|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:01 pm
The oath that all doctor's must take. (at least I think they do) I'm not too knowledgable about the subject on this doctor's oath yet, but I've been reading about it and researching it a bit after I had this one discussion with my bf recently. The original Greek Translation of the Hippocratic Oath clearly states that a doctor will not give a woman a pessary to procure an abortion which I thought was interesting but not too surprising. But then I thought about some of the women who may have died because of their pregnancies/birth back in those days, which I'm sure was a lot because they didn't have the medical technology we do now. Hippocratic Oath I swear by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath. To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot. Obviously the oath has changed a lot since then because of all the changes in medical technology and social, religous, and political importance as well. Doctor's still take the oath today I believe, something more like this one Modern Oath Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and health. To justify that trust you must show respect for human life and you must: Make the care of your patient your first concern Protect and promote the health of patients and the public Provide a good standard of practice and care Keep your professional knowledge and skills up to date Recognise and work within the limits of your competence Work with colleagues in the ways that best serve patients' interests Treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity Treat patients politely and considerately Respect patients' right to confidentiality Work in partnership with patients Listen to patients and respond to their concerns and preferences Give patients the information they want or need in a way they can understand Respect patients' right to reach decisions with you about their treatment and care Support patients in caring for themselves to improve and maintain their health Be honest and open and act with integrity Act without delay if you have good reason to believe that you or a colleague may be putting patients at risk Never discriminate unfairly against patients or colleagues Never abuse your patients' trust in you or the public's trust in the profession. You are personally accountable for your professional practice and must always be prepared to justify your decisions and actions. The reason for my bringing up the hippocratic oath in the first place is that I've seen a lot of choicers discussing what a doctor's job is and why this doctor or that doctor shouldn't even be one. They say that it is a doctor's duty and obligation to prescribe this medicine or that medicine to the patient because they asked for it. I'm not so sure how I feel about this. I mean I certainly don't think doctors should just start handing out prescription drugs to people just because they WANT it and think it's best for themselves, but I do still get frustrated when I hear stories about rape victims that were denied the morning after pill just because a doctor or pharmacist was morally against it. So I don't know guys. I thought this would make for an interesting dicsussion. What do you think is a doctor's duty and obligation as a doctor? Also what do you think about the Hippocratic Oath (either the old version or the modern ones).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:06 pm
Well, did the prescribing regimens for the good of patients override not giving an abortion?
I haven't found an answer to that, ever. It's made me think a lot, because I am of the opinion that abortion in the case a woman's life is her choice because no one should be made to die for the sake of another person. It's self defense. I support it in terms of everything else politically; if someone is going to be harmed and the only way to stop it is to kill the other person, I stand by the first person's right to self defense if nothing else could keep the person safe.
In terms of administering EC...I think that doctors should have that choice. If they see it as killing a child, I don't think they should have to prescribe it, and there are enough physicians that will prescribe it that it shouldn't be a big deal. In America, we can choose which doctors to go to. If you choose a doctor that's pro-life, then that's a risk you take.
I think it's a doctor's duty to provide the best possible care for a patient. Many doctors are taught that there are two patients when a woman is pregnant, the mother and the child. If a doctor believes a zygote is the same as an embryo in terms of value...it would be forcing doctors to prescribe things that would kill humans that they considered to be patients.
Maybe doctors who are pro-life should stop practicing altogether so they aren't faced with having to kill a human they consider to be a patient, but that's a lot of doctors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:30 pm
This wannabe pharmacist has to get back to the pharmacy stressed but I'll post more later. For now, I introduce this for discussion:
OATH OF A PHARMACIST
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patient I serve.
I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.
I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.
I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:48 pm
I believe there was a discussion about this in the PCG; back in Hippocrates' time, abortion was fairly common, but iirc, frowned upon after the pregnancy could be detected. (Women would take certain herbs to get their period if it was late--they may have been aborting a pregnancy early or simply beginning to menstruate, you can't tell even today.) So apparently this part was frequently violated. But pregnancy, and much of medicine, wasn't well understood at that time, and it was generally believed that the fetus wasn't alive until it started moving ("quickening").
But today, even in elementary school biology we learn that when a sperm penetrates the membrane of an egg and combines DNA, a new human is formed, and that human has started growing as a new, separate life form.
And the oath also says:
"never do harm to anyone."
and
"To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug..."
(There are different translations, but this is pretty straightforward)
and then "Protect and promote the health of patients..."
As lymey said, medical students and those in allied health professions are taught to treat a pregnant woman as two patients. Yes, even in totally secular, pro-choice schools. Because when you give a pregnant woman a drug, more often than not you are giving it to her fetus as well. If you give a pregnant woman an x-ray of the abdomen, you're giving a fetus an x-ray too.
So my humble interpretation of this is: when you give a pregnant woman an abortion, you're killing a patient. It doesn't matter if she wants it dead, your job is to protect the life of all your patients without preference. To me, providing an abortion is as ethically reprehensible as assisting in the suicide of a depressed yet otherwise healthy patient. If you can't save someone's life, accept that fact, but never make someone's condition worse.
My thoughts on emergency contraception: it is the same as regular contraception. It is intended to do the same thing: prevent ovulation. Any competent pharmacist or doctor should know this.
The oath, and medical ethics since Hippocrates, has always remained consistent with compassionate science. "Thou shalt not kill" has stayed the same. There has never been a "thou shalt not have sex for pleasure." (Because Hygeia knows the Greeks did that all the time...) whee
There is a huge difference between refusing to assist in killing someone and refusing to let someone prevent pregnancy.
As was mentioned in the discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses, if you're going to adhere to religious beliefs that may interfere with your practice, make that known, and patients can decide for themselves whether they want to work with someone adhering to those beliefs. Maybe they share them, and so they do. If they don't, they can go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:42 pm
La Veuve Zin As lymey said, medical students and those in allied health professions are taught to treat a pregnant woman as two patients. Yes, even in totally secular, pro-choice schools. Because when you give a pregnant woman a drug, more often than not you are giving it to her fetus as well. If you give a pregnant woman an x-ray of the abdomen, you're giving a fetus an x-ray too. I should hope that they treat a pregnant woman as two patients when prescribing a drug. We can't just have doctor's going around assuming that every pregnant woman plans to have an abortion and prescribe her drugs that could harm the fetus. That would just be illogical. I can't imagine how many women would be devastated if they lost their baby because of something like that. So yeah, it only makes sense that they would treat her as two people, at least to me. sweatdrop La Veuve Zin So my humble interpretation of this is: when you give a pregnant woman an abortion, you're killing a patient. It doesn't matter if she wants it dead, your job is to protect the life of all your patients without preference. To me, providing an abortion is as ethically reprehensible as assisting in the suicide of a depressed yet otherwise healthy patient. If you can't save someone's life, accept that fact, but never make someone's condition worse. I was talking to my boyfriend about this and he said that he thinks that doctors shouldn't even perform abortions since they are supposed to save life. He's pro-choice (I think, sometimes I question his standpoint) so he thinks professionals should still perform abortions, they just shouldn't be called doctors. So I guess he thinks a person who would essentially be a doctor, but not called one, should perform abortions. I think it's a bit silly since technically they would be doctors...but, heh, I don't know what to say to him about that. La Veuve Zin My thoughts on emergency contraception: it is the same as regular contraception. It is intended to do the same thing: prevent ovulation. Any competent pharmacist or doctor should know this. Wanna know something funny? I don't think my gynecologist knows that. When I was going to get on the pill (you have to get a pap and all that) I asked her about EC and I told her I had taken it because I had a mishap with a broken condom and she gave me this really weird look, like she was kinda angry looking and said in a really snotty way, "Well! That drug is pretty much like an abortion itself since it kills the fertilized egg." Just the way she said that and the way she was looking at me kinda freaked me out...I even got a little bit emotional about it and she just shrugged it off like it was nothing, she didn't show any compassion at all. I sure wish my gynecologist thinks the same as you in regards to EC... La Veuve Zin The oath, and medical ethics since Hippocrates, has always remained consistent with compassionate science. "Thou shalt not kill" has stayed the same. There has never been a "thou shalt not have sex for pleasure." (Because Hygeia knows the Greeks did that all the time...) whee There is a huge difference between refusing to assist in killing someone and refusing to let someone prevent pregnancy. rofl My bf is half Greek and isn't as sexual as I want him to be. xD I'm starting to doubt his Greekness. La Veuve Zin As was mentioned in the discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses, if you're going to adhere to religious beliefs that may interfere with your practice, make that known, and patients can decide for themselves whether they want to work with someone adhering to those beliefs. Maybe they share them, and so they do. If they don't, they can go elsewhere. Ah yes! D: I wish my doctor and all doctors would have a big sign that says that they are for or against this or that and how their religious beliefs may interfere with their profession. xD rofl and God knows Jehova's Witnesses would have a huge religious interference if they ever became doctors (but I doubt that will happen since they pretty much aren't allowed to be doctors.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:55 pm
