Doctors reject abortion motions

robman60

crockholm wrote: »

Also,just a quick question, how many abortions (as a percentage) are carried out as a result of rape/incest? what % would be due to the child/fetus being incompatible with life? and what % would be aborted as a lifestyle choice?

I read recently that in the US, fewer than 1% of abortions are performed on the basis of life of the mother, incest, and rape combined. A further 7% are categorised as for health reasons, while the remaining 92% are elective. Unsure about abnormalities.

Seachmall

stanley 2 wrote: »

in some muslim country female circumcision is a democratically accecpted procedure should doctors not be given the power to circumvent this one

FGM is not an accepted medical procedure and it is performed for non-medical reasons. Therefore a doctor should not be required to perform it.

Grayson

Crasp wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned both these points have now been clarified, as both of your original posts (Grayson and Arpa) implied that all doctors should be forced to give abortions on demand and without question as long as the woman decides that that is her wish, as the patient knows best and the doctor has no say int he matter, and if they don't like it they should quit and become plumbers or accountants or whatever.

Where did i say that? I said that if they don't want to, they shouldn't be working in a job where they have to. There's loads of other options.
but yes, a doctor should provide a woman (or a man) with the best medical service that they can. Refusing to is grounds for malpractice in my opinion.

As for on demand, that normally happens in clinics. And I can't see someone with a moral objection to abortion applying for a job there.

Chuck Stone

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

And what if it was their professional belief

Lol at 'professional belief'.

SB2013

Grayson wrote: »

Some witch doctors believe that raping a child will rid you of aids. In that case, the doctor is balancing the needs of both and trying to save a life. There's no evidence to support their assumptions, but it is their personal belief.

Medicine is a science. It's not about beliefs. If you think it should be, then take monkey penis to get an erection and if you get a cold in june, it's because you didn't decorate the may tree.

I suppose it serves me right for thinking an adult conversation might be possible. So why don't you tell us all when a life becomes human scientifically. At what stage of gestation is it a person and not a bundle at cells. Be specific now because it's a science remember.

Seachmall

SB2013 wrote: »

I suppose it serves me right for thinking an adult conversation might be possible. So why don't you tell us all when a life becomes human scientifically. At what stage of gestation is it a person and not a bundle at cells. Be specific now because it's a science remember.

Human is a classification of species. A species is a group of organisms capable of producing fertile young. A member of a species is an organism. Humans are multicellular organisms. A multicellular organism is one composed of various organ systems.

Therefore you could deduce that humans are by necessity composed of organ systems. A requirement that is not met at conception.


Even if you reject that and accept that humans exist at conception you are forced to ask if it's a living human. By medical definition a human life ends when the heart stops beating. From that you could infer that human life starts when the heart begins beating. The heart doesn't exist at conception so even if it the fertilised egg is human, does it qualify to be a living human?


But that's a semantical breakdown and not a scientific or medical view point because science doesn't necessarily concern itself the issue. When a new organism gains the right to life is a political decision. Not a scientific one.


So any doctor promoting a viewpoint on when life does or does not begin is presenting their personal opinion. Not their professional one. And they should not be making medical decisions based on personal opinion over professional opinion.

Grayson

SB2013 wrote: »

I suppose it serves me right for thinking an adult conversation might be possible. So why don't you tell us all when a life becomes human scientifically. At what stage of gestation is it a person and not a bundle at cells. Be specific now because it's a science remember.

Did I say I was a doctor? No. What I said was that nothing should come down to a religious belief.

Or do you think a woman who's 6 weeks pregnant should be refused chemo because it might harm a baby.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that 1 week before birth it's a baby. One week after conception it's a bunch of cells. About the 20th week it becomes viable. But like I said, I'm not a doctor. If they are uncertain I would like it to because of scientific uncertainty, not because of religious belief.

SB2013

Grayson wrote: »

Did I say I was a doctor? No. What I said was that nothing should come down to a religious belief.

