News & Politics - The abortion debate - Page 13

Uh Blah · 07-01-2009, 11:03 AM

It's not the teaching I have an issue with, it's the teacher and her timing of it.

I think we've progressed from the days where women are supposed to think sex is something dirty and that if you talk about it you'll be labeled a slut. And my fear with preaching about abstinence is that we'd be going backwards. I think sex education should be the #1 subject and the parents should get involved.

fetch · 07-01-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrhmLz (View Post)

Well, it may not be the popular response, but I'm not opposed to abstinence being the source of sex instruction at all. It's not like it can't be followed by choice, it's as valid a message as any. I personally don't believe in sex before marriage and I've kept it that way for msyelf to this day. Because frankly, I don't see that as the problem - with all the access to birth control out there in addition to the sex education, high rates of teenage pregancy are still out there soaring. It's ridiculous, I think the issue here is responsibilty and I can't count how many times teens have responded "no" or "sometimes" when asked about engaging in safe sex practices - they just didn't really have a valid answer to explain why they didn't except a simple "I don't know why." I honestly don't believe it's due to a lack of knowledge most of the time, I think they've been exposed to hearing about these methods - to me, it's more about the laziness/indifference that accompanies a level of immaturity when dealing with the responsibilites of a sexual relationship. Sometimes I think it can be about embarrassment (afraid to bring it up with the parents) when a young girl needs to see a doctor to get on something.

And not just to pick on the teenagers - hell, they're are some irresponsible adults out there too.

I know 22 year olds who still don't use condoms

And I've had sex in high school but always protected. I don't believe in waiting until marriage - in fact I don't really believe in marriage as a a religious institution - but to me it's not even about that.
Even if kids taught abstinence only won't have sex in high school, what next? They will have sex SOMETIME, in collegeor after. Even if they wait until they're married - it's not like they'll automatically be ready for having children, or immune to STIs. People should be taught about different kinds of birth control and how to use them.

**sunnykerr** · 07-06-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uh Blah (View Post)

I think we've progressed from the days where women are supposed to think sex is something dirty and that if you talk about it you'll be labeled a slut. And my fear with preaching about abstinence is that we'd be going backwards. I think sex education should be the #1 subject and the parents should get involved.

Thank you!!!!!

Man, there is nothing wrong with sex.

There's something wrong with pressuring someone into having sex.

But, otherwise? Sex is a healthy expression of being human. And it happens at scary young ages sometimes.

The solution is so NOT to shame the kid having sex, but to provide information and a listening ear.

Uh Blah · 07-07-2009, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Thank you!!!!!

Man, there is nothing wrong with sex.

There's something wrong with pressuring someone into having sex.

But, otherwise? Sex is a healthy expression of being human. And it happens at scary young ages sometimes.

The solution is so NOT to shame the kid having sex, but to provide information and a listening ear.

Yeah!!!

Sooo ummm wanna have sex?

I mean no pressure or anything!

It's simply for the sake of education.

You just have to look past the fact that I'm a Bruins fan.

**sunnykerr** · 07-07-2009, 07:12 PM

First of all, as if it were possible to overlook such a thing.

Second of all, wrong thread, dude. Behave!

Uh Blah · 07-08-2009, 01:00 PM

well you should come to the dark side sometime it's fun!

oh and real men where black and gold!

**sunnykerr** · 07-08-2009, 01:36 PM

Real men "where" black and gold, do they?

Well, that's too darn bad: This girl's got the blue, white and red tatooed on her... heart.

Uh Blah · 07-08-2009, 01:44 PM

lol whatever spelling stickler!

careful that wouldnt seem the safest place to be getting needles poked at!

**sunnykerr** · 07-08-2009, 06:32 PM

I assume metaphorical needles don't do much damage. I don't know.

Be that as it may...

Quote:

Obama Says He Supports 'Robust' Protections For Health Workers With Moral, Religious Objections

President Obama on Friday said that although he intends to reverse the Bush administration's provider "conscience" rule, he still favors a "robust" federal policy that would enhance the rights of health care workers to refuse to perform certain procedures because of moral or religious objections, the Washington Post reports. In a session with reporters one week before his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, Obama said that he is a "believer in conscience clauses." He added that a new policy from his administration "may not meet the criteria of every possible critic of our approach, but it certainly will not be weaker than what existed before the changes were made." According to the Post, Obama's comments aimed to reassure Roman Catholic health care workers that they would still be able to refuse to perform abortions and other procedures that go against the Church's teachings.

Several federal laws in place since the 1970s protect the rights of health care workers with moral or religious objections (Salmon, Washington Post, 7/3). Nancy Berlinger, deputy director of the Hastings Center, said that conscience laws also "are on the books in almost every state." She added, "The idea was that when abortion moved from being an illegal procedure, therefore something that you did not offer in a hospital, to being a legal procedure, therefore something that you might offer in a hospital, there was a move to protect providers ... from having to participate in abortions." However, not all conscience laws are specific to abortion, NPR's "Morning Edition" reports. For example, some allow providers to refuse to provide birth control, in vitro fertilization or end-of-life care (Rovner, "Morning Edition," NPR, 7/6).

