jad@lanl-a.UUCP (03/22/84)
<'cause cbosgd!mark says I should>
Three somewhat related points and a flamette.
1) In the USA no one really has complete control over their
bodies - if so, then why don't the people in prisons just
leave to do as they like. Perhaps in an ideal society com-
plete self-determination is possible, but not (apparently)
the one in which I live... Leave us remember the person who
wanted to starve to death in a hospital, supported by the
medical staff thereof (i.e. with painkillers and the like).
This leads us into point two:
2) Abortion does not involve JUST the woman who desires the
abortion - i.e. we are not just discussing her rights only
but those of her doctor (and anyone else involved). If you
don't believe this, tell me, how many women sucessfully and
safely perform their own abortions?
3) Concerning the doctor's rights, consider the moral
dilemma the doctor faces. On the one hand the doctor might
be confronted with women who want the doctor to save their
premature children (say 16 .. 24 weeks). On the other hand,
the doctor might be confronted with women who want abortions
at the same point in the pregnancy. All in all, this reader-
ship seems to ignore the doctor's plight - and as I've noted
before, I don't think many abortions are truly single-person
events.
Small flame:
Why do "pro-lifers" call "pro-choicers" abortionists...
Why do "pro-choicers" call "pro-lifers" anti-abortionists...
Neither "side" calls the other what it wishes to be called -
just emotional epithets instead. This name calling irks me.
Zozzles The Freep
A "pro-lifer" who wouldn't stop women from having abortions,
but isn't happy about it, either.
Grumble, grumble.
paths(?): decvax!pur-ee!lanl-a!jad
cmcl2!lanl-a!jadsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/22/84)
Apparently pro-choice groups are divided on the rights of the doctor, but from
what I know of the pro-choice organisations in this country (caral etc), their
position is that abortion should be matter that is strictly between a woman and
her doctor.
This means that the doctor has as much right to refuse to perform an abortion
as the woman has a right to get one. The woman has a right to find another
doctor who will perform an abortion. This definition runs into problems for
cases of people living in rural areas where there is no choice of doctors and
the only alternative is for a woman to travel to get an abortion, something that
poor people cannot always do.
Another point of view is that abortion is medical treatment just like any
other and that a doctor has no right to refuse to treat somebody. However
doctors already have a right to refuse to treat people, if the people cannot
afford to pay him, or if the treatment requested is to terminate the life of the
patient, so I don't believe the right of patients to force doctors to treat them
will ever be inforced.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley