Woman Denied Emergancy Contraception On Religious Grounds (In Ireland)

drkpower

sesna wrote: »

Exactly what I said in reference to the judgement, good boy. You make my point in the highlighted part of your post. Once again studies in postovulatory mice have shown that the MAP can cause resorption of embryos after implantation, thus showing the MAP can indeed act as an abortifacient under your definition of what life and the unborn is.

Wtf?!

Your position was that Roche only applied to IVF! And now you are saying something entirely different! What are you saying?

As for the MAP, there is considerable debate as to whether it acts to prevent implantation. There is very little debate as to whether it affects implanted emryos, very little indeed. But if you have found a study in mice, good for you, I dont doubt you.

But please, try not to state something as definite (Roche only applies to IVF embryos) when a first year law student knows that is completely false.

drkpower

CokaColumbo wrote: »

My point about the Roche case still stands. It makes no comment about the legitimacy of induced abortions. Please address that.

I thought you said it related to IVF embryos only.....?!:D:rolleyes:

It says a lot about the legitmacy of abortion with regard to post-implantation embryos. It says they are unconstitutional. And it says that the constitution provides no protection for any pre-implantation embryos inside or outside of the body.

drkpower

Vladidim wrote: »

Very wrong, it may not result in the loss of implanted embryos.

Prescribed within 72 hours of intercourse it cannot affect an implanted embryo. Implantation does not occur within that timeframe.

The following is a link which has quite a pro-life stance and declares the MAP to be an abortifacient. Note it describes the 3 possible mechanisms of action as:

1. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
2. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html

Can you tell me where it states that the MAP causes the loss of implanted embryos?

sesna

drkpower wrote: »

Wtf?!

Your position was that Roche only applied to IVF! And now you are saying something entirely different! What are you saying?

I never said Roche only applied to IVF. I said in the Roche case, the embryos in question were in vitro (in cold clinical storage). "The embryos in question were, unusually, in vitro in the Roche case "

drkpower wrote: »

As for the MAP, there is considerable debate as to whether it acts to prevent implantation. There is very little debate as to whether it affects implanted emryos, very little indeed. But if you have found a study in mice, good for you, I dont doubt you.

But please, try not to state something as definite (Roche only applies to IVF embryos) when a first year law student knows that is completely false.

Please try reading a post properly before throwing a tantrum.

sesna

drkpower wrote: »

Can you tell me where it states that the MAP causes the loss of implanted embryos?

Maybe you like pulling facts from junk websites, thats okay.

I prefer getting facts from peer reviewed research in reputable journals.

drkpower

sesna wrote: »

I never said Roche only applied to IVF. I said in the Roche case, the embryos in question were in vitro (in cold clinical storage). "The embryos in question were, unusually, in vitro in the Roche case "

Lol! Good effort but you are clearly being diingenuous.

In response to another poster stating
"the constitution states that life begins at conception and the M.A.P. can take affect after conception has occurred, but before implantation has..'
I pointed to Roche and correctly told him/her that s/he was incorrect, to which you replied 'apples & oranges' and made reference to the subject matter of Roche being IVF embryos!

sesna wrote: »

Please try reading a post properly before throwing a tantrum.

Perhaps reply to a post rather than hiding behind an insult:D.

Ickle Magoo

Vladidim wrote: »

In said doctors eyes, there are two patients. He's not going to kill one because the other got drunk and horny.

Contraception fails and some people don't want or shouldn't get pregnant - that's why the MAP exists. To suggest it's just a fall-back for people who get drunk and fail to use contraception is ignorant in the extreme.

mohawk

sesna wrote: »

Exactly what I said in reference to the judgement, good boy. You make my point in the highlighted part of your post. Once again studies in postovulatory mice have shown that the MAP can cause resorption of embryos after implantation, thus showing the MAP can indeed act as an abortifacient under your definition of what life and the unborn is.

Just because something happens in mice doesn't mean that it also occurs in mice. If it is the case that the morning after pill does indeed act as an abortifacient in humans after implantation by giving the MAP during the 72 hour period after sex then there is no implantation hence, no abortion is occuring.

drkpower

sesna wrote: »

Maybe you like pulling facts from junk websites, thats okay. .

