I will NOT be moving to South Dakota!

[new_avatar]

There is a very large difference between sex for the sake of sex, and sex as the act of reproduction. A woman has the right to have sex. Period. If an unintended pregnancy occurs, she should NOT be punished. Period.

Punished?

Life is beautiful, something one should cherish.

And many of our fellow Americans agree, as can be demonstrated by the direction our legislation, our laws, our society, and our judiciary are moving. Government reflects the general will of the people as it serves as the public's leisure.

Remember, the pro-life party controls all 3 branches of government.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pruritis_ani]

Punished?

Life is beautiful, something one should cherish.

Jesus, enough of the rhetoric!

Bottom line...you are hoping to impose your beliefs on somebody else. Whether your argument is that it is a "life" (which is not philosophically reconcilable with IUD use, and ANY abortion, such as in rape or incest) or whether your argument is that the woman should accept the consequences of sex as inalterable. Both of these ideas seem very antiquated and repugnant to me, but hey, more power to you!

The fact is that pregnancy is dangerous, that the mother now has, and should always have protected, the right to decide whether she wants to expose herself to those dangers. The fact is that having a child is a huge responsibility, and that a woman should not be forced to have and raise this child, at the potential expense of her own health, unless she chooses to.

I respect your personal views. Do the world a favor, and respect the personal rights of the women to decide. Your way is NOT the right way for millions of women. Until you decide to accept the risks of all of these pregnancies, and to accept the responsibility for all of the children born to these women, it is NOT your place to impose beliefs.

 

[new_avatar]

I respect your personal views. Do the world a favor, and respect the personal rights of the women to decide. Your way is NOT the right way for millions of women. Until you decide to accept the risks of all of these pregnancies, and to accept the responsibility for all of the children born to these women, it is NOT your place to impose beliefs.

I will respect the law of the day. But if someone believes that something is fundamentally wrong, shouldn't she try to change society and the law? Society's view on abortion is ever-changing as are our laws. I intend to work to effect change through proper legal means, maybe not as an activist, more of a foot soldier in this long arduous journey. You need look no further than to President Bush, the new Supreme Court, and good people in state legislatures all across the land to see changes are in the wind.

 

[Alician]

I think this is a very important issue in our field and it's great to see so many articulate points of view. At the heart of all this I am struck by how personal the experience of pregancy and the decision around this. I respect life, but it is just not that straightforward when it comes to day to day reality. I cannot even tell you how many "pro-lifers" I have seen who decide to have an abortion themselves when it comes to their situation. How many of us have had abortions, performed abortions, cared for women who have had to make these difficult decisions? It's different when it's not just hypothetical. It's a very personal and individual decision.

 

[Larch]

I think this is a very important issue in our field and it's great to see so many articulate points of view. At the heart of all this I am struck by how personal the experience of pregancy and the decision around this. I respect life, but it is just not that straightforward when it comes to day to day reality. I cannot even tell you how many "pro-lifers" I have seen who decide to have an abortion themselves when it comes to their situation. How many of us have had abortions, performed abortions, cared for women who have had to make these difficult decisions? It's different when it's not just hypothetical. It's a very personal and individual decision.

Very well put. This isn't about what most people would chose to do or what most people are comfortable with... this is about preserving the choice aspect. In my mind, no one should ever be forced to go through a pregnancy. It can be a difficult enough even if it is a normal and a wanted pregnancy. Making someone go through it against her will is horrific.

As for the people I've seen arguing that sex is consenting to pregnancy, you seem to have forgotten that:
a) 50% of abortions are performed on women who used contraceptives of some sort during the month they concieved (from AGI)
b) contraceptives do fail from human error (often due to improper or complete lack of sex education, thanks to the brilliant abstinence-only campaigns funded by the same people who are anti-abortion and anti-welfare)
c) the South Dakota ban DOES NOT HAVE A RAPE EXCEPTION

Acceptance of the RISK of pregnancy when engaging in consentual sex does not indicate that a particular course of action will be taken if a pregnancy results. To make it easier for some of you who have trouble with logic in normal conversation:

Someone undergoes action A, which has the possibility of creating consequence C. Consequence C can be dealt with three different ways; X, Y, and Z. Because there are three different ways of dealing with C, engaging in A does not directly implicate the intention of any one of those options in particular.




For those of you who were confused about my bridge-jumping question, it was the first thing that came to mind. "Your moms didn't have abortions, so you shouldn't either!" made me think of "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" Besides, it's a stupid argument. I know several people who would not exist if their mother's HADN'T had abortions at some point prior. You know, people can have abortions and have children too.

 

[new_avatar]

Someone undergoes action A, which has the possibility of creating consequence C. Consequence C can be dealt with three different ways; X, Y, and Z. Because there are three different ways of dealing with C, engaging in A does not directly implicate the intention of any one of those options in particular.

But performing A opens the possibiliy of C. No A --> No C. And there is no fundamental reason we need X, Y, and Z especially if society deems one of them to be inconsistent with the legal nature of a particular state's law - there may just be X and Y. This still does not preclude a participant from not engaging in A if they absolutely do not want C to occur, because everyone knows that A may lead to C.

Society and its elected representatives have a fundamental responsibility to reflect its values. And that is happening through due process of law. There is no need to fear the democratic process and the leaders we, as a society, have elected to office.

 

[pruritis_ani]

I will respect the law of the day. But if someone believes that something is fundamentally wrong, shouldn't she try to change society and the law? Society's view on abortion is ever-changing as are our laws. I intend to work to effect change through proper legal means, maybe not as an activist, more of a foot soldier in this long arduous journey. You need look no further than to President Bush, the new Supreme Court, and good people in state legislatures all across the land to see changes are in the wind.

