Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[cardiovascular]

Thats very naive suggesting that doctors only perform abortions because it is "high paying"

[excal]

If a doctor is catholic and doesn't like abortions they should be in an area of medicine that has nothing to do with...ABORTIONS!
Abortions are not an "industry."

I refer to industry as a generic term (and, specifically, medicine as a whole). You might not think of it that way, but health is no different to any other service industry. You go to a doctor, you get (medical) advice and you pay for the doctor's time.

If you read the act, it makes no distinction between what type of doctor would be legally obliged to make a referral.

Like I said, I don't really mind that if it were the 'best practice' for doctors to refer patients on. In fact, I believe that is what it is. But there is no need for the government to intervene to force people to do it - if it is the right thing to do in the medical community, then it will be done lest the 'morally incorrect' doctor be scorned in the community.

In short,  legislation is inflexible. Market forces can respond to change much faster than legislation.

[ninwa]

Allowing women choice is more important than the issue of religion.

Well, firstly women do have the choice - there are plenty of obstetricians who are not catholic and are thus not restricted by their religion.

Secondly, it is hypocritical to deny one freedom of choice (religion) in order to promote another (women's).

Performing abortions are by no means the only responsibility of an obstetrician, so you can't really say "if they don't want to do it they shouldn't have become one in the first place". That's like telling someone that they shouldn't have become a lawyer just because they don't want to take on a certain case.

[rhjc.1991]

Thats very naive suggesting that doctors only perform abortions because it is "high paying"

I am sure that there are doctors who perform abortion for many other reasons than the pay.
I think you misinterpreted me: I meant that there are many non-Catholic doctors available for the procedure.

With the abortion case, I would like to straighten out some of my beliefs:
1. Women should be allowed to choose to undergo abortion LEGALLY and SAFELY
2. Although I oppose abortion where the conception could have been prevented (ie. the child was conceived of consensual relationship between two adults), I believe that this is a matter between the couple and especially the woman, since she is the one having the baby. After all, no matter how much us men say we empathise with the pains and aftermath of a child-birth, we will never really understand it. As a man, I understand that my understanding of pregnancy, stress of abortions is, and will always be, limited
3. Abortions are generally seriously thought about and 99% time, not a trivial decision by the potential mother
4. In some situations, the father escapes responsibility, and in the others, the mother cannot guarantee 100% support from the father for the next 18 years. For woman, it becomes obligation once the baby's born, for men, it is slightly more obligating than free will.
5. Giving up the child for adoption can be a painful process, especially for the mother, especially after all the labour and 10 months bonding she had with the child. Where she is in no position to be able to bring up the child, she will be emotionally scarred for life.
6. Therefore, the woman should always be given the final decision.

With forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortion:
1. Women have access to many doctors who are willing to conduct the abortion procedure who are not Catholic
2. Many Catholic doctors become obstericians to deliver babies which is considered a holy process
3. Abortion procedure is NOT the main role of an obsterician
4. Women would receive far better treatment, both emotionally and physically, from a willing doctor. Unwilling Catholic doctors are more likely to make them feel more guilty about the procedure and far less likely to reassure them about their rights as a woman
5. Many women who are considering abortion become emotionally unstable and a strong emotional support is needed from everyone, including the doctor, in order to not psychologically scar them for life.

Catholic doctors reaction:
1. Many doctors would be psychologically scarred due to having betrayed their religious doctrine
2. Many doctors are likely to quit, resulting in less obstetricians, which would mean less available doctors to meet women's other needs (eg. childbirth) or replacement with second-rate doctors

Political reaction:
1. This new legislation will be opposed heavily by the Catholic Church
2. Potential high-profile legal case, which would cost tax payers a lot of money which could have been spent better elsewhere
3. Since Catholic voters form a large percentage of the Australian population, the Government would need to do something in order them to recoup their general support
4. The Government will be forced to openly condemn the Church, which would lead to discrimination of Catholics in general, and may earn the Church antagonism from women's rights groups
5. Many who do not understand the Church will be quick to follow suit and this may create a wave of hatred towards the religion, leading to discrimination

As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.

But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?

Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.

In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.

[cns1511]

To the last point about Jesus (I can't quote on my phone) that really depends on a persons religious views, and could potentially offend members of this site that are of different religious beliefs (not saying that you have offended anyone, just that a statement such as the one mentioned above, could be seen in a negative way).