SterileNeedles I was talking to my boyfriend about this and he said that he thinks that doctors shouldn't even perform abortions since they are supposed to save life. He's pro-choice (I think, sometimes I question his standpoint) so he thinks professionals should still perform abortions, they just shouldn't be called doctors. I agree completely, and I refuse to grant the title "doctor" to anyone who provides abortions (since I believe they've violated the Hippocratic oath). SterileNeedles "Well! That drug is pretty much like an abortion itself since it kills the fertilized egg." Just the way she said that and the way she was looking at me kinda freaked me out...I even got a little bit emotional about it and she just shrugged it off like it was nothing, she didn't show any compassion at all. I wonder how she would've acted if you told her you had an abortion! What a b***h! Sadly, many doctors and nurses have no frigging clue how drugs work or much beyond how to look up in a book what to prescribe if a patient has a certain condition. So patients get orders for all kinds of excessive, redundant, dangerous or just plain wrong drugs, which pharmacists have to correct. stare Oh, and about the idea of bringing religion into medicine: Loma Linda UniversityI'd heard of their pharmacy school before, but didn't realise it was a Seventh-Day Adventist (Jehovah's Witness) Christian school until I read some reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:20 am
...except EC actually does make it so that a fertilized egg will die. Beyond the fertilized egg status actually, but definitely nowhere near the fetal stage. Blastocyst is probably the furthest it goes.
EC has two functions. First of all, it tries to keep conception from happening. As a failsafe, it thins your uterine wall so that nothing can implant, making it like a natural unimplantable time except done on purpose. That's why many women have an abnormal period that starts a few days after taking it. If you believe that protection of human life should begin at conception, then it makes sense to believe this is just as bad as abortion. It's not an abortion, since an abortion involves a pregnancy and EC prevents a pregnancy. It just doesn't always
I don't agree at all with the way she handled it, but if she believes life should be protected from conception, then she's right. It's as bad as an abortion because it's deliberately making sure any human inside is removed from the womb and sent to die. If one places a different value on a blastocyst or zygote than one places on an implanted embryo though, it's not a bad thing at all. It all depends where you place the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:12 pm
Well the oath has changed over time but from what I understand of the oath now it that they shall do no harm on a patient and do all they can to save them.
The point of doctors is to help save lifes as much as possible.
I agree, the people that preform abortions shouldn't be concidered doctors since it goes aganist the oath of saving lifes, it's the opposit. They should be giving a different title.
From what I know about EC is that it prevents the fertilized egg (if it is fertilized) from attaching on the uterus and prevent pregnancy. They won't become pregent until the fertilized egg is attached on to the uterus. It's basiclly like a stronger does of Birth Control.
It's not ment to be taken offten (which is why they have birth control for everyday use) but to be used for emergencies.
Loma Linda University? My mom used to work at the Loma Linda Medical Center. She did EKG's and drew blood. She even had to an EKG for a Babboon for some tests or something (not sure what). She said she thinks it went down hill overs the years since she lasted worked there.
As for religion, that should be kept out of medical training since not everyone agrees with religion or different ones and has nothing to do with saving patients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:36 am
So glad I live in England.
I've never had a problem getting a doctor to prescribe me the Pill. The only problem I had was when it was out of stock. That was a nightmare and a half. I went to five pharmacies in my area and none of them had it, so I had to call up the doctors, get re-prescribed to a Pill that was the same but by a different company and run to the pharmacy before it shut. x.x
It's also easy to get EC here, you just go to the pharmacy and they ask some questions and then they give it to you and tell you how to use it. You don't need a prescription or anything. I don't think you do, anyway. My friend didn't when she got it (five times in a row. >.< The condoms kept breaking, poor girl.)
