The pill is abortion

[n23x 0]

Quote

Quote

care to elaborate?

If I have to explain it to you, you won't understand.

If you're incapable of elaborating on your stance, perhaps you shouldn't have made the comment to begin with.

Now, care to elaborate?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[n23x 0]

Quote

choose to disagree.
And I will even use me as an example. I am an OB/Gyn. But I disagree with "abortions" on a personal level. I would never have one, nor do ever want to take part of one done as a choice not a medical indication.

I will counsel the woman on all of her choices and I will tell her where the nearest planned parenthood is or refer her to someone that can help her. I do not preach my thoughts or beliefs to her... as a doctor, that is NOT my responsibility. But neither should her beliefs be imposed on me. Especially since there are MANY out there that will do this. What is wrong is NOT properly counseling and sending her to someone that can help her.
Pharmacy debate The pharmacy that refuses to prescribe birth control is wrong, but each specific pharmacist should have the right to not dispense it... but if that one doesn't, then there has to be someone available that will or they have to transfer that script to a pharmacy in that patients health plan in a reasonable area (not 20+ miles away). But, as a right of religious freedom, that pharmacist has shouldn't be fired.... that would be discrimination.

Another point is that most pharmacies are privately owned and managed. NOT government run. Although they do have to follow certain government regulations, they are personal establishments. They can refuse to provide service to anyone (but then they could also find themselves in a court house for discrimation themselves)

I can respect that decision to disclose all information, while refusing to provide a specific service.

What is your opinion with the following:

Quote

Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections to removing their arm coverings in theatre and to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577426/Female-Muslim-medics-'disobey-hygiene-rules'.html

To what extent can we 'not discriminate' against a person in a very specific professional role?

In the case you present with pharmacies refusing to provide birth control, I am assuming that birth control represents a relatively small amount (minority) of total business.

Is it ok to discriminate against the doctors above because their choice affects a majority of their business? Or is it solely a matter of denial of service, vs. refusing to adhere to required procedure?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kbordson 8]

Quote

To what extent can we 'not discriminate' against a person in a very specific professional role?

As I stated and trophyhusbsnd repeated... if the standard of care is met - the patient is properly counseled on options, she/he is referred to someone that is willing and capable of preforming that service and the patient is in no physical harm..... why does it matter to you WHICH doctor does it and why would you demand that someone do something that they are morally opposed to that procedure.

Quote

In the case you present with pharmacies refusing to provide birth control, I am assuming that birth control represents a relatively small amount (minority) of total business.

When I went to Peru, we took NO hormonal medications. Hormones and birth control are not normally a necessity or "life saving." They can help with heavy menstrual bleeding, they can decrease some pain with menses, but overall OCP's are more of a "luxury" medication.

Quote

Is it ok to discriminate against the doctors above because their choice affects a majority of their business? Or is it solely a matter of denial of service, vs. refusing to adhere to required procedure?
.jim

I don't really understand that first question. And "denial of service" depends on whether it's a required procedures vs. elective procedures, which is an important distinction.

[StreetScooby 5]

Wouldn't it be easier to simply educate a woman about her period? Hey you missed 2, better do something about that... See a doctor, take care of yourself, make a decision quickly, if that's what you need to do.

We are all engines of karma

[Botellines 0]

Quote

But I don't want discrimination. Whether due to gender, religious beliefs, race or anything. I don't want those nurses to be fired for refusing to help with something they are morally opposed to. I don't want to be forced (as a doctor) to partake in elective terminations. I don't want others to impose their beliefs on me and I won't impose mine on them.

That article (as I read it) was just protecting the rights of the employees.

If you have such a strong feelings about an issue, then maybe you should choose a profession that match your beliefs.

If my religion didn´t allow me to work on Saturdays, then i should choose to work in an office Monday to Friday and refuse to do overtime on Saturdays. It wouldn´t make any sense to become a pilot and refuse to fly on Saturdays, and i don´t think it is acceptable to refer the passangers to another airline even if it is a couple of fingers away.

If you are not willing or able to perform your job to the full extent of what it is legal (not what you think is right or wrong) then maybe you should reconsider you career.

(Of course i am talking about a general you, not a personal you)

[JackC 0]

If your current employer doesn't fit with your moral code, then feel free to find one that does. But if you decide simply not to do the parts of the job that you object to (for whatever reason), then don't be surprised if your employer chooses to fire you and employ someone who will do them. That seems totally fair to me.

[kbordson 8]

So... by your post, am I to assume that ANY OB/GYN should be morally ok with doing any abortions? Where does YOUR line stand? Just those pesky first trimester "mistakes" that need to be taken care of? What about a thrid trimester one? How about partial birth abortions?

