Person X: Hello Mr Tiger. That is your name isn't it?
ZenTiger: Err, no. It's an alias. For obvious reasons.
Person X: Oh, of course. Well can you do it?
ZenTiger: Could you be a little clearer? This is a confidential discussion.
Person X: Oh, of course. Ahem. Can you please murder the Prime Minister.
ZenTiger: Absolutely not. That would be against my moral code.
Person X: There's $200 in it for you.
ZenTiger: I'm not playing this game. Goodbye.
Person X: Can you recommend a contract killer then?
ZenTiger: No. P*ss off.
Person X: May I remind you the law requires you to recommend an alternative?
ZenTiger: How about make them watch Shortland Street re-runs?
Person X: Now you are being funny. This is a serious issue Mr Tiger.
ZenTiger: Which is why your demands disgust me so much.
Related Link: Half Done points out liberal hypocrisy:Respect for Religious Beliefs - Yeah Right
Yes, a law change is being considered in Victoria, Australia to FORCE Catholic Doctors to recommend Doctors that will kill a baby because they don't want to do it themselves. Freedom to the left means not having to personally use a phone book.
Idiot/Savant is even more over the top (in the other direction) than my little effort, but he's not even worth the link. Travel there via Half Done (above). When Idiot/Savant goes on about the Catholic Church wanting to murder mothers -or leave them to die - it's based on illogical extrapolation around the definition of an emergency abortion, which would probably represent one in 10,000 births, if even that.
The facts of the matter are that 18,000 abortions a year happen in NZ because the mother feels like one, but the reasons are cited as vitally important to have one. Emergency abortion will just become a code word for "gosh, the pregnancy is now at 24 weeks and I really can't be bothered with the inconvenience of motherhood". Of course a Catholic Doctor would do everything in his or her power to save both the mother and the baby in an emergency - the option of killing the baby to supposedly save the mother is a far more subjective one when the issue is real, and not Orwellian.
Previous post: Another abortion battle over the ditch ~ NZ Conservative
ZenTiger: Err, no. It's an alias. For obvious reasons.
Person X: Oh, of course. Well can you do it?
ZenTiger: Could you be a little clearer? This is a confidential discussion.
Person X: Oh, of course. Ahem. Can you please murder the Prime Minister.
ZenTiger: Absolutely not. That would be against my moral code.
Person X: There's $200 in it for you.
ZenTiger: I'm not playing this game. Goodbye.
Person X: Can you recommend a contract killer then?
ZenTiger: No. P*ss off.
Person X: May I remind you the law requires you to recommend an alternative?
ZenTiger: How about make them watch Shortland Street re-runs?
Person X: Now you are being funny. This is a serious issue Mr Tiger.
ZenTiger: Which is why your demands disgust me so much.
Related Link: Half Done points out liberal hypocrisy:Respect for Religious Beliefs - Yeah Right
Yes, a law change is being considered in Victoria, Australia to FORCE Catholic Doctors to recommend Doctors that will kill a baby because they don't want to do it themselves. Freedom to the left means not having to personally use a phone book.
Idiot/Savant is even more over the top (in the other direction) than my little effort, but he's not even worth the link. Travel there via Half Done (above). When Idiot/Savant goes on about the Catholic Church wanting to murder mothers -or leave them to die - it's based on illogical extrapolation around the definition of an emergency abortion, which would probably represent one in 10,000 births, if even that.
The facts of the matter are that 18,000 abortions a year happen in NZ because the mother feels like one, but the reasons are cited as vitally important to have one. Emergency abortion will just become a code word for "gosh, the pregnancy is now at 24 weeks and I really can't be bothered with the inconvenience of motherhood". Of course a Catholic Doctor would do everything in his or her power to save both the mother and the baby in an emergency - the option of killing the baby to supposedly save the mother is a far more subjective one when the issue is real, and not Orwellian.