Or do you think a woman who's 6 weeks pregnant should be refused chemo because it might harm a baby.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that 1 week before birth it's a baby. One week after conception it's a bunch of cells. About the 20th week it becomes viable. But like I said, I'm not a doctor. If they are uncertain I would like it to because of scientific uncertainty, not because of religious belief.

So you have no issue with abortions performed in month 8 of a pregnancy? After all, it's not a baby. I'm not sure why you think it's your place to make light of an extremely complicated issue when you yourself have no knowledge of the subject and can't even come up with a position to take.

And it's got nothing to do with religion.

Turtyturd

SB2013 wrote: »

And it's got nothing to do with religion.

It does though, whether you know it or not the stance that life begins at conception is steeped in religious influence.

SB2013

Turtyturd wrote: »

It does though, whether you know it or not the stance that life begins at conception is steeped in religious influence.

May for a lot of people that's what they base their belief on. But there are many people who believe this without being religious.

Turtyturd

SB2013 wrote: »

May for a lot of people that's what they base their belief on. But there are many people who believe this without being religious.

I am not talking about how people justify their beliefs....in subscribing to that belief they are subscribing to one that is heavily influenced by religion.

robman60

Turtyturd wrote: »

It does though, whether you know it or not the stance that life begins at conception is steeped in religious influence.

Not really, conception is the point at which a genetically unique individual is created. This isn't arbitrary, but fact.

The debate should be more centred on whether ending the life matters rather than whether it actually is a life in my opinion. Also, it's important to remember that newly fertilised eggs aren't (usually) aborted, an abortion usually happens to a far more developed individual. The presence/lack of a heartbeat can be discounted as any abortion occurring at greater than three weeks (pretty much all of them) stops a heartbeat.

Seachmall

robman60 wrote: »

Not really, conception is the point at which a genetically unique individual is created. This isn't arbitrary, but fact.

What about doppelgängers?

Grayson

SB2013 wrote: »

So you have no issue with abortions performed in month 8 of a pregnancy? After all, it's not a baby. I'm not sure why you think it's your place to make light of an extremely complicated issue when you yourself have no knowledge of the subject and can't even come up with a position to take.

And it's got nothing to do with religion.

I never said that. I said after week 20 it starts to become viable. Where did I say 8 months. Of course, you have an argument taht you can't win, so you'rte sticking words in my mouth.

If the baby is viable, then of course efforts should be made. But if it's not, there shouldn't. And eitherway, the mothers life is the most important and it should be her decision what happens, not a doctors religious belief.

Pompey Magnus

Seachmall wrote: »

What about doppelgängers?

The fictional paranormal creatures?

robman60

Grayson wrote: »

I never said that. I said after week 20 it starts to become viable. Where did I say 8 months. Of course, you have an argument taht you can't win, so you'rte sticking words in my mouth.

If the baby is viable, then of course efforts should be made. But if it's not, there shouldn't. And eitherway, the mothers life is the most important and it should be her decision what happens, not a doctors religious belief.

I think the poster misinterpreted you saying that a week before birth, it's a baby, not considering that you intended that it's a baby earlier too.

I don't think anyone's disputing that the mother's life should be prioritised, but the dispute is at what cost? If she's dying and needs medical intervention, that should be provided, even if it means her child can't be saved. It's a completely different story if she's 17 weeks pregnant and has an elective abortion. I don't see where the confusion is. One situation, she's in physical danger, the other she's not.

Seachmall

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The fictional paranormal creatures?

No, the idea that because we've a finite amount of DNA with a finite amount of possible combinations but there's an infinite potential in creating life there exists the possibility of two genetically identical, but otherwise unrelated, individuals being born.


I heard it in CSI once.

Turtyturd

robman60 wrote: »

Not really, conception is the point at which a genetically unique individual is created. This isn't arbitrary, but fact.

Yeah I should have clarified. The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious belief, conception is the point at which organic life begins.

B0jangles

robman60 wrote: »

Not really, conception is the point at which a genetically unique individual is created. This isn't arbitrary, but fact.

What about Identical twins?

The zygote splits into two individual zygotes some time after conception (1 - 9 days later). Are the infants which may eventually result two "unique individuals" or one divided one?

