Abortion

[The Evil Doer]

Beginning with the most recent, about how no doctor would stand and watch a woman die instead of risking the life of a fetus, for example.

 

I'm not here to argue about that, but to just point out that you do post a lot of what seem like ignorant assumptions (that so-and-so-countries are like this or that, that something that is an "exception" doesn't happen around you etc, that because something happens in relatively low numbers, it's not tragic anymore etc.), and you might notice that yourself from the reactions of others to your posts, that is all. :u

Thats a reasonable logical assumption, doctor takes an aoth to save lives, will do what needs to be done to save lives instead of do nothing especially when the death of a mother will result in a dead fetus....

I think its a reasonable way of thinking and not a stereotypical one, whats ignorant about that ?

 

When I say stuff about a so and so country its because I have visited the country and know a thing or two about it.

 

Exceptions happen everywhere thats the definition of exceptions, never said they dont happen around me

 

Read again, I said "far from being a good number and a less tragic one" - far from being a less tragic number means that it is a tragedy even if only one mother dies, you obviously didnt understand that part

Edited November 9, 2011 by The Evil Doer

[Lodrelhai]

Beginning with the most recent, about how no doctor would stand and watch a woman die instead of risking the life of a fetus, for example.

 

I'm not here to argue about that, but to just point out that you do post a lot of what seem like ignorant assumptions (that so-and-so-countries are like this or that, that because something is an exception, it can be ignored etc.), and you might notice that yourself from the reactions of others to your posts, that is all. :u

Thank you lightbird.

 

This is exactly what's going on, and you continually do it, The Evil Doer. We talk possible outcomes of restricting or forbidding abortions, you say we're blowing things out of proportion. We cite cases in areas where abortions are restricted or illegal, you say they're exceptions or happening to "someone else somewhere else," blaming the outcome on inferior healthcare or cultural inequalities. We bring up how many of these are happening here and now, in the United States, along with other symptoms and examples of how women are treated as though their bodies and lives are not their own even when are laws are supposed to protect us from this, and you dismiss them as irrelevant to the argument.

 

When does the woman become relevant to the argument? When do her wants, desires, welfare, and free will start counting even when they do not line up with whatever person happens to be in a position of power concerning her body? Why is anyone ever in a position to tell a woman, "You can't do what you want with your own life and body because I, a completely unrelated and unaffected individual, don't like it?"

 

I'm sure you'll now bring up some argument of how no one's really doing that (though that's exactly what's going on), or how a woman should've made those decisions before she got pregnant (disregarding the myriad of ways preventions fail, not to mention that many of the same groups that disallow abortion also disallow birth control), or how the mother's life is not more valuable than the infant's (though forcing the mother to carry an infant she doesn't want intrinsically values the infant's life over the mother's).

 

So the short and sweet version: You don't believe in abortion, and that is perfectly fine. No one should ever force you to abort, or do anything to you that might force a miscarriage, or stand in the way of you having as many or as few children as you want. Every other women have the freedom to make that same choice for themselves.

[lightbird]

So the short and sweet version: You don't believe in abortion, and that is perfectly fine. No one should ever force you to abort, or do anything to you that might force a miscarriage, or stand in the way of you having as many or as few children as you want. Every other women have the freedom to make that same choice for themselves.

Thank you for wording that ^ more eloquently than I ever could.

 

I may be wrong about this, but from something TED posted a while ago about civil service, I got the idea that he's a guy, although that, of course, may be wrong.

[DarkLadyNyara]

This is exactly what's going on, and you continually do it, The Evil Doer. We talk possible outcomes of restricting or forbidding abortions, you say we're blowing things out of proportion. We cite cases in areas where abortions are restricted or illegal, you say they're exceptions or happening to "someone else somewhere else," blaming the outcome on inferior healthcare or cultural inequalities. We bring up how many of these are happening here and now, in the United States, along with other symptoms and examples of how women are treated as though their bodies and lives are not their own even when are laws are supposed to protect us from this, and you dismiss them as irrelevant to the argument.

