Need help with abortion ethics question

[mercaptovizadeh]

Here's the problem with your argument: your example isn't a moral problem, it's a legal problem. It is illegal to rob a bank, but that does not neccessarily mean that it's actually immoral to rob a bank-that would depend on the situation. What if he had to rob the bank because his family had been taken hostage? (haha yes there was a bad movie about this, but pretend you never heard of that movie) In that situation, it might not actually be an immoral act to rob the bank.

Don't confuse legality with morality. While legality is quite clear-cut, morality is obviously not nearly as clear cut. Which is why it's problematic when a physician uses their own personal morals as a reason to override a legal obligation. You could have all kinds of crazy personal moral beliefs-but if you start applying those to limit who you're treating that's no good.

And, I will point out that that bank robber would get healthcare while in prison, lol. So you'd have to help him after he got shot by the police

I was talking about immoral robberies. You added the whole legality thing.

As for healthcare, what makes you think I wouldn't treat a woman with complications due to a botched abortion? That's after the fact. I just wouldn't help her with the abortion, just like I wouldn't help the thief so the police don't shoot him in the act.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Tyronebiggums]

"CBR operates on the principle that abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror. "

No, that sentence alone undermines the objectivity of the data discussed.

I actually don't think it does because of where they are drawing their source material. I think you are just resist data that comes from pro-abortion sources and I am willing to track down these sources but it sounds like no matter what source I have you will deny it based on its "authenticity." By doing this you are delaying the inevitable fact that every assertion I made about abortion demographics is true.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

The woman can decide whether her uterus, her circulation, her immunoglobulins, her calcium, etc.. will be used to support a fetus. You can't compel her to do so anymore than you can compel her to give blood.

I think you don't know any women who have had abortions - no, wait, you probably do, but they know better than to tell you about it. Where do you get off, saying you know why women have abortions and what kind of women they are? And, for that matter, if abortion is murder, why does it matter whether a woman was raped or not? The "baby" is still alive and doesn't deserve to be killed, no? Or is this really about judging women?
An infant can survive just fine without me - someone else can easily keep it alive. Not so my embryo. Severing its attachment to my body, which I have the right to do as the owner of my body, kills it. Infants, you can drop off at the hospital and never see again, and they won't die.

Illegal abortion. (And for the rest, a whole lot of misery and inequality). Yes, I'm being flippant. But survival has nothing to do with it. A whole lot of people have survived being denied their basic human rights. That doesn't make it OK.

Ah, opinion polls. And what do those say about minorities or gays, again? No, wait, I'm probably giving you fodder here. Never mind.

Yes, we should determine and defend fundamental human rights by looking at polls.

You do not judge a democracy based upon how they treat the majority, but rather how they recognize and defend the unpopular rights.

 

[trustwomen]

You are not violating informed consent at all. If the girl is asking for an abortion, she obviously knows that it is one of her options - teenagers are not as ignorant as you make them out to be. Psychological trauma is really just an excuse for "I want it." Yes, I'm sure it's difficult and embarrassing for a 14 year old to deal with the opprobium of society and criticism of her parents when they find out she's pregnant, but that's no excuse for killing.

EDIT:

Are you sure you're not being condescending here? You seem *incredibly* judgmental and paternalistic about someone else's legitimate viewpoints. You might find that you annoy others, if you continue along this path.

Um, it's fine to judge people's opinions, and get all argumentative, on an internet forum. Quite another to do so to your patients. Your postscript does not hold. There are ethical standards involved.

Sadly, you are right inasmuch as many states do allow physicians to refuse to refer for abortion. I'm not sure whether good, compassionate future physicians like Quix should move to those states (to dilute the badness) or stay the heck away from them (my personal choice).

p.s. I love the quick dismissal of psychological trauma. Say that again after you've been a 14-year-old girl with an unplanned pregnancy and a violent father.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

If you all want to know what is really right, you have to take the Bible as the literal word of God himself. Just look at some of Mercapto's prior posts. He's the biggest religious troll on SDN.

