No one should be compelled to commit abortion

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Everyone can agree that no one should be compelled to commit murder, right? Well, why is it that when some of us disagree on the definition of murder, many of the same people who join me in opposing war and opposing the death penalty think that it's perfectly all right to require who believe that abortion is murder to perform abortions?

If you don't believe it's murder, I'm not stopping you from performing or having an abortion. (Yes, I know some people are trying, but many pro-lifers are trying through purely legal means like changing the laws, or doing what I do and working instead to support alternative.) But I don't think anyone the right to compel someone else who thinks it's murder to do it (except in the case where the mother's life is in danger). I live in a society where abortion is legal. I wish it weren't, and I work and give money to make alternatives to abortion more available. I don't interfere with anyone's legal right to get an abortion. Why should people interfere with the rights of conscience of people like me?

Saying something is legal should not mean people are actively compelled to do it. Execution is legal in many states (including mine, to our shame), but that doesn't mean medical personnel should take part in it—and in fact they are legally banned from doing so, as I understand the matter.

Those of us who believe a fetus is a living human being with rights do not have a legal right to interfere with others' abortions, but we should have a right not to be compelled to participate in abortions. Medical professionals should no more be forced to participate in elective abortions than to participate in executions, compulsory sterilization, or experiments such as the Tuskegee syphilis study. (I'm talking about people actively involved: doctors and nurses, not pharmacists or their assistants, office staff, etc.)

If all medical personnel followed their consciences at all times, we should have had a lot fewer crimes in the twentieth century, including in our own country—and that's true even if you believe there's nothing wrong with abortion.

I have known doctors who would not perform abortions and nurses who would not assist, and indeed the doctors may have avoided OB/GYN as their specialty to limit the possibility of being put in a position where they could be forced to participate in abortion. Some of them contributed their time, effort, and even medical supplies to care free for pregnant women who lacked—guess what?—insurance! I strongly do not believe the world would be better off if they were forced to choose between remaining in the medical profession but having to participate in abortion, and leaving and being unable to help all their patients in so many ways besides abortion. Do you really want these doctors and nurses to feel they have to give up their practices—both paid and charitable?

I've heard many analogies. If you don't believe in taking human life, you shouldn't join the military. True. But it's pretty darned obvious that the military takes human lives, isn't it? Is it obvious that the medical profession should take human lives as well as save them? You can tell me the fetus isn't fully a human being, and we can agree to disagree. But you can't tell me it's not alive, and that it's not human.

I'm really surprised that so many people seem insistent that any medical professional should have to perform abortions, and that any medical facility should have to have them there. Doctors and to a lesser extent nurses can choose specialties. They can say that there are procedures they are not comfortable performing: lots of medical personnel don't choose to do plastic surgery, or bypass surgery*, because it's not what they want to do. Hospitals can choose to offer or not offer services. More and more US hospitals have no emergency room, for financial reasons, which I think is terrible—but as far as I know, it's totally legal. I don't see Americans up in arms that any hospital MUST provide an emergency room. It is not discrimination to say "I will not perform abortions" or "This hospital will not perform abortions" in the same way that it would be to say "We will not treat African-Americans" or "We will not treat gays" or "We will not treat Republicans."

I suggest that it is discrimination to say that it's okay to choose not to do plastic surgery, but it's not okay to choose not to do abortion.

I do not, of course, include non-elective abortions: if a patient's life is in danger, then any qualified medical personnel has a duty to assist, whether it's by performing life-saving skin grafts or doing a bypass or performing an abortion because that's what the mother needs to live. Any doctor or nurse who is not qualified to perform or assist in a particular procedure, of course, should not.

* I think I'm not referring to heart bypasses in quite the right way, but I'm not sure where I've gone wrong.

Comments

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

So...what about situations where there is no hospital or doctor in an area who will perform an abortion? That effectively makes it a right of the privileged who can afford to travel to wherever they need to, and consigns the poor to back rooms and coat hangers.

I don't think individual doctors should be made to perform abortions, but hospitals have to make sure they have a doctor on staff who will. Being as it is legal, there should be equal access, not just access in some states, or for certain income levels.

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

And yet one of the main tactics of the current anti-abortion movement in this country is to make abortion so difficult to access and expensive and put up enough barriers to prevent doctors and patients from getting or giving them that they are available in fewer and fewer places (terrorizing doctors, forcing through laws that require them to show pregnant women pictures of fetuses first, so on).

(Aelf, I realize you don't condone the terrorism that goes on in the name of the pro-life movement, but unfortunately a lot of them are not like you)

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I think that a lot of pro-lifers have gone completely down the wrong path. I cannot imagine abortion laws truly changing significantly in my lifetime. I can understand why some people oppose it in the way they do, although I do not agree with some—and I neither understand nor in any way condone violence or illegal tactics.

If all the pro-life people who went to rallies and marches and pray-ins and gave money to political campaigns gave that time and money instead to helping with sex education (if they're comfortable with that—some are, some aren't), assisting pregnant women, and helping families with young children, I think we could see a real decrease in abortion and improvement for the lives of mothers and fathers as well as babies and small children. I only wish they'd see it the way I do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, though: one of the reasons I feel compelled to speak up is that I'm speaking both for myself and for a lot of other people who give greatly of their time and money to help women in crisis pregnancies, newborns, and teenagers facing tough choices about sex. An awful lot won't speak up because they're afraid they'll be pilloried, and with good reason. I have received some very nasty tongue-lashings for the views I'm airing here—but not on LJ. I speak up here so that people can't forget that people like me exist, and to encourage others who agree with me to speak up too. And because it encourages me to know that people can disagree with me and not denounce me and drop me from their friends' lists, so that I feel I can speak in public, in person, too.

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

What bothers me most about a lot of the vocal pro-lifers is that they don't seem to care at all about the life or health of the woman involved. Just as pro-choice people get accused of caring only for the woman and not the baby, so often pro-lifers (I hate that term too, pro-choice people are also pro-life, very few people think abortions are the Best Thing Ever) seem to insist on choosing the life of a fetus, even one that will never survive outside the womb, over the life of the mother. I don't think the government should have any role in that decision - it should be between the woman and her doctor and, ideally, also the father, though the woman should trump him since it's her body and her life. [I think the ban on so-called "partial birth abortions" and essential ban on third trimester abortions that got pushed through borders on criminal]

If all the pro-life people who went to rallies and marches and pray-ins and gave money to political campaigns gave that time and money instead to helping with sex education (if they're comfortable with that—some are, some aren't), assisting pregnant women, and helping families with young children, I think we could see a real decrease in abortion and improvement for the lives of mothers and fathers as well as babies and small children. I only wish they'd see it the way I do.

