Good for them! They are absolutely right.

Healthcare providers are regularly faced with pressures to change their medical practice — often in direct opposition to their personal convictions. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to protect the conscience rights of all individuals in their pursuit of gainful employment, including health care services. Decades ago — shortly after the Supreme Court in 1973 established a right to abortion — Congress adopted laws clarifying that no one was required to perform an abortion. Later laws declared, “No individual shall be required to perform or assist” in any medical research or procedure “contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.” The new rule is designed to bolster existing laws in areas of the healthcare field that are intolerant of individual objections to abortion or individual religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Nevertheless, in response to the regulation, abortion advocates have lashed out with objections that not only strike at the core of their own proclaimed beliefs, but also serve to undermine Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pro-abortion activists and their followers, by contesting a rule that only serves to strengthen long-standing laws based on the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, bring their motives into question. People who claim to be defending a basic, human, “right to choose” on one issue are now “choosing” to attack the same basic right on another issue, thereby placing the importance of their personal interests over what they themselves have long-claimed to be a “basic human right.”

OD you destroy your own case. You point out that there are laws that protect these peoples’ rights; what Bush has done is attack the patients’ rights to medical care. Medical workers can pick a line of work they are capable of doing or find an employer who won’t expect them to do what they abhore. A patient may well be where there’s no other provider for tens or even hundreds of miles so there must be a balance. And observing the law must not be a heavy burden on the company.
Generally Republicans abhor red tape, but not if it hurts these women and families who need contraception or abortions.

Since I live in one of those states that is correctly suing HHS, I hope the suit succeeds. Perhaps President-elect Obama will over- turn this one of many of “W”‘s interfering regulations. A woman who has been raped has the right to get all help…including the morning after pill.

pagansister-
I live CT which is the state that is leading the way on this…..and could not agree with you more!

JohnQ, I’m in a neighboring state…RI.

One Dove,
You have made a hollow, fallacious argument. There is no such thing as a “pro-abortion activist”. I have neverr once in my 57 years on this planet ever heard a single solitary person say ‘abortion is a good thinng and I thinkwomoen should have as many of them as possible’. That would be a ‘pro-abortion’ stance and it simply does not exist. The phrase you need is “pro-choice”. The anti-choice crowd simply wants nothing more than to take that choice away from women.
If a health care provider thinks abortion is a bad thing, then they should not have one. They should never be allowed to make that decision for other people (i.e. their patients), for they are violating that person’s beliefs.

Your Name,
I read a lot of material on ethics, and there is definitely a contingent out there that can rightly be called “pro-abortion.” There are some people who think that the government simply has no business regulating abortion, but there are others who certainly believe that abortion is good and necessary in some instances and that women must be positively empowered to be able to have an abortion in those circumstances. That stance–that abortion must be allowed because it is sometimes necessary for women’s flourishing, or for some other reason–certainly has more to it than a mere libertarian hands-off approach, and it often manifests itself in efforts to get government funding for abortions, to force government-funded charities and hospitals to provide abortion services, etc.
When conservative abortion opponents speak of a pro-abortion agenda, we’re not speaking about forced abortions–at least not yet, anyway. We’re talking about agendas that cast abortion as a positive right (rather than only a negative one), something that can be a legitimate good and thus should be defended on the basis of its goodness rather than on the basis of some kind of libertarianism. And you don’t think that there are plenty of people out there who think that abortion is a good thing, that it must be legal (and women must be informed and empowered to have them if they want them) precisely on account of its goodness? You don’t read much, apparently.

Thank you, One Dove. Well said.
The Truth will prevail.

Nate I don’t believe I can disagree with what you said. It is good when women have the right to an abortion and the ability to have one quickly. And that’s because sometimes it is clearly a good thing for the woman and often also for her family when she has one.
And that is, of course, far from wanting to force anyone to have an abortion. But you’ll have to excuse us pro-choice folks if we make it clear we are not pro-abortion in the sense of wanting people to have them rather than wanting people to be able to have them. This argument so often rests on who has the rhetorical high ground that we’d be foolish to let someone put us on the low ground without a fight.