I don't think personal morals should interfere with medical practices, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:03 am
sachiko_sohma From what I know about EC is that it prevents the fertilized egg (if it is fertilized) from attaching on the uterus and prevent pregnancy. They won't become pregent until the fertilized egg is attached on to the uterus. It's basiclly like a stronger does of Birth Control. It's not ment to be taken offten (which is why they have birth control for everyday use) but to be used for emergencies. Thought I'd do a bit o' research, since I was curious myself: Plan B: .75 mg levonorgestrel Lutera, Alesse, Aviane, Levora: .10 mg levonorgestrel Triphasil: .05, .075 and .125 mg levonorgestrel Seasonique: .15 mg levonorgestrel (all these also contain estradiol) Jadelle: < or = .10 mg/day Norplant: < or = .085 mg/day (these are just sustained-release levonorgestrel implants) So basically, Plan B is roughly the equivalent of 6-7 regular BC pills. I've never used hormonal BC, and I probably never will. If you've ever looked at the side effects and interaction information with this s**t, you know how badly it can mess with you. I'd rather get pregnant than have a heart attack or stroke, and after about eight years of being a total, unabashed slut with no pregnancies whatsoever, I don't think I need the risk of hormones to be any safer. Mind you, if a woman does want to take BC, in daily or emergency form, I think that should be her choice (after all, it's her body... wink ) but I strongly recommend barriers and spermicide instead. And, as I was going to point out, both daily and emergency contraception can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, but I'd much rather see that happen than see a woman get pregnant and abort a fetus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:04 am
I think condoms are better than the Pill or anything else. I'm on the Pill, though. It wasn't an enjoyable first month, honestly - completely lost my sex drive, was stressy and overly-emotional, painful breasts, and bleeding every day. I would not want to go through that again. *shudder*
To call an abortionist a doctor or not is a technicality. I'd like euthanasia to be legal - does that mean that doctors who give euthanasia injections wouldn't be doctors? And if patients sign DNRs, does that means doctors who follow them aren't doctors because they didn't save the life?
Stuff like EC and BC, yes you need prescriptions for them, so there shouldn't be a choice to not prescribe it. If someone pulled that on me I'd be like, "Well, I'm going to have sex anyway, I'll just use a condom instead, you p***k." BC is just another way of preventing pregnancy, and EC prevents implantation. What's the big problem that doctors have with them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:52 am
Rinaqa I think condoms are better than the Pill or anything else. I'm on the Pill, though. It wasn't an enjoyable first month, honestly - completely lost my sex drive, was stressy and overly-emotional, painful breasts, and bleeding every day. I would not want to go through that again. *shudder* To call an abortionist a doctor or not is a technicality. I'd like euthanasia to be legal - does that mean that doctors who give euthanasia injections wouldn't be doctors? And if patients sign DNRs, does that means doctors who follow them aren't doctors because they didn't save the life? Stuff like EC and BC, yes you need prescriptions for them, so there shouldn't be a choice to not prescribe it. If someone pulled that on me I'd be like, "Well, I'm going to have sex anyway, I'll just use a condom instead, you p***k." BC is just another way of preventing pregnancy, and EC prevents implantation. What's the big problem that doctors have with them? I don't know why doctors have things against basic contraception, however if they are pro-life I could kinda understand why they are against EC if they equate an embryo to a born human child...which seems to me just going over the top a bit. I mean what the hell, AN EMBRYO? It will get flushed out of the body when you take EC so it doesn't implant, however I'm sure it happens all the time with women. I'm sure that women who are sexually active and may be trying to get pregnant have fertilized embryos that fail to attach to the uterus and get flushed out with her next period. So if it naturally happens it's ok? Is that how pro-life people feel? If the body removes the zygote, or embryo, or fetus naturally then it's more ok than removing it manually yourself? Miscarriages happen all of the time too. So if pro-life people feel that abortion is murder, do they also believe that using EC is murder? (because it doesn't work sometimes too, so attempted murder?) And then if the body is removing things naturally that makes it manslaughter perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:22 am
Nope.
Think of it like this...a man doesn't like his teenage daughter but doesn't want to get his hands dirty. He hires a hitman to shoot her.(I know this is unlikely, but please bear with me). On the other hand, there is a man living in a bad neighborhood whose teenage daughter gets shot on her way to school.
In one case, the man goes out of his way and makes it so that she will die.
In the other, by living in a bad neighborhood, the man isn't doing the absolute most he can to protect his daughter, but it's not like it's his fault he can't live in a better area. He did not try and have her killed, her death was caused by a variable that he couldn't control.
In the same way, someone who hires a person to kill her child is different than someone whose child dies naturally. Natural deaths aren't considered manslaughter, even when those deaths are children in care of guardians.
I personally will not take EC. I do see it as the same as an abortion, and I feel it's inconsistent to say I think life begins at conception but I don't want it to be protected until it reaches a certain age. Yes, embryos get flushed naturally, miscarriages happen all the time, but where they differ from induced abortion and EC is that someone takes an active role in making sure they happen.
