Abortion?

[electric]

Hi there...
I've just finished my first year pre-med and starting to look ahead a bit.

I'm interested in being an abortion provider here in Canada.

Is anyone else doing something similar, either in Canada or the US? I'm curious what has motivated you into this field. For me, knowing that some prov./states (specifically, the Maritimes) do not have abortion providers bothers me. I've been envolved with several women's groups in my city and I find it rewarding. I primarily got involved when I found out our female doctor on-campus will not perscribe the morning-after pill.

After reading another post here about a woman who couldn't get a pap done on her 'first visit', I'm even more shocked. How do you plan to balance your personal beliefs against someone's autonomy over their body?

Anyway, I'm still waffling a bit. My first choice right now is a DVM program.

Any thoughts or suggestions about this would be great, even if you plan on restricting services (like morning after pill).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Global Disrobal]

It depends on where you want to do your residency. In the States, you are faced with two (or more sometimes) situations:

Catholic (or other religious) institutions where elective abortions are not performed. In this case you often have the option of doing electives at affiliated places to get the experience.

Non-Religious Institutions where someone on the staff or at the place will do them and you'll have the option of doing time with them.

Regardless, it is an optional matter in residency training. Most residents will do thrapeutic abortions (often using diff terminology), but sooner or later they will get the hang of it. As for the "morning after" options, the same applies. Basically through residency you'll learn how to do it. There is no specific specialty for it and the issue comes down to personal beliefs. I don't know too many (actually any) Ob-Gyn's that do it as sole practice.

However, all these are moot if you go the DVM route, unless the G4P3013 Bull Mastiff needs an elective abortion done due to the father's preference

Good luck with the rest of the pre-med years!

 

[Drakensoul]

Not to sound like I'm bashing you, because it's entirely your choice.

Just curious, though. Have you ever seen an abortion performed?

I've just never been able to sit well with the idea of vacuuming a baby to death.

Not to turn this into a "it's not really a life/yes it is bastard!" debate, I've just never been able to stomach it. I've read in a couple of places (whether it's true or not, I have no idea) that if the vocal chords are developed enough, an audible 'scream' can be heard. If I heard that, I think I'd die on the spot.

Anyway! Not trying to hijack..
Good luck!

 

[electric]

Actually, I'm really glad you aren't interested in turning this into a "it's not really a life/yes it is bastard!" debate. I'm not either.

For me, the argument boils down to my feeling that a woman who does not wish to be pregnant should not be. I can go into this in a lot more detail if you like, but to me the 'possible evil' of ending any sort of 'life' is overruled by the idea that we have autonomy over our own bodies. Everyone.

I became interested in the politics of abortion when I had one. So, 'seeing an abortion preformed' was rather moot after that (but yes, I've watched one on tape).

After, I became involved with Planned Parenthood and a couple of local feminist groups in my city. In Canada, the government pays for the procedure like any other operation but there are still difficulty getting practitioners in the Maritimes and some Prairie provinces. Some women do not have access to abortion. This bothers me. I hope that I can change that.

As far as the vocal chord/screaming urban legend, I hope you do some research on it and check it out.


Generally, vocal cords begin formation at about 8wks and are completed at 16-18 wks. Considering that 89% of abortions happen at <12wks, it's pretty quiet in there. I'm not quoting any particular website because there's a range in bias as well as 'facts', but if you look around, you'll find about the same numbers.

Hey, wait a sec, you people are (mostly) OB/GYNs? Can anyone back up my numbers?

*************************************************************
I'm fairly comfortable discussing this if you had any other questions. I think this dialogue is important and I'm glad to be a part of it.

May I ask if you are a woman, Drakensoul? Just curious.
If you are (or even if you aren't) have you ever had a pregnancy scare? I mean, in terms of a possible unplanned pregnancy. In a round-about way, I'm asking if you have ever put yourself in the positon of 'what would you do'?

 

[Drakensoul]

Vocal chord formation is usually complete by week 12 (along with the brain being fully formed, and perception of pain).

I'm a male (and as a gay male, a pregnancy scare isn't likely ), and my mother had an abortion with the child before me (17 at the time). I've seen how hard it has been for her to forgive herself for, so it's a little different hearing from someone who doesn't have an issue with it.

The way I've always looked at it is that if I were a woman who had become pregnant and didn't want it (or didn't have the means with which to take care of it), I'd put it up for adoption. I do agree that we exert autonomy over our own bodies, but my personal feeling is that we don't exert autonomy over anyone else's body, which is what I've always considered an abortion to be doing. E.g., whether or not I want it there, it is there, it is an individual (however dependent it may be at that point), and therefore it isn't my choice to say it doesn't have the right to exist (even if the world into which it is entering sucks ass).

Then again, I'm lucky enough to never have to worry about making the choice.

I don't know, I can understand some situations where it might be necessary (e.g., the mother will die if the pregnancy isn't terminated, or the baby has some debilitating and detectable problem), but even in that situation it's not something I could perform.