If you think it’s sometimes a good thing that women have abortions, then why would you say that you don’t want women to have abortions? If you think they’re good, then aren’t you saying you’d prefer them to be had rather than not had? I mean, when people say they think heart surgery is a good thing for those who need it, they don’t rush to qualify that by saying, “But don’t call me pro-heart surgery!” Why should it be any different when it comes to abortion?
You’re not going to gain any high ground, rhetorical or otherwise, by trying to come up with fancier terminology for your position. Conservatives aren’t convinced, and they aren’t going to be, especially when you’re willing to come right out and admit to believing precisely what we don’t think anyone should believe. You can make all the effort in the world to shed the “pro-abortion” label, but it won’t change a thing.

AHH, words, and the twisting of them. Pro-choice means just what it says…women have a choice..that means no one is forcing them to do something they don’t want to do. Forced abortions are never good. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion….really simple.

“If you think it’s sometimes a good thing that women have abortions, then why would you say that you don’t want women to have abortions?”
What’s the context of this saying we don’t want women to have abortions you describe? Is it some of us saying if abortions can reasonably be avoided we’d prefer that be so? I think many of us would feel that way, while realizing it’s the woman’s and the family’s choice.
Yes, from my perspective it’s sometimes clearly good a woman has an abortion and sometimes that’s not clear but I won’t be deciding what any woman or any family should do now. So I just want them to have the freedom to make the decision to have a safe abortion if they feel that’s best for them. It’s fairly simple.

Pagansister, good job there in not actually responding to what has been written. As I said, we’re not talking about forced abortions when we talk about a pro-abortion agenda any more than, say, the “pro-gun” crowd wants to force everyone to own guns. The issue is whether one takes a libertarian “hand-off” negative-rights approach to abortion, or a liberal proactive positive-rights approach. Yes, there’s a very real distinction there, and the one lable “pro-choice” doesn’t do a very good job at covering them both.
nnmns, if you think that abortions are sometimes good, sometimes the best course of action, then I’m not sure why you’d say you don’t want women to have them. That would seem to suggest that you lack concern for the well-being of those women; you deify their choice to such an extent that you refuse to even have a preference about whether or not they do things that you believe are for their own good. But I’m sure that’s not what you’re really saying. I’m sure you’d prefer that women have an abortion when you think it’s best for them, just like you’d prefer that people take medicine when they’re sick. And if that’s the case, if ever you think it’s best that someone else have an abortion, then that’s enough to make you “pro-abortion” in my book.
But I’m not so much concerned with your own thoughts here, because I wasn’t even responding to you necessarily. I’m simply stating the fact that those who insist that there’s no such thing as a “pro-abortion” contingent are deluded. I’ve run across several people who proudly use that label of themselves, and plenty more to whom it applies: people who promote the idea that abortions in instances of severe birth defects or when the mother is underage, etc., are actually morally preferable to giving birth. Those people exist, and some of them are working as professional ethicists. If you think there’s no openly “pro-abortion” side, you don’t read enough.

“If a health care provider thinks abortion is a bad thing, then they should not have one. They should never be allowed to make that decision for other people (i.e. their patients), for they are violating that person’s beliefs.”
The Hippocratic Oath which many physicians have sworn to includes the paragraph:
“I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life. “
Any physician who has taken this oath by no means should ever be forced to perform an abortion or prescribe the abortificient ‘morning after’ pill to anyone. What disturbs me is the many physicians who have taken such an oath and perform abortions, IVF, assisted suicides, and prescribe the ‘morning after’ pill.
I personally wouldn’t have a problem with labeling someone ‘pro-choice’ if they were more specific about what they were choosing. Are the majority of ‘pro-choicers’ familiar with the various abortion procedures? I tend to wonder. In this particular day and age euphemistic verbal engineering is used to camouflage the true nature of these and other hot-button issues.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010901.html