What about Chimeras?

This is when a set of twin zygotes fuse in the womb and only one infant is eventually born, though that infant may express the DNA of two "unique individuals" in different parts of their body.

Facts are surprising flexible when you looks beyond black and white statements and focus on the details.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Turtyturd wrote: »

Yeah I should have clarified. The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious belief, conception is the point at which organic life begins.

Incorrect. Many atheists (as well as religious) argue that to be on the safe side (we don't know how or why life is created), we should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt from conception. This is a morally sound position.

B0jangles

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Incorrect. Many atheists (as well as religious) argue that to be on the safe side (we don't know how or why life is created), we should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt from conception. This is a morally sound position.

A totally impartial viewpoint from new user "Behold the lamb of god".

Hmm....

robman60

B0jangles wrote: »

What about Identical twins?

The zygote splits into two individual zygotes some time after conception (1 - 9 days later). Are the infants which may eventually result two "unique individuals" or one divided one?

What about Chimeras?

This is when a set of twin zygotes fuse in the womb and only one infant is eventually born, though that infant may express the DNA of two "unique individuals" in different parts of their body.

Facts are surprising flexible when you looks beyond black and white statements and focus on the details.

The point at which the zygote splits is when the second entity forms, so two individuals. As far as I know, they acquire genetic uniqueness during foetal development.

I only recently read about chimeras. They are a single entity, so a single life as far as I can see.


My earlier point about life beginning at conception was merely countering a previous poster who said life beginning at conception is "steeped in religious significance". I pointed out that this argument has scientific merit too.

Although the when life begins question is somewhat subjective (far less than people seem to say in my opinion), it seems far more logical to say conception or the point at which the heart begins to beat than the simplistic answers of birth or viability.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

B0jangles wrote: »

A totally impartial viewpoint from new user "Behold the lamb of god".

Hmm....

What's an "impartial" viewpoint? This idea of "balance" is a form of intellectual tyranny.

Anyway, are you denying that there are pro-life atheists?

Crasp

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Incorrect. Many atheists (as well as religious) argue that to be on the safe side (we don't know how or why life is created), we should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt from conception. This is a morally sound position.

someone wasn't paying attention in sex ed. class :pac:

steddyeddy

I'm guessing the dinosaurs who voted no are from a time before access to education wasn't widened and wouldn't be what you would call gifted.

Not being willing to perform abortions on women who have been raped makes these highly sick individuals. I'm also wondering would this go against their Hippocratic oath if they took it.

Seachmall

robman60 wrote: »

it seems far more logical to say conception or the point at which the heart begins to beat than the simplistic answers of birth or viability.

"At conception" is just as logical as any arbitrary point between then and birth.

The only logical response is "we do not know".

Some can take that and decide to err on the side of caution, others can take a more philisophical approach regarding when (or if) abortion should be allowed.

But all they ultimately are are personal opinions. Nothing more.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Crasp wrote: »

someone wasn't paying attention in sex ed. class :pac:

Nobody knows how life is made. Scientists can observe what happens at a certain scale, but they cannot describe the precise mechanism nor can they explain why (anyway, it's not their job to answer the whys of life). There are a myriad of things that scientists cannot explain no matter how advanced those who inhabit the present think they are.

I can tell you for certain though that I didn't create myself. I can also tell you for certain that "Science" didn't create me.

Cosmicfox

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Incorrect. Many atheists (as well as religious) argue that to be on the safe side (we don't know how or why life is created), we should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt from conception. This is a morally sound position.

This position ignores the pregnant person who there is no doubt is alive and can suffer, so no, I don't consider it that morally sound.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Cosmicfox wrote: »

This position ignores the pregnant person who there is no doubt is alive and can suffer, so no, I don't consider it that morally sound.

Incorrect.

I can tell you a personal story: that of my mother, who nearly died giving birth to a sister. Her greatest concern at the time (as is that of most mothers in touch with their maternal instinct) was the welfare of my sister and not of herself.

Cosmicfox

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Incorrect.