It's always a touchy subject to discuss, but it's not my place to judge anyone for the decisions they make (and I wouldn't want to), so hopefully none of this comes off as insulting.

 

[SMW83]

Regardless, it is an optional matter in residency training. Most residents will do thrapeutic abortions (often using diff terminology), but sooner or later they will get the hang of it.

What is a "therapeutic abortion"?!?!?!?! I've never heard of someone getting pregnant and getting an abortion for therapy reasons.......

 

[GeneGoddess]

What is a "therapeutic abortion"?!?!?!?! I've never heard of someone getting pregnant and getting an abortion for therapy reasons.......

One type of therapeutic abortion is when the termination is done for the health of the mother (she'll die is the pregnancy continues). Or, some people consider abortion for fetal malformations (like Trisomy 18 or anencephaly) a "therapeutic" abortion.

I second the "catholic training hospital" issue. One of the hospitals assocaited with my school is run by a Catholic organization and offers an OB/Gyn residency program, but the hospital does not perform any pregnancy terminations, sterilization (tubal ligation), or non-NFP birth control (no OCP, no "morning after pill", no IUD). So, if you want training in any of those things, do NOT choose a Catholic hospital.

You also might want to consider joining "Medical Students for Choice." They're on the web. Just google them.

 

[Neuron]

Although quite correct, that is not entirely the whole explanation. To answer SMW83?s question, in medicine, an abortion is the premature evacuation of the products of conception from the uterus. To doctors, the term abortion only refers to the loss of a pregnancy, not to how or why it was lost.

An abortion can be spontaneous, in which case the conceptus evacuates the uterus without any (known) intervention from an external agent (lay persons? speak = miscarriage), or it could be ?therapeutic? in which case the conceptus is evacuated from the uterus through the action of an external agent (such as a professional obstetrician, or a less than enthusiastic mother armed with, say, a coat hanger).

A mother who has had 3 or more spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) is said to have habitual (or recurrent) abortions. This usually indicates the presence of a medical disorder of some sort.

An abortion can be incomplete ? not all of the conceptus was discharged (or removed) from the uterus. This requires immediate medical attention, as the retained products can be a nidus of infection or bleeding.

A threatened abortion is the appearance of a constellation of symptoms in the pregnant female indicating that a spontaneous abortion may soon occur.

A missed abortion is when the fetus dies in utero, but has not been discharged. It should be removed urgently.

The use of the term ?therapeutic? to denote an abortion provided by a doctor is a technical euphemism ? it is assumed to be ?therapeutic? for the mother even if there is no medical indication for it, and some would suggest that, in a mother who doesn?t want the baby, it always, at least mentally, is. It of course is not by any means therapeutic for the fetus. Some medical doctors distinguish this by using the term ?elective? abortion for one done simply because the mother wishes to end the pregnancy, reserving ?therapeutic? abortion for one in which there actually was a medical reason (for the mother) to end the pregnancy.

 

[GeneGoddess]

EXCELLENT post, Neuron. Very complete!

 

[electric]

Thanks for the tip, GeneGoddess. I've seen that group around... actually, I think I even saw some of them marching during the whole Washington March. Very interesting.

 

[Neuron]

My pleasure, GeneGoddess.

 

[Neuron]

To the OP:

I'm not sure I understand you - you'd like to be a vet, but wish to provide abortion services (presumably to humans)?

I'm reasonably certain that to legally perform abortions in Canada, you'd have to be a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist, or a family physician with the requisite training.

 

[omaralt]

if u dont want to have a baby, then dont have sex??? or use condom or other contraceptive?

 

[dudeob]

I have found that the term "therapeutic abortion", or "medically indicated abortion", can mean many different things to many different people. I read a case presentation about a mother who had a karyotype done on her baby which revealed the presence of Turners Syndrome, which as we know has a wide variety of phenotypes. The mother was from a small country and only one person in the hospital spoke her language. This translator happened to be a very liberal member of several feminist organizations in town. She spoke to the mother and said that the mother wanted to have a "medically indicated abortion". So, an abortion was performed and a beautiful little baby girl, with no physical manifestations of the syndrome, was terminated. The baby was a mosaic. The mother was devastated. Later it was found out that she had understood that there was a medical need for her to abort. That there was danger involved. MEDICAL TERMS CARRY GREAT WEIGHT WITH PATIENTS, THEY MUST BE USED CAUTIOUSLY!!!

MAIN ISSUE:
We are performing "medically indicated abortions" on babies who have conditions which are compatible with life. Turner's Syndrome at worst is a funny looking girl who can't reproduce and MIGHT have some cardiac defects (coarctation or bicuspid aortic valve). So, where does this stop? What happens when we have the capability to predict a childs likelihood of having Type 1 DM? Will we abort these children also. It certainly would be cheaper and more convenient for society.
POINT: We need to come up with a reasonable systematic way to determine what is truly "medically indicated" or "therapeutic".