Actually, your belief that something is "fundamentally wrong" really is not an excuse. Many people believe that homosexuality if "fundamentally wrong". Or that not being a Christian is wrong. Or that using contraception is wrong. There are a lot of beliefs out there...the law of the land is supposed to protect us from people imposing their belief of what is "fundamentally wrong" upon others. It is not a coincidence that a lot of "pro-lifers" are religious, and use a religious argument. That right there is pretty much reason enough to not enact a law on this (remember the good old seperation of church and state? with our current prosetylizing president, people seem to think it is ok to mix religion and law...disgusts me)

This is about a woman's right to privacy. Your beliefs can be applied to your life. Leave the rest of the world alone.

And I find your views on the democratic process and our government quite amusing. This is a president that has a 34% approval rating, yet he was able to fill 2 Supreme Court seats. To me, that indicates that he is going to have a better chance at IMPOSING his will on us. This administration clearly does not reflect the views of the "people".

Again, you have the right to your views and the right to act on them. Do not try to take the rights of others away in order to impose your views on them.

 

[calot's 3angle]

i've been working in a developing country for the last 7 months or so. it is a self-declared Christian nation, the only one in the world (I think), and elective pregnancy termination is legal here. but that's really neither here nor there... it's ignorant to think that being Christian and pro-choice are mutually exclusive.

i had a conversation with one of ob/gyn's at the teaching hospital in the capital city and he told me of his change of heart in regards to providing abortions. he said a few years ago, he refused to perform an abortion for a 16 yr old girl because he "could not reconcile abortion and personal religious beliefs." (his own words) later on that night, he encountered the same 16 yr old girl in the casualty ward (aka ER) with a perf-ed uterus and bowel, and she ended up succumbing to sepsis. after that, he decided to start performing abortions because he did not believe he had the right to deny a woman a chance at the rest of her life because he refused to provide a service, a procedure that in another's hands could lead to the death of another woman.

i am not advocating that people should do things against their beliefs. all i am saying is if there is something i can do to prevent the death, disfigurement, and/or mutilation of women and their bodies, i will be doing so. a coat hanger has no business being on a Mayo stand.

 

[new_avatar]

Actually, your belief that something is "fundamentally wrong" really is not an excuse.

It is a conviction, not an excuse.

Privacy is a right limited by the courts.
There is no "private" right to use illegal drugs in the privacy of one's home even though one could argue that these people are not hurting anyone but themselves - but there is a societal detriment.
And maybe some states will end the "private" right to kill a foetus as it damages its rights.
Some of you keep on saying that we are limiting rights.
I say that we are exapanding them, no one here ever mentions the rights of the unborn child.
In terms of societal detriment, what is a more precious resource than our youth, our future, our children.
The tide in America is turning.

the law of the land is supposed to protect us from people imposing their belief of what is "fundamentally wrong" upon others.

The law imposes what people believe is fundamentally wrong all the time. Stealing. Murder. Etc.

 

[3dtp]

I 100% disagree with the ludicrous idea that a woman should be forced to live with the unintended results of sex. A product of conception is just that. There is no "right to nurture" that I am aware of. However, individuals do have the right to decide to have sex, and if a pregnancy results they do have the right to decide whether to accept the risks of continuing the pregnancy or whether termination is the option.


...

At the core of your argument is that there is a "life" involved, which many would disagree with, and that this "life" also somehow has more rights than the mother carrying it.
...

The specific post I responded to indicated that it was life, and went on to further state that it is human life. I have already stated that I am uncertain when life begins, as I am uncertain when life ends. I interpret the question raised as, "Does human life, in the form of a fetus, have the right to nurture?"

From the poster's perspective, ie assuming (knowing not everyone will agree with this definition) that it is human life, it has no worth, or certainly not enough worth to be nurtured. This is where I have a problem with his/her hypothesis. It is not my core argument, but given the core hypotheses of the post I responded to, and the consequences of accepting this, I responded as I did.

I agree with you completely on your position on rights.

When we decide to become an obstetrician, then we are doubly charged: To care for the life of the mother, whom we can see, and the life of the baby, whom we cannot.

I believe that you are correct. The baby indeed does not have more rights than the mother. I accept the absolute truth of this argument.

What I cannot accept is that the baby has less rights than the mother, which appears to be implicit in your comment. This is where we will likely continue to differ, and this is the crux of the quandary that has split this nation and many of the peoples of the world for a long time, and for which there is no easy answer, for any of us, if we are honest with ourselves.

 

[GAdoc]

Actually, your belief that something is "fundamentally wrong" really is not an excuse. Many people believe that homosexuality if "fundamentally wrong". Or that not being a Christian is wrong. Or that using contraception is wrong. There are a lot of beliefs out there...the law of the land is supposed to protect us from people imposing their belief of what is "fundamentally wrong" upon others. It is not a coincidence that a lot of "pro-lifers" are religious, and use a religious argument. That right there is pretty much reason enough to not enact a law on this (remember the good old seperation of church and state? with our current prosetylizing president, people seem to think it is ok to mix religion and law...disgusts me)

This is about a woman's right to privacy. Your beliefs can be applied to your life. Leave the rest of the world alone.

And I find your views on the democratic process and our government quite amusing. This is a president that has a 34% approval rating, yet he was able to fill 2 Supreme Court seats. To me, that indicates that he is going to have a better chance at IMPOSING his will on us. This administration clearly does not reflect the views of the "people".

Again, you have the right to your views and the right to act on them. Do not try to take the rights of others away in order to impose your views on them.

I find it humorous when liberals and conservative alike discuss the concept of "legislating morality". Think about how stupid it is to even argue that morality is not legislated! Every law in the books is in some way an attempt to legislate a restriction on what one person may find wrong and one may find right. Neither conservatives or liberals would argue to legalize prostitutions. But why? If an of-age, consenting woman wants to sell her body to make money why should we be "self-righteous" and say no to her (by the way, I'm not advocating we do that). My point is simply that even the basics like murder may seem fully justifiable to certain people at certain times. So having a law to protect the unborn in no more an attempt to legislate morality or impose Christian values than any of our other laws.