Hohoho! I specifically chose a website with a pro life slant and who claimed the MAP to be an abortifacient. One would expect that they would point to your assertion that MAP affects post-implantation embryos.

sesna wrote: »

I prefer getting facts from peer reviewed research in reputable journals.

Hohohoho! I dont see any peer reviewed journals from you.:D But here is a little more reading for you while I wait for all of your research:D

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/MOA.pdf

Theres about 45 peer reviewed articles listed there that suport my position. Maybe you drag up your mouse study......:D

Mrmoe

I definitely think that the doctor is in the wrong here. He/She works in a specialty where there is a very good likelihood that the MAP will have to be prescribed. If they do not want to prescribe it then they should switch to a different area or a least not form part of an out of hours service.

There is a time constraint in using the MAP and in combination with the geographical location the MAP should be seen as a genuine medical treatment not to be influenced by religious or personal views.

Vladidim

Mrmoe wrote: »

I definitely think that the doctor is in the wrong here. He/She works in a specialty where there is a very good likelihood that the MAP will have to be prescribed. If they do not want to prescribe it then they should switch to a different area or a least not form part of an out of hours service.

There is a time constraint in using the MAP and in combination with the geographical location the MAP should be seen as a genuine medical treatment not to be influenced by religious or personal views.

The woman could just have gone to get an abortion in England if she hadn't made it to the GP in Cork. It's not a baby anyway until it grows a head

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

They literally sign up to that.

I said earlier in the thread I plead ignorance as to what is involved in obtaining a certificate to practise medicine. Do you know? Aside from saying they “literally” sign up for it, do you actually know what the content of what they sign up for actually is or are we both guessing here?

If there is nothing explicitly in what they sign saying they literally have to provide every service that every other doctor provides, I simply do not see how your words apply to this thread, sorry. I see nothing in your argument to say that a private practise doctor should be expected to provide a service any other doctor has to simply because they are both privately practising doctors. Is there something in the text that says "You must offer as part of your service for evermore a prescription for every drug out there, whether you like it or not"?

I agree we have a right to health care as you say. That to me does not equate to saying that we have a right to get it off exactly who we want though. The woman in the OP still has a right to get the pill she wanted. No one is arguing with that. Again that to me does not equate to saying she has a right to get it off whatever doctor she wants.

Max Power1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I said earlier in the thread I plead ignorance as to what is involved in obtaining a certificate to practise medicine. Do you know? Aside from saying they “literally” sign up for it, do you actually know what the content of what they sign up for actually is or are we both guessing here?

If there is nothing explicitly in what they sign saying they literally have to provide every service that every other doctor provides, I simply do not see how your words apply to this thread, sorry. I see nothing in your argument to say that a private practise doctor should be expected to provide a service any other doctor has to simply because they are both privately practising doctors. Is there something in the text that says "You must offer as part of your service for evermore a prescription for every drug out there, whether you like it or not"?

I agree we have a right to health care as you say. That to me does not equate to saying that we have a right to get it off exactly who we want though. The woman in the OP still has a right to get the pill she wanted. No one is arguing with that. Again that to me does not equate to saying she has a right to get it off whatever doctor she wants.

So, in addition to providing healthcare, doctors now sign up to be the judge of common morality?

El Siglo

The only moral and ethical code (as cliché as it sounds) is; "primum non nocere" first, do no harm. A doctor should weigh up a decision on the basis of the patients wellbeing, not what a religion tells them and certainly not what the state tells them.

candy-gal1

This is ridiculous! :mad: A doctor is a doctor, not a priest! therefore should be impartial to "thinking its wrong" unless its due to medical history.

Max Power1

El Siglo wrote: »

The only moral and ethical code (as cliché as it sounds) is; "primum non nocere" first, do no harm. A doctor should weigh up a decision on the basis of the patients wellbeing, not what a religion tells them and certainly not what the state tells them.

Well they will need to observe all state laws for a start.

WRT "Do no harm" - there is no harm, no living person is being harmed. No implantation has occurred and the woman would not be technically "pregnant" at that point.

Its preventative rather than abortifacient. Same as the monthly pill.