 

[neilc]

POINT: We need to come up with a reasonable systematic way to determine what is truly "medically indicated" or "therapeutic".

why do you feel this is important? as it stands now, there does not need to be any medical reason for an abortion...so, if a parent was worried about a diabetic child, they could get an abortion. if they simply did not want the baby, they can get an abortion. on the other hand, if they know the baby is going to be born with several devastating defects, they can still choose to have a baby.

good communication is a must. parents should be given good information about what to expect, risks, consequences of certain karotypes, etc...but, i don't see a need for any more firm definition as stated above. what would that change? simply assigining well defined terms (that will in all likelihood only be understood by other medical professionals) is not an answer. assuring that excellent communication exists between the caregiver and the parents is what needs to be required.

 

[electric]

To Neuron;

I've just finished my first pre-med year. For my school, the courses for pre-med are the same as the pre-vet stream. So, yes, my first choice would be a DVM program but I am looking around at other options.

I had been thinking about what else I would find interesting and the idea of being an abortion provider has come up repeatedly. So I was looking to see if anyone in the OB/GYN thread had gone into this field for abortion services.

I didn't mean to imply that a DVM does abortions on people (?!).

 

[SMW83]

or it could be ?therapeutic? in which case the conceptus is evacuated from the uterus through the action of an external agent (such as a professional obstetrician, or a less than enthusiastic mother armed with, say, a coat hanger).

YIKES!! ...that sends shivers up my spine just thinking about it!!

 

[GeneGoddess]

Hi there...
I've just finished my first year pre-med and starting to look ahead a bit.

I'm interested in being an abortion provider here in Canada.

Is anyone else doing something similar, either in Canada or the US? I'm curious what has motivated you into this field. For me, knowing that some prov./states (specifically, the Maritimes) do not have abortion providers bothers me. I've been envolved with several women's groups in my city and I find it rewarding. I primarily got involved when I found out our female doctor on-campus will not perscribe the morning-after pill.

I just remembered this book that you might want to read: "Why I am an Abortion Doctor" by Suzanne Poppema. She's a GP who runs a women's health clinic in Wash State and performs mostly abortions. She's also the daughter of a French-Canadian mother and is Catholic. VERY interesting book, as she pulls no punches. See if you can find it at a local library. I bought a copy at a used bookstore (hardback) for $5.

 

[on_the_fence]

For me, the argument boils down to my feeling that a woman who does not wish to be pregnant should not be. I can go into this in a lot more detail if you like, but to me the 'possible evil' of ending any sort of 'life' is overruled by the idea that we have autonomy over our own bodies. Everyone.

Another consideration is bringing an unwanted life into the world. Even if we take autonomy away, I don't think a woman should have a child that she does not want -- and unfortunately, I don't think adoption is a surefire solution. We don't need children who grow up without affection and positive reinforcement -- they are more likely have children who will grow up in a poor environment and then the cycle really gets going...

It may be selfish, but I believe if a woman doesn't want the child, she shouldn't have it -- for her sake and the sake of the child. This is just my reasoning behind supporting abortion...

 

[skb21]

why do you feel this is important? as it stands now, there does not need to be any medical reason for an abortion...so, if a parent was worried about a diabetic child, they could get an abortion. if they simply did not want the baby, they can get an abortion. on the other hand, if they know the baby is going to be born with several devastating defects, they can still choose to have a baby.

good communication is a must. parents should be given good information about what to expect, risks, consequences of certain karotypes, etc...but, i don't see a need for any more firm definition as stated above. what would that change? simply assigining well defined terms (that will in all likelihood only be understood by other medical professionals) is not an answer. assuring that excellent communication exists between the caregiver and the parents is what needs to be required.

It shouldn't be the mother's decision to make. The only time an abortion should be performed is when the mother's life is threatened. Otherwise, it is nothing but murder.

 

[electric]

I wonder what is the relationship between views on abortion and gender? I mean, if you feel it is murder, are you more likely to be male?

Could be an interesting poll.

 

[Drakensoul]

I wonder what is the relationship between views on abortion and gender? I mean, if you feel it is murder, are you more likely to be male?

Could be an interesting poll.

Not that a poll would be in any way indicative of the actual distribution

My mother had one, and she [now] considers it murder.
My father, who held the gun to her head and told her to get it, doesn't.

 

[neilc]

It shouldn't be the mother's decision to make. The only time an abortion should be performed is when the mother's life is threatened. Otherwise, it is nothing but murder.

well, every delivery is a threat to the mother's life. granted, maternal mortality figures are very, very low...but, death can occur with any pregnancy, and we cannot predict it. so, you could say that any abortion could be done to save the mother's life...

in a way, that is basically how i look at it. the mother has the right to do anything for her health (mental, physical, social, etc..) that she chooses. the fetus' rights do not trump the mother's rights, in my mind.

the other major issue that i have is this: this is not a cut and dried issue. there are many shades of gray, many different opinions. some may feel it is murder, others certainly do not. but, the worst thing is to have somebody trying to force you to act based on their beliefs. if you believe it is murder, don't have one. if you are comfortable with abortions, then great. but, realize that these opinions are YOURS, and there is no way that your opinions should be forced on somebody else.

i don't know enough about everybody elses situation to make these decisions for them. i think that we should trust people to be able to make this difficult choice, and understand that there are many, many situations that we can not understand, not being there ourselves.

so, whether or not i (or you) think it is wrong is only important to us. it is not my place to apply values to others that i know nothing about.