[rhjc.1991]

To the last point about Jesus (I can't quote on my phone) that really depends on a persons religious views, and could potentially offend members of this site that are of different religious beliefs (not saying that you have offended anyone, just that a statement such as the one mentioned above, could be seen in a negative way).

I have heeded to your advice and removed the potentially offending statement.

[Collin Li]

Women have the option of finding another doctor who is willing to perform the necessary operation. If the Catholics do not want to perform the operation, no laws should force them to do so. Such laws would be discriminatory and forcing many obstetrician out of job due to moral obligations.

Exactly - it is their own loss if they do not wish to perform the operation.

Just as employers who discriminate against perfectly capable people - who happen to be women, black, or some other excuse - do so at their own loss. Laws against these things are unnecessary, as the economy merely self-regulates like so: If someone doesn't want to provide it, you can't force them, but if someone else will, then everything will be okay - merely the discriminator misses out.

And if no one else will, the industry wouldn't exist in the first place.

If you fail to recognise that this position is actually pro-choice, then you do not understand choice: you are merely taxing choice from others to give choice to others. I would suggest signing up to a socialist country.

[cardiovascular]

It is simple, if someone, regardless of religion, becomes a doctor then they must take on the responsibilities of being a doctor. The governement is not discriminating against religion in legislating this. What next, should people in prison be denied medical treatment because they have broken one of the ten commandments?

[rhjc.1991]

It is simple, if someone, regardless of religion, becomes a doctor then they must take on the responsibilities of being a doctor. The governement is not discriminating against religion in legislating this. What next, should people in prison be denied medical treatment because they have broken one of the ten commandments?

To put it simply, helping someone in jail is not against Catholic doctrine. Assisting abortion surgeries is. So your analogy is invalid.

[cardiovascular]

But has someone that is in jail not broken the "catholic doctrine?"

[rhjc.1991]

But has someone that is in jail not broken the "catholic doctrine?"

Yes:
1. The guy in jail has committed a sin
2. The doctor helping the guy DOES not commit a sin (otherwise Jesus is one of the worst sinners)

The reason abortion surgery is a sin is because the doctor ASSISTS in the sinful process of abortion (according to the doctrine). Helping a sinful man does NOT make the doctor an accomplice in his sins.

[cardiovascular]

Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women? "Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health. What must be remembered is that no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions.

[rhjc.1991]

Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women? "Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health. What must be remembered is that no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions.

Clearly it is evident that you are not reading my posts thoroughly. I will just reiterate what I said before:

As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.

But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?

Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.

In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.

Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women?

And we are not discriminating women. If men had a womb and it was MEN giving birth not WOMEN, the doctrine would still stand.

That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health.

I would suggest that abortion surgeries be a specific branch of obstetrician but it currently is not the case.

[cardiovascular]

Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women? "Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health. What must be remembered is that no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions.

Clearly it is evident that you are not reading my posts thoroughly. I will just reiterate what I said before:

As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.

But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?

Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.

In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.

Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women?

And we are not discriminating women. If men had a womb and it was MEN giving birth not WOMEN, the doctrine would still stand.

"mandatory pregnancy advisors" what a ridiculous suggestion... more bureacracy is definetly not needed. As for stimulating the economy I have a great deal of doubt that a mandatory pregnancy advisors will do anything positive in fact it would be irresponsible for the governement to consider such a pointless idea. I think a catholic doctor will live even if they do refer a patient to a different doctor, that being such a difficult task and all.

[rhjc.1991]

Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women? "Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health. What must be remembered is that no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions.

Clearly it is evident that you are not reading my posts thoroughly. I will just reiterate what I said before:

As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.

But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?

Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.

In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.

Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women?

And we are not discriminating women. If men had a womb and it was MEN giving birth not WOMEN, the doctrine would still stand.

"mandatory pregnancy advisors" what a ridiculous suggestion... more bureacracy is definetly not needed. As for stimulating the economy I have a great deal of doubt that a mandatory pregnancy advisors will do anything positive in fact it would be irresponsible for the governement to consider such a pointless idea. I think a catholic doctor will live even if they do refer a patient to a different doctor, that being such a difficult task and all.

Did you read what I said? It's not the matter of life death, it's the matter of religious beliefs. Although you do present some rational arguments, you occasionally sound emotionally charged.

As for your comment that my suggestion is ridiculous, I am not going to respond to it, since I would like response from the general public instead of clash between our two predictions.