 

When does the woman become relevant to the argument? When do her wants, desires, welfare, and free will start counting even when they do not line up with whatever person happens to be in a position of power concerning her body? Why is anyone ever in a position to tell a woman, "You can't do what you want with your own life and body because I, a completely unrelated and unaffected individual, don't like it?"

 

I'm sure you'll now bring up some argument of how no one's really doing that (though that's exactly what's going on), or how a woman should've made those decisions before she got pregnant (disregarding the myriad of ways preventions fail, not to mention that many of the same groups that disallow abortion also disallow birth control), or how the mother's life is not more valuable than the infant's (though forcing the mother to carry an infant she doesn't want intrinsically values the infant's life over the mother's).

 

So the short and sweet version: You don't believe in abortion, and that is perfectly fine. No one should ever force you to abort, or do anything to you that might force a miscarriage, or stand in the way of you having as many or as few children as you want. Every other women have the freedom to make that same choice for themselves.

^^^Thankyouthankyouthatnkyou. That was perfectly said, an I can think of nothing else to add.

[The Evil Doer]

This is exactly what's going on, and you continually do it, The Evil Doer.  We talk possible outcomes of restricting or forbidding abortions, you say we're blowing things out of proportion.

 

Never claimed that abortion should be illegal, find it to be a a wretched thing to do and as such find the idea of the law a ridiculous one, however I do think that some members are blowing things out of proportions when it comes to pregnancy, if a 12 year old girl reads this thread she will get the idea that pregnancy is a torture and that she might die or go crazy or many other possibilities when in fact majority of women go through normal pregnancy with obvious physical strains on their bodies but hardly something that can be considered a torture, so yes I do feel like this thread might scare the hell out of certain members who dont know any better....

 

We cite cases in areas where abortions are restricted or illegal, you say they're exceptions or happening to "someone else somewhere else," blaming the outcome on inferior healthcare or cultural inequalities.

 

Im not blaming anything on anyone, Im stating that one country doesnt share the same set of values or morals as the other country does, morals of the west arent the same as those of north Africa so if you are bringing other countries into the mix you are talking about different sets of values.....

 

We bring up how many of these are happening here and now, in the United States, along with other symptoms and examples of how women are treated as though their bodies and lives are not their own even when are laws are supposed to protect us from this, and you dismiss them as irrelevant to the argument.

 

You missunderstood me, I didnt say that rapes and other things you have posted are irrelevant to the debate of abortion, I claimed its irrelevant to the post I have made and which you were addressing, the post which stated that I dont think a doctor will stand and watch a pregnant woman die...

 

When does the woman become relevant to the argument?  When do her wants, desires, welfare, and free will start counting even when they do not line up with whatever person happens to be in a position of power concerning her body?  Why is anyone ever in a position to tell a woman, "You can't do what you want with your own life and body because I, a completely unrelated and unaffected individual, don't like it?"

 

When did I ever say woman's needs desires are irrelevant, when did I say she shouldnt have a complete power over her own body ?

 

I'm sure you'll now bring up some argument of how no one's really doing that (though that's exactly what's going on), or how a woman should've made those decisions before she got pregnant (disregarding the myriad of ways preventions fail, not to mention that many of the same groups that disallow abortion also disallow birth control), or how the mother's life is not more valuable than the infant's (though forcing the mother to carry an infant she doesn't want intrinsically values the infant's life over the mother's).

 

As I have stated already, never claimed neither of those things, Im pro abortion after all, have two girl friends who aborted and I went to the clinic with one of them, seriously dont get where did you get all that about my opinions because I never said anything even remotely close to what you are saying

 

So the short and sweet version: You don't believe in abortion, and that is perfectly fine.  No one should ever force you to abort, or do anything to you that might force a miscarriage, or stand in the way of you having as many or as few children as you want.  Every other women have the freedom to make that same choice for themselves.