I read the other day that half of the justices who decided Roe v. Wade had decided before the case was even heard that abortion should be legal. This is something they have ADMITTED. All they needed was an excuse. Now, if the majority of Americans want to vote to ammend the Constitution to allow explicitly for abortion, than so be it. But to have a legal precedent set by a few justices based on (at best) implicit wording of the Constitution is every bit as unacceptable as our President appointing justices who reflect his beliefs (as well as a HUGE amount of people in this country).

By the way, for someone who believes life begins at conception, the idea that abortion is wrong is more than just an opinion-its as dire as if a law was passed legalizing murder. And there are ob/gyns who will not do abortions. My mother found one. I'd hate to think that the same hands that ended a life one hour, was bringing one into the world the next. We're all human, I'd hate to think a doctor having a bad day might get "confused"...

 

[Flea girl]

. My mother found one. I'd hate to think that the same hands that ended a life one hour, was bringing one into the world the next. We're all human, I'd hate to think a doctor having a bad day might get "confused"...

Just because a doc chooses to do abortions, they "might" get confused because they are having a bad day? Gadoc are you even in med school if so what year? Because your statement about a doc having a bad day, getting confused and performing a abortion on some random patient is ridiculous! And completely out of the realm of possiblility. You would know this if you have ever spent time in an OR. Just out of curiousity for all those who believe that federal is not important and that state law is...then in the states that support the medicinal use of marijuana, is okay. Or wait, is it when it suits your agenda. Currenty, according to federal law (for those that kept spouting they doing things in accorandance with the law) Abortions are still legal! Case closed for now, granted what is happening in South Dakota, technically is illegal. Yes, same with all the states that support the use of medicinal use of MJ. Correct me if I am wrong, but Federal laws takes precedent if a state law contradicts it. Again, case in point Californians being arrested for medicinal MJ when they had Rx for it. It is a slippery slope to chaos folks.

 

[new_avatar]

Case closed for now, granted what is happening in South Dakota, technically is illegal. Yes, same with all the states that support the use of medicinal use of MJ. Correct me if I am wrong, but Federal laws takes precedent if a state law contradicts it. Again, case in point Californians being arrested for medicinal MJ when they had Rx for it. It is a slippery slope to chaos folks.

Just because the high court deems something unconstitutional at one time does not mean that it cannot change precedent and make a new ruling as it did in Brown v. Board of Education.

South Dakota's legislature has passed a law. It is state law. Another entity will now challenge the law in federal court. It will most likely be injoined (suspended) pending judicial review of the law.

Most likely it will be appealed from federal court either directly to a circuit court or the high court itself.

There, the high court will either refuse to hear it and allow the law to be held unconstitutional by the lower court or it will hear the case and either re-inforce Roe or change its mind about Roe. It is the hope of many conservatives that the court will rescind its activistic past ruling. And with two new W. justices on the bench they are hopeful.

Federal law can only regulate items specifically delegated to it in the US constitution, all other matters fall to the states to decide. Many conservatives feel the high court has been too activistic in the past and favor a court that does not "legislate from the bench" as they perceive in the case of Roe.

In the case of MJ - I believe personally that should be a state matter, unless the MJ is crossing state lines - in which case it should be a federal matter.

I hope this helps.

 

[Flea girl]

Just because the high court deems something unconstitutional at one time does not mean that it cannot change precedent and make a new ruling as it did in Brown v. Board of Education.

South Dakota's legislature has passed a law. It is state law. Another entity will now challenge the law in federal court. It will most likely be injoined (suspended) pending judicial review of the law.

Most likely it will be appealed from federal court either directly to a circuit court or the high court itself.

There, the high court will either refuse to hear it and allow the law to be held unconstitutional by the lower court or it will hear the case and either re-inforce Roe or change its mind about Roe. It is the hope of many conservatives that the court will rescind its activistic past ruling. And with two new W. justices on the bench they are hopeful.

Federal law can only regulate items specifically delegated to it in the US constitution, all other matters fall to the states to decide. Many conservatives feel the high court has been too activistic in the past and favor a court that does not "legislate from the bench" as they perceive in the case of Roe.

In the case of MJ - I believe personally that should be a state matter, unless the MJ is crossing state lines - in which case it should be a federal matter.

I hope this helps.

But see this is where I always get a bit confused...Conservatives are always saying they do not want big government or govermental involvement in their lives, but somehow always do the opposite. Both of these threads seem to have the same players. While I can respect that everyone has an opinion and a right to express their opinions, most of us posting on this thread are pretty concrete on where we stand on abortions. No one hear is going to change their stance based on anything we post here. The only way someone may change their stance is by being directly affected by their decision (ie the doc mention in a previous post). Otherwise, the only thing we are doing is to stimulate a debate that neither side is willing to concede. While sometimes entertaining, now a bit wanning. On a different topic,anyone else here a bit anxious about the match? Man, this is going to be the longest week of my life!

 

[helena]

I am not American but I've had this discussion a few times with people and we're never going to agree. But I have to ask all you pro-lifers: are you also against the death pentalty? I have found that a lot of people contradict themselves by being pro-life but still being pro death penalty (like president Bush). Are you really pro-life then? Me - pro-choice and against death penalty (bc that is really taking a life - yeah yeah it's a criminal but can you ever be sure...not really, a bit off-topic though sorry)
And new_avatar why do you keep citing politicians? Come to your own conclusions instead, have your own opinions. Myself - I could never agree on something that comes out of Bush or the pope's mouth. And religion really shouldn't affect your work, if you can't imagine performing abortions then for God's sake don't go into OB/Gyn. And if you are "pro-life" don't pass on your opinions to your patients - religious (or personal) beliefs shoud never be imposed onto others. I don't think abortions are something that should be encouraged and I'm not sure I would consider having one but early in the pregnancy it should be the womans choice, especially considering the issue of rape. It's not like women won't try having an abortions if they were illegal (I think we've seen enough proof of that).