 

[undecided05]

actually it is safer for a woman to have an elective abortion by week 12 than it is for her to carry the pregnancy out to term and through delivery. Does that mean that every woman should have an abortion?

I love being a trouble maker.

 

[VeganSoprano]

I'm a woman, and I'm against abortion because I was an unwanted child.

25 years ago, I was a fetus. But I was still me.

My life was not, and is not, more important than my biological mother's. But it is and was as important. And because my biological mother believed this, I am alive today.

It just doesn't make any sense to me to say that someone has total sovereignty over his or her own body, but at the same time does not have any inalienable right to life.

The issue is, as you can see, deeply personal for me. It's mind-boggling to think that I could have been killed simply because someone had exercised her "right to choose".

And fundamentally, I have to believe that I am worth infinitely more than a "choice".

 

[VienneseWaltz]

Not that a poll would be in any way indicative of the actual distribution

My mother had one, and she [now] considers it murder.
My father, who held the gun to her head and told her to get it, doesn't.

Please tell me you're speaking figuratively.

BTW, this is one of the most mature and rational abortion discussions I've seen.

 

[12R34Y]

I agree this is a very mature debate at the moment..........

Anyway, I personally am against abortion. I don't buy the arguments that you should not push your beliefs onto others ie. if you don't like abortion then don't have one arguement.

that's tantamount to saying.......If you don't believe in robbery don't do it, but don't tell me I can't do it. That's exactly what our government and society as done since the beginning of time. There are rights and wrongs, laws and rules and these are based on morals.

I don't think anyone would disagree with me if I said that killing healthy, happy, well adjusted 2 y/o babies is ABSOLUTELY and unwaveringly wrong and immoral. I would say that most of the world in most societies (civilized) agrees with this.

So, when you are talking to someone who believes that an infant in the womb is a human being with all of the distinctions and associations and rights that any other human has, and that you are okay with aborting that human for no other reason than...."I don't want the baby, or I forgot to use a condom." you can see why it is so heartbreaking and emotional to listen to people talk about abortion so casually if one is pro-life. I like the example the OP gave.........we were all fetuses at one time.....we did not come from a fetus rather we WERE fetuses.

I wonder if all pro-choice individuals just feel "lucky" that they weren't aborted. I couldn't help, but thinking of the potential of each little baby or wondering every day that your life may not have existed.

There are rights and wrongs and truths and untruths in this world. People nowadays are very very big into the whole relativism movement and tolerance of just about anything so it is very difficult to persuade people on debates such as these. Either you believe fundamentally in absolute rights and wrongs without exception or you don't.

Many people now adopt the philosophy of "my truth", "everything is relative" etc...this is almost impossible to argue against.

I'm not trying to stir up the debate or anger anyone. just my humble thoughts on a topic.

........and i'm really bored on my rotation right now.

 

[terpgirl]

I do like this thread--it's not the "it's murder vs it's my body" arguements. Well articulated by all.

Personally, I'm against abortion; however, I'm for keeping abortion legal. My notes from my university human sexuality class are this:

1. 25% of all pregnancies end in abortion
2. There is a roughly 1:1 (countries where abortion is legal: counries where abortion is illegal) of number of abortions done worldwide (I'm not sure if it was per number of women, or the general population numbers, sorry). Prevalence does not vary between countries where it is illegal vs legal.
3. The difference between countries where abortion is illegal vs where it is legal lies in the mortality rate of those who had abortions; in 2000 in the US (where abortion is legal), there were 6 deaths of women due to complications from abortions (1.6 million performed)-- while in Mexico where it is illegal, 140,000 (or 14,000--I cannot read my handwriting from a year ago ) died and 1.5 million were performed.

Just some facts that I found interesting.

 

[VienneseWaltz]

1. 25% of all pregnancies end in abortion

Are you referring to spontaneous abortions?

 

[terpgirl]

These notes are a year old... so I couldn't tell you what I meant. I think it means all surgical abortions, not spontaneous--but it could be the combination of both. But, I'm almost 100% certain it's not just spontaneous.

 

[VienneseWaltz]

The reason I was asking was that 25% is about the rate of spontaneous abortion in the first three weeks after conception, before the woman knows she's pregnant, so I didn't know if that was meant to imply something one way or the other about surgical abortion. It wouldn't surprise me if it was the rate of surgical abortion as well--just curious.

 

[Gator05]

A couple of questions for the pro-choice movement...