Abortion is what is. The ending of a LIFE. Life is created at the fertilization of an egg. If it was not “life”, then an abortion would not be necessary to end it. You can call it what you want if it makes you more comfortable, but it IS a human life. Show a picture or a video of an 8 week old fetus a 3 year old and they’ll tell you “its a baby”. But Obama, when asked when life begins answered, “that answer is above my pay grade”. So much for his IV League education. I am a nurse and if I am made to hand out Plan B or assist in an abortion, the government may as well ask me to help set up a Nazi-like camp to eliminate the unwanted souls from society. Look deep inside yourself and ask, “what has this innocent soul done to deserve to die?” This is not about “womens rights”. It’s not “your body”, its a seperate life in the woumb. We do not have power over anyone’s life. We belong to God, and so do our children.

Nate: “I’m sure you’d prefer that women have an abortion when you think it’s best for them, just like you’d prefer that people take medicine when they’re sick. And if that’s the case, if ever you think it’s best that someone else have an abortion, then that’s enough to make you “pro-abortion” in my book.”
Depending on how close they are to me and the details of the case, I might well prefer a woman and perhaps her family choose to have an abortion for her/their own good, but I’d know it’s not my decision and act accordingly, so again the important thing would be that she have the right to one. No surprise there; I presume we’ve all been in analogous situations.
Now let’s talk about a situation where we might possibly agree. I would rather a woman who doesn’t want a child not get pregnant so I think it’s important that contraceptives and knowledge about them be widely available. So if she doesn’t use contraceptives, or they fail, and she gets pregnant I want her to have an abortion if she wants one. But I’d rather she not get pregnant and thus not have an abortion.
“people who promote the idea that abortions in instances of severe birth defects or when the mother is underage, etc., are actually morally preferable to giving birth. Those people exist, and some of them are working as professional ethicists.”
Clearly an argument can be made abortions are morally preferable in such cases. No surprise there.

Tom: “The Hippocratic Oath which many physicians have sworn to includes the paragraph:
“I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life. “
I looked up the Hippocratic Oath. Apparently the original version, and not doubt versions given at RC medical schools still include the oath to not abort. But ” Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the original version that forbade abortion, euthanasia, and further forbade general practitioners from surgery.”
So I dare say there are plenty of doctors out there who have not taken an oath to not abort. The important thing is to make sure they can offer those services to women who need them. Many anti-abortionists work hard to prevent these doctors from being able to do what they see is a necessary service and what many women and families need.
The doctors who don’t want to abort are, I believe, already protected from having to do so and in any case should avoid the kind of practice where their patients might request an abortion. Bush’s meddling is designed to bury abortion providers and likely providers of birth control in paperwork.
“euphemistic verbal engineering” Yes, that describes the situation pretty well. Y’all have been better at it than we have for the last decade or so and we need to catch up or the women of America can lose an important right.

YN: “Abortion is what is. The ending of a LIFE. Life is created at the fertilization of an egg. If it was not “life”, then an abortion would not be necessary to end it. You can call it what you want if it makes you more comfortable, but it IS a human life.”
You try to finesse that but in fact it’s not a “human life” in the sense of a person. For a lot of the pregnancy it falls way short of the wiring of a human (and that’s when most abortions are performed, and more of them would be but for the anti-abortionists. And for the duration of the pregnancy they don’t have the social network of a person. There are not people who have welcomed them into the family and would mourn their absence. The only person greatly invested in them is the mothers to be who decide they need to be aborted.
No, birth is a bright line between the blastocyst, zygote, embryo and fetus, and the person. While Roe v. Wade wisely ramps up the protection a state can give a developing bzef, it also wisely makes the rights of the mother to be paramount. She’s the person involved.
YN you say “if I am made to hand out Plan B or assist in an abortion, the government may as well ask me to help set up a Nazi-like camp to eliminate the unwanted souls from society” so it seems clear you in fact have not been made to do so, or probably even strongly encouraged to do so. In other words, you have not experienced a need for Bush’s folly.

