give such doctors a roundhouse kick, but does anyone know if the Hippocratic oath says that doctors fully have the right to refuse treatment? If it does then, fine, doctors should be entitled to their own freedom too if it does not oppose the ethics of their own occupation. I apologize if such evidence has been brought up before, it's pretty intimidating to flip through 27 pages. Point out the page number please if it indeed has been brought up? Thanks.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

The hippocratic oath and other medical declarations are designed to protect the patient, not the doctor. It's also worth mentioning that you don't have to take any oath, although both your nation and the UN will have a set of ethical rules regarding treatment, clinical trials, doctor-patient confidentiality etc.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Abortion itself opposes the ethics of medicine.

Yes, forcing women to put their lives at risk to support another is absolutely moral.

[Ifreann]

Abortion itself opposes the ethics of medicine.

Yes, forcing women to put their lives at risk to support another is absolutely moral.

Of course it is. Women are nowhere near as important as foetuses.

[Leyjutland Major]

Doctors should be able to pick the field in which they wish to work. If they're an abortion doctor already they shouldn't get to nitpick who does and doesn't deserve an abortion, with the exception of partial birth abortions and the like.

[Furious Grandmothers]

I feel morally inclined to give such doctors a roundhouse kick, but does anyone know if the Hippocratic oath says that doctors fully have the right to refuse treatment? If it does then, fine, doctors should be entitled to their own freedom too if it does not oppose the ethics of their own occupation. I apologize if such evidence has been brought up before, it's pretty intimidating to flip through 27 pages. Point out the page number please if it indeed has been brought up? Thanks.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

The hippocratic oath and other medical declarations are designed to protect the patient, not the doctor. It's also worth mentioning that you don't have to take any oath, although both your nation and the UN will have a set of ethical rules regarding treatment, clinical trials, doctor-patient confidentiality etc.

Wow. Gee, thanks so much. Seems like it's a free for all for doctors then.

[Cthag-antil]

I'm not even sure what that means. I do not recognize it as murder because it's not murder.

Feticide is a crime in may states and nations...your personal opinion is just that...your personal opinion.

I recognize it as forced abortion and attempted murder, both of which are heinous and warrant severe punishment.

Nonsense..forced abortion...lol.
That is something you have created....there is no such recoginised act in that context.

Whether your hypothetical victim thinks her attacker should be convicted of a different crime than the one he committed is really not relevant, and has no bearing on the "extent" of her victimization.

It is the effect of the crime upon the victim and society that warrants or justifies what punishments we administer to the guilty...the seriousness of the detrimental effects determine what sentencing should be appropriate.
It is utterly relevant.
You deny her loss...you are saying a woman should not consider her unborn child an equal loss to anyone else that might be murdered.

If someone was beaten with a tire iron and wanted their attacker convicted of theft instead of battery, I wouldn't support them in that either, and no one in their right mind would think that somehow minimized the crime.

An asinine and fallacious argument...the woman who has lost her baby is experiencing something called grief...the grief of the death and loss of a loved one.
Are you telling us that women cannot love their unborn children?
That its wider family cannot anticipate its arrival will joy and love?
All the victims in this matter including me as a member of society DEMAND that justice delivers the iron fist to the perpetrator of such horror.

She is not asking that the murderer of her fetus is convicted of anything but murder because anything else would be an insult to her and an unrecognition of her loss.

You are clearly devoid of any empathy any scientific understanding any understanding of justice...nor do you realise how much women can love and want their unborn babies.

Any person that goes around deliberately stabbing pregnant women deserves the maximum possible punishments...we must allow them to escape long jail terms with a lesser charge like assault or a sole count of attempted murder upon the mother to satisfy a perverted belief that a fetus cannot be murdered...I personally think that we have every sane and valid reason to ensure that such people are never allowed to harm again...execution in my opinion, while tempting, would not be punishment enough.

I do think it's rather hilarious that you are so concerned about the feelings of a hypothetical person whom you categorized as sub-human only a few minutes ago - and who, had she wanted to abort, you've already said you'd happily watch burn to death.

I never said I would happily watch a woman who aborts babies burn to death.

I said I wouldnt feel a flicker of emotion...

A burning woman that assumes personal responsibility and loves/loved her unborn child I would put out the flames with my hands if necessary....

But if encountering burning people..I do not/would not ask their stance on abortion prior to saving their lives.