1. Most states consider a fetus "alive" at ~24 weeks, whereby it is too late to perform an abortion. With respect to neonatology, this was also a hard date because kiddo's born before 24 weeks were almost certain to die. Now...it's not so certain. The survival rates for 23 weekers are beginning to creep up. (Before getting into the quality of life debate, please keep in mind that 32 weeks used to be the barrier, and I'd imagine most med schools have several students who were born at about this time.) So if we can save a 23 weeker, why then should it be possible to abort one? What happens when we can routinely (and we will get there) save 23, even 22weekers?



2. To the OP: I'm curious if you have ever witnessed the expulsion of products of conception. If so, would you please explain your reaction? I am curious if it was the same as mine (nearly vomitted; this was not for an elective Ab).

 

[neilc]

A couple of questions for the pro-choice movement...

1. Most states consider a fetus "alive" at ~24 weeks, whereby it is too late to perform an abortion. With respect to neonatology, this was also a hard date because kiddo's born before 24 weeks were almost certain to die. Now...it's not so certain. The survival rates for 23 weekers are beginning to creep up. (Before getting into the quality of life debate, please keep in mind that 32 weeks used to be the barrier, and I'd imagine most med schools have several students who were born at about this time.) So if we can save a 23 weeker, why then should it be possible to abort one? What happens when we can routinely (and we will get there) save 23, even 22weekers?

when a fetus has a good chance of surviving outside of the womb with a good quality of life, i agree that it is to late to abort. if that time frame becomes 22 weeks, then laws should change. or, instead of abortion, you deliver the 22 week old, place it on the front step of a pro-lifer.

the argument about abortion really cracks me up, though. it is not like we are going to change anyone's mind through semantics, or legal definitions, or any such nonsense. either somebody believes that the right of a woman to determine what happens to her body, be it birthing an infant or termination a pregnacy is ok, or they belive it is not ok. i think most of us can agree, that with very few exceptions, our mind is made up....

i think the real point is that we, as a group of critical thinking, logical adults should be able to see that it is simply not right to impose our beliefs on each other when there is a reasonable cause for a different view. we have got to agree to disagree, follow our veiws ourselves, and adopt an open-minded policy to allow people to have the choice...

 

[12R34Y]

there is no way i will support a "women's right to choose" as a physician. I don't support or agree with many things and abortion is one of them. why suddenly do I have to say "it's okay. let me refer you to someone who will help kill your baby."

If you believe it to be murder (which you said I had the right to do) then why would I support it indirectly?

my choice apparently doesn't matter.

yes, belive it or not there are many many groups of physicians and individuals who do not support abortion and do not refer for it. there are many in academia at the top institutions and even more in private practice.

One group of about 40 family medicine docs (huge private group with many locations) they also have OB's, urology and surgery etc...there policy is pro-life. that's well within their legal limits and ethical limits.

it is your opinion (choice) to think otherwise, just like it is their CHOICE to act that way.

pro-choice people have to agree that pro-lifers have the choice to be that way right?

later

 

[lazure]

there is no way i will support a "women's right to choose" as a physician. I don't support or agree with many things and abortion is one of them. why suddenly do I have to say "it's okay. let me refer you to someone who will help kill your baby."


I can't believe you think you have the God-given right to force your opinion on your patients. I guess that using your logic it would be ok if a "pro-choice" physician strongly encouraged a patient that did not want to keep her baby to have an abortion, without discussing the possibility of adoption with her....

No physician has the right to force his/her views on patients that are dependent on them for their medical care....

 

[GeneGoddess]

I'm going into pediatric medical genetics, so I have a different viewpoint. I've seen several patients who were pregnant with fetuses that were dramatically malformed and diagnosed at several timepoints during pregnancy. Many of these fetuses had malformations that would be incompatible with life (outside the womb). Some of these womed chose to abort (both 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions) and some chose to carry to term and some ended up having miscarriages before deciding one way or the other. I hate the idea of a pregnancy ending by abortion (much better to never get pregnant in the first place...but birth control can fail), but this is an additional viewpoint. If a woman is carrying a fetus that will most likely not survive to birth (or not long afterwards), does that make a difference?

 

[12R34Y]

I don't understand........

so as a physician I'm supposed to do whatever the patient tells me to do. For example, "Doctor, I just really want to keep taking a bajillion milligrams of valium everyday for the rest of my life and while you are at it I'd also like you to do repeat CT scans of my chest weekly for the rest of my life just so I don't miss anything."

Now, assuming that the patient is privately paying for these services and is compotent are you going to entertain her wishes? I don't believe you would.

You would say that you are NOT going to prescribe her valium and explain why.

Theoretically, it is her OWN body and it is her choice to do whatever she wants to it according to the pro-choice camp. As long as she pays why don't you just give in to her wishes.

I am under no ethical or legal obligation to provide abortions or to refer people to abortionists.