Yes! There's some very blatant studies that pretty clearly show that rates of teenage pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies go down the more comprehensive the sex ed is and the more available contraceptives are (and we won't even get into how many health insurances will fund viagra but not birth control).

I wish the anti-abortion movement was mostly people like you - we'd have a very, very different country if it were.

I mean, ultimately, I can't ever agree with it being illegal. Unless you can give me a world where there is no gender disparity in medical research, treatment or care. A world where there is no sexual assault or abuse or manipulation, no rape, no incest, no coercion for sex. A world where no woman will ever have her physical or mental well-being threatened by a pregnancy and every fetus will be born as a viable, healthy child. Where contraceptives are easy to access, easy to use without any side effects, and 100% effective.

Unless you can give me that world, I will never be willing to consider making abortion illegal.

I am glad you speak out though, and I wish enough of the ones like you would take over the anti-abortion movement from the people who bomb clinics and hang 12 foot pictures of dead fetuses on college campuses.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Yes, I realize there are areas where one cannot get an abortion. I do not have a good way to balance that against the right of an individual not to be forced to commit what he or she believes is murder.

I'd add that hospitals should have conscience rights too because some are organized and run by groups of individuals with these sorts of values.Catholic hospitals have been around a lot longer than abortion has been legal. To require such hospitals to offer elective abortions would be to compromise their values to the point where they could not continue. I do not think that hospitals that oppose abortions should be forced either, both as a moral matter and because I honestly believe we'd suddenly end up short a good number of hospitals.

I can't say that making something legal should be a guarantee of availability. I can think of lots of things that are legal that are restricted by income: housing and education come immediately to mind. These are positive goods and things that I wish were more available, but we can't simply mandate that everyone have them (school is mandatory until a certain age, but private schools cannot be forced to take everyone). Abortion is not something I wish were more widely available, as you can tell—but even I did wish it, I can't say for sure I'd put it in the category of things that should be legally mandated.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

This is why I think private hospitals are a bad idea. If hospitals are secular and not-for-profit, you are more likely to end up with equal access for all. A poor woman in South Carolina shouldn't have a different set of options as a rich woman in say, New York, or San Francisco. The choice she makes is her own, but the options should be equal.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Yes, and I think it's a good idea for secular hospitals to be widespread, for reasons that go beyond abortion. But I can't wish Catholic hospitals closed or sold. They've served an awful lot of people well, including in my own family, and they're an important vocation for many Catholics. I don't know what to suggest to increase the number of secular, not-for-profit hospitals—except that true health care reform might encourage the foundation of more such hospitals. The high costs hospitals incur for patients who have no insurance and can't pay or can't pay fully discourage start-ups.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

I can agree with that. If private hospitals existed to supplement widespread care available at secular, primary care hospitals, it would be win-win, taking some of the burden off that system. The thing is, most on the left in this debate would love to see public, government run hospitals, but it would make the right howl like demented banshees. You think there's a fuss about insurance? That would be nothing to them challenging private, for-profit industry's control of the vast majority of hospitals.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

AAAUUUGGGHHH! Don't even get me started on the defenders of the absolute right to profit where people's lives are at stake! That's what a lot of the fight over insurance is really about, isn't it? Effective health care reform in this country would decrease profits for a lot of people.

(What I really want is single-payer. I know that has problems, but I do believe I'd prefer those problems to the ones we've got. Of course, if we went to single-payer, the abortion issue would be even worse—but I think there's no threat this country will see a single-payer health care system in my lifetime, so I'm not losing sleep over the potential problems.)

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

That's absolutely what most of this is about. That and 'I shouldn't have to pay taxes to feed/house/provide medicine for the poor'. But then, that's about profit, too, isn't it?

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

*blink*

In every conversation I've had about abortion rights over the years and everything I've ever read I have never, ever, ever, ever heard anyone say a doctor should be forced to perform abortions.

Are people actually saying this? Because, yeah, doctors go into specialties and abortion belongs within a specific specialty. Heck, I've never even heard anyone say that Ob/gyn's should be required to perform abortions (personally I think it would be unethical, though not illegal, for them to refuse to refer a patient to a doctor who would but not to refuse to do it themselves).

The only argument of this type I've seen are due to the law Bush passed near the end of his time in office that allowed pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions (so a pharmacist could refuse to fill birth control or emergency contraception) based on "moral" grounds, which I do think is 100% unethical and wrong and should not be legal.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

Of course, there's the irony of the fact that making drugs that prevent pregnancy less available increases abortions....

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Oh, yesss. bang bang bang That's my head bouncing repeatedly off the desk.

(Some days it feels like there are about five people in the world who agree with me. Virtually no one shares my mix of positions on abortion, birth control, and sex education. It would take me hours to give you all the details.)

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

Right, but ultimately a lot of the anti-abortion movement (I'm not talking about Aelf here, but the more militant, often male-lead/dominated parts) is more about controlling women and coalescing power than it is about saving babies.

When a woman's main job is supposed to be to pop out babies, she shouldn't be allowed personal choice over her reproductive system. Her body doesn't get to belong to her.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

It's possible I misunderstood, but I'm pretty darned sure I've seen at least one person say it on LJ, and I've seen it elsewhere too. (I'm not counting or_mabinogi, because I believe Mabi is referring to institutions rather than hospitals. His post did in a way prompt this one, but it was only the proximate cause; it has been on my mind for a while.)

Yes, I believe that the argument started over pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for RU-486 and birth control pills. I think that pharmacists are a separate case: they are not the prescribers. They may not even know how the drugs are being used (I was on birth control pills not to prevent pregnancy but to redress a hormone imbalance, and I understand that's not uncommon; even RU-486 has other uses). I don't think pharmacists can cherry-pick the prescriptions they'll fill and not fill because they don't have the same level and type of involvement.