And you're an "ordained" Episcopalian who advocates forced sterilization of the poor. Some "Christian" you are.

 

[Quix]

This assertion is completely false. Many pregnant women who intentionally try to starve themselves or do other things to harm their pregnancy are paradoxically charge with crimes. America on the abortion issue is full of hypocrisy. For example, Scott Peterson was charged with double-murder for killing his wife and THEIR UNBORN CHILD. Now if the child is unborn it can be aborted as is technically not a person according to pro-choice people. We know that you can only be charged with murder for killing PEOPLE so how can Scott Peterson be charged with double-murder in a country with legalized abortion?

There was a big uproar over the decision to charge him with two counts of murder. "Connor and Lacy's Law" was seen for the transparent effort it was to undermine Roe v. Wade.

And on that note, it's 1:40 AM here, and I have a lot to do tomorrow. Night, everyone.

EDIT:

One final note:

I actually don't think it does because of where they are drawing their source material. I think you are just resist data that comes from pro-abortion sources and I am willing to track down these sources but it sounds like no matter what source I have you will deny it based on its "authenticity." By doing this you are delaying the inevitable fact that every assertion I made about abortion demographics is true.

Nope, I've actually been swayed by decent arguments and evidence in the past (e.g., on economic indicators); the problem is that the site states "All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning" but they leave it at that. They don't get into any more detail concerning whether these are the numbers themselves, or if they have been tweaked in any way shape or form. If they stem from actual studies, then I'm happy to review the primary literature. This kind of second-hand reporting always activates my BS-detector, especially when the person making the argument is so avowedly partisan. Until you actually provide primary data, I'm simply disinclined to believe it.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

This assertion is completely false. Many pregnant women who intentionally try to starve themselves or do other things to harm their pregnancy are paradoxically charge with crimes. America on the abortion issue is full of hypocrisy. For example, Scott Peterson was charged with double-murder for killing his wife and THEIR UNBORN CHILD. Now if the child is unborn it can be aborted as is technically not a person according to pro-choice people. We know that you can only be charged with murder for killing PEOPLE so how can Scott Peterson be charged with double-murder in a country with legalized abortion?

Because the Peterson child could have lived outside of its mother at the stage of development it was at.

 

[trustwomen]

You do not judge a democracy based upon how they treat the majority, but rather how they recognize and defend the unpopular rights.

Again with the agreeing, DKM. Are you sure you're quoting the right posts? I always thought one was supposed to contrast the quoted post and not agree with it. Or is your sarcasm meter still on the fritz? C'mon, look at my last line compared to the rest of the text! Geez.

 

[Cirrus83]

I was talking about immoral robberies. You added the whole legality thing.

As for healthcare, what makes you think I wouldn't treat a woman with complications due to a botched abortion? That's after the fact. I just wouldn't help her with the abortion, just like I wouldn't help the thief so the police don't shoot him in the act.

But see, you're assuming the robbery is immoral based on the fact that it's a robbery-which is illegal. You didn't actually provide other reasons of WHY it's immoral. Which is why I'm saying your example is actually a legal problem, not a moral one. If you don't understand what I mean please go take an ethics class.

And I never brought up treating people with botched abortions, in my other posts I was talking about the ethics of not giving out the information people would need to make less idiotic decisions.

Please go take an ethics class or something though, because this argument is going nowhere. Even better, take a medical ethics class.

Just so you know, in ethics courses they won't (or shouldn't anyway) tell you what's right or wrong-the whole point of these classes is just to think logically about things. Which unfortunately is a pain in the ass (constructing a logically sound argument using those latin phrases for argument structures always gave me a headache lol), but the point is that there really isn't ever a super clear cut obvious answer. Or they wouldn't be ethical problems!!!