Abortion is about age to me. Everyone defines personhood at a certain age, but there is only one point where a human comes into being and starts the aging process, and that is conception. I feel that it's age discrimination to say that some humans have the right to live because they've reached the third trimester so now they're protected. If it was really about bodily integrity, then abortion should be legal ALL throughout the pregnancy. If it's about defining an age of when personhood begins, then why should your definition override mine, or mine override yours? If it's about bodily integrity, then why tell women they need to induce birth if they don't want to just because the child can survive if it's her body?
So if I'm going to say I side on protecting children regardless of age, I can't ethically support EC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:25 pm
lymelady Nope. Think of it like this...a man doesn't like his teenage daughter but doesn't want to get his hands dirty. He hires a hitman to shoot her.(I know this is unlikely, but please bear with me). On the other hand, there is a man living in a bad neighborhood whose teenage daughter gets shot on her way to school. In one case, the man goes out of his way and makes it so that she will die. In the other, by living in a bad neighborhood, the man isn't doing the absolute most he can to protect his daughter, but it's not like it's his fault he can't live in a better area. He did not try and have her killed, her death was caused by a variable that he couldn't control. In the same way, someone who hires a person to kill her child is different than someone whose child dies naturally. Natural deaths aren't considered manslaughter, even when those deaths are children in care of guardians. I personally will not take EC. I do see it as the same as an abortion, and I feel it's inconsistent to say I think life begins at conception but I don't want it to be protected until it reaches a certain age. Yes, embryos get flushed naturally, miscarriages happen all the time, but where they differ from induced abortion and EC is that someone takes an active role in making sure they happen. Abortion is about age to me. Everyone defines personhood at a certain age, but there is only one point where a human comes into being and starts the aging process, and that is conception. I feel that it's age discrimination to say that some humans have the right to live because they've reached the third trimester so now they're protected. If it was really about bodily integrity, then abortion should be legal ALL throughout the pregnancy. If it's about defining an age of when personhood begins, then why should your definition override mine, or mine override yours? If it's about bodily integrity, then why tell women they need to induce birth if they don't want to just because the child can survive if it's her body? So if I'm going to say I side on protecting children regardless of age, I can't ethically support EC. Yeah that does make a lot of sense, as unrealistic as it is and I understand where you are coming from. It's nice that you are being consistent about it but you don't think it's a little over the top at all? When it comes to abortion, no I am not consistent. Yes I am for it because of bodily integrity but there is a point at which the fetus can sustain life on it's own. It's just hard to find that point, usually it's somewhere in the 3rd trimester. So if the fetus no longer needs it's mother for survival it can be removed via C-section and survive. Once the fetus is viable I don't approve of abortion. Also I think it would be stupid for a woman to get an abortion the day before it's supposed to be born or something. That's just ridiculous to me while I also think it is ridiculous that people don't think women should be allowed to stop implantation of embryos in their bodies by taking EC especially like in cases of rape. In my head I'm screaming, "FOR GOD SAKES, IT'S JUST AN EMBRYO!!!" and I don't know why it's screaming. Maybe because it just seems too crazy to me... Anyways kinda moved off topic...but I don't really care. xD My threads always go off topic and onto more interesting things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:49 pm
I don't think EC will ever be banned. I'm not going to campaign for it to be banned. I think it'll save more lives than it will end...it's a numbers game for me, as cruel as it sounds. If more women would die from giving birth than children die from abortions, I'd adjust my views on campaigning for an end to abortion. EC is something that I think will never be gone, and trying to get rid of it would be counterproductive to getting rid of abortion. It's the reason I won't be a doctor, but I'm not going to say it should be illegal. I think as many people should live quality lives as possible. I also believe it is possible, but people on both sides let their drive to win (for a noble cause on both sides) cloud the actual cause of protecting and bettering people's lives. Banning EC is an unwise move.
I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it to me, why viability matters. If they make artificial embryos, should abortion be done away with entirely and any women pregnant at any stage should have to have her child put into them instead of aborting? Viability keeps getting pushed back. If it's about bodily integrity, then why should a woman have to undergo a C-section, which can be more dangerous than birth (and I'm told that birth is more dangerous than abortion), thus putting a woman at risk for the sake of some human that's violating her bodily integrity? Some women don't even realize they're pregnant until far into the pregnancy, but even if they did, situations change. People can lose all their money, or maybe the father dies or leaves and a woman can't bear to think of giving birth to his child. If it's about bodily integrity, she should be able to make these choices about her own body all throughout the pregnancy and not have to go through something that's more dangerous than abortion, should she? If she should have to go through something riskier than abortion, why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