I can't give you any links off the top of my head, but I have read blog posts and letters to editors that asserted that if doctors and nurses didn't want to perform abortions, they need to find another line of work. I think that probably reflects a hardening of positions caused by the Bush regulation (was it a law? I thought it wasn't, actually), which is another reason why I think certain types of pro-lifers do more harm than good.

(I think I have known OB/GYNs who wouldn't themselves perform abortions. And I disagree with you: I think that's okay, but I do agree that they have a responsibility to refer patients to someone else in those cases.)

[tejas.livejournal.com]

That assumes, of course, that the patient's insurance would pay for the referral. Mine won't. I can't be referred from one doctor to another doctor with the same specialty.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

That's . . . breathtaking. I can imagine a lot of cases, not just abortion, where someone might refer a patient to a doctor who has more experience with one kind of surgery over another, or who has treated more of a particular unusual condition, or. . . .

I think that's just bad insurance.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

I actually have good insurance... but then, this is why we need insurance reform so badly. :-)

[aelfgyfu_mead]

That's good insurance? Wow. Can you just switch providers?

My insurance doesn't much require referrals. I get verbal referrals from my doctor; I don't have to go through hoops.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Once a year and only once a year unless they leave the network.

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

(I was on birth control pills not to prevent pregnancy but to redress a hormone imbalance, and I understand that's not uncommon

Very true, I was on them for a while myself for similar reasons.

[abyssinia4077.livejournal.com]

*nods*

You know, I can understanding saying that all ob/gyn's (I admit I am ignorant on what roles fall under "ob" and what under "gyn") should be required to be willing to perform abortions, though I think if that were so it should be made clear from the beginning so doctors/nurses can choose whether that specialty is appropriate for them. I don't think there is ground to stand on in requiring all doctors do, however. And I'm not 100% sure if I think all ob/gyn's should be - I haven't thought about it enough.

The pharmacist thing makes me see red (yes, it was passed - I'm not sure if it's been repealed or not). In no other job would it be illegal to fire someone for refusing to perform part of their job. AUGH.

I would bet the people saying it are less a reaction to that particular Bush regulation, and more the anti-abortion movement's current strategy of trying to make it impossible for women to find abortion providers.

(I think I have known OB/GYNs who wouldn't themselves perform abortions. And I disagree with you: I think that's okay, but I do agree that they have a responsibility to refer patients to someone else in those cases.)

I thought that's what I said - where do we disagree?

[aelfgyfu_mead]

(I think I have known OB/GYNs who wouldn't themselves perform abortions. And I disagree with you: I think that's okay, but I do agree that they have a responsibility to refer patients to someone else in those cases.)

I thought that's what I said - where do we disagree?

I might have posted in the wrong place, or it might be the nested comments—I was disagreeing not with you but with Tejas, who does want doctors required to perform abortions.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

What if there aren't any others in the area? What if referral isn't an option?

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I still don't think doctors should be compelled to take what they believe to be a human life. To those of us for whom abortion is murder, it's not an option. I'm not a doctor, but I do imagine that if I were, and I were legally required to perform abortions to continue being a doctor, I would simply stop being a doctor. (If I loved it as I love teaching, I would be devastated—but I wouldn't continue teaching if I had to take a life to do it!)

I don't believe saying that doctors must perform abortions will get many to change; I think it could lead to a worse shortage of doctors than we already have. Instead of doctors who won't perform abortions, we'll have fewer doctors.

I also think Nialla provides a much briefer but perhaps more compelling rationale: do you really want a doctor who doesn't want to do a particular procedure doing it on you?

[tejas.livejournal.com]

I don't want doctors who pick and choose what procedures they'll perform based on personal belief (rather than ability) in the profession. This is how my sister ended up not getting her tubes tied after her second pregnancy since her doctor refused to tie any woman's tubes because he was Catholic and tubals are a form of birth control (his words, not mine).

As to having enough doctors, if we, as a society, really wanted more doctors, we'd be making sure anyone who wanted to and who had the grades could go to medical school without bankrupting their families or their futures. As it stands, you've pretty much got to be either wealthy or destitute to go to medical school.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Are people actually saying this?
Actually, tejas has said it right below; I've asked for clarification on whether she means all medical professionals or just some specialists, but she makes just the kind of analogy I've been seeing. Even if she means just specialists, I'm pretty sure I've seen other people say any doctor or nurse—and a lot of nurses have little choice over where they're assigned. I do think doctors and nurses should be able to refuse certain assignments: abortion, execution (no one in this country can be assigned that right now, but if we're making analogies, that one rings true for me), forced sterilization, electroconvulsive therapy (formerly known as electroshock; it has changed, but it's still a controversial procedure).

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Note, that if you can swap providers at will and there are plenty in the vicinity, it's basically a moot point (I'm pro-choice, the other doctor in my practice isn't. I take care of all her patients who want abortions and the insurance companies don't care - note: I'm not a doctor - I'm pseudo-roll-playing ;-). It becomes an issue when providers are scarce and changing providers on the spur of the moment isn't an option.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

My stance is that if you think abortion is murder, you shouldn't become a medical professional who will be put into the position to have to worry about performing them. I see it as no different than a vegetarian taking a job at a MacDonald's and refusing to sell hamburgers.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

So you think any medical professional should have to provide abortions? My GP of some years back who wouldn't perform abortions but would help pregnant women for free should leave the profession?

Or do you think only people in related specialties should have to perform abortions?

What it could come down to is saying, "If you're pro-life, you'd better give it up or not be a nurse—or a doctor." I see that as a form of discrimination in itself. My baby was delivered at a hospital where all the nurses refused to assist at an abortion. I really do not think any of them should have to leave the profession for that stance—and if they did, there'd be one area seriously hurting for nurses very suddenly.

If you refuse to sell hamburgers, you can't work at McDonald's—but the primary job at McDonald's is to sell hamburgers. The way many of us see it, the primary job of a doctor or a nurse is to save lives.

Do you also think doctors and nurses should perform compulsory sterilizations? There are judges that have ordered such things recently—and there are medical personnel who won't do it. I think they have a right to refuse.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

I think congenital heart defects are nature's way of cleansing the gene pool. I don't think we should be treating them beyond palliative care. But I want to be a cardiologist. Should I be expected to treat patients with congenital defects?