El Siglo

Max Power1 wrote: »

Well they will need to observe all state laws for a start.

WRT "Do no harm" - there is no harm, no living person is being harmed. No implantation has occurred and the woman would not be technically "pregnant" at that point.

Its preventative rather than abortifacient. Same as the monthly pill.

When I say "do no harm", I mean that when a woman comes looking for the morning after pill you don't deny it (i.e. you don't cause harm to the woman). That's what I mean. When I mention the state, obviously they have to abide by the law or end up struck off, but what I was suggesting is that maybe doctors shouldn't be automotons either (e.g. doctors advising women about contraception prior to legalisation etc...).

PDN

aidan24326 wrote: »

To take the MAP is to kill a tiny clump of a few cells, not a person. Right now little clumps of cells are naturally aborting in thousands of women all over the world. Right this minute. It happens all the time, and I don't see where the huge moral dilemma comes into it.

I've seen this argument a few times in these kinds of debates. Something is happening naturally in thousands of cases all over the world, therefore it is silly to argue that doing the same thing by human intervention could possibly be immoral.

Each day 24,000 children die of natural causes all around the world. Does this mean it's OK for me to strangle that slightly more complex clump of cells next door that keeps kicking his football over my fence?

Max Power1

El Siglo wrote: »

When I say "do no harm", I mean that when a woman comes looking for the morning after pill you don't deny it (i.e. you don't cause harm to the woman). That's what I mean. When I mention the state, obviously they have to abide by the law or end up struck off, but what I was suggesting is that maybe doctors shouldn't be automotons either (e.g. doctors advising women about contraception prior to legalisation etc...).

Thanks for the clarification.

I had presumed in the context of the rest of your post that that was what you had meant.

Max Power1

PDN wrote: »

I've seen this argument a few times in these kinds of debates. Something is happening naturally in thousands of cases all over the world, therefore it is silly to argue that doing the same thing by human intervention could possibly be immoral.

Each day 24,000 children die of natural causes all around the world. Does this mean it's OK for me to strangle that slightly more complex clump of cells next door that keeps kicking his football over my fence?

:rolleyes:

That is a person, fully formed, and capable of life.

An un implanted embryo is neither of those things.

El Siglo

Max Power1 wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

I had presumed in the context of the rest of your post that that was what you had meant.

I absolve you!:D

No, I know what you mean.
The thing with doctors and it's something that annoyed me with the article is that they aren't some sort of drug dispenser (that's why we have pharmacists) doctors should be there to look after the well being of their patients, psychologically as well as physically. However the former seems to be overlooked far too many times by them. Just like this case of the MAP, instead of thinking of the mental health of the woman (i.e the potential impact of an unplanned pregnancy), the doctor's own personal beliefs (albeit religious or otherwise) clouded their judgement. This is poor care on the part of the doctor.

PDN

Max Power1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That is a person, fully formed, and capable of life.

An un implanted embryo is neither of those things.

Thanks for totally ignoring my point.

Waking-Dreams

A few years ago, a friend of my girlfriend when enquiring about the pill was given the propaganda treatment from some older doctor; he made her sit through a radio show he was interviewed on describing the dangers of the pill, and how immoral young people were these days and that contraception would lead to all kinds of problems. In the end, he gave her the prescription but not without a 40-minute grilling session first.

---

Surely, people who are of a pro-life sentiment would agree that it would be much better to adopt a living child who needs care right now, instead of putting so much effort and energy into telling others what they ought to do with their bodies?

Too impractical?

So, it's not too much of a commitment attending rallies and picketing doctor's offices, but to suggest they adopt a child that needs care is a stretch too far, and would be too much of a responsibility for them.

Having to care for a child can be one of the reasons someone does not want to go through with their unplanned pregnancy. And if the pro-life crew are unwilling to adopt a living child themselves and take care of it, who are they to tell someone else that they have to?

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I said earlier in the thread I plead ignorance as to what is involved in obtaining a certificate to practise medicine. Do you know?

http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Professional-Standards/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners-7th-Edition-2009-.pdf

Yes, it is in the Medical Councils Guide to ethical Conduct & behaiour (sections 9, 10, 11 are the relevent ones) - have a read and come back to me. All Doctors MUST follow those ethcal guidelines or face disciplinary proceedings up to and including strike-off.

