I think the entire focus of the "Pro-life" campain is wrong. Right now the focus is on when a baby becomes a baby and other things that can be easilly debated. They should insted focus on the effects to the mother.

It is undeniable that having an abortion affects women in a terrible way. The emotional trauma that they go through is probobly pretty hard to get over and they are never the same again. The law should not be in place to save the unborn children but rather these women. Our government steps in on other issues that have negative effects on people( drugs, suicide , etc) and you dont hear people arguing that "Well its thier choice to do cociane, its thier body they can do what they want".

actually, you do have people saying, "it's their body, they can do what they want to it" about cocaine use and drug use in general. Just that those are normally libertarians :)

and i totally agree that they should focus on the effects to the mother. but then, that would level the playing field so pro-life and pro-choice could argue along the same lines.

I wasn't going to mention this before, but your post sort of made me decide it has a place here.

Years ago I met a nice young lady, sister of a friend of mine, about 20ish. We hit it off pretty well, then really well. I went to visit her at her college and laying in bed she, out of the blue, breaks down crying. He tells me this story about how she had an abortion when she was 16 after she got pregnant the first time she had sex, and how she wondered if she ever would be allowed to have children (from a will I be punished stand point) or if she even should be allowed to have children after what she did.

Now I liked this girl a lot at the time (she later broke my heart) but I didn't know her that well beyond a little casual sex, yet here she was crying about an abortion she had 6 years earlier.

Sure she was the classic 'you ruined your life' scenario, a carbon copy of the abortion in fast times at rigmont high (at least it wasn't a teachers kid), and she couldn't forgive her self after words. I doubt the rabid pro-choice people would ever even dream of having pre-abortion counseling, but this girl really could have used it.

Further I have a bit more experience then most people with the whole 'teen pregnancy' issue. I never knocked anyone up, I'm to smart for that, but my family used to take in girls from an organization known as "Catholic Charities". What we did was take teenage girls who were pregnant and let them live with us until they had the baby. That way they could avoid the problems at school and at home that being pregnant in your teens can cause. The girls then gave up the children to adoption after their 6 months or so of living with us. We did this for several girls, I can’t remember how many at this point. Sure it cost them six months of their lives, and sure they have the guilt of putting the child up for adoption, but who do think sleeps better at night?

hmm..i actually think most pro-choice people would like to see some pre-abortion counselling. Seriously, the more education the better, as long as it wasn't browbeating..

and you had casual sex..wow :) j/k.

Like hell, the liberals (tm) don't even want minors to be forced to have parental notification for an abortion.

A judge (female, I forget the name) who was given very very high marks by all groups was/is blocked to a federal judgeship, by the democrats for enforcing the LAW of parental notification in her state.

The easier it is to have an abortion the better in their book.

i didn't say i wanted them to inform their parents, i said that pre-abortion counselling would be a good thing. You gotta know what you're getting into.

as for the parents knowing..that's up to the kid and the parents...but i'm pretty sure they'd find out when she gains weight, then drops it really quickly..

As I doctor I can't do a lot of very minor things to a patient as a minor without a parental consent, YET that same minor can get an abortion without parental notification?

Something is very very wrong if anyone thinks thats a good thing.

i'd still say it's up between the minor and whomever. I'm not exactly sure where the doctor/patient confidentiality rule stops, but i'm not entirely certain on where it would fall with an abortion. i'm also pretty sure that most caring parents would know and the ones that dont' know probably aren't paying enough attention.

but no, i don't thin it's a good thing, i just think it's a necessary thing. Much like i think BCP's should be easily accessible from a doctor. It's much easier than the abortion route..

Ustwo, you don't speak for the liberals. To try to do so is arrogant presumption. Your single bit of anecdotal evidence regarding the horrors of abortion isn't overly compelling. Anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing is wrong. Anyone who thinks it isn't sometimes a necessary thing, well, I disagree with you.

I don't have to speak for you, I see what you DO.

I think the point it, it is a woman's choice, not your's, or mine.

I would fully support as much information, counselling, support as possibel be available to people considering abortion, and that they have every option - rather than being forced into doing it in any way.

Maybe the girl you talk about needed some counselling, maybe if other options available to her she would have made another choice - would she sleep better at night? It's pretty hard to judge.

Since you cared about this girl at one point, I am sure also you would be able to tell that elements of the pro-life lobby calling her a murderer is also not so much help.

But everyone facing this terrible decision, should have every option to them, but ultimately they have to make the decision, and live with it - not the state, or the church, or any group of moralists.

My mother had an abortion too, so I know how much it can hurt someone, what we need to aim at surely is helping women in these situations in any way that they need - not trying to make their decision for them.

And, surely if any doctor broke the patient confidentiality by talking to anyone else, even a parent of a minor, they would be instantly struck off.

Doesn't the Hippocratic oath mean anything?

What a Doctor is told by a patient is just as confidential as what a priest is told in confession, the state has no right to attempt to make either break this confidentially and as I said - any doctor who either refused treatment to a minor without parental permission or who broke the confidentially with the minor should be struck off, and criminal prosecution and imprisonment should be investigated as an option to further punish this action.