“”euphemistic verbal engineering” Yes, that describes the situation pretty well. Y’all have been better at it than we have for the last decade or so and we need to catch up or the women of America can lose an important right.”
You can start by listening to recordings of doctors who performed the procedure speaking before committees, detailed diagrams of the various procedures, and graphic images of the aftermath of the procedures. Then you can tell me who’s ensconced in euphemism.
“And for the duration of the pregnancy they don’t have the social network of a person. There are not people who have welcomed them into the family and would mourn their absence.”
I’ve never read a definition which defines a person as someone with a ‘social network’. Those in isolated prison cells, hermits, and perhaps those trapped on deserted islands if they exist, would they not be people too? And by the way, many if not most post-abortive women do mourn the loss of their children as evidenced by Rachel’s Vineyard and other post-abortion healing ministries.
Since Bush’s ‘folly’ only penalizes hospitals who would force doctors to perform abortions by cutting off state funding then there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
And I’m sure the more traditional Hippocratic Oath isn’t used as heavily if at all today, but many physicians took that oath before the age of RU-486 and other abortificients, and they should be allowed to continue in their professions without violating their conscience.

Tom thee issue isn’t forcing people to do what they abhor. That’s already covered. As I understand it the issue is forcing hospitals and perhaps pharmacies to do a whole bunch of unnecessary paperwork and threatening them with dire punishments if they don’t get their i’s dotted and t’s crossed.
And as far as a person being someone with a social network, think about if someone died in an accident. If that person had a husband and children who depended on her, or friends to miss him or distraught parents we feel very bad about it. Or at least I do. If he had no dependents or friends we’d hope he didn’t suffer much, or at least I would, but barring a lot of suffering I wouldn’t feel much pity. Would you? After all no one is going to miss him and either he’s gone to a better place (presumably your belief) or he’s not feeling anything ever again (my belief) so what’s to worry about the person who died? It’s that person’s social network whom we pity and who is hurting. That’s a very important part of the difference between the abortion of a bzef and the death of a person.

“The doctors who don’t want to abort are, I believe, already protected from having to do so”
Someone correct me if I’m wong, but is “How To Perform An Abortion 101″ now a mandatory course in Med school?
I mean, any doctor, for whom abortion is “wrong” wouldn’t study how to perform them in the first place. This is just another example of nutzoid ‘thinking’ and false propaganda from the RRR that we think all doctors can and should perform them.

“Clearly an argument can be made abortions are morally preferable in such cases. No surprise there.”
Then how, pray tell, is that not a pro-abortion stance? If being in favor of the performance of abortions doesn’t merit the label “pro-abortion,” then it seems that no one should ever be called “pro-” anything.

“If he had no dependents or friends we’d hope he didn’t suffer much, or at least I would, but barring a lot of suffering I wouldn’t feel much pity. Would you?”
I know I most definitely would. But I guess I’m just crazy for actually caring about the lives of everyone and not just people who have friends and family.
And tell me, what kind of “social network” makes a person a person, anyway? Is a child that’s conceived and born in secret by a mother who hates him and wants to kill him after he’s born not a person, just because he doesn’t have anyone who will mourn his death? Is one who is ostracized from society made into a non-person? And why can’t the unborn have social networks, anyway? You think that mothers and fathers and grandparents and siblings can’t love a child that’s not yet born, that they won’t mourn the child’s death?
You’ve got some pretty idiosyncratic philosophical positions here that I’ve urged to explain over and over again, but you never really do. As it stands, I’ve no reason to believe that you’re really thought through an antrhopology of “social networks” and that you’re really just trying to come up with whatever excuse you can to justify abortion on demand. I’d like to proved wrong.