It provides the only basis upon which a doctor is entitled to refuse treatment, and that, as i have said repeatedly is if it is not an 'emergency circumstance' and if the doctor makes the appropriate referral to another doctor.

Max Power1

PDN wrote: »

Thanks for totally ignoring my point.

I provided an answer not compatible with your viewpoint and you have decided to dodge that answer.

That is not ignoring your point.

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That is a person, fully formed, and capable of life.

An un implanted embryo is neither of those things.

Have to agree with PDN here I'm afraid. I think the sky may just fall.

His point was that the fact that it happens naturally doesn't mean it's ok for us to make it happen, any more than the fact that children die of natural causes makes it ok for us to kill them.

Saying that an unimplanted embryo is not fully formed or capable of life and therefore not a person over whom to have moral dilemmas is a separate point entirely. You don't have a moral dilemma over it because you have decided that an unimplanted embryo isn't something to have a moral dilemma over so the fact that they sometimes fail to implant naturally is irrelevant. Someone who is against the MAP sees the embryo as a person and so the fact that embryos sometimes fail to implant naturally is no more to the point than the fact that children sometimes die naturally and doesn't make its use ok


I'm not saying he's right, just clearing up a misunderstanding. Way too many arguments in this debate (I think just about all of them tbh) are circular in that they only make any sense if you begin with that the assumption that the embryo is either a person or a clump of cells. Try to make your argument without beginning with the assumption that the embryo is just a clump of cells and you'll see it no longer makes any sense

Dades

Vladidim wrote: »

The woman could just have gone to get an abortion in England if she hadn't made it to the GP in Cork. It's not a baby anyway until it grows a head

Consider this a warning to take this thread seriously.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

And if the pro-life crew are unwilling to adopt a living child themselves and take care of it, who are they to tell someone else that they have to?

Are you suggesting that pro-lifers should all adopt children to prove their moral authority? Firstly I don't believe there's a stockpile of children awaiting adoption, and secondly the authorities don't just hand kids out to people who want a child to show how much they care about a cause.

drkpower wrote: »

http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Professional-Standards/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners-7th-Edition-2009-.pdf

Yes, it is in the Medical Councils Guide to ethical Conduct & behaiour (sections 9, 10, 11 are the relevent ones) - have a read and come back to me. All Doctors MUST follow those ethcal guidelines or face disciplinary proceedings up to and including strike-off.

Relevant text here:

[QUOTE=GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ETHICS
FOR REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS]

9 Refusal to treat
9.1 In exceptional circumstances you may need to consider refusing specific treatments to individual patients. This must never be done on the basis of personal discrimination. You might consider refusing specific treatments because, for example, you consider that the treatment would not work or that it might cause more harm than good. You might also consider refusing treatment where you believe that your patient is unlikely to co-operate or make the lifestyle changes required to make the treatment effective.
If you decide to refuse treatment, you must explain your reasons to the patient and offer them an opportunity to review the decision and/or seek another opinion.

10 Conscientious objection
10.1 As a doctor, you must not allow your personal moral standards to influence your treatment of patients.
10.2 If you have a conscientious objection to a course of action, you should explain this to the patient and make the names of other doctors available to them.
10.3 Conscientious objection does not absolve you from responsibility to a patient in emergency circumstances.

11 Emergencies
11.1 You should provide care in emergencies unless you are satisfied that alternative arrangements have been made. You should also consider what assistance you can safely give in the event of a major incident, a road traffic accident, fire, drowning or other similar occurrences.[/QUOTE]My interpretation of this is that the right to refuse of the doctor in this case hinges on whether or not the MAP can be considered an abortifacient. If it can not - then the doctor cannot use the excuse in 9.1 - namely causing more harm than good. No easy answer here, then.

drkpower

Dades wrote: »

My interpretation of this is that the right to refuse of the doctor in this case hinges on whether or not the MAP can be considered an abortifacient. If it can not - then the doctor cannot use the excuse in 9.1 - namely causing more harm than good. No easy answer here, then.