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Quite the contrary; you don't seem to be very well-informed about teens and their cognitive development. You are making them into little adults, and the science isn't there to support what you are saying. Appreciation of consequences doesn't fully kick in until well after 14, knowledge of their bodies, resources, support networks, and other concepts require a lot more insight than the typical teenager possesses.



I could very well be judgmental, but given my clinical background in medical ethics, I think I'm qualified to state when an opinion might be uninformed, contradictory, or poorly argued.

Everyone knows that this psychobabble is rot, and nobody should take it seriously. You treat young people like idiots. I'm sure a 14 year old who was mature enough to have sex voluntarily will not go to pieces over the fact that she can't murder her own child.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

And you're an "ordained" Episcopalian who advocates forced sterilization of the poor. Some "Christian" you are.

I never said I was ordained. I said I was going to become ordained, mainly just to see you throw a hissy fit in the Lounge.

 

[Tyronebiggums]

Because the child could have lived outside of its mother at the stage of development it was at.

Why then is or ever was partial birth abortion legal? Those babies can clearly live outside the mother but they are electively killed. Don't let anyone fool you, most partial birth abortions are elected with no danger to the health of the mother involved. The arguement that the child can live outside the womb is made a mockery by partial birth abortion.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Everyone knows that this psychobabble is rot, and nobody should take it seriously.

As opposed to the direct word of God that you follow? The one that's been translated how many times and in many cases was recorded from memory many years after it allegedly happened?

 

[trustwomen]

This is not at all the same thing, Cirrus. While I may disapprove of things people do with their own bodies, I don't see that it is any of my business and will treat appropriately.

Converesly, though, I absolutely reserve the right to object to what a person does to another human creature's body. If I believe that one person is harming another human creature, I see no ethical reason at all to contribute to that harm.

Madam, we all harm human creatures on a daily basis. I alone, by selfishly retaining both my kidneys, am denying some poor soul the ability to live a long and productive life - I am condemning him or her to die on the transplant list. Fortunately, there is not a blood shortage where I live, or my inability to get my a$$ to the donation site last week might have cost someone else their life.

Similarly, if I refuse to permit that my uterus play host to another, even if that would result in the demise of same, I am no more a murderer than I was the day before.

Oh, wait, I'm already a murderer. Sorry about that.

You're not the only one that can take visceral offense, you know.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Why then is or ever was partial birth abortion legal? Those babies can clearly live outside the mother but they are electively killed. Don't let anyone fool you, most partial birth abortions are elected with no danger to the health of the mother involved. The arguement that the child can live outside the womb is made a mockery by partial birth abortion.

I don't agree with partial birth abortions. As I said before, I only agree with abortion up to the point where the fetus becomes clinically viable. After that point, the woman is **** out of luck.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

But see, you're assuming the robbery is immoral based on the fact that it's a robbery-which is illegal. You didn't actually provide other reasons of WHY it's immoral. Which is why I'm saying your example is actually a legal problem, not a moral one. If you don't understand what I mean please go take an ethics class.

And I never brought up treating people with botched abortions, in my other posts I was talking about the ethics of not giving out the information people would need to make less idiotic decisions.

Please go take an ethics class or something though, because this argument is going nowhere. Even better, take a medical ethics class.

I've taken a medical ethics class in medical school and it's all rot. Can you wrap your head around the idea that a robbery where someone steals what is not theirs and/or threatens others with violence or actually perpetrates violence, is morally wrong? Is that unacceptable to you? Or do all robberies have to be illegal but moral - Indiana Jones style, or something? I am talking about not being willing to assist in an immoral robbery (described above) just to reduce the risk of harm to the perpetrator.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

But see, you're assuming the robbery is immoral based on the fact that it's a robbery-which is illegal. You didn't actually provide other reasons of WHY it's immoral. Which is why I'm saying your example is actually a legal problem, not a moral one. If you don't understand what I mean please go take an ethics class.

And I never brought up treating people with botched abortions, in my other posts I was talking about the ethics of not giving out the information people would need to make less idiotic decisions.