 

Nor am I a girl nor do I "not believe in abortion"

Edited November 9, 2011 by The Evil Doer

[LascielsShadow]

Indeed it doesnt say but I still think that the hospital will get into trouble if a dying pregnant girl arrives and they simply kick her out to die....

 

@ShinyTomato

Indeed it says that they can choose not to perform an abortion but it is vague and I dont think it includes life or death cases.

 

They might get into trouble. That doesn't negate the fact that a doctor would be legally allowed to do it. They might also not get into trouble, if the hospital is one affiliated with said doctor's religion. A catholic nun in Phoenix was excommunicated for allowing a woman to have an abortion without which she'd have died. They would have preferred that nature take its course, i.e., that the woman had died due to the strain the pregnancy would have put on her body. (Pulmonary hypertension.)

 

It IS vague, that's the whole bloody problem. It does include life or death cases, because it does not explicitly provide for an exception in those cases. If it were law, a doctor could sit back and allow a woman to die, and could use their moral beliefs as a defence.

 

You personally believing that something would not happen doesn't mean it wouldn't, couldn't, or doesn't.

 

 

 

[The Evil Doer]

They might get into trouble. That doesn't negate the fact that a doctor would be legally allowed to do it. They might also not get into trouble, if the hospital is one affiliated with said doctor's religion. A catholic nun in Phoenix was excommunicated for allowing a woman to have an abortion without which she'd have died. They would have preferred that nature take its course, i.e., that the woman had died due to the strain the pregnancy would have put on her body. (Pulmonary hypertension.)

 

It IS vague, that's the whole bloody problem. It does include life or death cases, because it does not explicitly provide for an exception in those cases. If it were law, a doctor could sit back and allow a woman to die, and could use their moral beliefs as a defence.

 

You personally believing that something would not happen doesn't mean it wouldn't, couldn't, or doesn't.

Agreed,,, me thinking one way doesnt make it true, Im just more positive I guess, I rather believe that a doctor will do the right thing and not let a pregnant girl die in front of him, that in my eyes is like a crime against humanity and doctors doing so is just... sadistic I guess

If the 12 people in the jury were to see that act as a proper defense then... I dont know, speechless....

[skinst]

People's views can be blinding.

 

Unless people see things with their own eyes (like, for example, the hypothetical doctor watched that girl die) it's unlikely that people will change their opinion.

 

It's like smokers: they don't think they're going to die from what they do (or they simply ignore the fact) until they're diagnosed with some horrific illness that smoking causes, and have to live through the slow pain of dying from it.

 

People just simply cannot truly understand what someone else is going through until they are put in a position that makes them understand.

[Brite]

Just went and read that part of the bill... this is a copy paste of what's written there

 

LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING

 

IN GENERAL - No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except—

 

‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;

or

‘‘(2) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

 

Emm... Thats kind of what I said that I dont see happening, which is doctors standing and watching the mom die....

 

Errr I had that bill for my government project. Which was really hard to do since I'm pro choice and I had to stand up in front of the class and present, "Innocent lives need to be protected..haderpaderp"

 

Taxes are used to pay the doctors and the clinic. They don't get a regular salary and the state has the choice to get rid of the clinic if they wanted to...

[Lila]

I went away from this thread but I've been reading through it and thinking about it. If you believe something is immoral in your religion's terms, it is illogical to make it illegal because 1) religion is not universal and 2) denying someone what they long for will not turn them to your religion, anyway. I believe it's immoral for a woman to use abortion as a form of birth control, but it's better she abort than have children that would grow up in a financially and possibly mentally unstable household. You can't take it from just your perspective, because you're different from everybody else. You can't take the promiscuous woman from down the street and preach to her about abortion being murder; she's done it so many times, the only possible thing you can accomplish there is making her feel like a murderer. If you want someone to stop doing something you believe is immoral, you must convert them to your faith first, and to be converted, they have to be willing. You simply cannot say "This is illegal because it is not what God/etc designed." Until God himself descends from heaven, you cannot make choices for others.

