Abortion on demand, no debate!

No way. I'm pro-choice, because if you don't offer legal abortion you end up with a load of desperate, damaged women going to back-street shysters. Doesn't mean I think that late-term abortions are acceptable except in very rare cases such as incest, rape, and very severe disabilities with a very low quality of life.

I know this is anathema to a lot of women on MN - I'm Catholic though, and believe that life is a sacred gift. I would never judge another woman for having an abortion, I have no idea how hard her life has been to get to that point, but I don't think the state should encourage social abortions late-term.

From the POV of the study of ethics there is considered to be a significant gap between something like giving someone a condom, and they go and use it for whatever, and actually performing an abortion or assisted subside or lethal injection of a prisoner, a surgery like a gender affirmation on a teenager, etc.

It's the difference between a direct and an indirect act to some extent, and it also can get into questions of privacy. The shopkeeper selling you a condom has no idea generally what you are doing with it, be it committing adultery or whatever. If you give someone an injection in an assisted death scenario, you are killing that person.

Without that distinction you might as well tell anyone anyone who had any objection to providing any legal, insured medical procedure or drug that they shouldn't be a doctor. Or that if the law or best practiced changed and they objected, that they should retire from practice.

Agree. The debate about abortion is overwhelmingly about time limits and circumstances.

Very few people believe that abortion should either always or never be possible.

Exactly. All abortion law (except in places where it is outright banned) is a matter of compromise between the rights of the mother and those of the developing foetus.

The liberalisation of UK abortion law in the 1960s came about because of discussion, because women and medical workers told their stories about unwanted pregnancies and back-street abortions, because anti-abortion arguments were considered and refuted, and because people were willing to face up to unpleasant facts. "No debate" would have meant that change would never have happened.

I think that what infuriates me the most really. Is that there are soooooo many people who do all.sorts of stuff rget arent supposed to do and suddenly it's that one thing that's the issue. Almost as if they dont worry too much about their religion when it benefits them but suddenly are impeccable followers of whatever their Faiths are if it means they can control women in some.way. women who are not already tied to the control by being of a religious background themselves.

Even though our right to chose is enshrined in law in this country, it's still all dependant on who is there at the time and various non verifiable beings.

And there are no words for employers that can refuse the pill etc... why do we allow this ? Why done allow laws which can be abused solely to shit on women.

I'm sure there are also plenty of people from.all back.grounds who will do that part of the job so if it can he done it should be right?

Why does it hurt women and not men? Well because...patriarchy. Tale as old as time. That's what the beliefs are rooted in.
The belief is that providing a MAP is participating in an abortion. Having a second pharmacist working with you who can provide the MAP I would argue is facilitating abortion, which service providers should do.
Providing condoms etc is not participating in pre-marital sex, although it might be facilitating some. If your asking religious people to prevent facilitation of things they don't believe in you're on really dangerous ground. Is knowing an abortion is going to happen and not stopping it facilitating it? Should pharmacists police the intention/marital status of all who buy lube to adhere to their religious beliefs? I think the line between not doing it yourself but not stopping others is a good one to aim for.
The real injustice I think is in the US where employers can decide according to their religious beliefs what healthcare their employees can access through their insurance. This means some women can't access birth control (even though it has other medical uses apart from contraception) but I have never known Viagra/erectile dysfunction treatment not be covered no matter the marital status of the male requiring it.

Lots of people are anti abortion.however that should only go as far as them not having one themselves. They dont have a right to stop someone else having one.

As far as birth control and the likes go then if the person refusing to give it, isnt going to raise the baby or pay for it etc then they have no business stopping someone accessing a legal prescription/referring for a legal procedure.

If men needed the morning after pill there would never be an issue. Never. Let's not pretend we dont know this. It's only because its women that anyone feels ok about standing up and saying no.

Religious men are not honor killed for having sex for example are they? Men of all back grounds sleep around all the time in fact in some religions/cultures it is apparently acceptable to have multiple wives.

@Broomfondle I completely agree with what you’ve said.