Please go take an ethics class or something though, because this argument is going nowhere. Even better, take a medical ethics class.

Just so you know, in ethics courses they won't (or shouldn't anyway) tell you what's right or wrong-the whole point of these classes is just to think logically about things. Which unfortunately is a pain in the ass (constructing a logically sound argument using those latin phrases for argument structures always gave me a headache lol), but the point is that there really isn't ever a super clear cut obvious answer. Or they wouldn't be ethical problems!!!

To him, everything is a moral problem.

 

[GoodDoctor]

I am on most issues a libertarian but not on abortion because someone has to speak for the unborn child. You had a previous post where you told some angry parents as they were lenoaving that "its her body she can decide" or something similar to that. I believe that argument is wrong. How can a women consider a male fetus especially as part of her body. Is the penis on the ultrasound hers? Are all women that give birth to males temporary hermaphrodites? Also you seem to believe that it is an easier choice for most women to kill an unborn child than it is to give it away for adoption? I think in a twisted way you are right because most women end up being so happy they didn't abort their child that it would be almost impossible to give the child up for adoption. I think abortion is an out for women who usually make poor reproductive choices (rape and potentially incest don't apply here) and because they are usually poor our society (actually 9 justices) decreed that they shouldn't have to "suffer" for their poor choices. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are exempt from responsibilities. Furthermore, tell me what is the logical difference between abortion and infanticide? I think it is difficult to do so. I am also wondering why American women survived from 1790 to 1973 without legalized abortion? And remember abortion is not very popular in America now. It is clear in opinion polls that the majority of American strongly dislike abortion and if the issue was put to a vote abortion rights would be strongly curtailed and in most states banned except in the case of rape or incest. I also think it is interesting to point out that the woman known as Roe in Roe vs. Wade is now staunchly pro-life.

You are missing the point of "it's her body, she can decide". She can decide if she wants another organism to siphon nutrients from her bloodstream and cause her medical difficulty.

If your child needed a kidney transplant, would you be obligated to give one of your kidneys? You would probably do it, of course, out of your love for your child. However, if you decided not to, no law will force you to give part of your body to another person for their use. You get to choose what to do with your own body, no matter how much someone else needs the use of your parts.

 

[chad5871]

You don't have to offer the service if you don't want to, anywhere, period.

And in many states in the US you don't even have to refer. Unprofessional? Sure.

You'll be fine referring to crisis pregnancy centers (which generally provide false information about abortion and have been involved in all sorts of egregious violations) as long as you don't live anywhere where sanity prevails. However, please don't delude yourself into thinking that this is a professional or unbiased approach.

If women are unsure about their decision to have an abortion, the counselor at the abortion clinic reschedules them and sends them home to think about it more. (Yes, all women see a counselor). And what woman doesn't know about her alternatives? ("gee, I never realized I could give birth instead!"). Indeed, that awareness is why they go to the clinic in the first place.

You don't need to fear that referring to Planned Parenthood will result in somebody having an ill-thought-out, hasty abortion. They have unbiased options counselors for those who don't know what they want to do, and abortion counselors for those who do schedule an abortion. The two types of counseling are different, but a woman who is being coerced into having an abortion will be caught by the counselor in both cases - unless she is a stupendous liar.

Please don't think that just because you don't like a decision, that it isn't thoughtful and informed. I have counseled patients who made what I personally thought was a terrible decision, but they definitely thought about it, and their perspective is automatically 10 000 times more valid than mine, considering that we are talking about their pregnancy.

I'm even fine with doctors giving their personal opinions to their patients (though I wouldn't on this matter, it's none of my business) as long as they refrain from judging and coercing, and as long as they refer appropriately.

Thanks for your response. I have somehow become incessantly obsessed with this thread - there are so many different ways to view abortion both in general and when applied to specific situations, and I think it's interesting to hear different opinions from future healthcare providers.

