Pro Choice or Pro Life, Obama is wrong!

http://www.beheardproject.com/Default.aspx

No matter if you are pro choice or pro life, the doctors deserve the right to perform or not perform an abortion, based on their morals!

One of the reasons the United States came into fruition is for the right of freedom of religion, among other freedoms of oppression. Christianity is not the only religion that is pro life. These doctors of faith must have their right to refuse this operation that goes against their belief! I'm sure there are doctors that would have no problem doing an abortion, so why not allow the pro life doctors the natural right to say, "No, I won't go against my religion. Go down the street."

The US has decided that the people have a choice to abort a baby, so in the spirit of justice, the doctors should have an equal right.

I support any doctor out there, with my nationalist spirit, that they have a right to choose for themselves what they will do or what they won't do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is wrong. A doctor's job is to help their patients despite their own morals (so long as it's not going too far) and the fact is, an embryo isn't alive till it is born. If you know why a viruse doesnt qualify as alive you will see an embryo can't either. It cant feed itself, it cant dispose of weight, it can't survive out of the mother, it is literally the world's largest parasite.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is this the new tactic?

What are you complaining about, exactly?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

are doctors actually told at medical school 'you will have to do immoral stuff, you have no choice in this'? if its in the job description, they should be expected to do what they signed up for.

so what, as it passes out the vagina its heart starts beating? the brain has an on/off switch? i'm a fence sitter on the pro life/choice thing, but what you are declaring fact is pretty debatable.

with the virus argument, if medical science was more advanced a baby could survive outside the mother. it can't feed itself or do anything once its been born either, humans are almost completely hopeless til like 2. and the differences between a virus and baby is at some point an unborn baby has thoughts and feelings. does being comparable to a parasite strip you of your rights? shall we kill everyone over 18 living at home?

 

So they can just avoid the laws? They can make their own laws up as they see fit? Sounds rather anarchist to me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry, I didn't summarize the link:
http://www.beheardproject.com/Default.aspx

As of March 9, 2009, President Obama has indicated his intent to repeal the conscience clause. This clause was put in place by former President Bush to protect health providers from having to act against their moral conscience in areas such as abortion. This repeal would have a direct impact on those of us in health care. For me, in particular, it could make it illegal for me, as a physician, to refuse to perform abortions. This is a troubling development, but hardly unexpected for this administration. The public has 30 days to respond to the proposal. Please help me get the word out to all who are concerned.
Below is the link to a petition sponsored by the American Center for Law and Justice. Please read the petition and sign it, then forward it as appropriate.
Never, in my wildest dreams, would I have believed that my government would have the right to tell me I had to take the life of another.

 

The topic here is not pro life or pro choice, it is the repeal of the doctor's right to refuse based on individual moral belief.

 

What law are you referring to that they are avoiding by refusing to perform an abortion? Currently, it is lawful to refuse to perform an abortion because of the conscience clause. Obama wants to remove that.

This is not a sickened condition we are talking about, where the doctor must provide service. Let's walk the pro-choice side for a moment: This is, if anything, a cosmetic operation where it has little or no impact on the health of the patient. If we force doctors to perform abortions, should we force them to perform, or not perform circumcisions? If circumscisions were done purely for religious reasons, would it be right to force an atheist doctor to perform it? He probably wouldn't care, but would it be right to force him/her to do it?

The bottom line is the law is there that doctors have the right to refuse an abortion on personal belief (as long as the patient's health is not compromised). There is no avoidance of any law, no one is making up any laws here. Obama wants to change that law. And yes, I garauntee there will be doctors then making up their own laws and standing up for right to freedom of religion.

I am pro choice and not a theist, but I support the doctor's right to choose based on their personal belief out of respect of the constitution.

 

sure, i was just addressing fedr808's post. i gave my views on the doctor's right to refuse. just read the article then (i was lazy) and passing that legislation seems unfair to existing doctors/nurses. what do they do if they don't want to take part in abortions, throw away their degrees and change careers? i understand the need for access to abortion, why don't they make this moral neutrality an expectation of new doctors/nurses, who will know what they're getting into?

 

Funny. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people in favour of repealing the Conscience Act would jack their dicks whenever an American soldier flees to Canada in order to avoid service in an 'immoral' war.

"It's OK to people to defy authority, when they are doing so to uphold *my* moral code!"

 

That repealing the Conscience Act would result in some doctors being obligated to commit what they consider to be murder. I know you think that the fetus is a parasitic lump of inhuman shit simply because it has the audacity to exist within the womb instead of outside of it, but not everyone thinks like that.

 

You are deasd wrong.
The freedom of choice in this matter is all on the part of the woman.

If the doctor has moral objections to abortion then the doctor needs to choos a medical career that doesnt involve pre-natal care and abortionns.

 

I'm curious if repealing the conscience clause would legalize assisted suicide?

 

Of course. Freedom of choice only applies when you are a woman.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The fact is that the woman *does* have freedom of choice. If she wishes to abort her child, she can perform the abortion herself. However, she (and the gubbermint) have no right to force a doctor to provide a service which conflicts with his moral convictions. If a doctor signs a contract with either the hospital/patient to provide that service, then that's a different story.

