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

[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.