 

[new_avatar]

I am not American but I've had this discussion a few times with people and we're never going to agree. But I have to ask all you pro-lifers: are you also against the death pentalty?

As I stated, I am against capital punishment except for genocide and high treason.

And religion really shouldn't affect your work,

Religion is the core of my being. I am blessed to live in one of the most spiritually enlightened places on earth, founded on freedom of religion (and not freedom from religion). Of course it affects everything I do. But I am tolerant of other views.

Are you really pro-life then? Me - pro-choice and against death penalty (bc that is really taking a life - yeah yeah it's a criminal but can you ever be sure...not really, a bit off-topic though sorry)

My being prolife for capital punishment in general has nothing to do with guilt or innocence but with preserving life, though my position is not 100% consistent as I still feel it is ok to have capital punishment for the most egregious of crimes mentioned above. But by converse if one is pro abortion and anti death penalty isn't that inconsistent? Because abortion IS the death of a foetus, which is alive and human. It is not a toaster oven.

And new_avatar why do you keep citing politicians? Come to your own conclusions instead, have your own opinions.

I have come to my own conclusions. I cite politicans and leaders because many here will have you believe that our society is overwhelmingly prochoice when it BY NO MEANS so. Many mainstream politicians in the US are prolife including both candidates in Pennsylvania's senate race and our nation is very divided on this issue.

It's not like women won't try having an abortions if they were illegal (I think we've seen enough proof of that).

Abortion will never be illegal in every US state. Though 30 or so may outlaw it if Roe falls many like NY and CA will still entertain abortion. I feel that a culture of life needs to be promoted even though abortion will never fully leave us.

 

[GAdoc]

As I stated, I am against capital punishment except for genocide and high treason.



Religion is the core of my being. I am blessed to live in one of the most spiritually enlightened places on earth, founded on freedom of religion (and not freedom from religion). Of course it affects everything I do. But I am tolerant of other views.

Let me reiterate...we would not be having this discussion had a few judges who got together and decided to sidestep those other two BRANCHES of government not decided the US Constitution (which had been fine for nearly 200 years) needed to have a "right to privacy". Fifty years ago, an ob/gyn perfoming an abortion would've gone to prison or at best lost their licence. So don't act like we're beating a dead horse. Let me also remind everyone that the Supreme Court does reverse previous rulings (lucky for all African Americans who wanted to go to integrated schools). Conservatives are not (contrary to popular belief) ignorant, bigots, racists, etc. We simply refuse to believe that what a few activist judges decide should speak for an entire country. And again, for those of us that view abortion as murder, performing an abortion is NO different that blowing away a neighbor you wake up one day not liking. It doesn't take a medical student no matter what year to understand that.

 

[Alician]

I'd hate to think that the same hands that ended a life one hour, was bringing one into the world the next. We're all human, I'd hate to think a doctor having a bad day might get "confused"...[/QUOTE]


I personally think that is what is so amazing about OB/GYN...That the same hands that bring life into the word one hour can perform an abortion the next hour. As a doctor I will be able to support my patient in her choice whatever it may be. I worked with an OB/GYN who performed abortions while she was pregnant and I thought that was especially powerful, showing that she can choose while helping others to choose something different. I completely disagree that the "life" of the fetus has the same rights as the mother. The fetus cannot live without the mother. My priority is the already established independent life that may not continue if I can't help her in a sometimes desperate situation. I find it very interesting that typically those arguing for the rights of the unborn fetus over the mother are more likely to be men than women. Why is that? Anyone else see that?

 

[Flea girl]

I find it very interesting that typically those arguing for the rights of the unborn fetus over the mother are more likely to be men than women. Why is that? Anyone else see that?

I agree with 100%!!!

 

[Flea girl]

It doesn't take a medical student no matter what year to understand that.

Again, it is one's own point of view that determines what a person considers a VIABLE human life. The key word being viable. Is a 4 week fetus considered vaible if born at that gestation? NO. I am assuming you understand that point, no matter what year you are in medical school. The point I was making before,was you comment of someone accidently giving some one an abortion. Come on, even a premed should know that.

 

[new_avatar]

VIABLE human life.

That is YOUR standard.

I feel it should be for each state to decide their own standard.
The high court's usurped the right to regulate abortion/termination/killing of the foetuses from the states; hopefully this new court will return this power back to the states - to undo what should have not been done in the first instance.

I doubt very much the founding fathers intended the constitution to protect the right to abortion.

 

[3dtp]

I find it very interesting that typically those arguing for the rights of the unborn fetus over the mother are more likely to be men than women. Why is that? Anyone else see that?

I agree with 100%!!!

Non sequitor. This is a debate that divides across gender lines. Anecdotes do not evidence make. IF there is a study that provides evidence to support this statement, please provide a reference. I'd like to read the study.

My own anecdotal observations are those women who have had a prior VTP and later become plan a child, are the most vociferous in opposing abortion. Usually when they see the anatomy/dating ultrasound that coincides with the gestational age when they chose their termination.

So, which anecdote is correct?

I cannot defend mine with a proper study because I've never taken the time to look for/at any. So, I really don't know which is correct.

A male friend is a radiologist. When he was a resident he was assigned to OB/ultrasound. He unwittingly went about showing women who were having pre-abortion ultrasounds the fetal images and talking through the obstetric ultrasound. The institution did not give an indication on the ultrasound requisition so he was ignorant of the purpose and naly assumed they were regular ob ultrasounds. The ab-clinic experienced a substantial number of procedure cancellations whenever he rotated through ultrasound. Finally they figured out what he was doing and he was never again allowed to do an OB ultrasound. And he is pro-choice!

 

[pruritis_ani]

I doubt very much the founding fathers intended the constitution to protect the right to abortion.

And I doubt very much that the founding fathers intended the constitution to protect blacks, or women.