I'm not trying to say that "just because don't like a decision, it isn't thoughtful and informed;" however I am trying to say that as a physician it will be our duty to ensure that the patient's decisions and alternatives to treatment options are thoroughly discussed and considered before continuing with a treatment. I'm sure that a plastic surgeon isn't going to perform an elective surgery on a patient without thoroughly discussing the procedure and alternatives. Likewise, the same should be upheld for every medical procedure, including abortion. Sure, the plastic surgeon's patient has probably put a lot of thought and research into an elective procedure, but the doctor who is operating on that patient is not simply going to "take the patient's word for it" and go right into the surgery without any more discussion. In my opinion this would be careless on the doctor's part and dangerous to the patient.

I have not done much research on abortion clinics, nor have I claimed to. Therefore, I know little about the difference between "Planned Parenthood," "Crisis Pregnancy Center," and other clinics. I have heard the names before but have never understood the difference. I do not know if there are clinics out there that will provide abortions "no questions asked," and these are the clinics that I would under no circumstances refer a patient to. I would choose a clinic to refer the patient to based on their objectivity toward the mother's decision and the quality of the counseling, NOT on whether the clinic leaned more toward a pro-choie or pro-life standpoint.

Yes, it is ultimately the mother's choice. I would do nothing to coerce her toward one decision or the other. However, I would ensure that her decision was informed - that she knew each and every alternative and had discussed these with a counselor before making a final decision.

 

[Quix]

Everyone knows that this psychobabble is rot, and nobody should take it seriously. You treat young people like idiots. I'm sure a 14 year old who was mature enough to have sex voluntarily will not go to pieces over the fact that she can't murder her own child.

"Psychobabble" like PET scans, MRI's, developmental neuroanatomy, etc.

 

[Tyronebiggums]

Goodnight everyone. I appreciate the spirited and interesting debate. We will all be great doctors if we apply this type of passion to treating our future patients. Good luck to everyone in the application process.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Oh, wait, I'm already a murderer.

Correction: murderess

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Correction: murderess

Thank you Mr. Webster.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

"Psychobabble" like PET scans, MRI's, developmental neuroanatomy, etc.

That's neurology and radiology, NOT psychiatry or psychology. The first two are science, the third is a faux science (actually shamanism) and the last is a faux social science (actually trashy philosophy).

 

[Cirrus83]

I've taken a medical ethics class in medical school and it's all rot. Can you wrap your head around the idea that a robbery where someone steals what is not theirs and/or threatens others with violence or actually perpetrates violence, is morally wrong? Is that unacceptable to you? Or do all robberies have to be illegal but moral - Indiana Jones style, or something? I am talking about not being willing to assist in an immoral robbery (described above) just to reduce the risk of harm to the perpetrator.

Your original post did not mention any of those things at all, and merely stated that it was a bank robbery.

And I do find it funny that you say "all it's rot", because my ethics classes never steered us one way or another on any issues.

If you've only taken medical ethics, then go take another ethics class, because you can't construct arguments about morality using legal examples, then start adding details 3 posts later. I'm not going to argue about your robbery example anymore, but the only reason I called you out on it is because such an argument would fail miserably in any ethics class if you used it the way you originally wrote it. And for what it's worth, even with your added details it wouldn't be enough to make a moral judgement on the robbery yet if you were going to use it as an actual argument for an ethics paper or a test, lol.

 

[Quix]

That's neurology and radiology, NOT psychiatry or psychology. The first two are science, the third is a faux science (actually shamanism) and the last is a faux social science (actually trashy philosophy).

And both of the disciplines you've not dismissed out of hand have demonstrated that frontal lobe development doesn't fully occur until the mid-20's; the frontal lobe remains underdeveloped throughout the teenage years, but centers for impulsive actions don't.

On that note, I really am off for the night.

 

[chad5871]

I could very well be judgmental, but given my clinical background in medical ethics, I think I'm qualified to state when an opinion might be uninformed, contradictory, or poorly argued.