Nate: “I mean, when people say they think heart surgery is a good thing for those who need it, they don’t rush to qualify that by saying, “But don’t call me pro-heart surgery!”
They might, if they want to emphasize that in some situations they think a change of life-style would be better for the patients than heart surgery and they don’t want to be categorized as always wanting heart surgery done.
Suppose some fanatics thought heart surgery was interfering with God’s plan and tried to make it illegal (which could happen) you’d find a lot of people arguing for the right to heart surgery but not urging anyone to get one and they might reasonably call themselves pro-choice on heart surgery but not pro-heart surgery. They’d want heart surgery to be available to those who need it without urging it on anyone just as we want abortion to be available to those who need it without urging it on anyone.
And if you won this argument about “pro-choice” vs “pro-abortion” you’d also be winning the argument to call the other side anti-abortion, which is in fact a pretty accurate description but which they don’t seem to want.

Nate: “And why can’t the unborn have social networks, anyway? You think that mothers and fathers and grandparents and siblings can’t love a child that’s not yet born, that they won’t mourn the child’s death?”
That can happen and no doubt in many families does but where that kind of thing has happened an abortion is especially and extraordinarily unlikely.
“I know I most definitely would [extensively mourn the painless death of someone Nate didn't know and hardly anyone else knew].
Gosh Nate, you must spend hours every day mourning everyone who died. It’s amazing you get anything done. Are you sure about the truth of that answer?
“And tell me, what kind of “social network” makes a person a person, anyway?”
It doesn’t take any. Being born makes a person a person. It’s that bright line thing. They should have all the rights any person has where they live. But as far as the grief that will be generated because they die, the person with no friends or dependents just doesn’t bring as much to the table.

No Name, Jan. 18 at 6:48 AM:
“This is not about “women’s rights”. It’s not “your body,” it’s a separate life in the womb. ………We belong to God and so do our children.”
It is so very much about “women’s rights.” I don’t know about you (am assumng you’re a woman) or other women, but I certainly am the one who makes the decisions about my body, which is a non-disputable right. No one has the right to tell me what to do with it. It most certainly is “my body” which happens to contain a womb for procreation IF that is what I want to do with it. Women have the right to have children or not. Best to use methods to not get pregnant to begin with, but if an unwanted pregnancy happens, then it is a woman’s right to chose to continue or not. As to who “we” belong to? It happens to be your belief that “We” belong to “God” and so do children. I know I don’t “belong” to anyone nor do my children or husband. Isn’t that called slavery?

What does the amount of grief one’s death will incur have to do with anything? It’s arguable that all sorts of homeless, perverts, sociopaths, loners, ex-presidents, dictators, death row inmates (some wrongly convicted), widowers or singles without children and what have you wouldn’t be terribly grieved and might not even be missed were they to have an untimely death. What about the little girl in Florida who was murdered (presumably by HER mother) and dumped in the woods like a sack of garbage? I feel extremely bad for her! If this is the way we’re going to enforce our laws than we need to re-think a great many things.
Also the waiting list for adoptions in our country is fairly sizable from my understanding. Simply because the biological mother and father aren’t willing to sacrifice for the life of their child doesn’t mean that another caring couple wouldn’t benefit from their love. People are adopting from oversees through a long a grueling process because mothers, boyfriends, and other family members are insisting that the children be cut up into pieces in-utero and sucked out through a hose.
‘It’s that person’s social network whom we pity and who is hurting. That’s a very important part of the difference between the abortion of a bzef and the death of a person.’
Typically, I feel very badly for both the grievers and the deceased. And as I said before, post-abortive mothers grieve the loss of their children! And sometimes boyfriends, grandparents, ants and uncles of the aborted who ultimately didn’t have a say in deciding whether the child lived or died.
The afterlife will always be there (my belief) but we only have one go at it this time around. The fact that so many are snuffed out in the womb of their mothers (which should be the safest place in the world) before they are able to take a breath of fresh air, live, love, laugh, marry and have kids of their own is truly disheartening. And seeing as how in you believe we live then everything fades to black, shouldn’t you feel badly that so many were treated so callously and unloved and met with untimely demises even though their list of family and friends wasn’t that extensive?
Try not to take this the wrong way, nnmns, but sometimes you scare the beJesus out of me!! I sincerely hope your line of thinking never becomes prevalent among the leaders of our great country, yet I fear that it already has.