If I become a doctor, I need to either accept the responsibility to perform the procedures and or treat the conditions inherent in my specialty, or, if I can't bring myself to do so, then I should consider specializing in something that doesn't invite that type of conflict.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

So you don't think any doctor or nurse should suddenly be thrown into the pool of "people who may have to perform abortions", right?

I still question your analogy. A cardiologist treats hearts; if he's or she is not going to treat some hearts, he or she shouldn't be a cardiologist. Now if someone wants to be an obstetrician, he or she chooses to care for mothers and babies during pregnancy and at delivery. From my point of view, an abortion that isn't necessary for the mother's life or health is not part of that specialty: someone who has chosen to care for both mothers and babies should not suddenly be forced to choose to care for the mother at the expense of a baby he or she also considers a patient. Now someone who advertises as a "gynecologist" is clearly advertising that he or she treats women; that's a different specialty. (It's rare to see a pure OB or GYN, but I have seen it.)

I do think doctors should be very clear up front about what they do and do not do, and hospitals or other practices should be clear when hiring or taking on a partner about what will be required. There should never be a "wait, I don't do abortions!" moment.

And if laws do come to pass that require OB/GYNs all to do abortions, I think doctors and nurses in the field need to be grandfathered in. People should know before they choose a specialty if they will be required to do certain procedures, and it's my understanding that not all OB/GYNs in training are currently required to perform abortions, nor are they informed that they may be required to do so. I also think that laws should not cover all doctors. Many simply aren't qualified to do abortions. Some choose not to do them. Some choose for liability reasons; some fear for personal safety (sad and wrong but true); some choose because of their consciences.

Doctors should choose their specialties carefully but should retain rights of conscience, so long as they're open about their stance. Some things may be real shockers—when a judge suddenly sentences someone to "chemical castration" in a jurisdiction that has never seen it before, I can imagine a doctor who never before said "I don't do involuntary sterilization" refusing to take the patient—and I would completely agree with that doctor's right to do so.

I don't interfere with women's right to choose; in fact, I focus on making sure the choice involves real options, because if one has no resources to carry and raise a child, it's not a real choice. I also think medical professionals need to have some right to choose where their consciences are involved.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

I think OBs should be expected to perform legal abortions. If a GP would do an evacuation in the case of a miscarriage (I have no idea if they do or not), then an abortions would be in that specialty as well. Hmm.. that's actually not a bad test (I've never tried breaking it down this far, so let's see if I say something stupid or not :-). Any medical professional who would normally be expected to deal with the aftermath (middlemath?) of a miscarriage would be required to do legal abortions when requested by a patient.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I completely disagree. I think freedom of choice must extend to cover doctors' freedom not to do something they believe immoral. (Do you agree that doctors should be compelled to help with executions, if that becomes legal? Do you think that they should be compelled to do involuntary sterilizations? Do you think they were right to work on the Tuskegee experiment? I think they were terribly, horribly wrong, though I'm not certain the latter was within the law at the time.)

I believe many doctors, including GPs, are not qualified to do an evacuation or a D&C, whatever the cause. (They are surgical procedures, and many doctors are not surgeons. Even many surgeons may not be prepared to do particular procedures; your cardiologist may not be trained to do it, whether she wishes or not.)

I still strongly think that miscarriage and abortion are not identical, any more than an autopsy is the same as cutting into a living patient who has not authorized surgery.

Do you recognize any conscience rights for medical personnel? Is it because you think of the woman as the only patient and do not consider the fetus a patient that you think any doctor who could treat a miscarriage should perform an abortion, even if she thinks it's wrong? Or do you think doctors can be required by patients to perform any procedure they think is wrong? I understand the so-called "octo-mom" was turned down by several doctors who did do IVF but thought she was not an appropriate candidate. I think they were right. Do you think they were wrong? (I also think they were far more open to charges of discrimination than doctors or nurses who refuse across the board to do elective abortions.)

I'm afraid it sounds like I'm hassling you, and that's not what I mean to do. I'm really trying to pin down where exactly we disagree—and maybe find common ground. (And I have spent far too long on this post and really need to do other things soon.) (I also noted to Abyssis, above, your stance, because she doubted that people were actually saying that individual doctors should be required to perform abortions. I hope you don't mind—and that I haven't misconstrued you in any way.)

[tejas.livejournal.com]

No, I don't mind, nor do I mind trying to pin down where *exactly* we diverge.

I think the mother is the primary patient. I think that before the point of viability (where a child can survive outside the mother's body with a minimum of support, there is no "baby" in this context and the mother's wishes supersede everything else, including the potentially viable child, the father's wishes and most especially the doctor's wishes (which are different from the doctor's professional opinion). (I'm not going to touch the full range of complications - that's really outside the scope of this debate.)

I disagree completely that execution is anything like abortion. I believe the state in question hires a doctor specifically for that purpose anyway. I have no opinion on chemical castration, mostly because I've never thought about it and have never heard of any doctor with issues related to it (which doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I don't have enough information to have an opinion). Off the top of my head, I don't have an issue with the courts having a select group of doctors they contract to carry out medically impacted sentences. But again, I don't have enough information to form an opinion worth the pixels it takes to type it.

I *do* think it's wrong to take a job and then not be prepared to perform the duties of that job, whatever they might be. This is doubly so when it's something like medicine. Consider a police officer who won't investigate the rape of a hooker because she was already breaking the law by selling sex. Should he be fired or should he be allowed to refuse to work that case?

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I think there are two points where we can't reach agreement: we disagree on what the duties of the job here are. I think I have known OB/GYNs who didn't perform abortions. I have certainly known (and been a patient of) a GP who wouldn't—I only know because it came up when someone was talking about how generously he gave to women in crisis pregnancies. I think that doctor was doing his job.

And to me, abortion is like execution, because a human being is being killed. If I understand you correctly, you don't believe that a non-viable fetus is a (full) human being. While I would never disregard the mother, I think that there are two lives at stake where a pregnant woman is concerned—which indeed makes every analogy inexact, because there's nothing quite like it.

I won't buy your police officer analogy, because it's his job to investigate all crimes. I don't agree that it's a doctor's job to end a life; she must care for her patient, but that I don't believe that requires ending another life.

