Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[cardiovascular]

So with the mandatory pregnancy advisors, is it discriminating by making catholic mandatory pregnancy advisors give advice about abortions. I mean would that be discrimination by only allowing non catholic mandatory pregnancy advisors?

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.

Catholics do violate women's rights they constantly launched attacks against abortions and allowing women choice.

[rhjc.1991]

So with the mandatory pregnancy advisors, is it discriminating by making catholic mandatory pregnancy advisors give advice about abortions. I mean would that be discrimination by only allowing non catholic mandatory pregnancy advisors?

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.

Catholics do violate women's rights they constantly launched attacks against abortions and allowing women choice.

It would be quite wrong of you to suggest that Catholics violate women's rights.

If a women has abortion, both the mother AND father are sinful not just the mother.

The reason we discourage abortion is because we believe that every life should be allowed to live, and not have its mother decide this for them.

I would want to clarify that whilst I oppose abortion, I oppose making abortion illegal since this would be placing Catholic beliefs over others and may cause religious conflicts.

[rhjc.1991]

Also, I do believe that abortion is always wrong. I do not try to convince others because I am a man, not a woman, so I have no right to make any suggestions to women about what they know better.

[Collin Li]

cardiovascular, if you want less bureaucracy and regulation, then let the doctors choose whether they want to perform abortions or not. If it is really such a problem that many obestricians do not want to perform them, it will become a bargaining chip for the willing ones to advertise their services to abortion seekers!

Forcing doctors to perform abortions will just lead to the loss of perfectly capable Catholic obestricians.

[cardiovascular]

cardiovascular, if you want less bureaucracy and regulation, then let the doctors choose whether they want to perform abortions or not. If it is really such a problem that many obestricians do not want to perform them, it will become a bargaining chip for the willing ones to advertise their services to abortion seekers!

Forcing doctors to perform abortions will just lead to the loss of perfectly capable Catholic obestricians.

Doctors do get choose whether or not they perform abortions. Throughout their career, they choose to become an obestrician, they choose to gain training to perform abortions but most importantly they choose to become a doctor.

How will requiring doctors to refer patients lead to less obestricians? Have catholics never heard of professionalism and how can a doctor that picks and chooses patients be taken seriously?

"Get over it," all those catholic doctors out there should get over it all that is being is asked is for them to have accountability, so what if they have to refer a patient to another doctor. If god is so great wouldn't he forgive them?

[Glockmeister]

cardiovascular, if you want less bureaucracy and regulation, then let the doctors choose whether they want to perform abortions or not. If it is really such a problem that many obestricians do not want to perform them, it will become a bargaining chip for the willing ones to advertise their services to abortion seekers!

Forcing doctors to perform abortions will just lead to the loss of perfectly capable Catholic obestricians.

Doctors do get choose whether or not they perform abortions. Throughout their career, they choose to become an obestrician, they choose to gain training to perform abortions but most importantly they choose to become a doctor.

Gynaecologists receive the exact same training as obstetricians (in fact there are part of the same college). Yet, not all gynaecologists choose to do the work of obstetricians. Should there be a legislative requirement forcing gynaecologists to work as obstetricians, just merely on the fact that they have the training of obstetricians? I think not.

If you look at it, there are many procedures that doctors choose not to perform, for various reasons. I mean, on Sunday Night a few months ago, there was even a GP refusing to vaccinate patients because she believed it was a "risky medical intervention". As much as I believe that vaccinations should be given to patients, I don't believe there should be a legislative requirement for this. If a patient dies or suffers as a result of the suggestion from their doctors, then that can be dealt with existing regulatory systems (such as the Medical Practitioners Board). There's no need for an Act of Parliament for this.

[cardiovascular]

cardiovascular, if you want less bureaucracy and regulation, then let the doctors choose whether they want to perform abortions or not. If it is really such a problem that many obestricians do not want to perform them, it will become a bargaining chip for the willing ones to advertise their services to abortion seekers!

There are legislative requirements for vaccination and the medical practioners board was built upon by an act of parliament. http://medicalboardvic.org.au/content.php?sec=140

There is a need for doctor to be accountable and that isn't discrimination. The governement should not need to make one set of rules for each religion.

The legislation will not force any doctor to perform an abortion, it simply requires doctors to be accountable and if they have a problem with abortion ie because of religious belief, they must refer to patient to another doctor.
Forcing doctors to perform abortions will just lead to the loss of perfectly capable Catholic obestricians.

