Welcome to Gaia! ::

Which is why I haven't discussed this in a very specific applicative-sense.

No, I don't agree with forcing abortions. No, I don't agree with denying birth control. No, I don't think that she should just find another doctor (or office). Some people don't have that luxury.

I'm not even going to deal with the rest. You've already stated my case perfectly.

What so because the current system doesn't support it doesn't mean I shouldn't argue for its eventual legislation, based off the hope that things will change?

Now who's getting pressured into adopting dogmas he doesn't agree with?

Well no one ever said it's wrong to try to persuade someone to agree with you; If I thought that, I wouldn't debate abortion.

Also, dogma? It's not dogma. My stance is not irreversible. It's not codified. In fact, it's not a principle at all; It's the opinion that your principles are stupid.

And what you said about the system doesn't make sense. It's stupid. "I'm going to support this now, in the hopes that it will change later so it doesn't force people to commit what I consider to be murder?" It's terrible. Seriously. You are assuming, and hoping for the best. You know what's more likely to happen? Either the whole thing being overturned (Which I hope so), or it will stay like it is. Forcing thousands of doctors to either commit what they consider to be murder, or quit their jobs. And forcing thousands of would-be doctors to take a different major.

They don't have leeway to deny whatever they want, though! It's one thing that you disagree with. One very unimportant thing.

If you walk into a hospital and are bleeding out, by law, they cannot refuse you. Doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, black or white, rich or broke, they can't refuse you. There is one thing, one tiny insignificant thing, which a small percentage of hospitals refuse on moral grounds, and which does not cause death or severe injury to go without. So unless you consider pregnancy to be a horrible thing, there is no reason that you should get so bent out of shape about hospitals not offering the birth control pill. It's your opinion that they shouldn't be denying it. It's the Pro-Choice opinion that they shouldn't be denying abortion! If we go by what certain groups of people think they shouldn't deny, then we open ourselves up to a whole world of hurt.

Got a toothache? Well this guy doesn't think the hospitals should deny straight up heroine to take the edge off. Feeling depressed? I don't think the hospital should deny you marijuana. Lack of energy? Here's some crack cocaine. Just can't stand living anymore? Euthanasia. Oh no, you don't need a psych examination first, I'm sure that your feeling down today is reason enough to help you commit suicide.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. If you mean that, when putting aside the morals which I base my opinion on, I still find your principles to be bad because they hurt the whole, then yes. I use "logistics," in that I'm weighing the pros and cons, yes, and no. My principles say, they get their freedoms, and that's why I disagree with you. Logistics just agree with me.

It doesn't though! And I know you're arguing on principle; How about we use the slippery slope on your side? What happens when, twenty years down the line, the government decides that it's in charge of taking care of people, so it starts ruling that, if you've got two kidneys and someone needs one and you're a match, you have to give one up? What happens when blood donations become mandatory for anyone who is applicable?

On my side? That's very unlikely to happen. There are religious reasons to feel the way they do about BC, and if it were something bigger, the government -as it stands- would step in, and I agree with that. If a doctor is refusing health care to, say, a black man, or an asian woman, that's one thing! But refusing to give out BC is not refusing a medical necessity, and not discriminating against your patients.
Doctors always have to deal with ethical dilemmas. And they should! If they don't deal with ethical dilemmas, then they perform surgeries on unwilling patients because it's "what's best for them." They give patients medicine that they don't want because "it's what's best for them." If they ignore ethical dilemmas, as I said before, we enter a fascist state of medical care. You as the patient have no rights. The doctors have no rights. You are both tools of the government, and the government is going to take care of you so you don't break, but it's not going to respect any supposed "rights" you have.

A) You're the one who is being thick, and sticking to principles that your emotions show are bad, and B) When did I advocate sensitivity? ******** that s**t. I'm not going to be "sensitive" about your stupidity.

I advocate civility in debate, and up until now I have shown civility, but I'm not going to call a pile of s**t a rose just because it makes you feel better.

Yes, I see the moral conflict you've come to; And you're taking the wrong side of it! It's not just emotion saying this is wrong, it's -logic.- Logic says that abortion is murder. Logic says that murder is very bad, and that forcing people to commit what they consider to be murder hurts them very badly. Logic thus says that, if you're going to hold to principles, you better change them, because those principles are supporting a very bad thing. If my principles support murder, I ******** change them!

If you think you're acting with decorum, re-read what you've been saying, KP, and the way you've said it.

You're using the slippery slope fallacy when you say, "What happens when this small insignificant thing balloons into a very big thing? Or what happens when twenty years down the road a new procedure, ethically debated, isn't so "small" anymore? I'm just arguing on principle." So let's not call it the slippery slope and say Andy, just like you, is arguing on principle, is that better?

How have you been agreeing with anyone indirectly for the past two pages? You keep saying this is your principle, this is what you agree with, this is what should be done, this is the change you want to see. Yet when people point out things they disagree with that are in line with what you want, you say, "That's why I'm not bringing in logistics." You can't leave the logistics out of it if you're going to say, "This is what I think should be done," because the logistics are part of it! You keep arguing something that two people disagree with, and whenever they point that out, you keep arguing your point. I don't understand how that's indirectly agreeing.

Pro-choice political, pro-life personal is not about principles not leading to action, because those people still vote pro-choice and are thus acting with their pro-choice principles. They are acting on the principle that women should have the choice to abort, even if they wouldn't have an abortion themselves. In short, they are pro-choice but would never have an abortion.

Just like with you, maybe you're not comfortable with the consequences of your principles, but you still hold them, and you still would act on them. Or maybe you wouldn't! Maybe you don't feel strongly enough about this to act on making it so doctors would have to do things that go against their moral grain. So maybe you're like I am with communism; it's a great ideal and I wish it could work, but I don't believe it could so I don't hold communistic principles. But since you keep arguing this point that doctors should do what you want them to do even if it hurts them, I can't help but think you actually do hold these principles to be the best path and would therefore act on them.

Decorum-decorum.