Abortion Advocates Applaud Potential Obama Move to Make Doctors Do Abortions

[elts1956]

Does anyone know if this is about bo overturning President Bush’s protective policies for health care providers which he signed during his last days in office?

lifenews.com/

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – When is pro-choice not really pro-choice? When abortion advocacy groups applaud a move by President Barack Obama to consider removing protections in place for medical staff and centers that don’t want to do abortions. As LifeNews.com reported, Obama has opened up a 3-day comment period in advance of removing the Bush protections enforcing national conscience laws for medical professionals. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, praised the Obama administration for moving forward to repeal the pro-life rule. “President Obama’s action today to move forward in repealing this rule reinforces why elections matter and how new leadership can end divisive policies that harm women,” Keenan claimed. “President Obama has signaled his intent to honor the public’s call for a focus on commonsense, common-ground solutions that make a difference in the lives of women and their families. We will continue to work with President Obama to change the tone of the debate over reproductive rights.” Keenan said nothing about hwy her group favors forcing doctors and private medical centers to do abortions that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs. NOW President Kim Gandy also applauded the Obama administration’s move towards forced abortions. “This is a positive move by the Obama administration, and a demonstration of the president’s commitment to women and reproductive health care,” she said.

 

[Squishy]

I think forcing doctors to perform abortions would be a terrible pratice. But i do think that medical facilitys who recieve tax payers money should all have to be equiped to perform the procedures. If a patients doctor is unwilling to perform an abortion on grounds of concience then they should be forced to refer the patient to a doctor who will.

 

[mapleoak]

i do think that medical facilitys who recieve tax payers money should all have to be equiped to perform the procedures.

Translation: All facilities involved in preservation of life that receive tax payers money should be equipped to murder, irregardless if the taxpayer wants his money forced out of his pocket to fund killing people.

If a patients doctor is unwilling to perform an abortion on grounds of concience then they should be forced to refer the patient to a doctor who will.

Sounds rather communistic, don’t you think?

 

[Squishy]

Translation: All facilities involved in preservation of life that receive tax payers money should be equipped to murder, irregardless if the taxpayer wants his money forced out of his pocket to fund killing people.

America is a democracy. The government is elected by the people and they decide where to spend the tax dollers. So its actually the tax payers who decide where its spent.

Sounds rather communistic, don’t you think?

Not really. If a doctor is unwilling to provide a legal service on the grounds of conciouse they should have to refer the patient to one who will. Its their right to not perform the abortion but they have no right to activly withhold it from a patient.

 

[mapleoak]

America is a democracy.

America is not a democracy.

The government is elected by the people and they decide where to spend the tax dollers. So its actually the tax payers who decide where its spent.

Really?

Not really. If a doctor is unwilling to provide a legal service on the grounds of conciouse they should have to refer the patient to one who will. Its their right to not perform the abortion but they have no right to activly withhold it from a patient.

If a doctor is unwilling to commit murder, they must be FORCED to refer a patient to a doctor who is?

 

[Snerticus]

Sounds rather communistic, don’t you think?

That statement makes no sense. A doctor who refuses an abortion has made a conciencous decision that includes not giving an abortion to a person. Period. Whether it’s them doing the procedure or not .

If you were asked to do something that may be completely legal, but totally immoral and you absolutely squirm at the thought of doing something so horrendous, you of course would say no. Buth then would you go and recommend someone who did do that immoral act? I certainly hope not.

 

[mapleoak]

That statement makes no sense. A doctor who refuses an abortion has made a conciencous decision that includes not giving an abortion to a person. Period. Whether it’s them doing the procedure or not .

If you were asked to do something that may be completely legal, but totally immoral and you absolutely squirm at the thought of doing something so horrendous, you of course would say no. Buth then would you go and recommend someone who did do that immoral act? I certainly hope not.

Kind of like the wife who won’t kill her husband but hires a hitman instead.

 

[Snerticus]

I have a question that I need to ask and get off my chest. Recently, there was an 11 year old in Pennsylvania that shot and killed a pregnant woman. It was horrendous news to me, but unfortunately it seems the way society is heading.

Last I heard, he was being charged for murdering the woman and also “homicide of an unborn child”.

That is so hypocritical of us in the US. What on earth is the difference between “homicide of an unborn child” and an “abortion”? Both are attempts at getting rid of an unwanted person. I see absolutely no difference other than one is legal and the other is not.

Or do you think this should be a topic of another thread? …

 

[Snerticus]

Kind of like the wife who won’t kill her husband but hires a hitman instead.

…yeah, like that gets her off the hook!.. Both here on earth and in eternity…

 

[PaulinVA]

It’s a stupid conclusion to reach that if a facility (Hospital) accepts Medicare to treat older people with, say, breathing problems, that the facility also has to perform abortions.

Totally stupid and just a part of Obama’s “No Child Left Alive” policy.

 

[Squishy]

That statement makes no sense. A doctor who refuses an abortion has made a conciencous decision that includes not giving an abortion to a person. Period. Whether it’s them doing the procedure or not .

If you were asked to do something that may be completely legal, but totally immoral and you absolutely squirm at the thought of doing something so horrendous, you of course would say no. Buth then would you go and recommend someone who did do that immoral act? I certainly hope not.