To paraphrase Joe Pesci in "With Honor"...that is what is so brilliant about the constitution. The founding fathers did not imagine that they had all the answers, or that circumstances wouldn't change. It is flexible for that reason. However, I would strongly argue that they would NOT have imagined the constitution being manipulated to LIMIT rights (of the mother, of homosexuals, etc...).

 

[buttercup77]

And religion really shouldn't affect your work, if you can't imagine performing abortions then for God's sake don't go into OB/Gyn. And if you are "pro-life" don't pass on your opinions to your patients - religious (or personal) beliefs shoud never be imposed onto others. QUOTE]


Well I can't imagine ever performing abortions and I'm a 4th year med student going into Ob/Gyn. AND, one of the most important reasons I chose Ob is because I want to empower women to think about abortion before they make that choice. Is shielding the ultrasound machine away from a pregnant woman helping her to make an informed decision?


And religious belief is not the only reason people chose to be pro-life. To quote Feminists For Life, "women deserve better than abortion". I wish I could write more, but I'm on call. Check out their website

www.feministsforlife.org

Oh, and I'm a woman too. It's not just men that are against abortion.

 

[pruritis_ani]

What I cannot accept is that the baby has less rights than the mother, which appears to be implicit in your comment. This is where we will likely continue to differ, and this is the crux of the quandary that has split this nation and many of the peoples of the world for a long time, and for which there is no easy answer, for any of us, if we are honest with ourselves.

A baby does not have less rights than the mother. A fetus certainly does. The mother assumes the risks of carrying the fetus, which is not a viable, independant creature. In fact, many of the pro-lifer's implicity agree to the fact that the fetus has less rights by favoring termination in cases where it endangers the mother's life. If the fetus had equal rights, you could NEVER terminate.

 

[Flea girl]

Well I can't imagine ever performing abortions and I'm a 4th year med student going into Ob/Gyn. .

So, if your pt's life is at stake, ie mom's life vs basically dealth, you would choose dealth for the mom? I mean bascially you said that you could not EVER imagine yourself doing an abortion. Empowering woman does not mean showing them an U/S before they have abortion. Most women who have choosen that right do not want to see the u/s. See, I am personally glad that there is a choice. You personally have the choice not to do abortions or provide that service, how would you feel if you were forced to do them? The rope can swing both ways!

 

[pruritis_ani]

BTW, I am a dude, and I am pro-choice! Not all of us are anti-women's rights!!!

 

[buttercup77]

So, if your pt's life is at stake, ie mom's life vs basically dealth, you would choose dealth for the mom? I mean bascially you said that you could not EVER imagine yourself doing an abortion. Empowering woman does not mean showing them an U/S before they have abortion. Most women who have choosen that right do not want to see the u/s. See, I am personally glad that there is a choice. You personally have the choice not to do abortions or provide that service, how would you feel if you were forced to do them? The rope can swing both ways!

I would perform an abortion if the mother's life was in danger. I should have chosen my words more carefully. My mistake.

Many pregnant woman think their pregnancy is "just a bunch of cells". Why shouldn't they know what their pregnancy truly is? Because they might feel something negative about what they are doing?

Flea girl, do you offer women the choice to see the U/S when they are thinking about termination? All the pro-choice Obs I have worked with always say to never let a woman considering termination see the U/S. Why not?

 

[gyngirl06]

BTW, I am a dude, and I am pro-life! Not all of us are anti-women's rights!!!

Why am I not surprised that a pro-life future ob/gyn is MALE? I think it's ridiculous when anyone, male or female, pretends to know what it's like to be in a position of needing an abortion (thank you Alician for reminding us what a deeply personal decision it is). But it makes me particularly angry when men say that they know what's best for every woman who is faced with an unintended pregnancy.

 

[gyngirl06]

Pruritis ani, if you could never imagine choosing abortion for yourself but accept that it should at least be legal so that women can choose for themselves, then you are pro-choice. Why say that you're pro-life?

 

[toofache32]

There is a very large difference between sex for the sake of sex, and sex as the act of reproduction. A woman has the right to have sex. Period. If an unintended pregnancy occurs, she should NOT be punished. Period.

Why not? Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions?

If I keep smoking, I shouldn't have to be "punished" by the lung cancer I'll get, should I?

 

[obgyn06]

And religion really shouldn't affect your work, if you can't imagine performing abortions then for God's sake don't go into OB/Gyn. And if you are "pro-life" don't pass on your opinions to your patients - religious (or personal) beliefs shoud never be imposed onto others. QUOTE]


Buttercup can you please tell us your rank list? Or at least where you are wanting to end up. I am interested in programs that might have your same line of thought. Thx.

 

[buttercup77]

Buttercup can you please tell us your rank list? Or at least where you are wanting to end up. I am interested in programs that might have your same line of thought. Thx.[/QUOTE]


I was quoting another poster. But own beliefs are very opposite to that quote. But anyway, my top 5 programs are located in Manhattan, New Haven, and Boston.

 

[new_avatar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pruritis_ani
BTW, I am a dude, and I am pro-life! Not all of us are anti-women's rights!!! :-

Why am I not surprised that a pro-life future ob/gyn is MALE? I think it's ridiculous when anyone, male or female, pretends to know what it's like to be in a position of needing an abortion (thank you Alician for reminding us what a deeply personal decision it is). But it makes me particularly angry when men say that they know what's best for every woman who is faced with an unintended pregnancy.

I think itchy butt meant to say that he is pro choice though perhaps that was a Freudian slip. I will defer to our psychiatric friends on that one.

All the pro-choice Obs I have worked with always say to never let a woman considering termination see the U/S. Why not?

Why that's very simple.
The toaster oven frighteningly looks like a miniature human being.
And as it's sucked out of its womb, it is damaged/destroyed.
What was once a shiny toaster oven can no longer toast nor bake.
Why do little boys and girls cover their eyes at their first horror movie.
So they don't have to see the horror.