If you're deciding that I should do them, tell me which procedures should be included.

[kallend 1,654]

Quote

So... by your post, am I to assume that ANY OB/GYN should be morally ok with doing any abortions? Where does YOUR line stand? Just those pesky first trimester "mistakes" that need to be taken care of? What about a thrid trimester one? How about partial birth abortions?

If you're deciding that I should do them, tell me which procedures should be included.

Part of being a professional is putting personal feelings aside and doing your job.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

So... by your post, am I to assume that ANY OB/GYN should be morally ok with doing any abortions? Where does YOUR line stand? Just those pesky first trimester "mistakes" that need to be taken care of? What about a thrid trimester one? How about partial birth abortions?

If you're deciding that I should do them, tell me which procedures should be included.

Part of being a professional is putting personal feelings aside and doing your job.

so your saying that every ob/gyn should be required to perform abortions?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Botellines 0]

Quote

So... by your post, am I to assume that ANY OB/GYN should be morally ok with doing any abortions?

I don´t think that morals should play a significant role at this point. If it is part of your job, then just do it the best you can. Morals should have been important before commiting yourself to a particular profession, not after.

Quote

If you're deciding that I should do them, tell me which procedures should be included.

To be honest with you, i don´t know because it is not my field. I would say that all of them that are legal.

I believe that some choices (specially that hard ones like getting an abortion) should be taken by the own person affected, not by the government, not by the church and not by the doctor.
Besides, what would happen if you refer a patient to another doctor and the other doctor refers the patient back to you, or to other doctor that is not willing to attend the person? It can/will get to a point that the patient is not receiving the apropiate care. Not good.

[champu 1]

I agree that a hospital/clinic should not be able to fire a doctor because they object to performing late-term abortions for moral reasons (and your other arguments regarding employee rights.) But it would appear that the employee rights aspect is only half of this new proposal.

Quote

Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.

This is pulling out stops for hospitals (including state-funded institutions) to refuse to perform abortions (as defined above) as a general policy. First it was, "abortion is wrong and therefore illegal," and that failed. Then we had, "leave it up to the states," and that didn't work. Now it's, "leave it up to the [potentially state-funded] hospitals." I guess we'll see what happens on this one.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this part, but it really looks as though someone is trying to boil a frog.

[sfc 0]

Quote

I agree that a hospital/clinic should not be able to fire a doctor because they object to performing late-term abortions for moral reasons (and your other arguments regarding employee rights.) But it would appear that the employee rights aspect is only half of this new proposal.

Quote

Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.

This is pulling out stops for hospitals (including state-funded institutions) to refuse to perform abortions (as defined above) as a general policy. First it was, "abortion is wrong and therefore illegal," and that failed. Then we had, "leave it up to the states," and that didn't work. Now it's, "leave it up to the [potentially state-funded] hospitals." I guess we'll see what happens on this one.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this part, but it really looks as though someone is trying to boil a frog.

What is worse, redefining abortion to include taking the pill means they can refuse some forms of birth control. You will end up with the situation you have in some states where there the nearest abortion clinic is hundreds of miles away and wrapped up in red tape requiring multiple appearances except this time it will for birth control.
Some hospitals get funds from local institutions and religious organizations, pressure gets applied by these people to set hospital policies. Basically if you have cash and disagree with birth control you will be able to make a large donation and have the hospital change its policies with these new rules.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

If it is part of your job, then just do it the best you can.

who gets to decide what is part of her job? the government? you? or her employer? if her partners have decided that they do not want to perform elective abortions at their practice, is it not their decision as to how to run their business? as long as they council their patients properly and refer them to someone who will take then on, what's the problem?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Morals should have been important before commiting yourself to a particular profession, not after.

so are you saying that someone who does not want to perform elective abortions should just disqualify themself from becoming an ob/gyn even though it is only one procedure and a very miniscule part of the field?

you also aren't taking into account the fact the it is at least a 12 year journey between highschool and becoming a practicing ob/gyn. how much have you changed in the first 12 years out of highschool? at 18, would you be able to accurately predict what your beliefs will be at 30? setting off down the road to becoming a doctor is a huge decision, and its a little silly to expect the willingness to perform one procedure to even enter into the thought process. lets look at reallity here.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[champu 1]

Quote

What is worse, redefining abortion to include taking the pill means they can refuse some forms of birth control.

This is the part of your argument that I disagree with.

COCP or "the pill" doesn't work by preventing implantation, it prevents ovulation (and therefore conception.) It can't be considered "abortion" even under the language of this proposal.