You may be right re: section 9. But section 10 does allow a doctor to refuse treatment on the basis of a 'conscientious objection'; undefined as it is, it is pretty much a carte blanche to refuse on any (non-discriminatory) reason that anyone subjectively views to be a matter of personal conscience.

Vladidim

Dades wrote: »

Consider this a warning to take this thread seriously.

Are you suggesting that pro-lifers should all adopt children to prove their moral authority? Firstly I don't believe there's a stockpile of children awaiting adoption, and secondly the authorities don't just hand kids out to people who want a child to show how much they care about a cause.

Relevant text here:

My interpretation of this is that the right to refuse of the doctor in this case hinges on whether or not the MAP can be considered an abortifacient. If it can not - then the doctor cannot use the excuse in 9.1 - namely causing more harm than good. No easy answer here, then.

It actually falls under the conscientious objection part.

I know of a doctor who would refuse to even prescribe even "regular" birth-control, never mind the morning after pill. Two complaints were made to the Medical Council, each time they stood behind him.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I've seen this argument a few times in these kinds of debates. Something is happening naturally in thousands of cases all over the world, therefore it is silly to argue that doing the same thing by human intervention could possibly be immoral.

Each day 24,000 children die of natural causes all around the world. Does this mean it's OK for me to strangle that slightly more complex clump of cells next door that keeps kicking his football over my fence?

Depends on what you believe is the reason for the existence of the filtering system and the failure to implant.

Do you believe God designed this system so that the woman's body would be so picky as to which embryo implants.

If so it seems rather silly to think that God considers these embryos pre-implantation to be all that valuable if he designed a system to filter out 8 out of 10 of them.

If on the other hand you believe that this system is the result of the Fall and that sin or what ever is aborting these babies (like a 5 year old dying due to small pox) then your analogy might have some merit

Vladidim

Mifepristone is used both as a morning after pill in the US and an abortion inducing drug. Just depends on when its given.

Shenshen

There's one thing I'm really curious about, though...

Did that doctor charge her for the consultation?

Pushtrak

Shenshen wrote: »

There's one thing I'm really curious about, though...

Did that doctor charge her for the consultation?

I'm sure he did. They charge for seeing you, not for treating you. Or at least, that is my understanding.

SarahBM

Having read this entire thread I am of the opinion that

1. the doctor was wrong to refuse this woman the MAP, because I believe personal opinion (religious or otherwise) should not affect treating a patient. I think that seeking out the MAP qualifies as an emergency. I think that there is potential risk to the patient, mental, emotional and physical, if she doesn't get the MAP.
2. I was under the impression that South Doc was part of a public service. surely this means that a doctor participating in the scheme must treat all patients that come to them. (am I wrong? please correct me if I am)
3. I dont believe the article is a propaganda stunt to try and get the MAP over the counter. I do think it should be over the counter. Some pharmacists are more knowledgeable about medications and drugs than doctors.
4. Surely the doctor knows that the MAP is used to prevent conception and is not given as an abortive drug. the MAP is LEGAL in this country. if the IMO considered it an abortive drug then it would be illegal.
5. Emergency Contraception is not only used when someone has had a one-night-stand, or got too drunk, or a condom split or was raped. Perhaps the woman doesn't have the finances to support a baby, or is still in college or wants to pursue her career. maybe she has an unsupportive family, an abusive spouse/partner. Or maybe she is just not ready to have a child or just doesnt want one. Should your Doctor judge you and refuse to give you the MAP, just because they think its wrong? are your personal circumstances any of their business? In my opinion, no.
6. I am pro-choice. I think their needs to be national debate on this whole area and including abortion.

sorry for the book. I just feel that if you go to your doctor, who you trust as a medical professional, for emergency help (the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy is an emergency for the patient) then you should get treated.
*prepares for backlash*

Dades

Section 10 only allows conscientious objection in case that aren't "emergencies". I'm undecided as to whether this is an emergency, as in reality nobody's life or health are at immediate risk, unless pregnancy is classed as an illness or disease.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm sure he did. They charge for seeing you, not for treating you. Or at least, that is my understanding.

I very much doubt that doctor would have been so stupid as to charge that woman, or if he did, expected to be paid.

antiskeptic

SarahBM wrote: »

1. the doctor was wrong to refuse this woman the MAP, because I believe personal opinion (religious or otherwise) should not affect treating a patient.