Doctors do get choose whether or not they perform abortions. Throughout their career, they choose to become an obestrician, they choose to gain training to perform abortions but most importantly they choose to become a doctor.

Gynaecologists receive the exact same training as obstetricians (in fact there are part of the same college). Yet, not all gynaecologists choose to do the work of obstetricians. Should there be a legislative requirement forcing gynaecologists to work as obstetricians, just merely on the fact that they have the training of obstetricians? I think not.

If you look at it, there are many procedures that doctors choose not to perform, for various reasons. I mean, on Sunday Night a few months ago, there was even a GP refusing to vaccinate patients because she believed it was a "risky medical intervention". As much as I believe that vaccinations should be given to patients, I don't believe there should be a legislative requirement for this. If a patient dies or suffers as a result of the suggestion from their doctors, then that can be dealt with existing regulatory systems (such as the Medical Practitioners Board). There's no need for an Act of Parliament for this.

[excal]

?

[kurrymuncher]

[IMG]http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1182/idetectfail.jpg[/img]

[cardiovascular]

There are legislative requirements for vaccination and the medical practioners board was built upon by an act of parliament. http://medicalboardvic.org.au/content.php?sec=140

There is a need for doctor to be accountable and that isn't discrimination. The governement should not need to make one set of rules for each religion.

The legislation will not force any doctor to perform an abortion, it simply requires doctors to be accountable and if they have a problem with abortion ie because of religious belief, they must refer to patient to another doctor.

[Collin Li]

I wonder if you feel silly mocking religion, after finding out that I am actually agnostic. I am not in defense of Catholicism. I don't care what God thinks of the Catholic doctor. I am in defense of the right for Catholic doctors (who have the right to choose their own values, and I respect that) to make the choice about what services they provide for society.

That service includes providing "abortions" or providing "recommendations for abortions". If we are in a free society, that means we are free to make the choice of what jobs we wish to do, whether that is a job requiring extremely technical skills and labour (abortion), or making a simple statement (speech/written).

Catholic doctors may feel it is immoral to provide information about where one can get an abortion. Hence, good Catholic doctors may feel this is a significant barrier to becoming an obestrician (waste of perfectly capable talent). The onus is on the pregnant mother to find out where she can get an abortion - she has no "right" to force it out of the mouth of the Catholic doctor. She can ask, but she cannot force it. Everyone has to be given choice, if you are pro-choice - you can't steal choice from one person and give it to another, that is socialism.

If you are truly against bureaucracy, let the market find its own way to connect those who are seeking abortions (demand) and those who want to supply abortions (supply).

[cardiovascular]

Doctors are in a postion of great responsibilty and religous belief should not affect their judgement when they are at work, they can be as catholic as they want when they are in their own time, however when they are on the time of the victorian public, taxpayers, they should have accountability and should serve their job as a doctor without needing to play the "catholic" card.

[ninwa]

cardiovascular, are you pro-choice?

[cardiovascular]

I am pro choice, I belive that women deserve the choice as it is their body, their decision and it affects them the most. I believe that these often vulnerbale women need to be offered the greatest possible care and I believe that they should not be betrayed by their doctors moral beliefs. Doctors should be professional and have the decency to provide the patients with information regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

[Collin Li]

Frankly, I don't care what 'card' they are playing. People should be allowed to practice whatever they like without being confined into boxes, like "doctors must provide these services..." according to the law.

Doing so only limits the flexibility of goods and services that the economy can provide to society. Why should a capable obestrician who can perform all the acts of giving birth to babies have to worry about abortions if he or she does not wish to think about them? As long as this obestrician is not advertising that abortions are available there (false information), then I only see justification for freedom.

I imagine there would be a great deal of non-Catholic people who are against abortions too. Depending on how you look at it, it can be seen as murder - that's not a religious viewpoint, that's just a viewpoint, and you should be free to choose whether you give advice about that or not, as a doctor.

You are favouring a position that is anti-choice, because you are against the freedom of doctors to make choices. You can only be pro-choice if both parties are choosing. You can't steal choice from one party (the doctor), and give it to the other. Aren't you imposing your own moral beliefs (of what some might see as baby-murdering) on those doctors?

Abortion-seekers can just find doctors that are willing to perform the act - why can't you accept that?