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.
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.
Tags:
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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.)
From:
no subject
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?
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I don't think I have a response to that.
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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).
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I still maintain that anyone who refuses, whether on moral grounds or not, to perform parts of their job should change jobs.