Tom, is it your belief that a woman should go through a pregnancy, and give birth even though she doesn’t want the child, so someone can adopt the child? That is up to the woman. It isn’t a woman’s “job” to have a child just because she gets pregnant.

Then that’s where you and I disagree, pagansis. Sexual intercourse was designed to produce offspring. If someone wants to choose not to have a child then there’s a fool-proof way of not becoming pregnant. That’s the problem with viewing recreational sex as an entitlement. No birth-control method is a hundred percent effective. If you would have your own child brutally killed because your not willing to sacrifice a few months of inconvenience then isn’t that just a teenzy weenzy bit selfish? Perhaps when you get too old to feed yourself, clothe yourself, wipe yourself, your children may decide to wheel you outside to fend for yourself. After all, why should they suffer the least bit of inconvenience where human life is concerned?

Tom: “Try not to take this the wrong way, nnmns, but sometimes you scare the beJesus out of me!! I sincerely hope your line of thinking never becomes prevalent among the leaders of our great country, yet I fear that it already has.”
With mindsets like yours, it’s no wonder that in my part of the country, atheists are regarded as criminals (and almost as bad as us LGBT folks). Of course, by now I’ve accepted the fact that in the United States of Jesusland, “freedom of religion” is more or less an illusion.
“The fact that so many are snuffed out in the womb of their mothers (which should be the safest place in the world) before they are able to take a breath of fresh air, live, love, laugh, marry and have kids of their own is truly disheartening.”
Seeing as you believe in a loving, merciful god, does it bother you that he would place a soul inside a human body that may never even be born (abortions, miscarriages, etc.)? I know it bothers me.

I’m not sure who’s mindset your describing, Mordred, as I don’t view atheists or LGBT folks as criminals.
And yes, God made us interconnected for want of a better word. If we were never capable of doing harm to anyone else then we may never feel true repentance for the destruction we incurred on our own minds, souls, hearts, and bodies, seeing as how they’re ours to do what we want with. Yet I’m very glad to hear your concern for abortions, miscarriages and the works. I didn’t know LGBTs worried about such things (I’m only kidding

Tom: “The fact that so many are snuffed out in the womb of their mothers (which should be the safest place in the world) before they are able to take a breath of fresh air, live, love, laugh, marry and have kids of their own is truly disheartening.”
In a perfect world one might hope such would be the case. But why stop with conceived bzefs? What about bzefs that might be conceived if more people had more sex sooner? Maybe it should be illegal to not be procreating by, say, age 13.
Oh, and the Wikipedia article on miscarriage indicates maybe a third of pregnancies end that way. In your view of things those would be in “God’s hands” How do you feel about your god creating all those bzefs only to snuff them out in the womb before they can take a breath, etc.?

Because ‘bzefs’ as you so eloquently put already have lives which are taken violently, hence violating the dignity befitting a human being. Children yet to be conceived have yet to be brought into existence, so no crime can be pre-emtively committed against an organism yet to be brought into existence.
Yet I’ll ask you the same questions. Why should ‘bzefs’ be the only ones undeserving of rights? What about the homeless, the friendless, the kinless, hermits, the elderly, the mentally ill, perverts, convicted murderers, handicapped, the unattractive, the unemployed? Elaborate on your theory of the ‘bright line’ and why many other arbitrary ‘bright lines’ wouldn’t be just as meritorius?
In regards to miscarriage contributing factors vary. Some are theoretically lifestyle-oriented and open to scrutiny. Clearly there are automated biological processes either put in place or evolved through ‘natural selection’. This is why it may suprise you to know that there are theists who subscribe to Macro-evolution and Neo-Darwinism. Admittedly, I don’t claim to know all the ins and outs of how God thinks or why he set things up the way he did. I do know the medical online dictionary presented a range of 20%-70% of misconceptuses if memory serves me correctly, depending on the study. He does leave humans more or less at the mercy of eachother in this life.
I will note that this is a fascinating re-occurence with you and other anti-theists. I try to wade through philosophical differences using logic and deductive reasoning, while you guys keep trying to fall back on this ‘God’ argument. What is with your inability to confine your argument to the issue at hand? Perhaps it is just idle curiosity and I’m reading into something that isn’t there. Oh well.