But a doctor has no right to deny someone a procedure on moral grounds alone. They have the right to do so on medical but thats a different argument. And they have the right to decline to do it them selves. But preventing a level of care to a patient based on their own moral judgements is lunacy.

If the doctor held the belief that other procedures where against their moral ideals should they prevent a patient from getting them?

Heart bypasses, kimotherapy, the list is endless.

 

[jkarp]

I think forcing doctors to perform abortions would be a terrible pratice. But i do think that medical facilitys who recieve tax payers money should all have to be equiped to perform the procedures.

So if everyone pays for it, murdering babies is okay?

If a patients doctor is unwilling to perform an abortion on grounds of concience then they should be forced to refer the patient to a doctor who will.

If we have a right to choose as “pro-choice” advocates would like us to believe, why should an organization not have the right to choose? Further, if a doctor is opposed to the evil murder of abortion, why should he/she be compelled to cooperate with evil by referring a patient to someone who will kill their baby?

It seems to me that “pro-choice” isn’t about choice, it’s about murder; the only choice that “pro-choice” will accept is death . . . :banghead:

 

[PaulinVA]

Squishy, it is rarely the case that you must kill a baby for the mother to survive.

For an OB/GYN to determine an abortion is never warranted is not only a moral determination but a medical one. The OB/GYN has two patients, right? The mother and the baby. Killing one of your patients is never medically a good thing, is it?

There are docs everywhere who do not do certain procedures or prescribe certain drugs because they think they are not effective or dangerous or whatever. It’s naive to think that every doc does every procedure recognized by his specialty.

 

[Squishy]

So if everyone pays for it, murdering babies is okay?

A full equiped medical centre would have the facilitys to perform what is needed from them. Currently abortion is not illegal. This would mean that they should be equiped to perform abortions. This is what i was saying.

If we have a right to choose as “pro-choice” advocates would like us to believe, why should an organization not have the right to choose? Further, if a doctor is opposed to the evil murder of abortion, why should he/she be compelled to cooperate with evil by referring a patient to someone who will kill their baby?

It seems to me that “pro-choice” isn’t about choice, it’s about murder; the only choice that “pro-choice” will accept is death . . . :banghead:

The doctor has the choice not to perform the operation. But does not have the right to deny that person the level of care that the government promises. (i dont like using the term care and abortion in the same sentence, but i could not think of a more appropriate term)

 

[Squishy]

Squishy, it is rarely the case that you must kill a baby for the mother to survive.

For an OB/GYN to determine an abortion is never warranted is not only a moral determination but a medical one. The OB/GYN has two patients, right? The mother and the baby. Killing one of your patients is never medically a good thing, is it?

There are docs everywhere who do not do certain procedures or prescribe certain drugs because they think they are not effective or dangerous or whatever. It’s naive to think that every doc does every procedure recognized by his specialty.

I agree, doctors have a lot of flexability with how the administer care to their patients. ‘Killing you patients’ is never a good thing. Most certainly not. But as its not recognised as such in the case of abortion its the opinion of the doctor. If a doctor does not give you the level of care you require. You are entitled to request that they refer you to a doctor who will.

 

[PaulinVA]

You are entitled to request that they refer you to a doctor who will.

Well, you can ask all you want. Forcing a doc to refer a patient to a baby killer is just plain wrong.

 

[Squishy]

Well, you can ask all you want. Forcing a doc to refer a patient to a baby killer is just plain wrong.

Denying a patient the level of treatment that she requires based on moral ideals is just plain wrong.

If a doctor decided it was immoral to give someone a blood tranfusion. You are ok for them to not assist the patient in finding a doctor who will.?

 

[st_lucy]

Denying a patient the level of treatment that she requires based on moral ideals is just plain wrong.

If a doctor decided it was immoral to give someone a blood tranfusion. You are ok for them to not assist the patient in finding a doctor who will.?

My thought is why is this patient who is hell bent on having her child murdered going to someone who wants to see her child live. There are plenty of abortion mills all around why are they making it sound that going to a doctor that most moral people would love to see and support, are her only options? Why are they trying to close down the doors to these offices? The pro choice industry just wont be happy until the world thinks like them.

 

[Squishy]

My thought is why is this patient who is hell bent on having her child murdered going to someone who wants to see her child live. There are plenty of abortion mills all around why are they making it sound that going to a doctor that most moral people would love to see and support, are her only options? Why are they trying to close down the doors to these offices? The pro choice industry just wont be happy until the world thinks like them.

Hypocritical much ? Your claim of having her child murdered is actually just your opinion and is not backed up by law. So its someone who is going to her doctor for a medical procedure. How dare she.

 

[st_lucy]

Hypocritical much ? Your claim of having her child murdered is actually just your opinion and is not backed up by law. So its someone who is going to her doctor for a medical procedure. How dare she.

Yeah and the Nazi’s claimed that having the Jews murdered was actually backed up by law. And the hutu’s claimed that butchering the tutsi was not murder. Just because the government has claimed something is not murder does not make it so. We have seen this though out history. Oh when will we learn from the past.

It is not my opinion, it is God’s opinion. It is science’s opinion. etc. It is the killing of another human being, that has done absolutely nothing wrong except being at the wrong place at the wrong time.