ETA: not all crimes are equal; the hooker may have been selling sex, but that's a far lesser crime than rape, and the officer who is investigating must pursue the greater crime. (Some areas have laws to protect prostitutes and illegal aliens from being arrested simply because they came forward because they were victims of rape; I think every place should. Even if they don't, I see a clear difference here.)

Of course, even with abortion, not everything is equal. I do believe that medically necessary abortions also end a human life, and that's a tragedy—but it must be done, because the mother's life outweighs the life she is at that time supporting. (If the baby is viable, then all that can be done to deliver the baby without imperiling the mother should be done, but if the baby's not viable, the mother's life must take precedence.)

These are really hard questions for me—and I find it very difficult to be at odds on such important issues with people with whom I mostly agree. I really appreciate your willingness to discuss it with me. I was hoping to reach more common ground than we seem to have done, but I value the discussion itself—and even more the person willing to have it with me. Sorry to be so wordy.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

You're not too wordy. :-) Our basic difference really is when "personhood" begins. I think it begins at viability, you don't.

I also disagree that an assault on a pregnant woman that injures a non-viable fetus should carry additional penalties *because* of the injury to the unborn. I *would* support an attack on a pregnant woman carrying additional penalties due to her condition since it can make her more vulnerable in a variety of ways (shifting centers of balance, weird new fears - I had a terror of falling throughout my pregnancy that I'd never had before and that went away soon after) all sorts of ancillary conditions that pop up during pregnancy (gestational arthritis, for example).

I think one thing we *do* agree on is that we need to be doing *far* more in terms of *preventing* unwanted pregnancies and that abstinence education isn't the answer (though it is *an* option for anyone who chooses to use it).

I see abortion as a fairly ordinary medical procedure. Ordinary, that is, as far as practitioners go. 99% of women go through enough hell to get to the point where they request an abortion. That shouldn't be complicated by a practitioner who refuses to perform it. Forcing a woman (and depending on the circumstances, this may be the result) to carry an unwanted child to term is, potentially, every bit as damaging as rape.

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

Consider a police officer who won't investigate the rape of a hooker because she was already breaking the law by selling sex. Should he be fired or should he be allowed to refuse to work that case?

It's not comparable. The police officer isn't being forced to participate in the illegal activity. A doctor who is compelled to provide (non-medically-indicated) abortions is being forced to do something she may reasonably consider to be directly contrary to her job of protecting human life.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

No, the police officer is picking and choosing what parts of his job he wants to perform.

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

I don't think you fully took in what I was saying. I realize that you don't agree with this perspective, but consider that a pro-life doctor believes elective abortion to *contradict* the fundamentals of her job. Forcing her to do it would not be like forcing the officer to investigate a rape, but to participate in a crime.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

My point is that the doctor should change specialties, then. Seriously. Abortion is legal. It is considered moral by possibly far more people who consider it immoral (maybe not more, maybe less, but certainly not by an insignificant number). Continuing to do a job where you can't bring yourself to perform all the duties due to your moral stance is wrong. I'm not saying the moral stance is wrong (though I don't share it), just the combination of it and the job.

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

It's hard for me to fathom that the only people considered qualified to care for pregnant women *and* their unborn children are those who don't believe said children are really their patients, and would be willing to kill them.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Those who think so little of their patients (the women) shouldn't be in a position to thwart their desires when it comes to their treatment when said treatment is legal and reasonable (and yes, abortion is a reasonable request for those who have no moral issue with it).

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

It seems to be your position that reasonable people *cannot* differ on whether both parties in a pregnancy should be considered patients -- or at least, that if they consider the unborn to be patients, then being in a specialty where they would care for them is wrong.

I don't think I have a response to that.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Notice I qualified "reasonable" with "those who have no moral issue with it".

If you (generic you) have a moral issue with one of the tasks inherent in a job, you really shouldn't take that job.

I get that some people consider abortion an immoral act. Those people should absolutely not get abortions if they think it's murder. I have no problem with that. They should also not put themselves into positions where they might be required by their jobs to perform them. I *do* have a problem with people who see it as a moral issue trying to enforce their morality on others by remaining in positions where they feel the need to deny services to others who don't share their moral stance and who might not have the option to seek another provider.

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

I think you're glossing over the direct obligation that a health care provider (doctor, nurse, midwife, etc.) has to her patients. I suppose you can call that a moral issue, in the sense that "first, do no harm" is a moral issue, but it's not the same as just finding something distasteful. By your standards, a health care provider in the OB/GYN field must either: a) never consider the fetus a patient; or b) be willing to completely abandon her responsibility to that patient's well-being upon the mother's request.

I think that a) is an unreasonable requirement* and that b) is unethical.

* By the way, as a mother, I'm profoundly grateful that my midwives considered both me and my daughter to be their patients. I wouldn't want it any other way, and I think a lot of mothers would agree.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

As a mother, I'm grateful that my ob/gyn would have terminated an unwanted pregnancy, had I had one. If, for example, I had discovered myself pregnant after my ex walked out, I would not have gone through with the pregnancy. I had my existing child to think of and would not have been able to support her through my theoretical pregnancy.

The fetus is, and should be, of secondary concern to an ob. The mother is the patient and her wishes in the matter should be paramount. That includes her wishes with regard to treating her unborn child or with regard to terminating the pregnancy.

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

So there's no room in the OB/GYN field for the type of provider that I (and many other women) would prefer to have -- one who sees our children as patients with value in their own right even before birth?

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Not if they put the unborn ahead of the mother, no.

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

In other words, not if they take their commitment to the well-being of their unborn patient seriously enough not to harm them when there isn't a medical need to do so.

Which leads us right back to, OB/GYNs may *only* consider the mother to be their patient, period.

Frankly, this makes me glad I'm probably not going to have any more kids.

I don't believe that the interests of one party in a pregnancy must always outweigh the other. I believe in balance (and would want my care provider to do so as well, but too bad, I guess).

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Where is the balance for a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy?

In a perfect world no woman would become pregnant by accident, only by design, but we don't live in a perfect world. We *could* do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but it will likely never be 100%. I conceived while on birth control, for example, nor am I the only woman to ever do so. I'm fortunate that I didn't face the need for an abortion. She was a surprise, but not an unwelcomed one.