[Layn]

The problem, The Evil Doer, lies with the fact that currently, pharmacists are allowed to not give out birth control pills if it interferes with their personal beliefs (eg: Catholic). They are allowed to direct a patient to another clinic which will dispense birth control pills, and are allowed to say "I don't care" if the patient is poor, and has no money to go to another pharmacy.

 

This law is proposing to put performing ANY abortions in the same category as that for pharmacists. There are religions which teach that killing a fetus is a sin. If a physician follows one of those religions, even inadvertently causing a miscarriage could be considered not worth doing. If the woman dies, at least the doctor didn't, actively, by his or her hands, kill something that he or she beliefs it is a sin to kill. They killed the woman by not acting, of course. But they didn't actively kill her, didn't stab her to death or put a gun to her head, and so they can justify letting her die by inactivity more easily than they can justify causing a miscarriage. And Catholicism isn't the only religion that teaches this!

[Brite]

I believe people like ShinyTomato (btw, HI Shiny, I missed you!) and NobleOwl who can back up what they say.

 

There are verses in the bible that say "I knew you before you were in your womb" but that just goes back to my belief that he only cares about our soul, not the body we're put into...

[The Evil Doer]

The problem, The Evil Doer, lies with the fact that currently, pharmacists are allowed to not give out birth control pills if it interferes with their personal beliefs (eg: Catholic). They are allowed to direct a patient to another clinic which will dispense birth control pills, and are allowed to say "I don't care" if the patient is poor, and has no money to go to another pharmacy.

 

This law is proposing to put performing ANY abortions in the same category as that for pharmacists. There are religions which teach that killing a fetus is a sin. If a physician follows one of those religions, even inadvertently causing a miscarriage could be considered not worth doing. If the woman dies, at least the doctor didn't, actively, by his or her hands, kill something that he or she beliefs it is a sin to kill. They killed the woman by not acting, of course. But they didn't actively kill her, didn't stab her to death or put a gun to her head, and so they can justify letting her die by inactivity more easily than they can justify causing a miscarriage. And Catholicism isn't the only religion that teaches this!

Frankly I find the concept of pharmacists refusing to give out medicine an idiotic one, I think their boss should be contacted and they should be fired..

When it comes to doctors though and life or death situations, the mere idea of doing nothing while someone else dies, actually dies, is.... well if you are a religious person and religion teaches being good and teaches how human life is a sacred thing how in the hell can anyone watch and do nothing while a woman dies ? Furthermore a pregnant woman, and not just anyone but in this case a doctor, the same person who took an oath to save lives, its just doesnt make sense, I dont even get how is that scenario so trivial to you guys

[dragon_mando]

Definitely far less than a life or death situation, but doctors do refuse to treat. When I had my false pregnancy scare I couldn't even get two nurses to let me get tested because they knew I would abort if I was pregnant. Finally I had to bring in a male friend to pose as my boyfriend and order them to test me.

 

And I live in the US.

 

And yes, I realize nurses aren't fully doctors, but all I wanted was a pregnancy test -____-

[DarkLadyNyara]

Frankly I find the concept of pharmacists refusing to give out medicine an idiotic one, I think their boss should be contacted and they should be fired..

They can't be fired because what they're doing is (in many states) explicitly legal. And their bosses often agree with them.

 

When it comes to doctors though and life or death situations, the mere idea of doing nothing while someone else dies, actually dies, is.... well if you are a religious person and religion teaches being good and teaches how human life is a sacred thing how in the hell can anyone watch and do nothing while a woman dies ? Furthermore a pregnant woman, and not just anyone but in this case a doctor, the same person who took an oath to save lives, its just doesnt make sense, I dont even get how is that scenario so trivial to you guys 

 

Wait what? So let me get this straight- refusing to ignore a situation is considering it "trivial"? Women are dying because of these kinds of laws. And because some of us refuse to let some misguided pseudo-idealism stop us from pointing it out, we're the ones considering the situation trivial? Really? Because we don't figuratively stand over the dead and close our eyes and say "I don't want to believe in it so it doesn't happen"? I...I got nothing.

