Abortion Advocates Applaud Potential Obama Move to Make Doctors Do Abortions

[Squishy]

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.

I might be mistaken but i do not think the nazis gasing the jews was a law. Their was definatly laws that allowed them to be persecuited but i think the ‘final solution’ was never written into geman law. For obvious reasons.

Science does not class an early stage embryo as a human being at leaste i do not think it does. Your gods opinion means nothing. If some devil worshipers said that abortion should be legal would we have to give them the same credability as your beliefs?

 

[PaulinVA]

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

Oh, man, no woman requires to kill her baby. It’s elective. Calling it a level of treatment the woman requires is just so wrong.

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

I believe that an ER doc or a surgeon with reservations about transfusions should probably find a different specialty, because of the immediacy of the need. This is in no way analogous to an OB/GYN being required to kill babies.

 

[Squishy]

Oh, man, no woman requires to kill her baby. It’s elective. Calling it a level of treatment the woman requires is just so wrong.

I agree. Sorry

I believe that an ER doc or a surgeon with reservations about transfusions should probably find a different specialty, because of the immediacy of the need. This is in no way analogous to an OB/GYN being required to kill babies.

No one is asking them to. But not refering them to another doctor is denying the women a legal procedure. Based on their own moral compsss. In my scenario you are siggesting that my hypothetical ER doc has to find different work based on their morality of a procedure thats deemed acceptable by society. Should the same be said about OB/GYN ? I dont think it should. I think my hypothetical doc should refer the patient to another doctor who does not feel the same way.

 

[st_lucy]

I might be mistaken but i do not think the nazis gasing the jews was a law. Their was definatly laws that allowed them to be persecuited but i think the ‘final solution’ was never written into geman law. For obvious reasons.

Science does not class an early stage embryo as a human being at leaste i do not think it does. Your gods opinion means nothing. If some devil worshipers said that abortion should be legal would we have to give them the same credability as your beliefs?

September 15, 1935: German Congress passes the so-called Nuremburg Laws which redefine German Jews as non-citizens and ban Jews from any political participation. These laws on German “Citizenship, Blood and Honor,” prohibit Jews from marrying German citizens, having extramarital relations with German citizens and prohibit any Jew from raising the German flag.

September 21 1935: Under the Nuremberg Laws, Jewish doctors are forced to resign from private hospitals.

January 1, 1938: Jewish doctors in Germany lose insurance under the Nuremberg Laws.

July 22: Effective January 1, 1939, all Jews must carry a special identification card.

July 27: All Jewish street names are replaced with German names.

October 5: Jewish passports ration cards are marked with a “J.”

And it goes on. Do you see how slowly the Jews where losing their human status. The pro-choicers aren’t stupid, their founder Sanger did after all follow all things Hitler, they know how to make the society follow step. Start off small. Make it known that those they want to get rid of are a burden, than add on to it a little at time. Until you have the public eating the lie that they are not only unwanted but unhuman.

As for science, pick up a first grade science book and look up the definition of alive. Does it grow? yes. Does it eat and drink? Does it have the possibility to reproduce? given the chance yes. Now look up DNA in a biology book. When is a human given their own unique set? At conception. So science has no doubt declared a embryo a human.

 

[Squishy]

And it goes on. Do you see how slowly the Jews where losing their human status. The pro-choicers aren’t stupid, their founder Sanger did after all follow all things Hitler, they know how to make the society follow step. Start off small. Make it known that those they want to get rid of are a burden, than add on to it a little at time. Until you have the public eating the lie that they are not only unwanted but unhuman.

I hardly think you can compare the systematic and planned discrimination against the jews to abortions. If you fail to see the difference im sure any jewish people living in ocupied europe can set you straight.

As for science, pick up a first grade science book and look up the definition of alive. Does it grow? yes. Does it eat and drink? Does it have the possibility to reproduce? given the chance yes. Now look up DNA in a biology book. When is a human given their own unique set? At conception. So science has no doubt declared a embryo a human.

So tell me what exactly makes a human being. Something thats alive with human DNA ?

 

[Snerticus]

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.