I have to agree with Quix on this one. He seems extremely well-qualified, well-read, and well-spoken regarding this issue (even if I don't necessarily agree with his arguments or opinions).

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Your original post did not mention any of those things at all, and merely stated that it was a bank robbery.

And I do find it funny that you say "all it's rot", because my ethics classes never steered us one way or another on any issues.

If you've only taken medical ethics, then go take another ethics class, because you can't construct arguments about morality using legal examples, then start adding details 3 posts later. I'm not going to argue about your robbery example anymore, but the only reason I called you out on it is because such an argument would fail miserably in any ethics class if you used it the way you originally wrote it.

No. It's because you have a twisted mind which can accept that there are moral but illegal robberies. There aren't. That's why I have to explain the most elementary things to you, because your mother and father obviously didn't and the much-vaunted ethics class just made you even more confused.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

And both of the disciplines you've not dismissed out of hand have demonstrated that frontal lobe development doesn't fully occur until the mid-20's; the frontal lobe remains underdeveloped throughout the teenage years, but centers for impulsive actions don't.

On that note, I really am off for the night.

So because the frontal lobe is not fully developed until the 20s, we're not responsible for what we do in our teens? I'm not understanding your logic here - we are not talking about a 7 year old that got raped - we are talking about a 14 year old that voluntarily had sex - she wanted to and she did it. Now why does that excuse her to commit murder?

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Thank you Mr. Webster.

Mercapto's greatest hits (for all of you who can use a good laugh):
I dislike Neuroscience

Did dragons ever exist?

Why take antidepressants?

The Vatican founded Islam, killing Jews, the true Christian goal

Evolutionary psychology

Pope Benedict XVI 21st Century Inquisitor?

 

[DocBR]

Yes, I've been accepted at 4 schools, so far.

As for this topic, ad comms actually avoided it like the plague with me, backing away in fear when I brought it up, myself! It was actually kind of strangely amusing to watch men who seemed so confident otherwise absolutely blanch when we got near the issue.

They knew my personal background from my PS and my Pre-Med letter, so I think they were kind of terrified to go into it with me.

Based on your responses to posts from people like trustwomen, I would say they probably were terrified that if they got into it with you and you were not accepted you might name them in a discrimination lawsuit.

Do not be so glib; their fear should not a badge of honor for you to wear.

 

[Cirrus83]

No. It's because you have a twisted mind which can accept that there are moral but illegal robberies. There aren't. That's why I have to explain the most elementary things to you, because your mother and father obviously didn't and the much-vaunted ethics class just made you even more confused.

lol, glad you live in a clear cut black and white world where you know all the answers to the medical ethics issues other people spend time actually thinking about. It's pretty obvious that all of us who actually bother to consider arguments logically before making sweeping moral judgements are just idiots who can't understand the elementary obviousness of the answers.

But at least you've just proven that you do in fact equal illegality with immorality. Good thing you never learned about Kohlberg's moral stages or you'd probably have thrown a fit in class. Or did you learn about that and dismiss it as "rot" also?

 

[trustwomen]

As to whether you're a murderer... well... let's just say I suspect that- had my biological mother met the likes of you- I would personally be deader than a doornail. Because she didn't meet the likes of you, I got to grow up, go to college and become a doctor. You draw your own conclusions.

I did not know that the decision to have an abortion is contagious. Besides, you might well have been around in a different body - that's a theological question. Many Christians believe that the body is ensouled with its first breath, meaning that your soul would have descended from heaven into a different baby, that's all.

I just think that being grateful your mother didn't have an abortion makes no more sense than being grateful that she was raped. I understand the visceral reaction, really I do, but please understand that while this gives you a valid personal opinion on the matter, it doesn't give you any special insight into the choices of others, nor does it give you the right to judge them.

Because I was provided accessible medical care by unbiased professionals, and was therefore able to have an abortion at age 14, I got to go to college and become a doctor, too. You draw your own conclusions.

 

[Cirrus83]

Mercapto's greatest hits (for all of you who can use a good laugh):
I dislike Neuroscience

Did dragons ever exist?