I can tell you a personal story: that of my mother, who nearly died giving birth to a sister. Her greatest concern at the time (as is that of most mothers in touch with their maternal instinct) was the welfare of my sister and not of herself.

I don't understand.

What has your mother giving birth to a baby she clearly wanted have to do with abortion and women who do not want to be pregnant?

Let's not forget that mothers have abortions too.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Cosmicfox wrote: »

I don't understand.

What has your mother giving birth to a baby she clearly wanted have to do with abortion and women who do not want to be pregnant?

Let's not forget that mothers have abortions too.

Look. If you think the whole moral house of cards is going to fall down because you claim to know better than Catholic teaching on abortion (not to mention qualified healthcare professionals); knock yourself out.

Seachmall

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Incorrect.

I can tell you a personal story: that of my mother, who nearly died giving birth to a sister. Her greatest concern at the time (as is that of most mothers in touch with their maternal instinct) was the welfare of my sister and not of herself.

I don't think anyone has suggested abortions should be performed whilst the mother is giving birth.


If the decision is between a foetus (who's classification as a living human is up for debate) and the mother the only morally sound decision is to prioritise the mother and demand evidence from those claiming the foetus to be a living human and claiming it should be prioritised equally as the burden of proof rests upon them.

Cosmicfox

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Look. If you think the whole moral house of cards is going to fall down because you claim to know better than Catholic teaching on abortion (not to mention qualified healthcare professionals); knock yourself out.

I haven't even mentioned Catholics or anything to do with religion. Or even anything about healthcare. All I said is that your 'morally sound' position ignored the pregnant woman and then you told me some story about your mother giving birth.

Crasp

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Nobody knows how life is made. Scientists can observe what happens at a certain scale, but they cannot describe the precise mechanism nor can they explain why (anyway, it's not their job to answer the whys of life). There are a myriad of things that scientists cannot explain no matter how advanced those who inhabit the present think they are.

I can tell you for certain though that I didn't create myself. I can also tell you for certain that "Science" didn't create me.

I suggest you pick up an embryology book and read all about it. It's actually pretty basic science and I believe it is even taught at leaving cert level.


There is little ambiguity about this particular topic. While I take the literature at face value, I'm sure the experimental evidence is there to support these claims if I decided to look deeper.

I think you have some confounded, higher meaning of "life" than simple cellular physiology.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't think anyone has suggested abortions should be performed whilst the mother is giving birth.


If the decision is between a foetus (who's classification as a living human is up for debate) and the mother the only morally sound decision is to prioritise the mother and demand evidence from those claiming the foetus to be a living human and claiming it should be prioritised equally as the burden of proof rests upon them.

Same goes for you: If you want to try and pick holes in Catholic teaching in the hope that a dam is going to come crumbling down; I'll leave you to it. You'll be a long time chipping.

Seachmall

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Same goes for you: If you want to try and pick holes in Catholic teaching in the hope that a dam is going to come crumbling down; I'll leave you to it. You'll be a long time chipping.

What the hell does my post have to do with Catholic teaching?

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Crasp wrote: »

I suggest you pick up an embryology book and read all about it. It's actually pretty basic science and I believe it is even taught at leaving cert level.

How naive and nonchalant of you.

Crasp

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

How naive and nonchalant of you.

If I may, have you ever actually studied the modern scientific explanations behind conception? Or simply denounced them?

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Seachmall wrote: »

What the hell does my post have to do with Catholic teaching?

I'll spell it out for you:

My position is grounded in Catholic teaching. You could be making up your position as you go along for all I know/care. I doubt you have put as much time, thought and effort into the moral issue surrounding abortion as the church have. Will your non-authoritative opinions on women's and babies' health be around after you die? I doubt it. I know this is a "democracy" where everyone is trained to have 'an opinion' from a very young age, but unluckily for you, someone forgot to teach you that some opinions are more useful than others.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Crasp wrote: »

If I may, have you ever actually studied the modern scientific explanations behind conception?

Stop the press! I think you've got us there!

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Seachmall wrote: »

"At conception" is just as logical as any arbitrary point between then and birth.

The point of conception is not arbitrary as you claim.