I and my siblings were all conceived while my parents were using birth control (this was before the pill was readily available or trusted - I can't take the pill due to hypertension).

I am fortunate to live in a city where there are plenty of service providers. I would not have had any problem terminating a pregnancy. But what if I'd lived somewhere else? Why should the only doctor in my theoretical small town be allowed to force me to continue an unwanted pregnancy? There are many *many* places in the US where there *is* no choice of providers. You go to the one that's there because there *is* only one. If that one has decided that their moral stance is more important than their patient's wishes, that's a problem and one that I don't see *can* be balanced.

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

Saying that there should be one provider in any locality willing to do abortions (which, if you're in favor of general abortion availability, is a perfectly reasonable argument) is not the same as saying that *everyone* should be prepared to do non-medically-indicated abortions or get out of the OB-GYN field.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Never said it did.

I still maintain that anyone who refuses, whether on moral grounds or not, to perform parts of their job should change jobs.

[or-mabinogi.livejournal.com]

You do this all the time. You write these really long posts about this subject that are thought-provoking and just amazing to read, and I do want to read them thoroughly but my mind blanks out. Just kidding. It's very good.

Actually, your final paragraph is the clincher. I agree with it 100%. That's exactly where I see the necessity of the procedure. (Sometimes I wonder if I intentionally use the word 'procedure' while others would insist on the word 'murder' in order to strengthen our own positions. Vocabulary has a very strong impact.) But I'm thinking that we may differ in the extent to which we may apply the necessity. While physical, life-threatening danger is obvious, mental stability is a factor in my opinion.

I think a common trope bandied about by the (less erudite than yourself) pro-lifers is that there are woman who get abortions willy-nilly without any consideration for themselves, the possible life they are carrying, or anyone else. I don't believe anyone takes the decision lightly, even when it's life-threatening. I do think that electives should always remain allowed, but only after conditions of psychological, emotional, and financial evaluations are taken. There should be assurances taken that it is an absolute last resort. I would prefer it never came to that. An additional factor might be better sex education and easier access to birth control which should reduce almost all cases of elective abortions.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

You do this all the time.
You realize, of course, that I read this shortly before bed at the end of a very stressful day, and my brain reeled and I thought, "What do I do all the time? I go on forever when I could have said it in a few words?" before I could even finish that first paragraph.

The trouble is that the loud pro-lifers, the kind that maintain women get abortions so they can wear bikinis and such, drown out a lot of other people. It doesn't mean the rest of us aren't there.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

And I'm *very* glad you are. It gives me hope that we will some day be able to come to a meeting of the minds on both sides and end up with rational policy.

[nialla]

Why would I want to "force" a doctor to perform a procedure on me they don't want to do? There's no sense in that no matter what type of procedure is involved. However, the ability to have another doctor follow my wishes as a patient should be honored.

I consider myself pro-choice, yet we're not really all that different in a sense. In my perfect world everyone would have access to sex-ed, parenting-ed, and birth control in order to decrease the need for abortion. Not required, just available instead of repeating "do not have sex until you're married".

I know how hard it must be to be anti-abortion when those who've claimed the name often come off as nutjobs instead of people of conscience like yourself. It's sort of like being a voice in the wilderness. Or like a liberal in Texas. [sigh]

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Why would I want to "force" a doctor to perform a procedure on me they don't want to do?
Here I've spent hundreds of words on the issue, but I think that one sentence is more convincing than anything I wrote!

I know how hard it must be to be anti-abortion when those who've claimed the name often come off as nutjobs instead of people of conscience like yourself. It's sort of like being a voice in the wilderness. Or like a liberal in Texas. [sigh]
Probably! I do know others, and some of them even speak out, but they don't seem to get heard very much.

[chocolatekettle.livejournal.com]

This subject, along with the subject of contraception, came up in an ethics class last year. Abortion is illegal here, though that doesn't mean it doesn't happen (I include here both backstreet abortions and those who go over to England for legal and much safer day procedures), and a large part of the class argued in favour of legalising it. Personally, I am against abortion, though I dislike the term 'pro-life', and I was surprised at how many of my class mates seemed to be advocating it. But, as the discussion went on..

The Hippocratic oath is somewhat outdated these days, but the main principles of medical care still hark back to it - first, do no harm. The question seems to be for whom we should be concerned - the mother, the visible, speaking, indisputably alive individual, or the dependent, voiceless foetus whose status is debated. The arguement that was made was that the illegality of abortion was not preventing it from happening, it was rather making it more likely to cause harm to the mother as well as the baby. I find myself leaning more and more towards this side of the argument. I wish it wasn't necessary, I wish others felt the same way about the life of the foetus as I do, but if abortions are going to happen, there has to be as little risk and trauma as possible.

What really annoyed me was the fact that two of the girls in the class live in an area where the only pharmacist in 20 miles refuses to stock any form of contraception. I recognise their right to choose what products to provide, I do, but I can't help but feel that it is a failure on their part to provide the best service.

As for forcing Ob/Gyn doctors and nurses to perform a procedure that goes against their personal moral beliefs, I don't know quite where I stand. Unfortunately, abortion does fall into that specialty. I don't think I could do it, but then I don't plan on going into obstetrics. I don't think the cardiology analogy above applies though - a cardiologist who refuses to provide more than palliative care for a congenital heart abnormality (many of which can now be fixed or at least alleviated to the point of presenting few clinical symptoms) would not be considered to be doing their job and wouldn't keep it for long.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

And that last is, of course, the issue. Why is one doctor's moral stance more important than anothers?

There are arguments against treating congenital disorders. (I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do see their point and am enough of a "futurist" to see the potential problems down the road.) While it is my hope that gene therapy will be developed to eliminate such problems before it becomes a "public health matter", it doesn't alter the fact that medical science now allows people who would never have survived in the past to not only survive but pass on damaged or dangerous genes to future generations. (NO, I'm not advocating eugenics, I'm simply pointing out the problem.) For example, there's no way on Earth that my daughter would have been born alive without medical intervention. It's quite possible that I, too, would have died in childbirth. It it also quite possible that she will not be able to give birth without medical intervention. Let's postulate, as some have already done, that three or four or ten generations down the road, this has become a serious issue; a serious drag on medical services. Should an obstetrician be allowed to refuse to provide extraordinary means in the process of childbirth if she takes the moral stance that doing so will do more harm than allowing nature to take its course?