Why take antidepressants?

The Vatican founded Islam, killing Jews, the true Christian goal

Evolutionary psychology

Pope Benedict XVI 21st Century Inquisitor?

Wow...just...wow...
I...uh...wow...
*Cirrus83 is actually speechless*
So...he actually...thinks like that? I would call troll but...I think he actually thinks like that...
Wow...

I don't think this gives me a good laugh so much as a sudden urge to cry for the future of humanity.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

lol, glad you live in a clear cut black and white world where you know all the answers to the medical ethics issues other people spend time actually thinking about. It's pretty obvious that all of us who actually bother to consider arguments logically before making sweeping moral judgements are just idiots who can't understand the elementary obviousness of the answers.

But at least you've just proven that you do in fact equal illegality with immorality. Good thing you never learned about Kohlberg's moral stages or you'd probably have thrown a fit in class. Or did you learn about that and dismiss it as "rot" also?

Oh, you are mistaken. I NEVER said that illegality = immorality. Robbery is illegal but it is also immoral. So is rape. So is murder. War is not illegal but is immoral. Premarital sex is not illegal but is immoral. So is homosexuality. And so is abortion. The two are entirely disconnected. It just so happens that robbery (as defined by the law) is illegal AND it is immoral. Just a coincidence. Perhaps you had better learn how to read without jumping to conclusions, inferring incorrectly, and putting things into the mouths of others. You lack logic and wisdom in your discourse.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Wow...just...wow...
I...uh...wow...
*Cirrus83 is actually speechless*
So...he actually...thinks like that? I would call troll but...I think he actually thinks like that...
Wow...

I don't think this gives me a good laugh so much as a sudden urge to cry for the future of humanity.

Yeah......see why I tend to laugh at him?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Because I was provided accessible medical care by unbiased professionals, and was therefore able to have an abortion at age 14, I got to go to college and become a doctor, too. You draw your own conclusions.

My only conclusion is that you're a murderess that happens to be a doctor.

 

[trustwomen]

Correction: murderess

Thanks, Mercapto. It sounds so much classier than "babykiller", don't you think?

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Oh, you are mistaken. I NEVER said that illegality = immorality. Robbery is illegal but it is also immoral. So is rape. So is murder. War is not illegal but is immoral. Premarital sex is not illegal but is immoral. So is homosexuality. And so is abortion. The two are entirely disconnected. It just so happens that robbery (as defined by the law) is illegal AND it is immoral. Just a coincidence. Perhaps you had better learn how to read without jumping to conclusions, inferring incorrectly, and putting things into the mouths of others. You lack logic and wisdom in your discourse.

Wow holy ****.....he actually CAN discriminate (against somthing other groups of people). And it was somewhat sensical right up until the end there.

 

[chad5871]

Abortion on the other hand is active and intentional killing of a fetus. As to whether you're a murderer... well... let's just say I suspect that- had my biological mother met the likes of you- I would personally be deader than a doornail. Because she didn't meet the likes of you, I got to grow up, go to college and become a doctor. You draw your own conclusions.

Because I was provided accessible medical care by unbiased professionals, and was therefore able to have an abortion at age 14, I got to go to college and become a doctor, too. You draw your own conclusions.

Wow. Talk about two completely and extremely different points of view. I respect both of you very much for your backgrounds and can see why you are both so passionate about this subject.

I think it is important to appreciate differences in opinion. There is never going to be an ethically or morally well-defined solution to the problem of abortion, only personal and religious standpoints. I think the fact of the matter is, most of us as people have some opinion on the subject, but patients have a right to their own opinion as well. They also have the right not to have their opinion trampled on by a physician. If you're not comfortable performing an abortion, then don't. But if your patient wants to have one, then I think it's important to make sure she is informed about her decision and then let her decide what she will.

 

[trustwomen]

My only conclusion is that you're a murderess that happens to be a doctor.