If the opinion was one based on a concientious objection (in the case where the MAP is considered to result in the destructon of a fertilized egg) then the doctor is permitted to refuse treatment according to the Medical Council of Ireland.

2. I was under the impression that South Doc was part of a public service. surely this means that a doctor participating in the scheme must treat all patients that come to them. (am I wrong? please correct me if I am)

I imagine the ethics code of the MCI takes precedence.

3. I dont believe the article is a propaganda stunt to try and get the MAP over the counter. I do think it should be over the counter. Some pharmacists are more knowledgeable about medications and drugs than doctors.

It might be that pharmacists have a similar concientious objection clause in their code of practice

4. Surely the doctor knows that the MAP is used to prevent conception and is not given as an abortive drug. the MAP is LEGAL in this country. if the IMO considered it an abortive drug then it would be illegal.

If one considers life to commence at the point of conception then a drug which interferes so as to prevent further progression could be considered an abortificant

5. Emergency Contraception is not only used when someone has had a one-night-stand, or got too drunk, or a condom split or was raped. Perhaps the woman doesn't have the finances to support a baby, or is still in college or wants to pursue her career. maybe she has an unsupportive family, an abusive spouse/partner. Or maybe she is just not ready to have a child or just doesnt want one. Should your Doctor judge you and refuse to give you the MAP, just because they think its wrong? are your personal circumstances any of their business? In my opinion, no.

The doctor might view things as dealing with two patients (the mother and the child), not one. In which case he might not want to play God and I don't see how it is reasonable to demand that he do so if that is his view.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you believe is the reason for the existence of the filtering system and the failure to implant.

Do you believe God designed this system so that the woman's body would be so picky as to which embryo implants.

If so it seems rather silly to think that God considers these embryos pre-implantation to be all that valuable if he designed a system to filter out 8 out of 10 of them.

If on the other hand you believe that this system is the result of the Fall and that sin or what ever is aborting these babies (like a 5 year old dying due to small pox) then your analogy might have some merit

Dear me! Here I am trying to discuss logic on the A&A forum and you go dragging God into it! It is possible to believe in morality without subscribing to a deity you know.

I was addressing a poor logical argument, not discussing God.

The argument was:
1. Process X takes place thousands of time quite naturally.
2. Therefore it cannot be immoral for human beings to deliberately induce process X by artificial means.
(Where process X refers to the failure of an embryo to implant)

Now, I exposed the weakness of this argument, not as you assert by an analogy, but by means of reductio ad absurdum. This is where you demonstrate that an argument is false by using the same logic to reach an absurd conclusion. I did this by making process X refer to killing children.

However, I find your 8 out of 10 statistic to be interesting. Does that mean that infanticide is OK if the rate of natural infant mortality worldwide exceeds 80%?

Btw, I'm not arguing for or against the MAP here. I have no strong views on it one way or the other. I'm open to listen to both sides of the argument, but think it would be better to do so without the kind of ropey logic referred to above.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Section 10 only allows conscientious objection in case that aren't "emergencies". I'm undecided as to whether this is an emergency, as in reality nobody's life or health are at immediate risk, unless pregnancy is classed as an illness or disease.

Since the success of the MAP is highly dependent upon the amount of time elapsed, I think it's arguable that this could be classified as an emergency. If the nearest doctor was next door, then I think the doctor could have stood upon principle, but if the nearest prescribing doctor was in the next county, well, that's taking the piss.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Dear me! Here I am trying to discuss logic on the A&A forum and you go dragging God into it! It is possible to believe in morality without subscribing to a deity you know.

True, but considering you have a completely different set of moral axioms than we do it is difficult to use the basis of your logic as axioms to build further conclusions upon.

PDN wrote: »

I was addressing a poor logical argument, not discussing God.

The argument was:
1. Process X takes place thousands of time quite naturally.
2. Therefore it cannot be immoral for human beings to deliberately induce process X by artificial means.
(Where process X refers to the failure of an embryo to implant)

Now, I exposed the weakness of this argument, not as you assert by an analogy, but by means of reductio ad absurdum. This is where you demonstrate that an argument is false by using the same logic to reach an absurd conclusion. I did this by making process X refer to killing children.