Tom you get all upset at the missed opportunities when a woman, or she and her family, decide to not carry a bzef to term but when your god (as I understand your religion) puts a bzef in a womb and then decides it won’t be carried to term, often without the woman even knowing about it, you get all calm and deductive despite those same missed opportunities. I guess that’s part of the subconscious baggage you develop to hide from yourself the contradictions inherent in the god in your head.
As far as rights for the homeless, etc. conservatives were in near total control of the government of the country, in large part because many religious people credited them for being moral based on their support of bzefs and opposition to homosexuals. While they had that power they took away as much protection as they could from the homeless, the sick, working people who need protection at their jobs and in fact all of us who breathe the air and drink the water. They did that with the strong support of a lot of religious people much like you. Oh, and they pointlessly took away the lives of a few hundred thousand Iraqis, too, with that same support.
So don’t try to claim I’d hurt the homeless, the ugly, etc. I propose that all people, at birth, get all rights to life and health protection available to anyone.
You, on the other hand, propose a bright line at conception, which leads to inanities like a blastocyst of say 100 cells in total, having the same rights as the woman carrying it, but which doesn’t seem to offer much protection to the real people out here.

“…but when your god (as I understand your religion) puts a bzef in a womb and then decides it won’t be carried to term, often without the woman even knowing about it, you get all calm and deductive despite those same missed opportunities.”
I tryed to express in earnest humility that I’m not sure about the causation of miscarriages, whether it be predominately lifestyle-oriented, mere happenstance or a combination thereof. You won’t come to believe in a loving God because he isn’t quantifiable, injustice and suffering are allowed, and so on and so forth. Explaining the concept of God to an atheist is like trying to explain the concept of color to someone who is color blind, with the exception that color blind people don’t vehemently deny the concept of color.
“As far as rights for the homeless, etc. conservatives were in near total control of the government of the country, in large part because many religious people credited them for being moral based on their support of bzefs and opposition to homosexuals. While they had that power they took away as much protection as they could from the homeless, the sick, working people who need protection at their jobs and in fact all of us who breathe the air and drink the water. They did that with the strong support of a lot of religious people much like you. Oh, and they pointlessly took away the lives of a few hundred thousand Iraqis, too, with that same support.”
Just about everything you said in this paragraph is actually true. While in office the Republicans didn’t do nearly enough to uphold the right to life and traditional family values all the while ignoring homeless, the sick, working people, etc. I also believe Pres. Elect Obama is doing the same with his rhetoric, saying he’ll only raise taxes for the wealthy while the ceiling continues to get lower and lower. Claiming to afford everyone healthcare when in fact he’s only penalizing those who don’t buy a healthcare plan by fining them more money. Raising capital gains taxes considerably when people from just about every walk of life including the middle class own stocks through 401Ks and other investment vehicles. Politics is about weighing pros and cons, and when someone pledges to lift restrictions, however reasonable to allow abortion in virtually any circumstance and require taxpayers to fit the bill, then he will never have my vote. If you can’t get something as fundamental as the right to life correct, then all other rights are inconsequential.

It’s easy to terminate the life of a “bzef”, to some abortionist to simply try to change the fact that it is a human baby, as if they use other names the baby perhaps will develop into something other than human. I’m sure if I relate this kind of behavior to where it originates from I would be deleted. But it is not out of the norm that extreme evolutionists would feel the right to terminate certain humans, and the way to do that is to call the intended victim other than human.

Sorry I did not identify myself in the refreshed session

cknuck it is a struggle for the linguistic high ground. For instance you call a blastocyst a baby, which is utterly silly since a blastocyst only has about a hundred cells.