If those Nazi doctors didn't want to perform ghoulish experiments on camp prisoners, they should have chosen a different profession.

 

Rally Up for Fiction

Right, right. I read the link. I'm just having a really hard time with the presentation. The Be Heard Project appears to be grossly misrepresenting the situation, and you seem to have fallen for it.

For instance:

Show me a law that says a doctor is required to perform abortions.

Or:

Again, this appears to be a gross misrepresentation.

They do.

Spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam.

The problems with the conscience clause are numerous, but two stick out. First, a business owner cannot discriminate against applicants for a job according to their religion. Which means that at any moment, an employee might suddenly refuse to do the job he was hired for, and use religion as an excuse.

Secondly, are you aware that the conscience clause has been invoked by a health care professional as a defense for assaulting a patient?

See a thread from January: "Health care and the conscience clause". There you'll find both those issues considered, at least.

But the propaganda factor in this has rendered your issue nearly incomprehensible. Trying to turn the conscience clause into a "pro choice" issue is ridiculous. Any doctor with a private practice can refuse to perform just about any service he or she might choose.

 

These Conscience clauses for various professionals should be repealed. No pharmacist should be able to deny any woman birth control. Many women use the pill to regulate periods, relieve cramping, and other side effects of the menstral cycle beyond controlling whether or not a fertilized egg implants.

If a person going to medical school doesnt want to perform abortions, then go into a field of medicine which will remove the obligation. Become a heart specialist.

These various 'professionals' choose to enter a field which may allow people (customers/patients) to make choices they themselves would not choose for themselves. Such is the burden of having the freedom of choice.

Should have thought about that obligation before getting... cough ... educated. The 'professionals' had the freedom to choose a profession which would have relieved them of this obligation.

 

How would it do that?

Gotta go against Obama on this one. If it even gets passed, there is going to be a plethora of pissed off doctors out there; possibly even a few that might even halt their practice in protest.

By that logic, any establishment that isn't open on Saturday and/or Sunday has to open during those hours. :bugeye:

 

Im surprised Pro-lifers havent argued that killing the embryo is child abuse, would be pretty funny if they did.

 

Points of interest ... perhaps

It's not a matter of passing it. The conscience clause is an executive regulation installed by President Bush in the twilight of his administration, one of many last-minute regulatory changes. The only question is what the new standard will say and whether Obama decides to sign it.

But I don't expect many doctors will halt their practice in protest. They certainly didn't resign in anger before the conscience clause was installed. To the other, we might see some doctors move from facility to private practice.

The focus on the conscience clause is employees of health care facilities. What the conscience clause does is allow any health care professional to arbitrarily refuse to provide treatment and claim religion as their justification.

Now, I don't know about you, Mike, but if I'm in charge of hiring for a health care facility, I would probably want to know whether an applicant is going to up and refuse to do his or her job someday. Indeed, that is part of an earlier discussion of the conscience clause we had in January. To reiterate that point specifically:

And if I am a pharmacy owner, can I set hiring criteria? Should I? Imagine:

Owner: Just a few more questions, and then we'll be done.

Candidate: (anxiously) Okay.

Owner: Issues of conscience have become a more common conflict in providing health care. Are there any circumstances under which you would be unwilling to provide properly-prescribed medication to a paying customer? Are there any medications or products that you would refuse, for conscience reasons, to provide?

Candidate: As a Christian, I cannot dispense Plan B.

Owner: (pauses thoughtfully) Okay. Thank you. We'll be in touch. My secretary will show you out.​

And that's it. Done. Over. This is health care, not beer or ice cream sales. If you're going to refuse to do your job, I don't want you here.

And then, of course, the candidate might file a lawsuit. ("As soon as I said I was a Christian, he ended the interview. I was obviously not hired because of my religion.")​

If I'm a health care provider, I need my employees to do their job.

And as a—frankly, unexpected—twist, what part of the conscience clause allows a health care worker to perform a medical procedure against a patient's will?

The conscience clause in theory is much different than it has been in practice.
____________________

Notes:

Villa, Ryan J. "Complaint for Civil Battery, Violation of Constitutional Right to Due Process and Negligence". Van Patten v. Olona and PMS/RRFHC. U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. January 13, 2009. CourthouseNews.com. Accessed March 24, 2009. http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/01/14/IUD.pdf

 

Pharmacists should have to right to decide what services they provide, and the right to refuse to provide services that they consider unethical, unless they signed a contract stating that they would provide that service.

I mean, seriously. Would you walk into a vegetarian restaurant demanding that they serve you shark fin soup, and then whine and bitch when they refuse?

And some use it to perform an abortion, which makes the pharmacist a party to what they consider to be an unethical act of killing. They consider it similar to providing a gun to an individual who they know will use it to shoot an innocent civilian, thus making them a party to that unethical act of killing.

Don't make me laugh. It's obvious that you don't give a shit about freedom of choice, otherwise you'd allow professional to choose whether they provide a service. This is simply a matter of you extending the 'privilege' to choose when it suits you to do so.

Women have no inherent 'right' to be provided with birth control, just like I have no inherent 'right' to be provided with a porsche. A service provider should be able to refuse to provide a service, even if they come across as being a big meanie. *That's* the burden of having the freedom of choice.