Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[costargh]

It's not the same advice that we are using in this context.

[excal]

Obviously I get what you are saying but we should not under the impression that " doctors [will] be bound by law to give advice [even]if they do not wish to [to patients seeking abortions]," because that simply is not the case.

(1) If a woman requests a registered health
    practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to
    perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion
    for that woman, and the practitioner has a
   conscientious objection to abortion, the
    practitioner must--
          ...
         (b) refer the woman to another registered health
          practitioner in the same regulated health
             profession who the practitioner knows does
             not have a conscientious objection to
             abortion.

Yes, it is.

[Collin Li]

How isn't it? That's the advice I'm talking about. I'm opposed to the idea that a doctor must be forced to open their mouths.

Also, I never said the ENTER system was the best way. Whichever way universities think is appropriate to select by, they will still lose discouraged candidates, and universities will have to pick those they prefer less. The problem is that they are not losing these discouraged candidates for good reason - it is because the government is installing an ideal on behalf of people who never asked for it (and if they did, they could just perfectly do it themselves).

[costargh]

Obviously I get what you are saying but we should not under the impression that " doctors [will] be bound by law to give advice [even]if they do not wish to [to patients seeking abortions]," because that simply is not the case.

(1) If a woman requests a registered health
    practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to
    perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion
    for that woman, and the practitioner has a
   conscientious objection to abortion, the
    practitioner must--
          ...
         (b) refer the woman to another registered health
          practitioner in the same regulated health
             profession who the practitioner knows does
             not have a conscientious objection to
             abortion.

Yes, it is.

Your quoting proved nothing.

If you asked me what shares to buy and I gave you the number of my financial advisor who gave you shares, you cannot turn around and tell your friend that I gave you advice on the purchase of your shares.

[Collin Li]

Okay, well I'm not concerned about what you think "advice" is. There's no big deal.

I'm concerned about referrals too (if you think it's separate). Forcing doctors to lose their freedom of speech over abortions is morally dubious. If someone doesn't wanna give out a number, he doesn't have to.

[excal]

Obviously I get what you are saying but we should not under the impression that " doctors [will] be bound by law to give advice [even]if they do not wish to [to patients seeking abortions]," because that simply is not the case.

(1) If a woman requests a registered health
    practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to
    perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion
    for that woman, and the practitioner has a
   conscientious objection to abortion, the
    practitioner must--
          ...
         (b) refer the woman to another registered health
          practitioner in the same regulated health
             profession who the practitioner knows does
             not have a conscientious objection to
             abortion.

Yes, it is.

Your quoting proved nothing.

If you asked me what shares to buy and I gave you the number of my financial advisor who gave you shares, you cannot turn around and tell your friend that I gave you advice on the purchase of your shares.

What? I don't get what you're trying to refute.

I'm merely quashing the fact that it's not merely an impression that doctors must give advice as you suggest, it is now the law. Which means that the case that doctors will be required to give advice/referrals to other doctors without conscientious objection is now a fact, not just an 'impression'.

To be honest, if you support the right for the state to force doctors to say things that they don't wish to say with threat of punishment by the state, you support trampling of the right to free speech (or silence). It's as simple as that.

[costargh]

If you read my posts properly you would have realised that my contention is that 'advice' and 'referral' are not the same thing.

[costargh]

Okay, well I'm not concerned about what you think "advice" is. There's no big deal.

I'm concerned about referrals too (if you think it's separate). Forcing doctors to lose their freedom of speech over abortions is morally dubious. If someone doesn't wanna give out a number, he doesn't have to.

lol
Refer to the act

[excal]

Alright then, give me an example of how they are different in a medical setting.

And, regardless of whether it is 'referral' or 'advice', doctors are now forced to refer patients on to another doctor when they may not want to, under threat of punishment from the state. That is simply wrong.

How would you feel if you were forced to tell people every single detail of your intimate life upon request?

It's pretty much the same thing objectively speaking, but feels much more intrusive to you simply because it affects you (as opposed to someone else).

[excal]

Okay, well I'm not concerned about what you think "advice" is. There's no big deal.

I'm concerned about referrals too (if you think it's separate). Forcing doctors to lose their freedom of speech over abortions is morally dubious. If someone doesn't wanna give out a number, he doesn't have to.

lol
Refer to the act

He is saying that doctors ought to have the right NOT to give phone numbers if they do not wish to. This is his (and my) opposition to the bill as it stands.

[costargh]

Alright then, give me an example of how they are different in a medical setting.

And, regardless of whether it is 'referral' or 'advice', doctors are now forced to refer patients on to another doctor when they may not want to, under threat of punishment from the state. That is simply wrong.

How would you feel if you were forced to tell people every single detail of your intimate life upon request?

It's pretty much the same thing objectively speaking, but feels much more intrusive to you simply because it affects you (as opposed to someone else).

My point was that the two shouldn't be interchangeable. I don't dispute your claims or view, I just point out that referral and advice in mainstream Australia's mind are two separate things.

[costargh]

Okay, well I'm not concerned about what you think "advice" is. There's no big deal.

I'm concerned about referrals too (if you think it's separate). Forcing doctors to lose their freedom of speech over abortions is morally dubious. If someone doesn't wanna give out a number, he doesn't have to.

lol
Refer to the act

He is saying that doctors ought to have the right NOT to give phone numbers if they do not wish to. This is his (and my) opposition to the bill as it stands.

Yeh I know. I'm just doing a bit of literal interpretation and saying that actually they do now according to the law lol. I'm not retarded.

[excal]

Since when did you speak for 'Australia's mind'?

Like I said, give me a distinguishing difference between 'advice' and 'referral' by a conscientiously objecting doctor in the case of abortion.

[costargh]

Since when did you speak for 'Australia's mind'?

Like I said, give me a distinguishing difference between 'advice' and 'referral' by a conscientiously objecting doctor in the case of abortion.

lol what do you want me to say?
Can't you do that youself?

Penny Higgins goes to her doctor to seek advice about an abortion she wants. He refuses to give her advice but tells her that if she wants advice she can see Dr McLapplin, a well known supporter of abortion.

[Glockmeister]

I don't quite get the point of the example (seems like a bit of a non sequitor) but lets use this example and change it around a bit.


Penny Higgins goes to her doctor to seek advice about an abortion she wants. The doctor, a devout Catholic is bound by his moral code not to give advice about abortion as he considers it a sin and thus he refuses to give her advice. Penny goes to his lawyers and a few days later he is given a summons to go to court.

With the new legisisation, Doctors now "must" give "advice" (even if it is to say go to someone else), whether they feel it is morally correct or not to perform an abortion. Doctors have the right to refuse to give their services to certain populations already (e.g drug addicts), so why are they being forced to offer this abortion service? That is the criminal thing here.