The Bush administration said its 2008 policy was designed to ensure that the federal laws are enforced. The policy would cut off federal funding to health care facilities and other entities that did not accommodate workers who refused to participate in certain procedures (Washington Post, 7/3). Joxel Garcia, the assistant secretary for health in the Bush administration who helped write the policy, said that it is necessary because few health care workers are aware of the protections. He added that the policy gives health workers "a mechanism to seek help" through HHS.

However, critics of the Bush administration's policy contend that it would widely expand the scope of health care covered by the policy and the type of health care workers who could object to procedures. Berlinger said, "Words like belief, when you talk about them in the context of health care, aren't just anything you might think of." She noted that a "false belief about science or the promotion of ambiguity where things can be disambiguated," such as the claim that birth control is equivalent to abortion, "is not ethical" ("Morning Edition," NPR, 7/6).

Obama's plan to replace the policy has stoked concern from Catholic health care providers that they would be forced to perform abortions, sterilizations and other procedures that go against Catholic teachings (Washington Post, 7/3). A recent survey conducted for the Christian Medical Association found that 90% of doctors surveyed said that "they will quit their practices before violating their conscience," according to David Stevens, executive director of CMA. Stevens said that repealing the Bush administration's rule "sends a clear message: It's open season on health care professionals of conscience -- discriminate at will" ("Morning Edition," NPR, 7/6).

Obama on Friday also said that although he and the pope have areas of "deep agreement ... there are going to be some areas where we've got some disagreements," such as abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. The president will meet with the pope on July 10, while he is in Europe for a summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations.

Obama Says He Supports 'Robust' Protections For Health Workers With Moral, Religious Objections

Well, I like Obama, but this is bull.

I'm all for not forcing people to go against their conscience, but it's starting to be at the expense of women's right to proper health care. And that, in my opinion, should be the primary concern.

**wanderer78** · 07-09-2009, 12:01 AM

Maybe I'm being really insensitive, but a health care worker's personal belief's shouldn't be interfering with a patient's care. These people need to find another line of work. Or work in a field where these issues don't come up, like pediatrics.

I mean how far can this go? Can they decline to treat a woman on birth control? Because that's against Catholicism too.

**sunnykerr** · 07-09-2009, 07:32 PM

I think there's a plausible deniability issue. Like, if you're a good Catholic, you can't prescribe the Pill or perform abortions, but you can treat a person for a pneumonia (for instance) because then taking the Pill is not related to your care.

I don't know, really. It just seems that way to me.

And I can sort of understand how some older professionals might be thrown by having to do things they never thought they've have to do, such as abortions. Because that's been a hot-button issue for years and, in the States anyway, abortion has only been legal for about 35 years. I wasn't cognizant back then, but I would assume it took a while before it became pseudo-mainstream.

And then the details of what is and what isn't okay with regards to performing abortions seem to change with every Administration...

So, I can see why some doctors might balk at having to perform these. Especially when it's not anywhere related to their specialty, but scarcity of resources makes it their responsibility.

Or maybe I took Everwood way too seriously.

But "first do no harm" seems pretty direct to me. Abortions are part of what every woman is entitled to with regards to her sexual health. And every doctor should make it their business to make absolutely darn sure that every last one of their patients receives the best care possible.

If they won't perform the abortion themselves, it ought to be a law that they have to find their patient a willing, competent substitute. In a woman's life, I would imagine that this is a vulnerable enough time as it is...

**wanderer78** · 07-11-2009, 11:49 PM

I can sort of see that. I can see how a rural GP might be put out by being asked to perform an abortion. But I think they should do everything in their power to put the woman in touch with someone who can and will.

At the same time, medicine is constantly changing in the USA, both the techniques and practices, along with the laws. Doctors and nurses should be used to that by now.

I still haven't seen that Everwood episode. It's the first season right? I have it on DVD, but haven't watched the whole thing.

**Callace** · 07-12-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

But "first do no harm" seems pretty direct to me. Abortions are part of what every woman is entitled to with regards to her sexual health. And every doctor should make it their business to make absolutely darn sure that every last one of their patients receives the best care possible.

That's when seen from the woman's pov. If you rather focus on the fetus (as I imagine the doctors with qualms does) an abortion is indeed a harmful procedure. (and the ruel goes against doing harm, as a first. an obligation to do good does not follow from that rule. (although I'm sure it does follow from some other part of the doctor oath)

**sunnykerr** · 07-13-2009, 06:20 PM

That's a fair point, which is again why I can understand why not all doctors are happy about the procedure.

But, and maybe I'm wrong in thinking this, but if a woman wants an abortion badly enough... and history kinda proves my point on this one... she'll find a way to get it, only the lack of proper medical attention will then endanger her own life. Which is why, to me, "first do no harm" is pretty clear.

Like I said, I understand why and how that's not necessarily the case for everyone.

wanderer78 - I believe it is episode 20... I did a quick online search. And, evidently, it left its mark on me.

**wanderer78** · 07-14-2009, 12:16 AM

Thanks for the reference Sunny, I should go back and watch the season. I was maybe halfway through it.

I agree that no doctor should be forced to do a procedure they don't want to do. But they should be removed from situations where their beliefs conflicts with patient care. I know that's easier said than done though.