If your patient was depressed and scared and came to your office and wanted to obtain a gun to kill herself would you say. "I'm sorry I personally don't believe in killing yourself, but if you'd like to go to Dr. BLANK down the road I can refer you to him and he'll help you to obtain that gun to kill yourself."

according to your argument you'd have to allow that and would oblige them, but of course everyone realizes that is ridiculous.

later

 

[neilc]

I don't understand........

so as a physician I'm supposed to do whatever the patient tells me to do. For example, "Doctor, I just really want to keep taking a bajillion milligrams of valium everyday for the rest of my life and while you are at it I'd also like you to do repeat CT scans of my chest weekly for the rest of my life just so I don't miss anything."

Now, assuming that the patient is privately paying for these services and is compotent are you going to entertain her wishes? I don't believe you would.

You would say that you are NOT going to prescribe her valium and explain why.

Theoretically, it is her OWN body and it is her choice to do whatever she wants to it according to the pro-choice camp. As long as she pays why don't you just give in to her wishes.

I am under no ethical or legal obligation to provide abortions or to refer people to abortionists.

If your patient was depressed and scared and came to your office and wanted to obtain a gun to kill herself would you say. "I'm sorry I personally don't believe in killing yourself, but if you'd like to go to Dr. BLANK down the road I can refer you to him and he'll help you to obtain that gun to kill yourself."

according to your argument you'd have to allow that and would oblige them, but of course everyone realizes that is ridiculous.

later

there is something missing in your logic...all of your examples are obvious issues that have no other medical option. suicide, you must prevent. prescribing unneccesary drugs and ordering frivolous tests is not good medicine. however, the providing of abortions, at this point in time is a legal, and accepted medical practice. it is fine not to provide them. it is ABANDONMENT to deprive your patients of a proven, effective, accepted and legal medical intervention because you don't think they should choose it. the patient has the right to accept or deny medical care. it is your responsibility as a physician to outline these options, or refer to somebody who can.

a more applicable example would be that you do not believe in antibiotics. a woman comes in with a nasty cellulits, and becomes septic. you refuse to send her to a doctor that uses antibiotics, because you think they are wrong. that is clearly malpractice...whether or not you AGREE with something does not mean that it isn't an accepted medical modality. if a woman comes to your clinic, wants an abortion because she is mentally unable handle childbirth, or physically unable to deliver and then has complications, i can't see what you defense would be. "well, your honor, i could have sent her somewhere for proper care, but i didn't believe in that modality. sure, there is a provider down the street, and i know he performs that procedure, but you see, I really don't agree with that procedure...sure, i know it is legal. yes, it is accepted as a safe and effective medical procedure. but, really, i think i should be able to determine whether my patients should have access to that...." i would like to see how well that holds up...

you have to learn to seperate what is bad medicine and what simply goes against a personal belief you have. there is an important difference. you have every right to believe what you do or to not perform procedures. but, if there is an accepted practice out there that may benefit your patient, you must refer. simple...

 

[neilc]

i think most people that are pro-choice are of this belief because they claim that abortion is murder...but, how many pro choice folks would deny an abortion to a woman that became pregnant from rape? or a woman with a malformed fetus? not too many...this amazes me. because, the whole stance of being pro-life is typically based on believing that life begins at conception, or at implantation. so, if these are living creatures, you are saying it is ok to murder them simply based on who the parents are? or because they are malformed? look, murder is murder. by this logic, if i killed a 10 year old that was the product of a rape, how would it be different than a fetus, if life begins at conception?

i am trying to make the point that most "pro-lifers" already are really pro-choice with very strict limitations on when an abortion is ok. the only way you can claim that abortion is murder is to outlaw ALL abortions. if life starts at conception, who are you to decide which life is worth saving or ending?

i hope you see where i am going with this...since you can clearly see that if you accept some conditions, it is difficult to claim that you believe abortion is murder without getting on the slipperly slope of having to defend why some murder is ok, and others are not. so, since you are clearly for some abortion, what makes the "pro-lifer" the final arbiter on when abortion is ok, and in what situations? clearly, there are many, many different opinions.

the only ethical, and logical way to make this determination is by defining a moment when abortion should not be available and apply it universally. and before this point in time, it is difficult to defend why anybody beside the mother should be able to decide what is an acceptable reason for an abortion. basically, it needs to be decided when life begins, and clearly a life cannot be taken for any reason. so, when does life begin? at conception? or implantation?if so, then ALL abortion must be illegal, right? no exceptions for rape, for danger to the mother, etc....i think the vast majority of us would agree that those exceptions are ok, at the very least, and therefore we cannot accept that definition...so, how about at 24 weeks, or at the point when it is reasonable to accept that the fetus may be viable? if life begins then, then prior to that it is not a "life" but something else. and, if we say it is not living before this, we can ethically make this the mothers choice. in short, if something is "living" abortion is wrong, if something is not alive by definition, than it is nobody's business what mom chooses.

