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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.