Doctors' beliefs impacting on abortion provision

[Pedokala]

It's simple really...

I don't have my dentist perform orthadonic surgery just as I don't have a pediatrician performing neurosurgery. What are those that practice the latter considered? Specialists. You all seem big on having abortion as a standard practice for family practitioners. Those of you arguing the such, would you want your family doctor to perform open heart surgery seeing as "THEY ARE A DOCTOR, THEY MUST BE QUALIFIED"? Let's be realistic, there is nothing wrong with confining non-emergency (contraceptive) abortion to specialists. Hell, planned parenting already operates such clinics.

[Cthag-antil]

That is an ultrasound image of a Fetus (Human) sucking her/his thumb.

It is not some mysterious parasite or non entity.....

(for the benefit of you know who you are)

[Ifreann]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

[Nulono]

Abortion itself opposes the ethics of medicine.

It does? Why?

Because it's killing a human being.

[Bottle]

(Image)

That is an ultrasound image of a Fetus (Human) sucking her/his thumb.

It is not some mysterious parasite or non entity.....

(for the benefit of you know who you are)

Do you really think the women who get abortions are all so stupid that they don't know what pregnancy is? Do you really think we don't know that our bodies make babies? Do you really think we're THAT fucking clueless?

Yes, if I carry a pregnancy to term, it might eventually turn into an adowable widdle bay-bee who will suck its thumb and bat its tiny eyelashes and make cute coo noises. Guess what? I'm still happy I didn't carry to term. I'll still make the same choice again. Because I'm a thinking, reasoning human being who is capable of making rational choices that involve more than "AWWWW WOOKIT THE CUTE BABY!!!!"

When you've grown up enough to function on that level, come on back and participate.

[Bottle]

It's simple really...

I don't have my dentist perform orthadonic surgery just as I don't have a pediatrician performing neurosurgery. What are those that practice the latter considered? Specialists. You all seem big on having abortion as a standard practice for family practitioners. Those of you arguing the such, would you want your family doctor to perform open heart surgery seeing as "THEY ARE A DOCTOR, THEY MUST BE QUALIFIED"? Let's be realistic, there is nothing wrong with confining non-emergency (contraceptive) abortion to specialists. Hell, planned parenting already operates such clinics.

In order to be licensed to practice medicine, a doctor must demonstrate that she/he is capable of certain general and emergency procedures. This is why, when somebody collapses from a heart attack and people call "Is there a doctor here?" they aren't calling out "Is there a cardiologist?!?!" Because ALL doctors are supposed to know what to do if somebody has a heart attack.

Given that one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, which is roughly the same odds of a person over 20 having heart disease of any kind, I think it's completely and totally reasonable for all doctors to be trained in the basics of how abortions are performed, and what to do in cases of complications.

[Pedokala]

I highly doubt that 1/3 women figure. You would be more apt in claiming that there are loose women out there that will have multiple abortions in their lifetime, thus skewing the statistic.

Furthermore, abortion isn't a heart attack in a theater, it is an invasive procedure. Standard medicine, I think not.

[Samuraikoku]

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

And the fact that feticide might be a crime doesn't mean the law is always right.

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

Yes there is. Argentina's legislation has a figure like that when a woman wants to carry it but someone causes her abortion.

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.

Another strawman. She hasn't said anything about denying the woman's loss.

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.

Your appeal to emotion is fallacious and asinine as well. If a woman causes her own abortion, I don't believe she would want to experience grief.

Are you telling us that women cannot love their unborn children?

Clearly this one didn't.

That its wider family cannot anticipate its arrival will joy and love?

Another appeal to emotion.

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.

Seriously, quit the soap opera, soldier.

[Samuraikoku]

It does? Why?

Because it's killing a human being.

Read the medic oath a few pages back. Taking lives doesn't always go against ethics.

[Dakini]

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.

Especially the male ones. Those ones never stop being people from conception until death. Even after death, really. The female fetuses stop being people when they start being incubators.

[Dakini]

Well, nations and, by right of democratic process, populations. And really? Of all of that, you're going to pick on my use of most? Abortion has been legal in the UK since 1967, the whole of the US since 1973, France since 1975, Germany in its various forms since the mid-seventies, Italy (home of the fucking Catholic Church) since 1978, Japan since 1948, Canada since 1968-69 and Russia since 1955. Now, I picked the G8 because it provided an easy list but I think if the majority populations of these countries had a problem with abortion, the law might have changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leis_do_aborto.png

Majority of the World's population, yes. Majority of nations, no.

EDIT: As for public opinion, in Canada, most people don't agree with the law they currently have.

In a sense, yes... because Canada has no laws about abortion at all and most people would like to curtail elective third trimester abortions (or at least past a certain point).

