News-Record.com

I have to wonder why Christians are against contraception and abortion. I was under the impression that nearly all of these folks believe that infants that die go straight to heaven. In that respect, their opposition doesn't make much sense.

But from a scientific point of view, I wonder why a doctor would be so keen on helping a rapist to reproduce? They're supposed to "do no harm," yet they are willing -- even happy, it seems -- to try and force a rape victim to carry to full term a child fathered by an attacker... does that not cause some harm?

One also wonders whether they're intent on forcing twelve-year-old girls who are with child by their fathers to do the same?

It's far from a black/white issue, and one would have expected a doctor who had spent so many years in training to have learned a little more from their classes on professional ethics.

Doctors should not be allowed to make medical decisions influenced by personal religious beliefs.

eric,
"I have to wonder why Christians are against contraception and abortion. I was under the impression that nearly all of these folks believe that infants that die go straight to heaven. In that respect, their opposition doesn't make much sense."

if i'm not mistaken Christianity world wide has approx. 2.1 billion adherents with the catholic church taking up approx. 50% of that number. up until very recently the catholic church said abortions, miscarriages and unbaptised infant etc. went to infant hell (i.e limbo). so technically your above statement would seem to be incorrect.
can i glean from your post that you are not against abortion whether it is aborting a rape victim or a woman willing to be aborted ?

"Doctors should not be allowed to make medical decisions influenced by personal religious beliefs."

I don't see how that would be possible, RS. Everyone makes decision in light of their world view, both religious and non-religious. However, I think that those who refuse to give requested, legal treatments based on their personal judgements should have some better training in ethics classes. The folks in the original story here appear to have missed some vital points.

Ethically, a medical professional cannot be forced to prescribe legal treatments that he believes is immoral. In this case, the Doc and whoever refused not to consider the unborn child. The child, of course, is not a rapist, and not causing harm.

If a professional has no qualms of destroying the unborn child, and there are plenty around, he/she is free to do so. Surely Nancy, you are not suggesting medical doctors should be forced to prescribe drugs or treatments against their will?

No, Chip. I'm asking if there should be some sort of notice informing the public that this pharmacist/this pharmacy doesn't prescribe the following: (fill in the blank). Maybe she could have saved time/effort by not going to that particular place.

That would be an excellent idea. When they start losing patients, they may start thinking a little differently. Why should a patient suffer because of someone else's religious beliefs?

My sister recently encountered a veteranarian who at first refused to spay her cat because it was pregnant and killing unborn kittens was against the vet's religion. My sister said that she would take her business elsewhere... and the vet immediately agreed to perform the operation.

Funny how malleable religious convictions can be at times, eh?

"Funny how malleable religious convictions can be at times, eh?"...............

rewritten "Funny how malleable any conviction can be at times, eh?" given the right set of circumstances i believe many convictions simply don't withstand the stress !

If the doctor is a scientist, shouldn't he/she take into account largely empirical evidence for making decisions as to prescriptions? When is "conception", technically? Doesn't it take a certain amount of time for impregnation? Can the "morning-after" pill be taken BEFORE that time lag is over?

Is there even a precise "moment" we could rationally consider "conception"? Doesn't the process rely on something similar to absorption, as the sperm crosses various thresholds and then the process during which the sperm essentially dissolves and yes, mutates with the nuclei? It never occurs as any singular nanosecond, I would think.

Maybe it's akin to Zeno's arrow.

In light of this, the doctor's moral/religious opinions are not very relevant. The decision has got to be the woman's. The religious so-called scientists may spout any moral reasoning they wish; science itself demands proof. In its absence, our government has to protect the sole conscience of the woman whose body is her own.

what is this "sole conscience" that is being protected ?
i agree that each person 'owns' their own bodies - this does not preclude that we are a liberty to do whatever we want with our body without regards to others.

Until the good doctor can point to solid science to show at which moment the egg cell + sperm becomes something besides a conglomeration of tissue, I see no "other". A blastocyst, the immediate "result" of this conglomeration, is a tiny, empty mass. It has yet to develop any particularities one could even at the highest resolution identify as "human": A stem cell, basically, with no growth into any identifiable kind of body part.

Do we grant greater importance to this blastocyst over an adult woman asking her doctor to provide a prescription she (likely agonizingly) has determined she needs?

The "sole conscience", buz, is what our U.S Constitution and several of its writers and defenders at its own "inception" set out to protect for each of its citizens in matters of religion and, I would argue, in matters of one's own body. I will agree that the freedom to exercise one's conscience end when another person's body and health are put into imminent threat.

But there has not been shown to be another person, aside from the doctor, in this case. And his body is not being threatened. Nor is anyone else's but the woman's.

The doctor is free to refuse whatever procedure he sees fit.

The patient is free to go to another doctor.

The doctor's employer is free to deal with the doctor as they see fit, subject to the terms of employment.