Previous post: Another abortion battle over the ditch ~ NZ Conservative
Hmm lets see abortion is a medical procedure which is funded by taxpayers. As taxpayers we have a right to demand medical services that we fund.* If doctors don't like that I suggest they find another profession in the same manner that I would expect any teacher who won't teach evolution because it is against their beliefs. However referring people on is like many things in this debate a bad comprise.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of your comments, these are clearly from someone who obviously thinks women get knocked up and have abortions for funsies so I'm not expect much of rational argument back.
I'm disappointed you can reduce a discussion about demanding a doctor terminate a life down to the equivalence of a science lesson.
ReplyDeleteI'm disappointed you think paying a certain amount of money is all the ethical and moral justification required.
As for your suggestion that such doctors find another profession - that is exactly what Pro-Life Doctors are suggesting!
They are suggesting to the State that they only want to take on the job as doctors who care for people, not murderers. That can obviously be a specialist field. The State doesn't demand Heart Surgeons perform abortions either, the heart surgeon says "not my specialty". Well, the suitable solution is to have abortion specialists. They can spend their time reading up on the best ways of dismembering a 24 week old fetus (which is what the bill is currently haggling over - a limit of 24 weeks instead of 20 weeks)
As for your assumption that I think women get knocked up and have abortion for funsies - no - you are incorrect.
Many studies are proving that having an abortion is anything but funsies, and that the emotional and physical damage of having an abortion is vastly under-rated. Women under pressure facing the consequences of unprotected sex probably don't fully understand this, and they also want desperately to believe that ending a life before a child is born is far better "for every-one concerned" given whatever circumstances led them to this situation in the first place.
I don't suggest I know the answer for sure. What I do suggest is that the time to be prudent was before this life existed, and that the consequences of the action of terminating a life are very very serious.
So at the least, respecting the Doctors rights and beliefs not to be a party to the "solution" should be the easiest decision in this whole affair.
It's not as if there will be a shortage of liberal doctors keen to keep the population down and assist a women to exercise the sovereignty over her body she demands. As I suggested earlier - let's create a specialist role, and those Doctors that want to specialize can do so.
It seems linking abortion to murder makes people uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteGood.
As I suggested earlier - let's create a specialist role, and those Doctors that want to specialize can do so.
ReplyDeleteZen, please show me where in the proposed legislation any doctor will be forced to perfom an abortion.
It seems linking abortion to murder makes people uncomfortable.
What's wrong with getting "upset" when people tell lies? Abotion isn't murder so your claim is a lie.
Fugley, as you know, the law in question here forces doctors to either perform the abortion or refer the woman to somebody who will. If, as was suggested, the role is a specialist one, then nobody will be placed in that position who does not wish to be in it. Sounds fair to me.
ReplyDeleteFor Fugley:
ReplyDeleteAbortion Law Reform Bill (Vic, Au)
8(3) Despite any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered medical practitioner is under a duty to perform an abortion in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
(4) Despite any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered nurse is under a duty to assist a registered medical practitioner in performing an abortion in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
I hope that's clear Fugley - regardless of a doctor or nurses' religious or moral values, they will be forced to perform an abortion. Actually, they are more likely to be punished if they don't, unless the state of Victoria is planning to get the religious police to oversee all birth clinics?
"As for the rest of your comments, these are clearly from someone who obviously thinks women get knocked up and have abortions for funsies so I'm not expect much of rational argument back."
ReplyDeleteWell, I work in a hospital (in a very humble role, I might add) and my young offsider's ex-girlfriend came into the clinic a few weeks ago.. for her seventh termination!
Apparently she's a little unusual but not by so much--staff in the clinic confirmed that seeing a young woman for the third or fourth time was by no means unusual.
So they may not be having them 'for funsies", but a lot of them are sure as hell having them as a routine form of birth-control.
Fugley, it must be of great concern to you that more and more countries around the world, and in America - 24 States, that have provisions to charge people with homicide or manslaughter when they commit a crime that leads to the death of an unborn baby.
ReplyDeleteFor that to happen, there is a tacit recognition that a human life was ended.
Squaredrive, both those clauses contain the words ...necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman
ReplyDeleteWho could possibly, in all conscience refuse to perform an operation to save the life of a woman?