I can't find the statistics for Canada online (I'll I'm getting are US results), but if memory serves the majority are still pro-choice when it comes to first and second trimester elective abortions though... which is rather consistent with the sorts of abortions that actually happen in Canada.

[Bottle]

I highly doubt that 1/3 women figure. You would be more apt in claiming that there are loose women out there that will have multiple abortions in their lifetime, thus skewing the statistic.

The 1 in 3 figure is arrived at precisely the same way for abortions as for heart disease. The point is that the prevalence is equivalent; whether or not you like the use of figures like "one in three" is beside the point.

Furthermore, abortion isn't a heart attack in a theater, it is an invasive procedure. Standard medicine, I think not.

Actually, the majority of legal medical abortions aren't invasive any more. Welcome to modern medicine.

[Magniamitas]

It's simple really...

I don't have my dentist perform orthadonic surgery just as I don't have a pediatrician performing neurosurgery. What are those that practice the latter considered? Specialists. You all seem big on having abortion as a standard practice for family practitioners. Those of you arguing the such, would you want your family doctor to perform open heart surgery seeing as "THEY ARE A DOCTOR, THEY MUST BE QUALIFIED"? Let's be realistic, there is nothing wrong with confining non-emergency (contraceptive) abortion to specialists. Hell, planned parenting already operates such clinics.

In order to be licensed to practice medicine, a doctor must demonstrate that she/he is capable of certain general and emergency procedures. This is why, when somebody collapses from a heart attack and people call "Is there a doctor here?" they aren't calling out "Is there a cardiologist?!?!" Because ALL doctors are supposed to know what to do if somebody has a heart attack.

Given that one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, which is roughly the same odds of a person over 20 having heart disease of any kind, I think it's completely and totally reasonable for all doctors to be trained in the basics of how abortions are performed, and what to do in cases of complications.

I agree to an extent but unless it the pregnancy is a danger to the woman's health, I don't believe a general practitioner should be forced to give an abortion.As a pediatrician I do not preform abortions and I personally believe in getting them but I do believe in having abortion clinics which is were I generally refer my patients who wish to have an abortion preformed at their convenience. I also believe a hospital should be forced to give one if necessary to save a woman's life.

[Bottle]

In order to be licensed to practice medicine, a doctor must demonstrate that she/he is capable of certain general and emergency procedures. This is why, when somebody collapses from a heart attack and people call "Is there a doctor here?" they aren't calling out "Is there a cardiologist?!?!" Because ALL doctors are supposed to know what to do if somebody has a heart attack.

Given that one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, which is roughly the same odds of a person over 20 having heart disease of any kind, I think it's completely and totally reasonable for all doctors to be trained in the basics of how abortions are performed, and what to do in cases of complications.

I agree to an extent but unless it the pregnancy is a danger to the woman's health, I don't believe a general practitioner should be forced to give an abortion.As a pediatrician I do not preform abortions and I personally believe in getting them but I do believe in having abortion clinics which is were I generally refer my patients who wish to have an abortion preformed at their convenience. I also believe a hospital should be forced to give one if necessary to save a woman's life.

To be sure, I don't think it's reasonable to force specializations on doctors. If I need knee surgery, I don't want my GP to perform it, even though she's a perfectly lovely doctor. Likewise, if I need a surgical abortion, I'd like to get it from a doctor who has experience with surgical abortion and has chosen to specialize in that area of medicine. However, I don't see why my GP couldn't administer a medical abortion (pill form) just as well as any other physician. She is just as capable of understanding how the medications work, passing on instructions on how I should use them, and informing me of any risks or likely side effects. Frankly, I've gotten far more dangerous prescriptions from my GP, so I think it's silly to act like it would somehow be more complicated or dangerous for her to provide me with RU-486 or similar treatments.

[Keronians]

It's simple really...

I don't have my dentist perform orthadonic surgery just as I don't have a pediatrician performing neurosurgery. What are those that practice the latter considered? Specialists. You all seem big on having abortion as a standard practice for family practitioners. Those of you arguing the such, would you want your family doctor to perform open heart surgery seeing as "THEY ARE A DOCTOR, THEY MUST BE QUALIFIED"? Let's be realistic, there is nothing wrong with confining non-emergency (contraceptive) abortion to specialists. Hell, planned parenting already operates such clinics.

In order to be licensed to practice medicine, a doctor must demonstrate that she/he is capable of certain general and emergency procedures. This is why, when somebody collapses from a heart attack and people call "Is there a doctor here?" they aren't calling out "Is there a cardiologist?!?!" Because ALL doctors are supposed to know what to do if somebody has a heart attack.