But it dosent make sence. Why should you need a parents concent to get a tatto or a piercing but not to get an abortion?

If you are old enough to fall pregnant, you are old enough to make a decision about that pregnancy.

I have found that generalizations are a bad thing.

One one thing, they can lead us to erroneous conclusions when we project them onto one individual.

Unfortunately, none of us here in Politics (or anywhere for that matter) are innocent of making them.

Just an FYI if you have never read it (I've bolded the part that is of relevance):

Definitely bothersome to pro-choice people, but you can't ignore it if you are talking about the Hippocratic Oath.

First, some follow up, and apologies if anyone has already posted it: the guy in question has been dismissed, but no news of any criminal charges being brought against him. There is still hope that the woman may bring a civil suit against him of course.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2399529

Pharmacists who won't dispense morning-after pill fired
Associated Press

DENTON - Eckerd Corp. has fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped, one of the pharmacists said Wednesday.

Gene Herr, 33, of Denton said he and two co-workers were fired on Jan. 29, six days after refusing to fill the prescription.

Eckerd has declined to comment on their employment status. Joan Gallagher, the vice president of communications for Largo, Fla.-based Eckerd only would say the company had taken the appropriate disciplinary action.

Herr said he declined to fill the prescription for the so-called "morning-after pill" because he believes it could have killed the embryo if the woman already had conceived. Though he had declined five or six times in the past to fill such prescriptions, it was the first time he had been handed one for a rape victim, he said.

"I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it," said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I actually called my pastor at Denton Bible Church and asked him what he thought about it."

The two other pharmacists who were present at the time also declined to fill the prescription. Herr would not name them.

The rape victim had the prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy.

Gallagher said Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons.

Herr said he did not know about that policy until his supervisors questioned him about it shortly before he was fired.

"In my mind if I agree to work for someone knowing that that's their policy, then I should submit to that policy. But I didn't even know about it," he said.

He declined to discuss his future plans.

Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills and have been sold under the brand names Plan B and Preven since 1998.

Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse, the pills are at least 75 percent effective at preventing pregnancy. They work by preventing ovulation or fertilization of an egg. If fertilization already has occurred, they prevent the egg from implanting into the uterus -- the medical definition of pregnancy.

Herr said he's disappointed but not angry or bitter.

"I'm a Christian. I feel like God gave me an opportunity to, I guess, make a stand for what is right," Herr said. "He's gonna take care of me either way."


Second

Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Interesting how threads develop.

I would say that if the Hippocratic oath has been rewritten, it is no longer the Hippocratic oath, since Hippocrates was a real person.


I would call that the "Lasagna" Oath :D


Anyway, I won't hijack anymore.

Life is generalizations Lebell. If you don't generalize you become much like the man who rules the universe. (Wonder who will get that one)

Life is also dichotomy.

Sometimes generalizations are good, sometimes they are bad.

(sounds like the philosophy board in here :) )

Oh,

It's the "Restaurant at the End of the Universe"

:D

Boo! A mod not using the edit button!

:p

I think you are all complicating matters. I am pro-life and I agree with the pharmacists point of view. A child should not die for the sins of the father, this is my view on abortions and contraceptives for rape. That stated, a pharmacist's job is to supply customers with medication given that they have a valid prescription, anything other than that is a violation of their duty and if he cannot do his job correctly, he should re-evaluate his career choice. Diciplinary action is appropriate.

I got through to half-way down page three... had to walk away while swearing and then came back to type this.

OK... If it is this pharmacists moral right to refuse to give the pill, shouldn't he have taken that up with the pharmacy? I mean... it's not like it would have been a secret to him.

At some point I imagine he had to have taken inventory or checked stock---AT SOME POINT while working noticed that there was this pill that he could not willingly give out as it is against his moral code. At that time, he should have made his objections known to the pharmacy. The company could have dealt with him then.

Now, if he never once noticed that this pill was there: he ought to get reprimanded for being either lazy, incompetent, or careless. From what I hear, attention to detail is one of those things you learn when you want to be a pharmacist, lest you drop the wrong pills into someone's bottle. No sources to back this up, only going off of what a friend that studies pharmacy tells me.

Mmmm two observations.

#1 - I was feisty.
#2 - I miss Labell.

It's funny, I thought the same thing, especially about missing Lebell.

As a circuit board designer who works for a service bureau that does work for many major tech firms, we do process a certain number of projects that are defense related. I have sympathies for those who do not want to be part of certain programs, and would understand if they had conscientious objections to working on certain defense contracts. However, they would need to make that clear at the time of employment, or at least at the earliest they realized they felt that way. If I am low on resources and have a hot project and have to go to a designer to get it done only to have them surprise me with the news that they could not work on it for moral reasons, I would be quite upset.

We all have moral questions we have to personally choose where we come down on. As an employee, we have the responsibility to tell our employer of any conflicts before they come to a head. As an employer, we need to be compassionate and considerate of employees' morals, and should work within reason to avoid asking them to infringe upon them. This can usually be done if everyone is up front about the issues. If employees are not honest, and/or employers are arbitrary, then it will not work.