You are not alone out there, in thinking that. Perhaps someday I will be shot by some right-thinking Christian who takes umbrage to my providing abortion services.

(Though they usually shoot Jewish males, so maybe I don't need to worry so much.)

 

[DocBR]

In a weird way, that's flattering DocBR. However, given that the entire job of an ad comm is to discriminate (whther on grades, ECs, personal character, etc.), I really don't think this scenario is too likely. However, I will say that the reactions of my interviewers were very unexpected...

If I were on an adcom it would certainly be on my mind. Regardless of if you could win a lawsuit like that, it would cause someone a whole truckload of professional and financial headache. Abortion is a very, very touchy issue and taking a public stance (i.e. being named in a lawsuit regarding abortion whether pro or con) in the court of public opinion is almost always a bad move.

 

[trustwomen]

Nah, you still could have become a doctor if you'd had the baby and put it up for adoption. It was just easier for you to kill the fetus, so that's what you did. And yeah, I'm sure you cried and felt guilty- but are those tears really adequate compensation for the ~78 years of life you took from the fetus inside you? You may tell yourself that it was your future or your fetus's... but really, you both could have had futures. Your fetus's death was entirely unnecessary.

You're right, trustwomen, that I have no right to judge anything you may do to yourself. But, as I said, I am absolutely comfortable judging what you did to the other human life inside of you. To kill for your own betterment... it's certainly human. I also find it reprehensible.

I don't often say this, but I'm just thankful that I was inside of my biological mother's womb rather than yours. Good to know that you would have ended my life, trustwomen, to smooth out your own.

Wow. And I was trying to be nice to you.

I'm done with that.

Where the hell do you get off?

(Recall that phrase, you may hear it a lot from your patients.)

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

You are not alone out there, in thinking that. Perhaps someday I will be shot by some right-thinking Christian who takes umbrage to my providing abortion services.

(Though they usually shoot Jewish males, so maybe I don't need to worry so much.)

There you go again: first murder, then slander. I actually think it was Nazis who did the most shooting of Jewish males, but then again, they did kill millions of Christians too, so we needn't go there. On the other hand, how do you feel about being part of the biggest killing machine since WWII? I'm referring to your professional murderess activities, of course.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Tryinig to be nice to me? By telling me what you would have done to me????

Right.

But you were just a blob, nothing more than the skin she exfoliates off her face ever night. Unfortunately, you were also a blob that would stand in her way, the blob that swallows up "dreams" like some great amoeba, a blob that would stand in the way of her someday "exfoliating" blobs like you and many others.

 

[trustwomen]

There you go again: first murder, then slander. I actually think it was Nazis who did the most shooting of Jewish males, but then again, they did kill millions of Christians too, so we needn't go there. On the other hand, how do you feel about being part of the biggest killing machine since WWII? I'm referring to your professional murderess activities, of course.

I never said you would shoot me, mercapto. Just somebody who shares your opinion.

(And the 5 targets of James Kopp were all Jewish males. I wasn't referring to the Nazis.)

 

[.dream.big.]

Tryinig to be nice to me? By telling me what you would have done to me????

Right.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...ladies. BDD, are you serious? When in her post did she ever "tell you what she would have done to you"? She stated a choice she made, plain and simple. Your mother made a different choice. You are glad. Thats wonderful. Debating is one thing, tearing each other apart is another.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Thanks, Mercapto. It sounds so much classier than "babykiller", don't you think?

Look....it's your new book!

 

[DropkickMurphy]

On the other hand, how do you feel about being part of the biggest killing machine since WWII?

All I can say is one of my ancestors would be very proud.

 

[chad5871]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...ladies. BDD, are you serious? When in her post did she ever "tell you what she would have done to you"? She stated a choice she made, plain and simple. Your mother made a different choice. You are glad. Thats wonderful. Debating is one thing, tearing each other apart is another.

I agree. This is getting nasty and I don't like where the thread is going. Well stated, .dream.big.