Is a foetus worth more than a living, breathing huamn, perhaps already mother to other children? Is it better that the foetus survive, motherless, than for the mother to survive? Which bit of the bible informs that view?
Zen, it worries me not a whit what is done in America - if they're stupid enough to believe ID is science their stupid enough to believe anything.
Fugley, I included other countries in my statement. Your contention was I was lying by suggesting ending the life of an unborn child could possibly ever be viewed as something other than a medical procedure, and case law seems to indicate otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAnd Fugley, the issue is in the terminology of posing an "either or" situation, where supposedly a termination is the *only* way to save the life of a pregnant women. What is actually being requested is forced termination of the baby under this excuse, rather than say saving both lives. The reasoning is highly subjective.
The potential here is for doctors to be sued for how this law is interpreted. As I stated, such actual cases would be extremely rare, and yet the excuse of abortion for a mother's health is already proven to be grossly abused. There is a certain dishonesty in the way (the reasons given) abortions are currently procured.
Finally, the original topic of the post is about Doctors being forced to perform abortions or recommend some-one who will.
I say again: Freedom to the left means not having to personally use a phone book.
Anything to ensure there is no impediment to the unborn getting knocked off. That's what you call sick.
ReplyDeleteThe left have no respect for anyone's beliefs other their own morally bankrupt, evil ones. And it's not just that they want to stew and slither around in their own depravity, they get all huffy and puffy when few others want gather round to cheer them on.
ReplyDeleteYou will change your beliefs or else.
zen, you're not normally this stupid, so what's happened?
ReplyDeletePerhaps along with the other bit I quoted I should have also referred you to the words in an emergency.
All that is being asked by this part is that in an emergency medical staff will perform a medical procedure to save a woman's life. Where's your problem wuth saving a woman's life? Where in your book of rulz does it say a foetus takes priority of the living?
As to the rest of the law - catholic hospitals currently do not do abortions, sterilisations, porovide advice on contraceptioon and this will not change. All they will be required to do is pass a referral to someone who will. Not that hard, is it?
oh, and one other thing - in Australia some (not all) catholic hospitals accept the state's money for providing services. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Don't like the music? Don't take the payment.
ReplyDeleteFugley, you are part correct. I am not usually stupid and this time is no exception. You just didn't quite get my point. And your accusation is also unfounded.
ReplyDeleteI have no objection to doctors doing everything they can to save lives, in an emergency or otherwise. However, what you are doing is creating a Sophie's choice:
Save the mother by killing the baby.
That is not the way to phrase, let alone legislate. You don't create legislation based on hypothetical situations, such as "a mother demands you kill the baby. It's an emergency and she might die if you don't kill the baby. What do you do?"
What you do is leave the decision in the hands of medical practitioners who can asses each case on its issues and go forward from there. To suggest Catholic Doctors would deliberately allow a mother to die in any given hypothetical situation is immature and somewhat disgusting.
And I have no objection for the State removing funding for abortions for hospitals that don't carry them out.
Is that all you are suggesting, or are you actually wanting to end all funding for obstetrics because they don't carry out 5% of the range of services?
Also, the referral remains a problem. It is a conscience issue. But it's not hard the "patient" using the phone book is it? What's your problem with that? Are you worried they are too lazy or stupid to sort out an abortion?
Fugley says abortion is not murder. Like all good little liberals he achieves this by shielding his eyes from the truth. Ok, if a person is not a person at the point of conception then when? 5 weeks after? 5 months after? When they have an entry in the phone book? When Fugley? There is no one blinder than he who refuses to see.
ReplyDeleteLook you guys keep missing the important bit:
ReplyDeleteDespite any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered medical practitioner is under a duty to perform an abortion in an emergencyis necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
See the legislation is only overriding religions freedom *when necessary* to save a life. Other times, as you point out the phone book comes out.
But of course it easy to say when you are city slicker and there are plenty, but what about women whose only *choice* is the one doc in town who won't preform them.
Many studies are proving that having an abortion is anything but funsies, and that the emotional and physical damage of having an abortion is vastly under-rated.