You'd have to come up with a "zeroth" or "negative first" trimester to make it fit the definition. Or just... you know... become a devout Catholic.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So... by your post, am I to assume that ANY OB/GYN should be morally ok with doing any abortions? Where does YOUR line stand? Just those pesky first trimester "mistakes" that need to be taken care of? What about a thrid trimester one? How about partial birth abortions?

If you're deciding that I should do them, tell me which procedures should be included.

Part of being a professional is putting personal feelings aside and doing your job.

so your saying that every ob/gyn should be required to perform abortions?

That's the opinion that I'm gathering from some of the comments in this thread.

Kallend: When I counsel the patients, I try hard NOT to bias my medical opinion or recommendations. My beliefs should not influence her decision, nor should her beliefs be imposed on me. But do tell, which of those procedures SHOULD I do? You didn't answer it.

I personally do not agree that I should be required to perform them. But the benefit of the health system here is that I CAN refuse to do procedures that are against my moral standards. I can't abandon the patient... nor should those patients not be counselled appropriately. But I don't have to do the abortion myself. And honestly, if we went to a government system that MANDATED that I preform abortions, then I would stop practicing (as would MANY others)

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is what you missed "The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

This includes the pill.

Either you or I misunderstand the basic function of birth control pills. My understanding is that, except when used in high doses subsequent to unprotected sex, they work by preventing conception, i.e. an egg is not shipped to the uterus, therefore conception cannot occur. Such a mechanism would place birth control pills outside the timeline I bolded in your quote.

Blues,
Dave

Neither of us misunderstand the function of birth control, That is the point here. The bush admin is redefining what you and I think of abortion, they are saying that preventing a fertilized egg from getting to the uterus is abortion, that is what I am pissed about. The keys words are "between conception and natural birth" & "whether before or after implantation"

My understanding is that conception is the process of a sperm fusing with an ovum, not when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.

Huh? The pill doesn't prevent a fertilized egg from getting to the uterus, it prevents it from becoming fertilized in the first place.

[Hausse 0]

Quote

Quote

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion.

I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave.

Nothing to worry about.
The shame will eventually be upon any woman who has an abortion without serious reason.
And not by man.

Lol this one definitely goes to the top 5 of most idiotic comments I have ever read on an online forum...

[n23x 0]

Quote

[sic]...or her employer? if her partners have decided that they do not want to perform elective abortions at their practice, is it not their decision as to how to run their business? as long as they council their patients properly and refer them to someone who will take then on, what's the problem?

Would you respect an employers decision to reject her as an employee if they decided they did want to perform elective abortions at their place of business, and wanted 'similarly minded people' working there?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

[sic]...or her employer? if her partners have decided that they do not want to perform elective abortions at their practice, is it not their decision as to how to run their business? as long as they council their patients properly and refer them to someone who will take then on, what's the problem?

Would you respect an employers decision to reject her as an employee if they decided they did want to perform elective abortions at their place of business, and wanted 'similarly minded people' working there?

.jim

In that situation, he/she probably wouldn't feel comortable working in that enviroment if it was "required." When someone "joins a practice," it's as much his/her choice to join as it is the groups offering the option to join.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

[sic]...or her employer? if her partners have decided that they do not want to perform elective abortions at their practice, is it not their decision as to how to run their business? as long as they council their patients properly and refer them to someone who will take then on, what's the problem?

Would you respect an employers decision to reject her as an employee if they decided they did want to perform elective abortions at their place of business, and wanted 'similarly minded people' working there?

.jim

yes

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Stuntbabex 0]

Quote

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion.

AAHAHAHAHA!!! AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAH AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Im sorry these right wing wackjobs just crack me up sometimes. What next? Outlaw condoms?

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion.
Bush is such a prick.

Quote

Anyone remember that movie with Tom Cruise where he is a cop and goes around arresting people for murders that they did not commit yet?
hmmmm

Skymama's #2 stalker -

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

Quote

The right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion.

AAHAHAHAHA!!! AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAH AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Im sorry these right wing wackjobs just crack me up sometimes. What next? Outlaw condoms?

Silly girl, you're not following the logic here. It would not be the condoms that are outlawed, but whenever a sperm did not make it into the womb it would be considered, you guessed it, abortion.
So, wearing a condom would indeed be an act of abortion in itself. As would well lots of othe things

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Huh? The pill doesn't prevent a fertilized egg from getting to the uterus, it prevents it from becoming fertilized in the first place.

As I understand it, the pill has two functions. The first is to make sure that no egg is released in the first place. The second is to prevent implantation should an egg be released and fertilized.