It might be argued that if a pregnant woman has kept a fetus all the way until the point of viability, then this can be construed as implying consent to the fetus' use of her body; she's waived her right. (Obviously, situations where an abortion was unavailable until the point of viability is reached are a different matter.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which seems to be a legal contradiction. If the fetus is merely property before the point of viability then abortion should be unrestricted before that point. If the fetus is a person then abortion should either not be legal, or if it should be legal, it would be on grounds of the woman's right to her body trumping the fetus's rights, which wouldn't change at the point of viability, so then partial-birth abortions shouldn't be restricted at all.
To summarize;
Either the unviable fetus is a person or not. If it's not, killing it can't be manslaughter.
If it is, it's either protected under the law or its not. If it is, abortion shouldn't be legal. If it is, it has to be because the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights. Which won't change at any point in the pregnancy, including the point of viability. In which case there's no grounds for restricting partial-birth abortion.
False dilemma, as it could be argued that it is not a person and makes a transition into personhood. But then you'd have to clarify when and why this transition occurs, which seems very inconvenient to the pro-abortion side.
False dilemma, as it could be argued that it is not a person and makes a transition into personhood. But then you'd have to clarify when and why this transition occurs, which seems very inconvenient to the pro-abortion side.
The transition from living being to not living being is made when or if the mother decides to have an abortion.
This is what allows prosecutors to charge a person for two counts of manslaughter, or murder, on a person who kills a pregnant woman.
That was my point earlier, the one that you said makes no sense.
A doctor should not be barred from a particular field if there is are certain procedures within that field they are not willing to do, but they should make it clear that they are not willing to perform that procedure with signs/stickers on door/etc. before even seeing patients as refusing treatment to patients on the spot can be emotionally distressing and cause harm.
I believe that the issue here is more of whether the hospital (or doctor_ is public or private. A private hospital is a business, any business they want to do is just that, business (except for where they break the law, but obviously we have no relevant law yet). A public hospital is a different story.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Recognize it? The second half of Section I of the 14th amendment. So is this Good Samaritan hospital state-run or funded? If so, this victim has the roots of a very good case. If not, tough, let karma deal with the doctor. As to the quote at the top, a doctor shouldn't be barred from a certain field of study, however he should be required to use these procedures if at a public hospital. You don't hire a person who can't fulfill all the requirements of a job, and so if a doctor is incapable for whatever reason of performing a given procedure, he should not be hired. However, if a private practice supports his views, the private practice is only subject to my (and others') scorn, not the judicial system. My moral standpoint is that a doctor should have the common sense to know that he may be required to give a morning after pill in such a position. If you are camera-shy, you either don't be an actor or get over it. Same applies here.
In summary:
Legally, if it is a public hospital and I am not terribly mistaken, the doctor refusing to perform a procedure that is legal in a state institution is questionable at the very least. I don't claim to have more than a basic knowledge of medical law, but I believe this is true.
Subjectively, the doctor is either just despicable to me for his actions (this is the private institution case), or an utterly contemptible human being for not offering a perfectly reasonable procedure to another human being in distress when he had the opportunity to do so (you figure it out).
It makes sense to me that a doctor whose beliefs prevent him or her from carrying out that which is a necessary part of a patient's beliefs would be required to send the patient to another doctor who could act according to the patient's beliefs without issue. To me, this should be the same as that last case. spambot link removed
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
False dilemma, as it could be argued that it is not a person and makes a transition into personhood. But then you'd have to clarify when and why this transition occurs, which seems very inconvenient to the pro-abortion side.
The transition from living being to not living being is made when or if the mother decides to have an abortion.
This is what allows prosecutors to charge a person for two counts of manslaughter, or murder, on a person who kills a pregnant woman.
That was my point earlier, the one that you said makes no sense.
I believe that the issue here is more of whether the hospital (or doctor_ is public or private. A private hospital is a business, any business they want to do is just that, business (except for where they break the law, but obviously we have no relevant law yet). A public hospital is a different story.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Recognize it? The second half of Section I of the 14th amendment. So is this Good Samaritan hospital state-run or funded? If so, this victim has the roots of a very good case. If not, tough, let karma deal with the doctor. As to the quote at the top, a doctor shouldn't be barred from a certain field of study, however he should be required to use these procedures if at a public hospital. You don't hire a person who can't fulfill all the requirements of a job, and so if a doctor is incapable for whatever reason of performing a given procedure, he should not be hired. However, if a private practice supports his views, the private practice is only subject to my (and others') scorn, not the judicial system. My moral standpoint is that a doctor should have the common sense to know that he may be required to give a morning after pill in such a position. If you are camera-shy, you either don't be an actor or get over it. Same applies here.
In summary:
Legally, if it is a public hospital and I am not terribly mistaken, the doctor refusing to perform a procedure that is legal in a state institution is questionable at the very least. I don't claim to have more than a basic knowledge of medical law, but I believe this is true.
Subjectively, the doctor is either just despicable to me for his actions (this is the private institution case), or an utterly contemptible human being for not offering a perfectly reasonable procedure to another human being in distress when he had the opportunity to do so (you figure it out).
My two cents. Let the flaming begin
spambot link removed
Necro warning.