 

[buttercup77]

itchy butt

I'll be laughing all the way to bed

 

[Flea girl]

Flea girl, do you offer women the choice to see the U/S when they are thinking about termination? All the pro-choice Obs I have worked with always say to never let a woman considering termination see the U/S. Why not?

Yes, I would if she wanted to see it. It is her choice!!! That is my main stand point!! Every woman should have a choice. I feel that woman should only get abortions if they choose to. Not forced or whishy washy about it. I feel that it is a very serious decision not to be taken lightly in any way. I am so sorry that you feel the way that you do. You should try to walk a mile in another shoes before you make judgements about them. What programs in Boston are you ranking? Think about it you and I could be interns together. So, here is a question to all.. Do you think that I can defer doing circs because I think that it's unethical and morally againist disfigureing our male children? Just food for thought.

 

[pruritis_ani]

oopsie! i made a "freudian" slip, as pointed out by new_avtar. My bad! I am PRO CHOICE, as most could tell by reading my other posts...oops!~

 

[buttercup77]

Do you think that I can defer doing circs because I think that it's unethical and morally againist disfigureing our male children? Just food for thought.

Absolutely. I think we can opt out of any procedure we find unethical. Flea girl, if you were to offer informed consent to a couple considering a circ for their son, do you think you might stress (a little) the possible negative outcomes? I do think our personal beliefs impact the way we practice medicine and I think this is a good thing. I would never tell a woman that she couldn't or shouldn't get an abortion. BUT, I would show her the U/S (not against her will) and explain the negative physical and emotional complications in detail.

As a Jewish woman, I am all for circs (although if I had a son, I would prefer a doc to do it in the hospital!!) but I respect your choice not to do it. Hopefully, your program will feel the same way

 

[Flea girl]

Absolutely. I think we can opt out of any procedure we find unethical. Flea girl, if you were to offer informed consent to a couple considering a circ for their son, do you think you might stress (a little) the possible negative outcomes? I do think our personal beliefs impact the way we practice medicine and I think this is a good thing. I would never tell a woman that she couldn't or shouldn't get an abortion. BUT, I would show her the U/S (not against her will) and explain the negative physical and emotional complications in detail.

As a Jewish woman, I am all for circs (although if I had a son, I would prefer a doc to do it in the hospital!!) but I respect your choice not to do it. Hopefully, your program will feel the same way [/QUOTE

No, I have not pushed a family either to get one or not. That is not my decision to make. I just give them all the facts. None of what I believe personally. I was just making a point that you failed to miss. Evcn though I feel the way I do about circs, I will still have to perform them. Againist my beliefs and what I think is ethical. Disfiguring a baby's body without it's consent. Where are the baby's right to make that decision for himself? After all aren't you all talking about the baby's right? I did rank a program that specifically told all the persons interviewing that they had a resident that choose not to perform circs and they were cool with that though. I feel that our jobs as docs to educate. Not judge! Not try to convince our patients to do things that is in line with our own views. Remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[gyngirl06]

At the two abortion clinics I've worked in, women are always given the option of seeing the ultrasound. Many women not only look at the screen, but also request a printed photo that they can keep. It is incredibly naive and paternalistic to think that women having abortions believe that their pregnancies are just a bunch of cells.

 

[GAdoc]

And I doubt very much that the founding fathers intended the constitution to protect blacks, or women.

To paraphrase Joe Pesci in "With Honor"...that is what is so brilliant about the constitution. The founding fathers did not imagine that they had all the answers, or that circumstances wouldn't change. It is flexible for that reason. However, I would strongly argue that they would NOT have imagined the constitution being manipulated to LIMIT rights (of the mother, of homosexuals, etc...).

What the heck are you TALKING ABOUT! What do you think the Constitution is?!?!?!?! Its a legal document that we agree to by being Amercians that effectively limits everyone's rights. Go back to one of my previous posts. Any law out there is nothing more than an attempt to legislate morality. So why am I wrong if I say the Founding Fathers meant the Constitution the way they wrote it (with no right to privacy). Its pretty hypocrytical to think that's a rediculous argument. I bet all you pro-choicers out there wouldn't cast a vote legalizing prostitution (even though the same argument of it being a woman's own body apply). And I'm sure some of you are wacko enough to think that somehow is a good idea. But even those that would vote to legalize prostitution could eventually find some point where they would say "OK, now that's wrong, we need a law against that".

And as far as the argument about the Founding Fathers not protecting blacks or women....thats speculation at best. See that's where your argument falls to pieces! The Constitution, as it is worded (which is the way I interpret it) places no person above another. To crush the rights of women and blacks for as long as they were is not only shameful....it was ILLEGAL under the Constitution. Luckily, the Supreme Court realized its past mistakes and repealed an earlier ruling. In the SAME way, there is nothing in the Constitution (again, as it is written) that would allow a woman a RIGHT to an abortion. So hopefully, the Supreme Court will again realize its mistake and fix it.

By the way, I can't think of ANYONE, no matter what their religious beliefs or otherwise that would be against an abortion if the mother's life was at risk. That's a totally separate issue because it means choosing one LIFE over another. In that case, abortion can be viewed as self defense of the mother.

 

[GAdoc]

A baby does not have less rights than the mother. A fetus certainly does. The mother assumes the risks of carrying the fetus, which is not a viable, independant creature. In fact, many of the pro-lifer's implicity agree to the fact that the fetus has less rights by favoring termination in cases where it endangers the mother's life. If the fetus had equal rights, you could NEVER terminate.

