Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[Collin Li]

It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.

Why do you think they will never change?
Coblins views about some things have changed greatly over time

And what point? I don't see anything wrong with coblin/brendan's argument at all.

Exactly, and I am brave for taking up views that are traditionally lambasted for supposedly hurting the socio-economic class that I am in (the lower class).

Mao, why don't you actually contribute to an argument, rather than making personal attacks, such as suggesting that we are inflexible? You are the one who is stuck in your irrational exuberance.

[brendan]

Brendan, as I've just said now. It was implicit.

Oh, so we went from "she said..." to "she implied...".

Just where is it implied "that they should do whatever the medical industry says based on X -> Y(M, L, W, N)"?

[cara.mel]

It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.

Why do you think they will never change?
Coblins views about some things have changed greatly over time

And what point? I don't see anything wrong with coblin/brendan's argument at all.

thank you for highlighting exactly what I mean.
those who exercise parts of their brain other than pure rationality would understand

My brain works on pure rationality.
Please explain to me in plain simple words so someone as stupid as me can understand it. Unless, you don't either

[enwiabe]

Brendan, as I've just said now. It was implicit.

[Collin Li]

The problem is that you two are arguing for a modified principle. Eriny merely stated the raw principle, with no conditions or restrictions. If you want to use the modified principle as the basis of your argument, go ahead, otherwise the principle is flawed.

If you wish to attach values and conditions on the principle, speak for yourself. I doubt you can read her mind. In fact, her principle tried to depart from any external type of regulation (such conditions you propose). She was highlighting the medical industry's ability to self-regulate (i.e.: set their own conditions).

What? Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.

[enwiabe]

I can use inductive reasoning to infer what she meant. For example, I know that Eriny is mindful of the rights of others and has a morally sound world view. Given this, it's not difficult to infer that what she MEANT was that doctors should do what the regulatory bodies say to do WITHIN REASON. And by WITHIN REASON I mean as governed by the rules that determine the legislature and how these bodies act. I don't think you can disagree with said induction and inference, but if you'd like to, that's fine. I'm done arguing this topic as I've made my point and you two more or less seem to accept it. Good day, sirs.

[Collin Li]

Well, her principle did follow after she said "industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves."

So, she didn't mean within regulatory bodies, nope.

[brendan]

I can use inductive reasoning to infer what she meant. For example, I know that Eriny is mindful of the rights of others and has a morally sound world view. Given this, it's not difficult to infer that what she MEANT was that doctors should do what the regulatory bodies say to do WITHIN REASON.

Oh so we went from "she said that..." to "she implied...." to now "I infer that she meant..."

It's becoming more and more apparent that she didn't say that, nor is it logically implied, and that is more about you and your argument than what she actually said.

[SoLe!]

choo choo, all aboard the brendan train! next stop, morale and debate victory!

[enwiabe]

Well, her principle did follow after she said "industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves."

So, she didn't mean within regulatory bodies, nope.

Sigh, I'm only pointing out a misconception here, after this I'm done:

Just because the industry self-regulates doesn't mean there is NO REGULATION. I'm saying that she assumes the regulation to be in line with M, L, W etc. to be in line with patient/doctor rights etc. I'm saying that regulation happens with said variables to influence Y and yadda yadda yadda you've heard the continuation of this a billion times. Fin.

[brendan]

For some reason I knew that

I'm done arguing this topic as I've made my point and you two more or less seem to accept it. Good day, sirs.

would go out the window.

[Collin Li]

Sigh, I'm only pointing out a misconception here, after this I'm done:

Just because the industry self-regulates doesn't mean there is NO REGULATION. I'm saying that she assumes the regulation to be in line with M, L, W etc. to be in line with patient/doctor rights etc. I'm saying that regulation happens with said variables to influence Y and yadda yadda yadda you've heard the continuation of this a billion times. Fin.

What regulation? She just said: "industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves."

To try to 'infer' any such implied conditions on Y now would be grasping at straws...


Anyway, here is my actual position (after a page of 'technical debate'):

I am in agreement with Eriny's belief in self-regulation. I actually think there is no harm in accepting a similar principle (replace 'medical industry' with 'autonomous abortion clinics'), because if you don't like it, you can just quit. The clinics aren't setting such regulation because they all share that moral position though. The only reason why such self-regulation would prop up is because it shares the common values of its consumers, who they must ultimately satisfy. Hence, it is an accountable system - clinics who have abhorrent practices (i.e.: practices that do not serve the consumer) will have to put up with consumer demand, or shut down. On the other hand - a law imposed by non-participants of this transaction may actually distort the otherwise left-free regulations (i.e: those in line with consumer preferences), and the government should simply stay out of this business.

Pro-choice is the freedom to choose if you want an abortion. It's not the entitlement to an abortion, and it's not the entitlement to other people's knowledge about abortions.

[costargh]

LOL

what a mad read.
arguing about types of arguments is awesome! lol.
i really liked enwiabe's rebuttal. made sense to me.

I propose that we now move away from this argument that is moving further and further away from the topic and go back to the root of the discussion. Sorry to sound hypocritical even if I started it with me "advice" and "referral" distinction.

[BA22]

This issue is no way near as complex as it's being made out to be.

The funny thing is that the legislation requiring doctors to refer patients on for abortion exists to protect patients from doctors that may push their own personal ideals on to them

The patient's autonomy needs to be protected as there is an imbalance of power in the relationship, this is first year medical ethics

So, as usual, despite the constant assurance from the hardcore libertarian front on VN that they are protecting the rights of individuals, they seem to be missing that this legislation actually protects patients from doctors refusing to refer patients for personal reason, behaviour that is considered unethical in the profession.

A physician needs to be impartial, the legislation is merely a reminder.

[bubble sunglasses]

[/quote]

Yes, no one has any right to force others to serve them. Doing so is nothing short of slavery.

 it's nothing like slavery. they're not forced to work. although doctors being forced to refer is a condition which is sub-optimal, as i argued before:

  It's the state system we're talking about and hence professionals should be restricted in their ability to act according to their caprices, as they would if running their own businesses. However, as Coblin noted, the state would be liable to lose many of its best [and potentially best] people if it was too picky itself, particularly as it could easily circumvent the problem by   designating certain people alone to deal with the abortion referral process, so doctors need not be concerned, unless they themselves were abortionists.