Some medical procedures carry with them ramifications which affect others, or have known ramifications for those who choose them.
If I were to seek a medical procedure which would incapacitate me (a purely private matter?), so that I could be awarded disability status and receive disability social security payments (a public ramification) would you support that? Or, would you object on both public grounds and private ones, that what I sought was not even good for me?
ALL medical procedures carry with them ramifications which affect others, or have known ramifications for those who choose them.
No, I would not support public payment of the procedure nor the disability payments. But I would accept your right to have the procedure done at your choice. If you are sane, rational, and not depressed, I would recommend suicide in place of incapacitation as being more humane. I would want to prosecute the doctor who would do such a medically unnecessary and harmful procedure on you. And I would want you evaluated psychologically to make sure there is no underlying mental health issues for your seemingly bizarre desire. Your freedom to screw up your life is a fundamental freedom guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Actually, no, itâs not. People can be instutionalized under a mental health rationale against their will.
That requires a hearing proving mental incompetence. If deemed incompetent to handle oneâs own affairs, the court assigns a guardian which must do things in the best interests of the deemed incompetent person. In that case, no guardian would approve such incapacitating procedure. Now if deemed competent, the person is responsible for his own liberty and pursuit of happiness. But I seriously doubt in any doctor would do an unnecessary harmful procedure. Unless the person is very rich, then he could get whatever he wanted.
But, thatâs âgovernmental interferenceâ into what you assert is a purely private, personal matter.
If I claim to be a âdouble amputee trapped in a normal bodyâ (one of the many dysphorias available), and ask a doctor to cut off my legs, the doctor wonât comply because of a moral objection. How is that different from, say, compelling doctors to perform abortions even if they have a moral objection?
Iâm guessing you donât want to simply leave such things to whatever the prevailing culture finds currently fashionable?
Do you agree with Dawkins that giving birth to a Downâs child is immoral, even though you knew ahead of time?
In Florida, there is something called the âBaker Actâ ⌠.as in â⌠this morning, my friend Lucy was Baker ActedâŚâ
It is relatively easy to obtain based on a policemanâs report.
If a person acts in a way that indicates he might harm someone or himself, he can be put under observation for 3 to 7 days, for observation and treatment.
Many states have some equivalent to Floridaâs Baker Act.
I would say that the âdouble amputee trapped in a normal bodyâ has some psychological issues that makes it immoral and unethical to do unnecessary surgery that will cause the person harm.
Very different. I donât think it is proper for the government or an employer to compel doctors (or any staff members) to do anything that they find morally objectionable. However if a doctor signs a contract saying that he will do all approved medical procedures that a patient needs for their own well being, then I believe that the doctor is in a resign or do position. Any woman going for an abortion is facing enormous pressure. It is not the doctorâs job to be her pastor, her counselor, her friend. He is her doctor and should do the requested medical treatment in the most effective way that minimizes harm to the woman such as simple and safe âpillâ abortion in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Note that 93% of all abortions in this country are chemical abortions during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. An abortion in the 24 week of pregnancy, although legal, is very rare and very dangerous to the mother. A doctor doing late term abortions has to really understand why he is doing such procedures. Life of the mother is one. None viable fetus is another. Nobody walks into a hospital and requests a late term abortion because âI changed my mind, I donât want to have this baby anymore.â That is why abortion should no longer be a public discussion item for this country. And Christians should stop talking about it.
Certainly not. Rule of law and employment agreements define what are unacceptable and what is proper actions.
In some way yes, I think it would be immoral. If a woman finds out, in say the 3rd week of pregnancy that the embryo has three copies of chromosome 21, and she knows the difficulties the child and the family would have to bear, I would find it immoral if she deluded herself into thinking that her God wants her to have this child and she chose that route purely on her faith. Now if she chose to have the child because she already loves the embryo and is prepared to be a good mother to the child despite its disabilities for its whole life, then it is her personal choice and I would not judge it as immoral.
I hear the distinctions youâre trying to make, but for me, your answer is just sad, and based upon ignorance of what raising Downâs children usually entails.
I am very knowable about the difficulties of raising Downâs children as well as children with all kinds of disabilities. My wife and my daughter-in-law to be are special ed teachers. Family members and neighbors have children with special needs. The discussion about disabilities and abortion is really relevant in todayâs society. Also, it is much broader than just Downâs syndrome children. Children (and parents) with special needs deserve more help from all of us. But that help should also include the prevention or cure of these disabilities. Much research is needed and science has provided much help in this area. Look at Cystic Fibrous in this regard. Please donât think I am advocating forced abortion of pregnancy for any kind of disability found during pregnancy. I am not. I am very much for information be given to mothers to be given to them so that they can make their chooses.
âThe discussion about disabilities and abortion is really relevant in todayâs society.â
âThat is why abortion should no longer be a public discussion item for this country. And Christians should stop talking about it.â
Inadvertent duplicity?
No duplicity at all. Abortion is not a religious issue. Abortion is a personal private decision. Discussion of disabilities and which disabilities are to be researched is a discussion for society. Christians getting into private medical treatment decisions and choices is just plain wrong. It is none of Christianityâs business how a person chooses to reproduce and when. Christians getting involved in other peopleâs birth control, pregnancies, sexuality, parenting, life and death is really none of their business.
So, Christians have no right to speak about issues highly relevant in society? Thatâs the duplicity you fell into.
Certainly no right to blame, shame, threaten with eternal damnation, nor encroach on womanâs and menâs rights in these areas. Speak your views on the matters but stay the hell away from other peoples lives and how they live them.
And, are you following your own advice on this forum? Who has threatened you?
We are far afield.
It is not likely you will come to agreement. There some gaps in your communication too. @Guy_Coe you are talking primarily about what is right and wrong. @Patrick is talking primarily about what should be legal or not. One can different answers to both.
In a perfect world, abortion might be legal, but never chosen. That is not our world. It is not clear, however, what is best in our moment in terms of policy.
1 Like
Patrick, in his mind, is also talking about right and wrong. Itâs wrong for any Christian to publicly express the view that an abortion can be immoral, he believes.
No one has threatened me on this forum. And I speak my views freely on all subjects. But I never will impose my views on anyone. I see Christians doing the opposite - imposing their sin doctrine on other people. Abortion is not a sin, Being LGBTQ is not a sin. Sex is not a sin. I can go on and on if youâd like. Sin doesnât exist in a free secular society.
But, you are, in fact, imposing those views. Thereâs no way around it, on ANY issue.
How am I imposing my views on you or anyone else? If you donât want to have an abortion, donât have one. If you donât want to use birth control then donât. If you donât want to have a sex change operation, then donât. If you donât want to have sex, donât. But donât tell anyone who have different views on the matters that they canât because it offends your imaginary God and it is a sin. That, my friend is immoral, unjust, and unethical to do.
Like I said, Einstein.