As someone who has had an abortion, I can say that you are right they are not particularly fun (However it wasn't nearly as bad as having my wisdom teeth yanked) and not something I would actively go out of my way to repeat (actually I was using birth control to avoid the first one as well).
Some times contraception fails and sometimes the humans using them aren't perfect either, hence the need for abortion. Yes I would rather terminate the life of a fetus before bringing it to term not ready to care for it and not ready to love it. And I sure as hell wouldn't want to put myself through the trauma of giving of pregnancy and birth to give up a baby unsupported either if there is another alternative which doesn't cause me as much physical and emotional trauma, I'll take it as will the other women who have made the choice.
Yes that might make me a selfish baby-murderer in your eyes, but I am happy with my decision and would do so again if I needed to.
I haven't missed the point, I've replied to it, from a couple of different angles.
ReplyDeleteIf a Doctor makes a call that he can save the life of the women without requiring an abortion, and the women dies then the family will possibly sue him for not aborting the baby, which may or may not save the life of the women in any event.
You are posing a Sophie's choice question that presumes the baby must be killed as the only solution. You are demanding people are prepared to kill to potentially preserve a life. Life isn't as simple as that, and you have no right to put a person who conscientiously believes he is forced to commit murder to satisfy your either/or proposition.
One of the central teachings of the Catholic Church is that deliberate evil never justifies the ends.
If you want to make people murderers, for any reason, they need free choice - not state enforced legislation that they MUST do this, or later be judged that they didn't do this when they *should have*.
When a women has only one choice, she needs the support of the state to give her more choices. For the number of women who will die unless their baby is killed, who is then at the supposed mercy of a Catholic Doctor, it would be a very small amount. So I think we can, as a society, afford to resource her options better.
And I sure as hell wouldn't want to put myself through the trauma of giving of pregnancy and birth to give up a baby unsupported either if there is another alternative which doesn't cause me as much physical and emotional trauma,
That statement sounds very selfish to me. You are suggesting it is OK to force some-one to kill your unborn baby, and let them put up with the emotional trauma that arises from that due to their beliefs, than cause you emotional distress. It would be very tough for a women to be in this situation, but that does not excuse making your problem some-one else's if it will cause them great stress. And if they genuinely believe in the afterlife, they may believe deliberate murder will send them to hell for eternity. You presumably don't care what happens to you when you pass on, so maybe you don't want to acknowledge this aspect.
The facts of the matter are that 18,000 abortions a year happen in NZ because the mother feels like one, but the reasons are cited as vitally important to have one. Emergency abortion will just become a code word for "gosh, the pregnancy is now at 24 weeks and I really can't be bothered with the inconvenience of motherhood".
ReplyDeleteThis is a common meme. I have yet to see, hear, or read about any late term-abortions done because
the woman has suddenly decided-through sheer vanity that didn't show itself until well into the pregnancy- that she no longer wants to carry the fetus to term, treating a late-term abortion like it's some entry on a "to do" list.
People have firmly entrenched views of the subject, so it's a bit pointless arguing it.
Of course we are posing 'Sophie's choice' because that is the situation that we are legislating for like for example, ectopic pregnancies, which do occur and are life threatening and might require urgent termination at the nearest hospital.
ReplyDeleteThat statement sounds very selfish to me. You are suggesting it is OK to force some-one to kill your unborn baby,
Yup if my life is danger, then I want the doctor to do their job. If my life is in danger, I shall take up the phone book option and find someone who does. As I mentioned, sometimes we just don't have that luxury.
You presumably don't care what happens to you when you pass on, so maybe you don't want to acknowledge this aspect.
When I pass on I want to buried and for those who cared about me to have a good party.
People have firmly entrenched views of the subject, so it's a bit pointless arguing it.
ReplyDeleteThen discuss the underlying assumptions everyone is making. For instance instead of arguing over whether a doctor should have to refer a mother to an abortionist, discuss when life begins, when human life begins, when rights are received. Because we all agree that if the baby is a human being with rights they should not be killed, therefore presumably we disagree that the unborn are people with rights.