“Sexual intercourse was designed to produce offspring.” Tom
Thus women are supposed to be “baby making machines?” I DON’T think so…sex is certainly to continue the species…but believe me, it is also for(as you put it) “recreation”. Or as I think, for the expression of love between 2 people…and that loving act shouldn’t be done solely for “making babies.” So we disagree.

Not as much as you may think, pagan one. I also believe that sex is a healthy expression of love between two people. It should never, in my opinion, simply be used as a cheap frill. Always a CONSCIENCE expression of love. Married couples beyond child-bearing years and those struggling with infertility should definitely be able to express affection without feeling badly about it. For those healthy and fertile couples, though, they need to be cognisant of the fact that pregnancy may occur as a result of the act and be prepared for that possibility.

I’d urge being prepared too.

“Married couples beyond child -bearing years and those struggling with infertility should definitely be able to express affectikon without feeling badly about it. For those healthy and fertile couples, though,they need to be cognisant of the fact that pregnancy may occur as a result of the act and be prepared for that possiblity.”
Tom
Yes, for those healthy fertile couples they have invented birth control and if necessary, the morning after pill…and if necessary the option of not continuing a pregnancy…(which I know you disagree with). Tube tying and vasectomies are certain ways to not worry about unwanted pregnancies for those who have had their children and are still “healthy” and in child bearing range. I know…worked for us. Beats continuous buying of condoms, pills and IUD’s. And if a couple doesn’t want children, surgery works too.
Recreational sex between unmarried folks won’t stop…thus the option of terminating should always be there. Many times a child is born that no one wants and it’s life is miserable because of it, or it is killed by the “loving” mother or her boyfriend or whatever. IMO better the child not be born.

I should mention that those unmarried folks having recreational sex should most certainly use birth control…for more reasons than not getting pregnant…STD’s are nasty. If those methods fail, then the options are legal.

I’m glad the states are taking legal action against the HHS.
If one disagrees with abortion, fine, but don’t expect your personal beliefs to be shoved on to another. Don’t like it, find someone else who will give out the required script. If you can’t do that, find another avenue to work in.
I have no sympathy for people in this quandary. They knew this could/would happen. Don’t put yourself in a work environment where you have to yield your thoughts or beliefs.

My husband has a moral objection to people who promote/perpetuate prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry against lgbt people.
Should he as a physician deny medical care to these people?

On this awesome occasion let me congratulate cknuck and us all.

Yes, nnmns…..A New Start for this country. Am still glued to the TV. PRESIDENT Obama….sounds good!

Fascinating, heated and – still pointless discussion.
Whether or not abortion is a “good” thing” or ‘should be allowed/forbidden’ is irrelevant to the topic under discussion: should health care providers be allowed to refuse to perform them if it goes against their conscience’.
Everyone here still ignores my original point…
“Someone correct me if I’m wong, but is “How To Perform An Abortion 101″ now a mandatory course in Med school?
I mean, any doctor, for whom abortion is “wrong” wouldn’t study how to perform them in the first place.”

Husband:
I have a feeling that medical schools (and I don’t know if this is anywhere near a “fact”)would teach how to perform an abortion as part of a doctor’s education,when they are doing the OB-GYN training part of their LONG education. Why wouldn’t it be taught?

I would have thought that OB-GYN would be a specialty practice. I don’t know, but presume a medical student would not submit him/herself to any lessons in how to perform an abortion if performing them would go against their conscience. If they did that, they could simply anser the request to perform one with the (emminently sensible, imo) response, “Sorry, I’m not qualified/trained in that procedure.” But to take a course that offends one’s faith in the first place seems absurd to me.

Husband:
I obviously don’t know from experience, but I’ve always gotten the idea that doctors rotate through all areas of medicine as part of their training, then perhaps go into the training for a speciality. Otherwise how do they “decide” what they might want to specialize in if they are not exposed to the differing areas…one being OB-GYN? Of course there is ENT, cardiology, urology, dermatoloty etc.