OK, now tell me in your heart of hearts how its not just a LITTLE hard for you to reconcile that as that "fetus" is being delivered it is not a life, but 10 seconds later when it takes its first breath it suddenly is. So you can sleep at night thinking that abortion is justifiable in the first trimester...I mean, it can't survive without the mother, right? Yet it has the potential to. And you probably know better than me the earliest a baby can be delivered and survive. So is that your definition? Does the baby only suddenly have rights when it is outside the mother (even if it needs life support equipment to survive)? You answer me that one. Or when you can figure out how to engineer from nothing a sperm and an egg that can potentially create a living breathing human being you can decide when to consider it life and when not to.

And I totally don't get you last argument:

(In fact, many of the pro-lifer's implicity agree to the fact that the fetus has less rights by favoring termination in cases where it endangers the mother's life. If the fetus had equal rights, you could NEVER terminate):

If someone comes into my house at night to kill my family, guess what I'm going to do? I'm going to do my best to kill them first. Is that wrong? No. Its self defense and it is currently legal. That person I kill has all the rights I do until he infringes on my or my family's right to live. Same with the "fetus"

 

[pruritis_ani]

By the way, I can't think of ANYONE, no matter what their religious beliefs or otherwise that would be against an abortion if the mother's life was at risk. That's a totally separate issue because it means choosing one LIFE over another. In that case, abortion can be viewed as self defense of the mother.

The fetus is ALWAYS putting the mother's life at risk. With every pregnancy there is risk to the mother. So, according to your argument above about"self defense", abortion should always be legal, and viewed as defense of the mother.

 

[pruritis_ani]

OK, now tell me in your heart of hearts how its not just a LITTLE hard for you to reconcile that as that "fetus" is being delivered it is not a life, but 10 seconds later when it takes its first breath it suddenly is. So you can sleep at night thinking that abortion is justifiable in the first trimester...I mean, it can't survive without the mother, right? Yet it has the potential to. And you probably know better than me the earliest a baby can be delivered and survive. So is that your definition? Does the baby only suddenly have rights when it is outside the mother (even if it needs life support equipment to survive)? You answer me that one. Or when you can figure out how to engineer from nothing a sperm and an egg that can potentially create a living breathing human being you can decide when to consider it life and when not to.

This is exactly what is tricky. Do I think the POC is "alive" at the 2 cell stage? Nope. How about 8 cells? Not even close. But, I do agree that it is a tricky concept. I notice that you also have not said when you think life begins. Is it at conception? So, how do you defend that something is not alive 10 seconds before when they are sperm and egg? This is a very tricky thing for everyone. And, no matter when you decide life begins, you are going to have problems with it. There will always be a "10 seconds before" argument to make (which is a pretty weak debate point, btw).

My personal view is that a fetus that is not viable has less rights than mother. Notice, I did not say no rights. But, as the fetus poses substantial risk to the mother's well being, the mother has the right to decide what to do. This is very analogous to your argument below. Fetus is posing a risk to mom, mom can decide what to do.

And I totally don't get you last argument:

(In fact, many of the pro-lifer's implicity agree to the fact that the fetus has less rights by favoring termination in cases where it endangers the mother's life. If the fetus had equal rights, you could NEVER terminate):

If someone comes into my house at night to kill my family, guess what I'm going to do? I'm going to do my best to kill them first. Is that wrong? No. Its self defense and it is currently legal. That person I kill has all the rights I do until he infringes on my or my family's right to live. Same with the "fetus"

You are simply validating my point here. So, a fetus has the same right to protection as the mother? Than you cannot kill the fetus, period. Or look at it a different way. If the fetus threatens the life of the mother and has the same rights as the mother, ethically, you could argue that the mother should be killed to spare the fetus. You cannot have it both ways, and say the fetus has a right to be protected, and then decide to take that right away. Either the rights of the fetus equal the mother, and then it would never be allowed to terminate, or you agree that the fetus has less rights than the mother and we are just arguing on when termination is legal.

This philosophical difference is ,IMHO, a huge stumbling block for pro-lifers. If they support abortion in ANY case, then they implicitly agree that abortion is ok and NOT murder. If abortion were ending a life it should NEVER be ok. If they support it in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's health, as many do, then this is not a pro-life vs pro-choice argument. It is merely an argument about at what stage do the rights of the fetus match or exceed the rights of the mother. And this is where the logic of the pro-life stance crumbles.

My stance is based on the idea that our personal opinions are shaped by many things. As most of the arguments we use are based on religious views or personal opinion, it is almost impossible to get a firm, logical basis for legislation. Because of this, there is not a clear right or wrong. And, without this level of certainty and fairness, it seems very clear that each woman should be allowed to decide what her beliefs on the matter are, and to follow through with that.

People compare this to laws that "regulate morality", such as murder, rape, etc...the fact is that abortion is quite different. There is no clear definition of who has more rights, when these rights begin. In the crimes above, it is pretty clear that a murderer is taking away the rights of the victim. But, is the mom taking the rights of the fetus in abortion? If so, is the IUD taking the rights of the fetus? If the mom is in danger of dying, why is it all of the sudden ok to take the life of the fetus? If I am dying from kidney failure, I cannot just grab somebody on the street and take their kidney to support my "right to live", can I? Besides, if you extend the "imminent danger" clause, all mothers are always in danger of death. Exsanguination, eclampsia, hypertension, infection, etc...so, IMHO, you can ALWAYS defend an abortion on these grounds.

There are just too many questions, and all the answers are personal. That is the reason we should allow each individual the choice to make these decisions.

 

[lilycat]

For some of the more ardent pro-lifers on here, particularly those who are strongly guided by their religion or spirituality, I'm just curious where you fall on the issue of IVF and REI? Do you think it's ethical to manipulate the "creation" of life that way? What about cases where there end up being multiple fetuses? Do you agree with selective abortion to increase the chance of survival for the remaining fetuses and to decrease the health risks to the mom?

 

[GAdoc]

For some of the more ardent pro-lifers on here, particularly those who are strongly guided by their religion or spirituality, I'm just curious where you fall on the issue of IVF and REI? Do you think it's ethical to manipulate the "creation" of life that way? What about cases where there end up being multiple fetuses? Do you agree with selective abortion to increase the chance of survival for the remaining fetuses and to decrease the health risks to the mom?