[Rosedamai]

Frankly I find the concept of pharmacists refusing to give out medicine an idiotic one, I think their boss should be contacted and they should be fired..

When it comes to doctors though and life or death situations, the mere idea of doing nothing while someone else dies, actually dies, is.... well if you are a religious person and religion teaches being good and teaches how human life is a sacred thing how in the hell can anyone watch and do nothing while a woman dies ? Furthermore a pregnant woman, and not just anyone but in this case a doctor, the same person who took an oath to save lives, its just doesnt make sense, I dont even get how is that scenario so trivial to you guys

Because not everyone abides by the oath duh. There was this video included on "Sicko"-it is a documentary-where the hospital staff just dumps this woman who needs a surgery on the streets cuz she did not have enough money. If doctors were really concerned and abided to the Hippocratic oath well then it should not matter if the patient has enough money or not, once you received him/her as your patient you should treat them, no?

 

And you seem to have this idea that if you have a religion which teaches you about respecting life and whatnot you cannot in all honesty take away someone's life. Historical facts like the Inquisition and the 30 years war and witchhunts and lynchings aside (as well as terrorists) there are people who kill doctors who perform abortions to "prevent more murders." Well shouldn't that something that should not happen as all religions preach against murder? Yes I am quoting extreme cases- so let us get into more cases that actually did happen. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are against god's will so there are quite a lot of cases where belivers of that faith let their children die rather than get a blood transfusion. And I am assuming that parents are more cpmmitted to their kids than doctors to their patients. There are doctors who were Jehivah's witnesses that refused to do the transfusion themselves. Another example can be Kitty Jenovese, who was killed while 30 people just not doing anythingg while she died-I bet some of them, if not most, were religious. Fact is, yes religious people like non religious people do sit around doing nothing while someone dies. Even more so when their faith compells them not to take action.

 

Why is it so trivial? Because for heaven's sake I do not think that a woman's life in a potentially life threatening position should be sacrificed by some personal beliefs of a doctor. I've already shown you by the above examples that just because some religious text orders you not to commit murder you are going to not sit there and watch. Plenty of cases out there where people actually have acted/did not act and thus created deaths. My guess is that people are going to have different interpretations of a text, different parts are going to weigh in a lot more than others, or they go through a rationalization process.

 

But seriously your point that since religion teaches you to be loving or whatever so people become better people is just absurd. All religions teach you not to harm others. All religions also tell you to kill infidels if they would not be converted, or at the very least provide a special place of torment for them in the afterlife. Read the old testament if you do not believe me.

[The Evil Doer]

Wait what? So let me get this straight- refusing to ignore a situation is considering it "trivial"? Women are dying because of these kinds of laws. And because some of us refuse to let some misguided pseudo-idealism stop us from pointing it out, we're the ones considering the situation trivial? Really? Because we don't figuratively stand over the dead and close our eyes and say "I don't want to believe in it so it doesn't happen"? I...I got nothing.

Who is talking about the law at all ? I was talkin about the concept of a doctor, watching a pregnant woman die in front of his eyes in a hospital and choosing to just stand there and do nothing for her...

Yes, to me it is a shock when someone says yeah sure, it happens all the time, and no I have never encountered that "situation" in our society...

If that is a misguided pseudo-idealism then so be it.....

[The Evil Doer]

Because not everyone abides by the oath duh. There was this video included on "Sicko"-it is a documentary-where the hospital staff just dumps this woman who needs a surgery on the streets cuz she did not have enough money. If doctors were really concerned and abided to the Hippocratic oath well then it should not matter if the patient has enough money or not, once you received him/her as your patient you should treat them, no?