I don’t understand your mode of thinking. An abortion is NOT a cancerous growth, an ailing heart, or an endless list of diseases/and or conditions. An abortion is NOT a level of care to a patient. It is certainly not a level of care to the aborted, no matter how you look at it. So therefore to a doctor that denies giving one, he is adhering to the Declaration of Geneva, specifically two points which state

I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

Now YOU might think the second point is violated by not doing what the mother wishes. Rarely are mother’s wishes in abortions medically sound. The mother’s life is normally not in danger and it is always the baby’s life that is under attack. If you were a doctor, your arguments will hold little water before God. Maybe before the Supreme Court, but not the Supreme Being. The doctor that refuses abortions is adhering to the second point by recognizing the unborn child as having human rights. In effect, that child is our neighbor.

Besides, that’s not what I asked you. You conveniently left out the answer to my question.

 

[Middleman]

You can’t force a doctor to perform abortions, I truly don’t believe that will the outcome of this, as much as I dislike it. I do think they want to force pharmacists to hand out any and all medications that might be against their own beliefs. That would include the morning after pill and birth control pills.

I think abortion clinics will continue doing the bulk of elective abortions and that hospitals will only be doing those deemed medically necessary. I doubt if even a Catholic hospital will deny the removal of a fetus that would kill the mother, such as in a ectopic pregnancy. I’m not sure about the morning after pill.

 

[mardukm]

Can a pro-abortionist answer this question:

If abortion advocates argue that government should not get involved in people’s reproductive rights, why are abortion advocates asking the government to use my tax dollars to fund abortions?

Where’s my choice in the matter? Shouldn’t the abortion clinics be privately funded, instead of having the government involved at all?

 

[Gardenman]

IF this becomes mandatory, Catholic hospitals will close their doors. This will cripple the already compromised health care system we have. Catholic hospitals make up 1/3 of the hospitals in this country.

This entire issue gives another meaning to the term “forced abortion”.

 

[FK04US]

I agree. Sorry
No one is asking them to. But not refering them to another doctor is denying the women a legal procedure. Based on their own moral compsss. In my scenario you are siggesting that my hypothetical ER doc has to find different work based on their morality of a procedure thats deemed acceptable by society. Should the same be said about OB/GYN ? I dont think it should. I think my hypothetical doc should refer the patient to another doctor who does not feel the same way.

Squishy, your argument does not really fly. Why on Earth would someone who wants an abortion go to a Catholic hospital. It is like me saying, I want a Catholic education and decide to attend a Jewish school.

And regarding referrals to baby killers, the government has no right on forcing doctors to do this. And in this era, don’t tell me that the doctors are the only ones that know where baby killers work. If I were a doctor and a baby killing woman ask me, I would reply to her: "You can Google it"

 

[Snerticus]

Squishy, I think you need to read up more on science and your faith. There are tons of websites out there that are more qualified than we are to tell you what makes a human a human. Both science and faith websites.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

The above is from the Catechism. It sounds to me as if you’re not Catholic if you believe that a Catholic doctor who refuses abortion should necessarily refer you to someone who does. All through history, Catholics and other Christians have stood up to their respective governments against immorality. It’s no different today. The fact that we think we are superior to those in the past does not make us so. We still have to fight for what is right even if it goes against the law. Obviously, we use the law to the greatest extent to put our point across and maybe we start doing small things that aren’t as yet against the law. Hopefully it won’t get past that point. But as the laws become immoral and corrupt themselves, it becomes harder to act or think in a moral way. That’s where our faith in God comes in and we need to exercise that faith as much as we can. Exercise for the body is definitely a good thing and has many more benefits that one can imagine. Exercise of the faith through the soul has immeasurable goodness and is much more beneficial. Just because an act is lawful doesn’t mean is is moral or okay to do.

It was lawful in Germany to do what they did. And it all started with “systematic and planned discrimination against the jews”. It escalated from there. Here, it started as “women’s rights”. Specifically the “right to choose”. It will escalate similar to what happened then and history will judge us as well as God in the end. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor, and so do pro-choice people. Although you don’t see that connection, there are those of us that see it as plain as the nose on our faces. I hope and pray that someday God takes the veil away from the faces of those that can’t see it.