[chocolatekettle.livejournal.com]

I can obviously only go by my own ethical standards here,and those have been coloured by personal experience. For me, treating a congenital disorder is fixing something, it's preserving life, which is the central tenet of medical care. (And the whole point of medical intervention, surely, is to allow those who would not otherwise survive to do so? I wouldn't be here either, had my mother not had a very good obs when she had her first child.) In the same way, I'm not against abortions which are carried out in order to preserve the health and life of the mother. Abortion for other reasons, however valid some people might perceive them to be, doesn't come under that heading. I know it is frequently argued that it isn't destroying life either, but that argument relies heavily on one's definition of life.


There are a lot of reasons why I'll never go into obstetrics but my reluctance to participate in abortions is certainly a factor, and one I think everyone considering that specialty should think seriously about. It's not my place to say whether or not refusing to perform abortions should exclude a person from an entire corner of medicine, as long as they are willing to refer patients on. It is not acceptable to simply refuse treatment, anymore than it would be to stand by and watch someone bleed to death.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Providing an abortion may be seen by some people as providing a positive good, but it is destroying a life, and I think we've all agreed it is at the very least not an unmitigated good, and not without some bad. You can argue that a fetus is not a human life, or not fully human. But you're providing examples (the refusal to treat a congenital heart defect, the need for extraordinary intervention in childbirth) where the doctor in question would again be destroying human life, and comparing a doctor who wants to destroy human life through inaction to a doctor who does not want to destroy human life through direct action. I just can't accept that these two very different behaviors are at all comparable. To me, a doctor who refuses to treat a sick patient who will then die as a result is more comparable to performing an abortion than to refusing to perform an abortion.

Nor can I accept your definition of the medical profession.

We're simply not going to persuade each other, and I doubt we're persuading anyone else at this point. (I could, however, be wrong: imagine my surprise at coming home to find more than 20 responses since I left this morning!)

[tejas.livejournal.com]

The point is the picking and choosing what parts of the job they want to do based on personal belief.

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

The question seems to be for whom we should be concerned - the mother, the visible, speaking, indisputably alive individual, or the dependent, voiceless foetus whose status is debated.

One of the greatest failings of the public debate on this issue is the notion that we must pick only one, and that to have concern for the other weakens our chosen stance. We should be striving for balance.

[chocolatekettle.livejournal.com]

I agree completely with you, should have made that clearer. Hence my opinion that abortion should be legal in circumstances other than medical necessity. At the minute the law is trying to protect the baby, but there is no provision for women who, for whatever reason (and it may be a very good one), decide that they want an abortion. It doesn't change their decision, only what care they receive.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

That's why I belong to Feminists for Life: they really stick to their motto, "Refuse to choose."

[cleothemuse.livejournal.com]

Much of the screeching of the "loud" side of the pro-life movement has the unfortunate FOX News-ish mentality that spreading misinformation very loudly is way better than giving a rational treatment of facts and solid evidence. It's the same as with the health care debate, legal reform, and anything else that smacks of socialism (wrongly paralleled with and labeled "communism" in yet another spate of misinformation).

I'm both pro-life AND pro-choice, and I see no contradiction in that. Just because I don't think I would ever want to get an abortion doesn't mean I want to close that door for someone else. Likewise, I wouldn't want to force abortions on a doctor who has a moral objection to the procedure, with one exception: when the mother's life is in immediate peril.

With modern prenatal care, there are very, very few situations in which a mother's health could be jeopardized by her pregnancy so suddenly. Ectopic pregnancies? The fetus isn't viable anyway.

Of course, that assumes the mother has access to prenatal care. My health insurance doesn't cover it... which brings us right back to the health care debate.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

that assumes the mother has access to prenatal care. My health insurance doesn't cover it
That is frelling insane. How does that even make sense? A woman who ends up gravely ill because lack of prenatal care made her sick will presumably be covered then, won't she? Yes, poor prenatal care can definitely harm the fetus—but fetuses have a way of taking what they need. If the mother isn't getting proper nutrition (prenatal vitamins are great for this, and tests to make sure the mother isn't getting gestational diabetes, etc.), she can end up hospitalized. Even if we set aside the moral and ethical dimensions (which I suspect many companies do set aside), it doesn't even make practical sense!

Your insurance stinks, and I'm sorry. I really want health care reform to go through, both for those who have no insurance and those whose insurance is so inadequate.

[cleothemuse.livejournal.com]

Oh, I could GET maternity coverage if I wanted to pay an extra $40 a month on top of the $108 a month I already pay for "just in case".

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Wait—you have itemized health insurance? So you get to gamble on what will or won't happen? (Or is it only maternity that costs extra?)

Some Republican spoke in front of the Senate and said insurers shouldn't have to cover maternity because in all his years he'd never needed it. Debbie Stabenow hollered out, "Bet your mother did!" I rarely approve of interruptions from the floor, but this one I applauded.

[nialla]

I'm truly hoping by that comment he's implying he's single, therefore his wife has never had to be covered for maternity leave.

Either that or he's simply not breeding, which is good chlorine for the gene pool. ;)

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Ah, found him; there's even a videoclip in this article. It's Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona.

I must report that his About Jon Kyl page tells us that he has been breeding: "He and his wife Caryll have two children, Kristine Kyl Gavin and John Kyl, and four grandchildren."

[nialla]

That was a pwned moment. This also illustrates what irritates me about so many who are fighting against healthcare reform. The "I don't need it, so why should I pay for anyone else's?" attitude.

He has insurance, but not everyone is lucky enough to have a job that pays for insurance. They're usually low-paying jobs where they can't afford insurance on their own and if they do get sick, they can lose everything. Even some people with insurance run that risk.

Maybe we should give up the delusion that companies can reap huge savings with "cheap labor" by cutting those "unnecessary" costs, yet then all of us have to pay even more for it later when the uninsured show up at the emergency room because they couldn't get basic care.

I'm now wondering if his wife was covered under his insurance, or did she pay for her own? Is he even aware of what his policy covers? Many people who are more well-off don't bother looking, because they generally have better policies and more money to pay the resulting bills.