You're right, I've not said where I stand on where life begins. I've tried to present arguments that stand up free and clear of my religious beliefs. I guess that is not possible.

A sperm or egg by itself does not have the potential to create a life BY ITSELF (I know I'm estranging some of my fellow Catholic pro-lifers whom I have the utmost respect). Once the sperm and egg combine, life begins. I believe this because something unique has occured. Unlike any other cellular function, the process that leads to the birth of a child is unique and must be recognized as such (or else all you ob/gyns are out of a job).

That "ten-second" debate CANNOT be minimized. It is a serious ethical delima that is the essence of debate over abortion.

The argument that abortion should be mandatory because a fetus is always a risk to the mother totally misses the point I was making. Walking out the door to go drive to the grocery store is a risk. We assume a lot of risk every day. Choosing (or not choosing) to have a child is a risk. But the risk must be weighed free and clear of a mother's personal preference. If the death of the mother is certain without an abortion, than an abortion is necessary. But NOT because the baby has less rights. An abortion is necessary for the reasons I listed in a previous post. Let me state it again. If someone enters my house with the intent of killing me that person had the SAME rights as me up until the point they decided to take my life. When they make that decision, they legally, ethically, and morally forfeit their right to me. An abortion in such a situation can be viewed as a similar case of self defense. As cold as it may seem, this does not apply to rape or incest. Sorry. This is where we do cross the line into my faith, which I don't mind at all discussing, but the next move is up to anyone who disagrees with me enough to post a challenge.

 

[gyngirl06]

Your argument that someone forfeits their right to live as soon as they threaten your life only makes sense if you're talking about a person with intent. A fetus threatening the mother's life does not have malicious intent. Rather, it's simply an unfortunate physiologic state. I'm surprised that you think it's okay to "murder" an innocent baby in the case of an incompatibility between fetal and maternal life.

Also, consider the case where someone is breaking into your home only wishing to cause great harm - perhaps they want to severely and permanently disable you. Are you then ethically obliged to let them proceed? Or perhaps you think it's only acceptable to disable them to a similar extent but not kill them?

I am interested in your thoughts about this, but ultimately understand how useless these debates are in terms of changing anyone's mind... Especially people with strong religious beliefs. I'm guessing you don't believe in evolution either.

 

[GAdoc]

Your argument that someone forfeits their right to live as soon as they threaten your life only makes sense if you're talking about a person with intent. A fetus threatening the mother's life does not have malicious intent. Rather, it's simply an unfortunate physiologic state. I'm surprised that you think it's okay to "murder" an innocent baby in the case of an incompatibility between fetal and maternal life.

Also, consider the case where someone is breaking into your home only wishing to cause great harm - perhaps they want to severely and permanently disable you. Are you then ethically obliged to let them proceed? Or perhaps you think it's only acceptable to disable them to a similar extent but not kill them?

I am interested in your thoughts about this, but ultimately understand how useless these debates are in terms of changing anyone's mind... Especially people with strong religious beliefs. I'm guessing you don't believe in evolution either.

I don't mind debating, even though I suspect you are right: I will no more change your mind any more than you will change mind. However, your remark about evolution has a condescending tone, as if anybody who believes abortion is wrong automatically accepts all conservative ideaology. To me, liberalism can be defined as "The conviction that there should be no convictions". In other words, "I may never have an abortion, but only because I don't plan to have an unplanned pregnancy...but I do think people should be able to choose".

It is important to at least recognize that this issue runs deeper than something like whether homosexuality is wrong. I mean, everyone is entitled to their opinion about what is right and wrong when it doesn't affect anyone other than the two consenting adults involved. You'd get few fundamental Christians to take up arms against what people do in private. However, what makes these issues so heated is what happens when private issues began effecting the defenseless (abortion, or children adopted by two gay "parents").

It is likely most will simply skim this and write me off as "another conservative bigot who hates people different than himself". This couldn't be further from the truth. Part of the reason I'm becoming a physician is because of the sympathy I feel for all people. I don't have to agree with homosexuality to compassionately treat someone with AIDS. I don't have to agree with abortion to provide care to a woman with post-abortion complications. I don't have to be a Muslim to provide the same comprehensive care to a follower of that religion as I would to a Christian. The essense of being a Christian means I love EVERYONE as Chrsit loved me because my sins are as grievous to Christ as anyone elses. But it doesn't mean I can't take a stand against behaviors I believe are wrong. Its interesting that some of the most ardent pro-lifers are women who, themselves, had an abortion.

Anybody who denies evolution on SOME level is ignorant. We can observe evolution within species. However, I do not believe in the creation of new species as a result of evolution. It's not that God couldn't have used that method if He'd wanted, its simply that science can not prove it. There are too many holes, too many exceptions, too many scientists who have decided that evolution as it is currently taught takes more faith than belief in Creation by God.

If you want to know how I feel about gun control, death penalty, social security, etc. I'd be happy to go into those too....

 

[pruritis_ani]

Ah, so it is a religious stance you have. Well, then I guess that means it is pretty clear that we cannot legislate based on your belief, right? At least you would agree that church and state do not mix, I am sure...so, feel free to have your religious beliefs and opinions, but when you attempt to justify legislation based on your religious convictions, you are really crossing the line.

 

[toofache32]

Ah, so it is a religious stance you have. Well, then I guess that means it is pretty clear that we cannot legislate based on your belief, right? At least you would agree that church and state do not mix, I am sure...so, feel free to have your religious beliefs and opinions, but when you attempt to justify legislation based on your religious convictions, you are really crossing the line.

I'm not sure why religion is any less satisfactory of a reason to have an opinion than any other basis. Non-religious people act as if being religious nullifies anything you say. Then it's the religious people are the ones accused of being intolerant......funny.