If we are saying that people should be forced to perform abortions when it goes against their beliefs then I’m vehemently opposed.

You can’t compare adultery and sti’s to what some people believe as being involved in ending a life. That’s a hell of a thing to have to live with and be forced to do if you are uncomfortable with it. The only comparison that would potentially work would be euthanasia.

But a lot of people do. If you point out that a right to bodily autonomy doesn’t logically automatically extend to a right over the foetus or you think it’s a sin of whatever it is you get your head bitten off. If you came out as entirely anti-abortion you’d be demonised just as much as anyone out as GC is. It’s just more visible with the trans issue because it’s having a bit of a moment just now.

Surely though facilitating a man to commit adultary or have sex with another man by providing viagra or condoms or lube or all three would also conflict with religious belief.

I'm.asking how one is allowed but the other isnt. And how its men that it benefits and women thay are screwed over. Every time.

It works the other way too, patients can 'impose' their religious beliefs on doctors. Jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusions for example.

Could we compare it to euthanasia? I believe there is a case for healthcare providers to enable this option in specific cases.
I wouldn't force any doctor who disagreed with that to perform the procedure.
But I would support measures that prevented the service itself being affected by a religious belief.

I'm not saying I support their beliefs.
And it's not a comment on the person (as such) but the treatment.
It's not (or should not be) witholding treatment because you judge the person, but because you believe providing the MAP (for example) is going against your religious belief or your ethical principle of doing no harm.
Treating a rapist for an STI isn't sanctioning their actions. It would only be a problem for a doctor who held a protected belief that providing antibiotics went against their religion (or such like).
It's the treatment not the patient people object to on religious grounds.
I agree a woman who needs one should be able to walk into any service that is expected to provide healthcare of the kind and come out with a MAP.
If that means ensuring there are always staff there to provide it that's what I would support, rather than saying some religions shouldn't be pharmacists for eg.

It actually ties in quite well with something another poster put on another thread about always linking womens rights to other causes/sets if rights so they cant fight them without others accusing them of stuff . Cant object to drag because your homophobic. Cant object to penises becuase thats transphobic. Cant complain about not receiving medical treatment because that infringes on religious beliefs.

And every time theres a conflict women lose

But why that 1 thing?

I mean a rapist In prison gets to receive medical treatment. You cannot not treat people who you dont agree with. Drs still have to go to prisons and treat in mates whatever they have done.

Adultary is frowned upon as well but drs still have to treat STIs caught because of it.

It would be different if men were equally affected. But they arent refused viagra because no one can he sure he wont rape someone or sleep with someone whos not his wife.

The only time they care about morals or beliefs enough to refuse treatment it's when women want their right to choose.

It's very different in the UK to the US but I don't think medical professionals should be forced to do things against their beliefs due to their qualification.
The root issue of course is why there are religious beliefs that restrict women's choices and not men's (thanks patriarchy).
But I don't agree that people with certain beliefs should be shut out of an area of employment.
Currently in the UK if you feel you can not provide an abortion (for example) you have to direct the patient to someone who can. I would focus energy on this process and making it as quick and easy and fit for purpose as possible rather than picking doctors on their beliefs. For example in pharmacies where one pharmacist doesn't wish to prescribe the MAP there should always be one who can.
Doctors also have to be able to act on their beliefs at work. It is not just about what the patient wants. Look at the psychiatrists that have left the Tavistock - are they cherry picking the bits of their job? Or are they not performing parts of it they don't think is right.
As long as the service is always there for patients I don't think it's right to compel individual doctors to provide it.

I don’t think that as a doctor/pharmacist/GP you should get to cherry pick the parts of the work/job you do and don’t want to do. If your taking on the line of work you do it on the understanding that the needs of the patient trump all other needs including your own beliefs. If you don’t like that or can’t handle it, then you don’t go into that line of work in the first place. Your beliefs can still be your beliefs whilst still doing you job, your job does not need to align with your beliefs.

