Abortion on demand, no debate!

[WombOfOnesOwn]

Does this work?

Can we just take a hotly-debated issue that pits drastically different ideologies and understandings of humanity against one another, and declare that our opinion is the right one, because we think it's vital and that any opposition might hurt someone?

Would corporations all over the English-speaking world bow down and say "Yes, you're right, anyone debating this issue hates women and will not be tolerated"? Would authors boycott a publisher who published the works of someone who was on the fence about abortion or believed there should be room for debate?

I'm just trying to understand how all this works and I think I'm starting to get the hang of it.

What else shall we "no debate" into total acceptance by fiat?

Well it doesn't work when it comes to women does it.

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.

No abortion was #nodebate forever. It's why women died in hospital if infections becuase a baby that was going to die still had more rights.

Women arent seen as humans merely platforms to abuse to elevate the social status of whoever feels like it.

#acceptancewithoutexception

And we're not saying everyone has to think what we think, we're just saying everyone has to pretend that they do, and then do what we say. Let's move the debate forward!

See! We're so sweetly reasonable. #bekind

Could not agree more.

We recently had a local report in the local paper on the rate of abortions (both hard percentage and rate increase over the last 10 years, informative as there was an increase in 20-30 year olds rather than the over 40's, indicating perhaps economic situation or access to acceptable contraception were issues).

First comment in - all these women are murderer s and should be in prison.

Subsequent pile on of people politely suggesting that as she was not in the market for an abortion, it was sod all to do with her. But the addition did spur reasonable people to contribute valuable input on closure and suspension of out of working hours long term contraception.

#bekind costs nothing until you need to commission a service to deal with the consequences of decision making in a vacuum.

I like open debate on contentious issues,

No, wouldn't work because.

1. No branding possibilities. Where are the rainbows and beautiful androgynous models?
2. It implies taking action, not just changing the signs on your toilets.
3. Too many men would feel that they were affected.

"be kind!" only works when you are asking people to "do nothing!".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.