Now if you're pedantic and wish to get into nitty-gritties surrounding nano/femto seconds, we can.

Crasp

Crasp wrote: »

If I may, have you ever actually studied the modern scientific explanations behind conception? Or simply denounced them?

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you:

My position is grounded in Catholic teaching. You could be making up your position as you go along for all I know/care. I doubt you have put as much time, thought and effort into the moral issue surrounding abortion as the church have. Will your non-authoritative opinions on women's and babies' health be around after you die? I doubt it. I know this is a "democracy" where everyone is trained to have 'an opinion' from a very young age, but unluckily for you, someone forgot to teach you that some opinions are more useful than others.

never mind :rolleyes:

steddyeddy

I find it absolutely amazing that the catholic church feel so strongly about protecting unborn children but over the past few decades have been unrepentant about the suffering they have caused to countless children in the world.

My mam's brother died at the age of two and the family was so poor he was buried in a pauper's grave. I have never met my uncle obviously and the only trace I have of him is a lock of blond hair my mam keeps in a locket she wears but his story makes me hat the catholic church. My granny asked the local priest for help at the time in order to give her son a decent burial and was more or less told to get lost.

The catholic church can go feck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Seachmall

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you:

My position is grounded in Catholic teaching. You could be making up your position as you go along for all I know/care. I doubt you have put as much time, thought and effort into the moral issue surrounding abortion as the church have. Will your non-authoritative opinions on women's and babies' health be around after you die? I doubt it. I know this is a "democracy" where everyone is trained to have 'an opinion' from a very young age, but unluckily for you, someone forgot to teach you that some opinions are more useful than others.

This post is so absurd I can't even fathom how I should respond to it.


Instead I'll tell a joke.


Why did the calf cross the road?

To get to the udder side.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

steddyeddy wrote: »

My mam's brother died at the age of two and the family was so poor he was buried in a pauper's grave. I have never met my uncle obviously and the only trace I have of him is a lock of blond hair my mam keeps in a locket she wears but his story makes me hat the catholic church. My granny asked the local priest for help at the time in order to give her son a decent burial and was more or less told to get lost.

I see. So now every hard luck story since the foundation of the State is the evil Catholic Church's fault?

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Seachmall wrote: »

This post is so absurd I can't even fathom how I should respond to it.

If you're out of your depth; I understand.

I hope ye all go to bed tonight thinking at a level beyond that which ye've become accustomed to.

Seachmall

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I hope ye all go to bed tonight thinking at a level beyond that which ye've become accustomed to.

If I'm honest I'll probably just jerk it for a bit, but I appreciate your will wishes.



By the way, what are you wearing?

steddyeddy

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I see. So now every hard luck story since the foundation of the State is the evil Catholic Church's fault?

Actually you are purposely missing the point. My granny's poverty isn't the issue, it's the treatment of my granny by a an who dedicated his life to being a "christian". Thats my point. The catholic church bang on about values like love thy neighbor, yet some Christians seem to hate gay people, they go on about helping the poor yet they run some of the most elite fee paying schools in the country and they talk about charity yet didn't even help my would be uncle wiith either food or a proper burial.

My point is that Christians don't practice what they preach.

Pompey Magnus

steddyeddy wrote: »

they talk about charity yet didn't even help my would be uncle wiith either food or a proper burial.

Do you think that among the entire Catholic population every single one, either lay or priest, would have refused blankly to help, or is it possible your hate could be based on the actions of one bad egg?

Do you equally hate the Irish State also for failing in it's responsibility to your uncle?

steddyeddy

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Do you think that among the entire Catholic population every single one, either lay or priest,
would have refused blankly to help, or is it possible your hate could be based on the actions of one bad egg?

I'm referring to the catholic church being assh"les not Christians in general. I should have made the division clear.

One bad egg in the catholic church? Ever heard of the Ryan report?

Do you equally hate the Irish State also for failing in it's responsibility to your uncle?
No

Actually I do hold them responsible aswell but they weren't the ones preaching love thy neighbor and telling stories about a poor carpenter born in a stable.