Say you work for a bank, you may not agree with the interest rates, or the overdraft charges or many other things. Does that mean that you can refuse to give out applications for credit cards because you don’t believe in it? No of course not, you do your job because that is your job and because if you didn’t you’d likely be fired because you are unable to complete all the tasks your role involves.

It is and should be as simple and as clear cut as that. Any woman wanting or needing the MAP should be able to walk into and pharmacy any where and be assured that she will have access to the medication, as is her right! Nobody should be able to refuse her on their grounds, the only grounds for refusal should be if taking the MAP comes with sever risks to the woman requesting it, in which case she should be referred to her GP for further medical advice.

Other things that could come under this banner:

Sterilisation on demand for women who know they don't want more children or any at all.

Corrective surgery for things like breast reduction that will improve a womans physical and mental well-being.

Electrolysis for women impacted by hormonal imbalances that lead to problematic and unwanted hair growth.

Proper research and understanding of medical conditions specific to women that negatively impact their lives and an acknowledgment that it's not "all in our heads".

Just off the top of my head

But how do you determine who's refusing due to religious beliefs and whos just doing it because they can.

People are obviously allowed their beliefs. But those beliefs apply to them.

Many religions dont believe in sex before marriage or drinking or alcohol or homosexuality. But no one checks a man is married before they purchase viagra or condoms. No one checks a mans sexuality when they buy 3 boxes of KY.

Why is it only women who are forced in some cases to die rather than be given the right to choose

The thing is even people who object to abortion on a religious or ideological basis will agree to it on certain conditions (medical / when the woman’s life is at risk etc). So it is an incredibly complex debate.

Agree. The debate about abortion is overwhelmingly about time limits and circumstances.

Very few people believe that abortion should either always or never be possible.

I disagree ! We need people from a range of backgrounds and some will have deeply held beliefs on providing these services, nobody should be forced to do it in the course of their work - witholding employment from them for this reason would be discriminatory.

It is an uneasy truce, with huge consequences for rural communities or those with limited options.

The thing is even people who object to abortion on a religious or ideological basis will agree to it on certain conditions (medical / when the woman’s life is at risk etc). So it is an incredibly complex debate.

Also, in order to have a real choice we need to have options, and for many poor women who may want to keep babies the social care system is so bad that they don’t really have a choice.

Having said this, and accepting that some people want to opt out of providing this service, what I don't like is that they're not up front about it. If a pharmacy or doctor isn't prepared to provide the service, they should clearly state this

See I disagree. You take a job at a pharmacy or any other medical profession and you do so knowing full well you will be treating everyone. Whether they are the kindest sweetest person on earth or a serial rapist and murderer. Medicines arent bottles of wine or gelatine sweets. They are often scarce and time critical and lives and wellbeing depend on them. You arent there to judge .you are there to do your job. If you can sell viagra or prescribe methadone or HIV meds then you can prescribe the MAP.

First do no harm right.unwanted pregnancies cause harm.

Do all your job or dont do it at all.

It's the same for needle exchange services, some companies opt out as it doesn't align with their values.

However when the CEO is a publically outed as a drug snorting nightmare - the double standard is somewhat more difficult to swallow.

I mean the rights if a male pharmacist ( yes female can object to but my point is that through the ability of conscientious objection the right to control a womans body is granted to men ) to object to prescribing the morning after pill is placed above the needs of the woman.

Women are too kind - we accept and understand that some people don't want to provide a service (MAP, or abortion) and go else-where. Other groups would just demand with no empathy.

Having said this, and accepting that some people want to opt out of providing this service, what I don't like is that they're not up front about it. If a pharmacy or doctor isn't prepared to provide the service, they should clearly state this.

I'm old and well past embarrassment, and when I went for the MAP, the young pharmacist was clearly more uncomfortable about asking me the questions than I was answering them - but my younger self would have spent ages plucking up the courage to ask, and if I was then rebuffed by some anti-woman pharmacist I don't know what I would have done next.

The least we can do is demand that it's made clear up front what services a pharmacy will provide.