Given that one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, which is roughly the same odds of a person over 20 having heart disease of any kind, I think it's completely and totally reasonable for all doctors to be trained in the basics of how abortions are performed, and what to do in cases of complications.

If growing up = being pro-choice, then I guess I don't want to grow up.

[Samuraikoku]

If growing up = being pro-choice, then I guess I don't want to grow up.

Pro-choice does not involve morality. You can still think wrong of abortion, but you cannot deny the right to abort.

[Bottle]

In order to be licensed to practice medicine, a doctor must demonstrate that she/he is capable of certain general and emergency procedures. This is why, when somebody collapses from a heart attack and people call "Is there a doctor here?" they aren't calling out "Is there a cardiologist?!?!" Because ALL doctors are supposed to know what to do if somebody has a heart attack.

Given that one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, which is roughly the same odds of a person over 20 having heart disease of any kind, I think it's completely and totally reasonable for all doctors to be trained in the basics of how abortions are performed, and what to do in cases of complications.

If growing up = being pro-choice, then I guess I don't want to grow up.

You're certainly not alone.

[Keronians]

If growing up = being pro-choice, then I guess I don't want to grow up.

Pro-choice does not involve morality. You can still think wrong of abortion, but you cannot deny the right to abort.

How exactly does pro-choice not involve morality?

I respect the woman's right to bodily sovereignty, and expel a parasite from her body. This is a right she should have.

How is the above not a moral argument?

[Bottle]

Pro-choice does not involve morality. You can still think wrong of abortion, but you cannot deny the right to abort.

How exactly does pro-choice not involve morality?

I respect the woman's right to bodily sovereignty, and expel a parasite from her body. This is a right she should have.

How is the above not a moral argument?

I think he was saying that one can be pro-choice while still believing ABORTION is morally wrong. Obviously being pro-choice does require moral judgment, just as being anti-choice requires the moral judgment that pregnant human beings should not have the same human rights as everyone else.

[Keronians]

How exactly does pro-choice not involve morality?

I respect the woman's right to bodily sovereignty, and expel a parasite from her body. This is a right she should have.

How is the above not a moral argument?

I think he was saying that one can be pro-choice while still believing ABORTION is morally wrong. Obviously being pro-choice does require moral judgment, just as being anti-choice requires the moral judgment that pregnant human beings should not have the same human rights as everyone else.

Oh.

[Cthag-antil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

What is wrong with emotion?

Emotion is not invalid.

Not even when used as an appeal...

[Cthag-antil]

(Image)

That is an ultrasound image of a Fetus (Human) sucking her/his thumb.

It is not some mysterious parasite or non entity.....

(for the benefit of you know who you are)

Do you really think the women who get abortions are all so stupid that they don't know what pregnancy is? Do you really think we don't know that our bodies make babies? Do you really think we're THAT fucking clueless?

Yes, if I carry a pregnancy to term, it might eventually turn into an adowable widdle bay-bee who will suck its thumb and bat its tiny eyelashes and make cute coo noises. Guess what? I'm still happy I didn't carry to term. I'll still make the same choice again. Because I'm a thinking, reasoning human being who is capable of making rational choices that involve more than "AWWWW WOOKIT THE CUTE BABY!!!!"

When you've grown up enough to function on that level, come on back and participate.

You reveal your rage....and your lack of rational argument.

Like someone else said...Id rather not grow up if thats the definition.....

[Samuraikoku]

I think he was saying that one can be pro-choice while still believing ABORTION is morally wrong. Obviously being pro-choice does require moral judgment, just as being anti-choice requires the moral judgment that pregnant human beings should not have the same human rights as everyone else.

Exactly, thanks for clarifying. I personally don't think abortion is morally wrong, but even if I did, I'd still be pro-choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

What is wrong with emotion?

Emotion does not make for a valid argument. Such are the rules of debating.

[Cthag-antil]

Emotion does not make for a valid argument. Such are the rules of debating.

Nonsense...

[Bottle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

What is wrong with emotion?

If I simply replied to every one of these threads with pictures of the aftermath of illegal abortions, what would that accomplish?

If all I did was post pictures of a woman's vagina after natural childbirth, showing how it is normal for her to be torn all the way back to her anus, what would that accomplish?

If all I did was post long-winded screeds about women dying in childbirth, and how they were so beautiful and wonderful and everyone loved them and now they're dead and we'll never get all the wonderful things they might have had if they had lived, what would that accomplish?

If I posted nothing but grotesque images of c-sections and placentas, what would that accomplish?

If I kept posting images of deformed full-term babies that should not have been carried to term, what would that accomplish?

If I did those things, my images would be roughly 100 times more honest than the "baby sucking its thumb" bullshit, but they still would be nothing but emotive appeals and wouldn't actually make for interesting or useful discussion.