anyhow, i am getting tired of writing, but i am pretty sure i made my point. we need to be consistent with our beliefs and our definitions, or else they cease to become valid in an ethical sense. if murder is wrong (which it is) and life begins at conception, we have some irreconcilable ethical issues with ANY abortion. if we allow some abortions, then clearly it cannot be killing a living thing, and therefore we are obligated to give that choice to the mother, as your opinions on what are acceptable reasons only apply to yourself.

addendum: all the terms "life" and "living" are not intended to be strict biological definitions...i am sure you all understand that, but i didn't want some dimwit to come on here and give me the latest bio 101 defenition of life, and use that as a defense. we are not talking about plants, algea and fungi here, we are discussing when the fetus becomes "human"...carry on

 

[12R34Y]

Murder IS murder and it is not okay regardless. Rape.........two wrongs does not make a right. One study (1971 in ACOG showed the pregnancy rate to be less than .6 percent).

Malformed fetus? so now we are getting into the Hitler-type movement. All mentally ill should probably be killed too then while we're at it.

Eventually, if we carry it to the ultimate extreme we will let the "mother" decide if she wants to carry her girl because she really wanted a boy.

However, she can wait until 23 weeks an 6 days to abort it because on the miraculous 24th week many huge differences occur and NOW suddenly its a beautiful baby.

your logic is also flawed.

gotta run, but i'll be back when i've got a little more time to elaborate on your flaws.

later

 

[neilc]

i am simply saying that if your position that it is murder, that life starts from conception, you must be cosistent. you cannot make exceptions stating that murder is ok (eg, it is ok in the case of rape, malformed fetus, etc...)

as for the 24th "magic" week...there simply has to be an established point at which the fetus becomes "living"...24th week is based on the fact that a fetus can reasonably expect to survive on its own beyond this point. there has to be a cutoff.

i am sure my logic has flaws, but it is based on consistent, rational thought.

 

[12R34Y]

mine is also based on consistent logical thought.

abortion isn't right for any reason. plain and simple. I also can't believe that you can "logically" think there is a magical cutoff that needs to be determined. Are you listening to what that sounds like? Someone gets to determine when a baby's life gets snuffed out. that's harsh man.

later

 

[neilc]

mine is also based on consistent logical thought.

abortion isn't right for any reason. plain and simple. I also can't believe that you can "logically" think there is a magical cutoff that needs to be determined. Are you listening to what that sounds like? Someone gets to determine when a baby's life gets snuffed out. that's harsh man.

later

so, if your postition is that abortion should NEVER be allowed, that life begins at conception, and that even in cases of extreme risk to the mother when carried to term, and rape, and whatever other conditions may come up? if that is your position, i agree that it is consistent. logical, well, i would argue against that....and, i dare say that most people, including pro-lifers would not agree with your stance. the problem in ethics/logic is not with people that believe as you seem to. the problem is when so-called "pro-lifers" try to make exceptions...they say abortion is murder, yet they argue that this murder is allowable in certain situations.

i am not determining when a baby's life gets to be snuffed out. it is a simple determination of when life begins...i simply don't agree with your position that life begins at conception, therefore another point in time MUST be when life begins. (i mean, if life begins at conception, just by having an IUD, a woman is commiting murder! that is ridiculous...) i happen to think that an appropriate point for that definition is when the fetus can reasonably be expected to live outside of the uterus...if you have a better time, tell us what it is and tell us why. you accuse me of coming up with some magical cutoff, but you have a cutoff as well. unless you believe that each ovum and sperm is half a life, and you strech it back to the begining of time, you have a point in time where life begins. your magic cutoff is likely conception or implantation. which is it, or what other point do you consider life to begin and why? i would love to hear it, and maybe i can learn something.

 

[jconey]

i am not determining when a baby's life gets to be snuffed out. it is a simple determination of when life begins...i simply don't agree with your position that life begins at conception, therefore another point in time MUST be when life begins. (i mean, if life begins at conception, just by having an IUD, a woman is commiting murder! that is ridiculous...) i happen to think that an appropriate point for that definition is when the fetus can reasonably be expected to live outside of the uterus...if you have a better time, tell us what it is and tell us why. you accuse me of coming up with some magical cutoff, but you have a cutoff as well. unless you believe that each ovum and sperm is half a life, and you strech it back to the begining of time, you have a point in time where life begins. your magic cutoff is likely conception or implantation. which is it, or what other point do you consider life to begin and why? i would love to hear it, and maybe i can learn something.

I would be interested in hearing why you do not think that personhood begins at conception as well as why you think personhood only begins at the point you have stated. Also, I would like to hear when you think personhood ends. Are you saying that personhood is only attained when a life does not have to depend on something outside of itself to live, that is, when it can stand alone? What is the difference between a dependent fetus living inside the womb and a dependent individual on life support? What is the difference between a fetus in the womb living via the umbilical cord and John Glenn walking through space completely dependent on the tube connected to his shuttle? Also there are many degrees to dependency. Are you inferring that there are many degrees to personhood? I would definitely be interested in hearing your logic as to determining when life begins.