 

And you seem to have this idea that if you have a religion which teaches you about respecting life and whatnot you cannot in all honesty take away someone's life. Historical facts like the Inquisition and the 30 years war and witchhunts and lynchings aside (as well as terrorists) there are people who kill doctors who perform abortions to "prevent more murders." Well shouldn't that something that should not happen as all religions preach against murder? Yes I am quoting extreme cases- so let us get into more cases that actually did happen. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are against god's will so there are quite a lot of cases where belivers of that faith let their children die rather than get a blood transfusion. And I am assuming that parents are more cpmmitted to their kids than doctors to their patients. There are doctors who were Jehivah's witnesses that refused to do the transfusion themselves. Another example can be Kitty Jenovese, who was killed while 30 people just not doing anythingg while she died-I bet some of them, if not most, were religious. Fact is, yes religious people like non religious people do sit around doing nothing while someone dies. Even more so when their faith compells them not to take action.

 

Why is it so trivial? Because for heaven's sake I do not think that a woman's life in a potentially life threatening position should be sacrificed by some personal beliefs of a doctor. I've already shown you by the above examples that just because some religious text orders you not to commit murder you are going to not sit there and watch. Plenty of cases out there where people actually have acted/did not act and thus created deaths. My guess is that people are going to have different interpretations of a text, different parts are going to weigh in a lot more than others, or they go through a rationalization process.

 

But seriously your point that since religion teaches you to be loving or whatever so people become better people is just absurd. All religions teach you not to harm others. All religions also tell you to kill infidels if they would not be converted, or at the very least provide a special place of torment for them in the afterlife. Read the old testament if you do not believe me.

Well, yes I do have an idea that a religious person who also happens to be a well educated man/woman (which is required to become a doctor) isnt going to be some religious fanatic who will stand and do nothing while a pregnant woman dies...

What went on in the name of god 100-500 years ago is not whats going on today as values have slightly changed since then, in some religions more in others less.

Poor Kitty's death was a result of a bystander effect which is hardly the same thing as a doctor standing and watching a woman die in front of his eyes, unless you assume he is hoping that some other doctor will save her life, but I doubt that is the case.....

All religions tell you to kill infidels if they would not be converted ? You sure about that one ?

[Kishing]

Well, yes I do have an idea that a religious person who also happens to be a well educated man/woman (which is required to become a doctor) isnt going to be some religious fanatic who will stand and do nothing while a pregnant woman dies...

Actually (sadly), many well-educated religious people I know still think it's preferable to let someone die ("It's God's will") than to actively save their life by killing a fetus. And some of these people have become doctors, nurses, surgeons, all that. I mean, yeah, in an ideal world no doctor would stand by and let a woman die, but then, in an ideal world there would be no unplanned pregnancies, no rape, no murder, etc.

 

We live in reality, not a utopia, and that's why we need laws to protect pregnant women from this kind of ridiculousness. I mean, heck, I wouldn't abolish anti-burglary laws just because I assume everyone else is a decent person who won't break into my house and steal my stuff.

[Rosedamai]

Well, yes I do have an idea that a religious person who also happens to be a well educated man/woman (which is required to become a doctor) isnt going to be some religious fanatic who will stand and do nothing while a pregnant woman dies...

What went on in the name of god 100-500 years ago is not whats going on today as values have slightly changed since then, in some religions more in others less.

Poor Kitty's death was a result of a bystander effect which is hardly the same thing as a doctor standing and watching a woman die in front of his eyes, unless you assume he is hoping that some other doctor will save her life, but I doubt that is the case.....

All religions tell you to kill infidels if they would not be converted ? You sure about that one ?

Riiight. What about those Jehovah's witnesses doctors then? Hmmmm?

 

And I was generally rebutting your argument that if you have a religion it would not let you stand still while someone died. I find that ridiculous to begin with, especially so when applied to a case like this.

 

Oh yes, that is why I said or reserved a special place of torment in the afterlife. You have got to admit that every religion or another has punishments for the unbelievers, literally or in the afterlife. But that is another topic entirely.

 

[AngelKitty]

Oh yes, that is why I said or reserved a special place of torment in the afterlife. You have got to admit that every religion or another has punishments for the unbelievers, literally or in the afterlife. But that is another topic entirely.