I think I'm the only woman at work who is covered by the city's insurance. The reason being that I'm single and have to pay for it myself instead of being able to covered by a partner's insurance, which is often cheaper.

Though one of my female cousins continued working at a job she hated for years because her husband's employer did not provide insurance. Her job did, and they had two young children who inherited some of our family's quirkier health issues, so it just wasn't an option. Her job paid for insurance, but her actual take home pay was just a bit more than what she was paying the babysitter.

I don't want to have children, and due to health reasons I'd be willing to get a hysterectomy at age 39. It's almost impossible to get a doctor to do the procedure at my age when you're childless or still have young children, unless there's a tumor or something.

Aforementioned cousin is two years older and had one this past summer (similar health issues, but hers got much worse), but she's got two grown kids so the doctors aren't worried she'll change her mind about wanting more kids.

That's the whole "slippery slope" we're dealing with about doctors getting to choose what they do. One might consider a hysterectomy an elective for me at this time, but judging by family history, I'll just have to suffer for years before they'll have to do something.

Why should I suffer for years because they don't want to do a preventative surgery that would be easier now before that aspect of my health takes a downward spiral? And could their reasoning be it's against their religious beliefs for a woman of child-bearing age to do anything that would prevent them from having children?

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I wonder about Kyl too. I'd bet money his wife had maternity coverage.

I do think that nothing else is quite the same as abortion. I don't think doctors can pick and choose any procedure; abortion involves a human life (at least for some of us), which makes it substantively different from virtually any other issue. I don't think you should have to suffer for years. I think it's reasonable for the doctor to make certain that you are well-informed about your choice, but then he or she should perform the hysterectomy.

I honestly believe part of it is paternalism rather than conscience. Some of it is about avoiding lawsuits: doctors have been sued for performing tubal ligations and hysterectomies on patients who later change their minds. (Vasectomies aren't quite the same because many are reversible; lawsuits there, if I understand correctly, tend to be about procedures that weren't done correctly.) When I wanted to get pregnant, my husband and I had to deal with an OB/GYN who was otherwise great but was convinced I could not become pregnant without help and that we were wasting everyone's time by not considering IVF. He did argue with me, but he didn't refuse to treat me. As it is, doctors exercise their personal beliefs and idiosyncrasies all the time. Sometimes they shouldn't, and review boards and medical associations should sometimes get involved.

Abortion is a unique case in this country. There are countries where physician-assisted suicide is legal, and I would say those countries absolutely ought to allow doctors to refuse to participate. I don't see a slippery slope if we ask whether a case involves the active taking of a life.

[delphia2000.livejournal.com]

My only new addition to all this is to point out that your belief that abortion should be available if the mother's life is in immediate peril is not the Catholic belief as I've been taught. I was under the impression that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's life. Correct or no?

No, I don't think a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion if they are against it, but a doctor who can and will should be available instead.

But at what point should doctors be allowed to decide what procedures they will or won't do?

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I think you mentioned this before. My understanding is that it is not official church teaching that the baby takes precedence, but it has become a sort of unofficial teaching that many priests accept and pass on uncritically. I cannot find anything in the Catechism dealing with the potential conflict, but the Catechism does say that abortion is a grave sin and must never be committed. So I think it's possible I'm not in agreement with my Church here. (Wouldn't be the first time.) My thinking is that if one must take precedence over the other (fortunately a fairly rare occurrence with modern medicine, but unfortunately not unheard of), there are both practical and moral reasons to put the mother first.
1. My unscientific guess is that the mother would have a better chance of survival in cases where both are imperiled. Rather than letting the mother die and then being unable to save the baby, doctors should, I think, save the mother.
2. If someone is going to die, and the only way to save her would kill the baby, I take abortion not to be the goal but a tragic side effect. I do believe that I disagree with the Catechism here, that refers to abortion as either an end or a means—but it doesn't say a means to what. That's my moral stance. I think my parish priests wouldn't agree. (Now if it were me or the baby, I like to think I'd choose the baby—but it's one thing to say I would put my baby ahead of my life than to say that everyone should do that.)

I think that abortion is a special case because human life is involved. Even those who believe the fetus is not fully human do not deny that it is alive, nor that it is human, correct? A doctor should have a serious reason to refuse to perform a procedure, but I believe that's about as serious as it gets.

Doctors currently have lots of rights not to perform procedures, or at least not in specific cases. Several doctors turned down the so-called "octo-mom": they had no opposition to IVF in principle, but they would not treat her because they did not believe she was a suitable candidate. Doctors routinely refuse to prescribe Accutane, a strong acne medicine, for women who are not also taking birth control pills, because it can cause grave birth defects. That's perfectly legal, though it limits women's free choice and the concern arises out of concern for unborn—indeed, not yet conceived!—children! (When I was still watching ER, a teenager who insisted she was not sexually active and would not become sexually active was denied Accutane because she wouldn't take the Pill. Okay, that was fiction—but I think that plays out in real life.)

I don't think doctors should be able to discriminate in ways that are illegal (on the basis of sex, gender, race, religion, etc.), nor should they make decisions not to perform procedures or give certain prescriptions without good reason. But we trust our doctors to make decisions about our lives; can we not trust them to make decisions with good reason? Institutional review boards and medical associations also exist in case doctors make poor judgments.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's less overt concern for the unborn (though I imagine that's part of it) than it is an attempt to avoid malpractice. No doctor will prescribe birth control pills to me because of hypertension. That's not an objection to birth control, it would be, as my OB called it, and I quote, "Malpractice."

[a-phoenixdragon.livejournal.com]

Well, I'll quietly disagree about abortion, but I do agree that if you are a medical professional and do not believe in it, you should not be compelled to do so. There are doctors who perform them because they are afraid the mothers may hurt themselves as well as the baby by trying to DO it themselves - and that's why tehy asssist, but I do not feel anyone should be compelled either way - to do them or to NOT do them. I'm pro-choice - but that's what I bleieve in...choice.

I think my problem with the medical industry and abortion is that I'm seen as no more than a cow, most of the time. I will ( AND SHOULD) have kids, so MY rights are overlooked a great lot of the time. This...annoys the crap out of me.

*hugs you*