Friday, February 27, 2009
I thought Abortion was about choice?
So I was rather interested to see yet another hypocritical argument come to fruition thanks to the Obama administration. Pres. Obama now wishes to end Pres. Bushes protection of doctors and nurses who refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds. Meaning, a woman who wants to have an abortion can now go to her doctor, who may not agree with the practice of abortion, and if that doctor and/or their nurses, refuse to perform the procedure, if they CHOOSE to not do something against their principled and often religious beliefs, they can be open to legal repercussions.
I thought the whole debate about abortion was that women wanted the right to choose what they "did with their bodies". Now it seems that in order for them to have their right, they need to infringe on the right of another's agency. Performing an abortion is not generally a life threatening procedure. Where the rare life threatening cases exist performing an abortion is considered morally objectionable. Some insurance companies would call abortion procedures "elective". So why should a doctor be forced to perform such a treatment? There is no violation to the Hippocratic Oath because abortions are not necessary for the sustaining of life, in fact one could make the argument that performing an abortion is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Considering the destruction of life and the massive amounts of tissue damage that generally occur in the not-so-expectant mother I would say that Doctors should be more vocal with their objections to the procedure in general siting patient care as a satisfactory dismissal of the issue entirely.
So for now, I guess that is the next on a growing list of freedoms that we can expect to be loosing over the next four years at least.