All I can ask is: what will Satan think of next to convince us that doing immoral things are perfectly moral and for the benefit of all? On second thought, I don’t think I want to know.

 

[Snerticus]

IF this becomes mandatory, Catholic hospitals will close their doors. This will cripple the already compromised health care system we have. Catholic hospitals make up 1/3 of the hospitals in this country.

This entire issue gives another meaning to the term “forced abortion”.

I’ve already heard that as the issue draws nearer, there are some Catholic hospitals that are willing to “negotiate”. It’s going to come down to who is really faithful and who is not. If this happens, anyway. And sooner or later, I think it’s going to.

 

[mapleoak]

But a doctor has no right to deny someone a procedure on moral grounds alone.

Yes he does.

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.

Already adressed in previous posts. Forcing doctors against their moral conscience would be tyranny.

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

A doctor cannot prevent a patient from doing whatever he wants.

 

[mapleoak]

A full equiped medical centre would have the facilitys to perform what is needed from them.

A fully equipped medical center has facilities designed and personnel trained in the business of preserving life. Not commiting murder.

Currently abortion is not illegal.

Third time. Do you believe it is possible for a society to have laws which are corrupt?

The doctor has the choice not to perform the operation.

correct.

But does not have the right to deny that person the level of care that the government promises.

He has every right to deny services to murder as well as referal to services of murder.

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

Is that a moral judgement?

 

[mapleoak]

Hypocritical much ? Your claim of having her child murdered is actually just your opinion and is not backed up by law.

Since you cannot answer the question, the answer would appear you believe the dictates of the law of the land is the moral authority. German soldiers once acted as puppets of blind obedience.

 

[Snerticus]

Since you cannot answer the question, the answer would appear you believe the dictates of the law of the land is the moral authority. German soldiers once acted as puppets of blind obedience.

My point exacty.

Morality equalling governmental law does not necessarily = Catholic - or Christian - Law. The law of the land does not even equate with natural law - as in the case of abortion.

 

[Middleman]

Obama needs to tread carefully. A lot of people voted for him on other issues, even though they oppose abortion. If he goes too far the Democrats will lose a lot of seats in two years.

 

[PaulinVA]

No one is asking them to. But not refering them to another doctor is denying the women a legal procedure. Based on their own moral compsss. In my scenario you are siggesting that my hypothetical ER doc has to find different work based on their morality of a procedure thats deemed acceptable by society. Should the same be said about OB/GYN ? I dont think it should. I think my hypothetical doc should refer the patient to another doctor who does not feel the same way.

An ER doc needs to do transfusions as part of normal, required care. You can’t be an ER doc if you don’t do that. It’s intrinsic to what you do every day.

The plastic surgeon probably can’t refuse to stitch up someone’s face in the ER or whatever, but they can refuse to do a boob job or something elective like that.

The OB/GYN can be a perfectly good doc and never perform an abortion. No one requires it, right now, or they will die, like the ER doc and the transfusion. He doesn’t have to offer a referral, because that is saying “go to this doc, I trust him”. How do you trust a baby killer? How about the plastic surgeon who doesn’t think boob jobs should be done - would you require him to give a referral?

 

[allhers]

You can’t force a doctor to perform abortions, I truly don’t believe that will the outcome of this, as much as I dislike it. I do think they want to force pharmacists to hand out any and all medications that might be against their own beliefs. That would include the morning after pill and birth control pills.

I think abortion clinics will continue doing the bulk of elective abortions and that hospitals will only be doing those deemed medically necessary. I doubt if even a Catholic hospital will deny the removal of a fetus that would kill the mother, such as in a ectopic pregnancy. I’m not sure about the morning after pill.

Just to se the record straight, when a diseased part of the tube is removed, it is never the intent to abort the child. It never has been considered an abortion.

 

[Corki]

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.

Not making a referal is not the same as preventing. Abortion is a completely elective matter. A woman goes looking for it. There is nothing wrong with a doctor or a facility saying “sorry, look somewhere else.”

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