 

[neilc]

well, this reasoning is really only applicable to this argument. john glenn being placed in space is a living creature, voluntarilly placing himself in the care of others who are accepting the responsibility for his safety. an embryo is a collection of cells resulting from an interaction of sperm and ovum. the embryo is completely dependent on a mother that may not be able to care for the fetus or child, that may have been coerced/forced into having sex, and by having this embryo/fetus developing the mother is exposed to several risks that she may not be willing to take..these are totally different things.

i mean, if john glenn built some nuclear powered spaceship in his backyard, launched himself out to space and then said, "here i am, you have gotta take care of me. i need food, water, air, i may expode in the atmosphere and hurt or kill people, or blow up the world when land this thing" i think that you would expect a choice in whether we helped him, or blew him out of the sky to minimize damage. this is basically what pregnancy is!

anyhow, my defiinition of when life starts is really just something to get people thinking...i do not believe that conception=life, but i am not firm on any time after that...i am leaning toward the 24 week definition, because it seems to work practically and ethically, but i would love to hear other versions.

i guess simply put, i do not think that a fetus, being completely dependent on the mother for development into a life that is independently sustainable is yet living. when it can live outside of the womb (which is what i mean by independent...i don't think many 24 weeks could live without intervention, do you? and that would still place them in the same category as your John Glenn example? they are simply idepentdent of the mother, and dependent on folks that choose to help them). another simple way is to say the "rights" of the fetus do not supercede/equal mom's rights until a certain point in time.

as for when life, or personhood ends, i would accept brain-death as the definition.

 

[jconey]

Neilc,
Thank you for your reply I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to my post.

i guess simply put, i do not think that a fetus, being completely dependent on the mother for development into a life that is independently sustainable is yet living. when it can live outside of the womb (which is what i mean by independent...i don't think many 24 weeks could live without intervention, do you? and that would still place them in the same category as your John Glenn example? they are simply idepentdent of the mother, and dependent on folks that choose to help them). another simple way is to say the "rights" of the fetus do not supercede/equal mom's rights until a certain point in time.

as for when life, or personhood ends, i would accept brain-death as the definition.

Well, I don't know if there are any 3 year olds that are not completely dependent on someone outside of themselves to survive. In most cases they depend on the mother. I don't think who they depend on really matters. The fact is infants are completely dependent upon another to survive. Now, what is the difference between an 24 week infant who has just been born who you now consider a person and a 19 week who is still in the womb who you "might not" (a scary uncertainty when dealing with matters of personhood) consider a person? Two differences I can see are #1 their stage of development, and #2 their environment. Now, I don't think we can legitimately discriminate against personhood on these grounds and to do so would be a violation of moral code. It is my personal belief that the dignity of human life is determined neither by a person's ability to function, nor by one's stage of development. Instead, this intrinsic quality of personhood is bestowed in the womb (at conception - when genetic material of egg and sperm fuse and the development of a new entity begins) and shines forth in every stage of life, and it will always remain the unique transcendent ultimate common denominator of the human race.
It seems to me that in dealing with matters of personhood, specifically when does it begin, that we should desire to hold the most conservative position possible. This is especially true if the element of uncertainty resides in our minds. Even if that uncertainty may be + or - .0000001.

Check out this amazing story.
http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/articles/2004/08/29/news/news7.txt
Here is an example of a 24 week old preemie who survived.
You said this earlier,

when a fetus has a good chance of surviving outside of the womb with a good quality of life, i agree that it is to late to abort. if that time frame becomes 22 weeks, then laws should change. or, instead of abortion, you deliver the 22 week old, place it on the front step of a pro-lifer.

It might have been said 15 years ago that this would be impossible. However, we now have the technological capabilities for this to happen. If we have this capability now, what about when we have the capability to save a 22 week, a 20 week, a 14 week? I know this has been stated already. I just don?t see the wisdom in allowing the development of new technology to determine personhood. To me this is shaky ground to be standing on.

Thoughts?

 

[neilc]

jconey,

i agree, it is tough to let technology be the deciding factor. i really cannot defend my 24 week time frame much more substantially than this method, however. so, i won't try...i use the technology as a time, and i really picked this date based on current legality. i am flexible on when life begins, i think i just need to be convinced. perhaps a better track for us to discuss is rights of a fetus vs rights of the mother?

you state that you believe life begins at conception. so, does that mean that you are not for legal abortion in any instance?

(i am in the clinic now, so i am only partially commmenting...haven't read your link yet, but i will when i finish up and have more time....)

 

[OzDDS]

What is a "therapeutic abortion"?!?!?!?! I've never heard of someone getting pregnant and getting an abortion for therapy reasons.......

theraputic? Is it like a massage.. I hate it when people try to change the name of things to make it sounds different than it really is. Your ending a life, plain and simple.. if you can't handle it.. don't do it. But don't butter it up to make it sound like something it's not.

 

[OzDDS]

Feminism.. isn't it great!

 

[OzDDS]

ahum.. Feminism.. isn't it great!