Yes but since we have different reasons why killing children is wrong and different views as to the the status of the "clump of cells" your reductio ad absurdum doesn't help.

You think killing children is wrong because God says so. Some of us here think killing children is wrong because a child has a consciousness. Since an embryo doesn't it is not comparing like to like, and as such becomes some what of a pointless analogy.

aidan24326 says this at the very start. The clump of cells is not a person. So what is the big deal about getting rid of it. We naturally get rid of non-person clumps of cells all the time.

The argument is not that we can treat this clump of cells as a non-person because nature regularly gets rid of them. We have already decided it is not a person.

So the link to killing children fails.

PDN wrote: »

However, I find your 8 out of 10 statistic to be interesting. Does that mean that infanticide is OK if the rate of natural infant mortality worldwide exceeds 80%?

Again that statistic is not being used to justify the idea that the embryo is not a person. aidan24326 post already concluded it wasn't a person (as do I).

The argument is whether it is ok to flush a non-person. And since your body does that anyway all the time I don't see the big deal.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but since we have different reasons why killing children is wrong and different views as to the the status of the "clump of cells" your reductio ad absurdum doesn't help.

You think killing children is wrong because God says so. Some of us here think killing children is wrong because a child has a consciousness. Since an embryo doesn't it is not comparing like to like, and as such becomes some what of a pointless analogy.

And the fact that it happens naturally is somewhat of an irrelevant fact. He pointed this out as if the fact that it happens naturally should have some bearing on whether or not it is viewed as a moral dilemma, he said "Right now little clumps of cells are naturally aborting in thousands of women all over the world. Right this minute. It happens all the time, and I don't see where the huge moral dilemma comes into it"

The fact that it happens naturally has no bearing on his view because he would not have a moral dilemma whether it happened naturally or not

The fact that it happens naturally has no bearing on a MAP opponent's view for the same reason that the fact that children die naturally has no bearing on their view that murdering children is wrong.

The fact that it happens naturally is irrelevant, it has no bearing on whether there should be a moral dilemma or not for either side

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The argument is whether it is ok to flush a non-person. And since your body does that anyway all the time I don't see the big deal.

Dades

^^ Is that a shot of a Muslim from a funky angle?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And the fact that it happens naturally is somewhat of an irrelevant fact.

Not really. You ever bought yogurt that had naturally occurring beneficial bacteria? Did you buy that because you thought that was a good idea, to replenish your natural bacteria.

Once the moral issue of whether the embryo is a person or not is over with I don't see any problem with looking at the natural way that the body does something and then copying that precisely because it is the natural way.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Really don't think you are following the point here PDN ...

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Really don't think you are following the point here PDN ...

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Once the moral issue of whether the embryo is a person or not is over with

That's the point though isn't it? It's not overwith. If it was we wouldn't be having a debate. That was my point, that aidan24326's point only makes sense if you begin with the assumption that the fetus is not a person, an assumption which his opponents in the debate do not make. It is in fact the one and only assumption that separates the sides in this debate so any argument that only works if you make one assumption or the other is a pointless waste of time

edit: kind of like all those many many theistic arguments that only work if you assume the existence of the christian god, something which we're very quick to admonish them for

liamw

I agree with Peter Singer. From 22:25

drkpower

Dades wrote: »

Section 10 only allows conscientious objection in case that aren't "emergencies". I'm undecided as to whether this is an emergency, as in reality nobody's life or health are at immediate risk, unless pregnancy is classed as an illness or disease.

So am I; but you should note that an 'emergency circumstance', in the medoical context, need not involve a threat to life or health or illness or disease. The classical example is analgesia/anaesthesia in labour; provding such would be considered an 'emergency circumstance' even though noone's health is at risk and it is a completely natural process.

Max Power1

Wicknight wrote: »

The argument is whether it is ok to flush a non-person. And since your body does that anyway all the time I don't see the big deal.

Correct point, but wrong justification.

As established (Roche) that pregnancy begins with implantation, an un-implanted embryo is no more a child than a dollop of semen is.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Catholic Home And Garden?