 

Wicca doesn't. Pretty sure Buddhism doesn't either. I'm sure there are other religions that don't, either, but Wicca and Buddhism were the first to pop into my mind.

[Rosedamai]

Wicca doesn't. Pretty sure Buddhism doesn't either. I'm sure there are other religions that don't, either, but Wicca and Buddhism were the first to pop into my mind.

Well actually buddhism does have a hell, did not know about Wicca sorry, but my point generally was that most religions do have a tinge of nastiness in them, it is noy all about respecting life and whatnot, and some people do act on that nastiness and always will.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) Buddhist version if hell

Edited November 9, 2011 by ylangylang

[Kestra15]

Or unless a Pro-Birth doctor says so it seems. :/

Then they are up for discplined and potentially struck off for malpractice.

Frankly I find the concept of pharmacists refusing to give out medicine an idiotic one, I think their boss should be contacted and they should be fired..

When it comes to doctors though and life or death situations, the mere idea of doing nothing while someone else dies, actually dies, is.... well if you are a religious person and religion teaches being good and teaches how human life is a sacred thing how in the hell can anyone watch and do nothing while a woman dies ? Furthermore a pregnant woman, and not just anyone but in this case a doctor, the same person who took an oath to save lives, its just doesnt make sense, I dont even get how is that scenario so trivial to you guys 

As before, pharmacists cannot refuse a script - i.e. there is a medical need for it.

 

There is such thing as a DNACPR - Do Not Attempt CPR. So sometimes we do have to watch people die and are not allowed to interfere.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Kestra15

[NobleOwl]

When it comes to doctors though and life or death situations, the mere idea of doing nothing while someone else dies, actually dies, is.... well if you are a religious person and religion teaches being good and teaches how human life is a sacred thing how in the hell can anyone watch and do nothing while a woman dies ? Furthermore a pregnant woman, and not just anyone but in this case a doctor, the same person who took an oath to save lives, its just doesnt make sense, I dont even get how is that scenario so trivial to you guys huh.gif

It's not trivial, it's that when you have similar things happen, you know it will happen. You have less faith in doctors, when a hospital turns out your wife who is having a heart attack, because of her ethnicity, or refuses to treat your daughter who has a fever of a hundred and three because her parents are gay. Or almost lose a friend who went to a doctor who refuses to do an abortion on a non-viable ectopic pregnancy or refer their patient to a doctor who will. How many times are we supposed to see doctors claim conscience over life before we believe they'll do it?

 

All life and death situations, both times religious doctors refused to help, at two different hospitals in two different states. When one has to plan emergency care around what hospitals will treat you and not where you can get medical help the fastest, the idea of someone letting a woman die rather than perform an abortion isn't strange or odd, it's just another symptom.

 

Frankly I find the concept of pharmacists refusing to give out medicine an idiotic one, I think their boss should be contacted and they should be fired..

 

It's against the law to fire for that. Likewise, they can refuse to give a rape victim a morning after pill.

 

 

[DarkLadyNyara]

Who is talking about the law at all ? I was talkin about the concept of a doctor, watching a pregnant woman die in front of his eyes in a hospital and choosing to just stand there and do nothing for her...

Yes, to me it is a shock when someone says yeah sure, it happens all the time, and no I have never encountered that "situation" in our society...

If that is a misguided pseudo-idealism then so be it.....

Being shocked is one thing. But refusing to believe it happens? Saying no doctor would ever watch a woman die when there are documented cases of that exact thing happening? Yeah..."misguided pseudo-idealism" was me being nice.

 

It's not trivial, it's that when you have similar things happen, you know it will happen.

...

How many times are we supposed to see doctors claim conscience over life before we believe they'll do it?

 

^QFT. "This scenario happens. A lot." isn't anywhere near the same as "this scenario is trivial." How the heck you even make that kind of leap is beyond me.

Edited November 10, 2011 by DarkLadyNyara