[Lauramalina]

I'm not letting you get away that easily. Sure, burn victims 'acquired' their injuries eventually, so you can call that healing if you want. Eventually? Wow. Burn victims acquired their injuries to their skin very quickly after the fire. It's totally within the realm of medicine to repair the damage done to their faces through skin from elsewhere to try to restore their previous appearance.

But suppose somebody was born with something absolutely hideous in their face that didn't happen to be outright harmful in the very physical sense. Taking that out wouldn't be restoring anything, it would be improving. Are you really arguing that doctors should not treat obvious deformities? What about cleft lip and palate?

And as I was bordering on before, pregnancies are indeed severe medical problems to some, even in this day and age. Are you arguing that most pregnancies are severe medical problems? Fact is for the majority of women, they are healthier during pregnancy then other times. There are certain medical conditions that make it more likely to experience complications, but it's not pregnancy that causes problems but the condition which is otherwise treated.

So the Oath argument is still looking fairly week. You've given nothing to argue why abortion abides by the principle of first do no harm. You don't operate unless there's a damn good reason for doing so. Honestly, physical deformities are a good reason to operate and try to correct. Abortion cannot be justified, because it violates the principle outright.

[BgpOoGI2]

I'm tempted to say abortion doesn't really do all that much harm to the patient, but that would sound trollish even if it wasn't... instead I'll just say it's a hierarchy we're talking about here. You are taking the risk of engaging in a surgery with a significant chance compared with most surgeries of resulting in death.

What's your justification for perfoming one?

[reiruviartugs]

Congress probably has the power to ban abortion under the commerce clause, if the right to abortion did not exist.

The Commerce Clause is for commerce. Whoever the lawyer was who decided it's a blank check to do whatever you please should have been tarred, feathered, hanged, drawn, and quartered.

Gonzales v Raich (sp?) is one example of how far it's been corrupted. A woman grows a crop, does not sell it, does not transport it across state lines, and somehow the SCOTUS decided that the interstate commerce clause applied to intrastate non-commercial activity.

The 5 justices who formed the majority of that ruling should eat ****.

[vNZsk39B]

Also, ground-up fetus parts can be sold to people interested in Chinese folk medicine

(just kidding)


(I think)

[AsmViktor]

PROBABLY?

Should we imprison people because they probably committed a crime?

There is a perfectly good reason it should not fall under the interstate commerce clause; the intent of the framers. The interstate commerce clause was designed to give Congress the power to enable trade between the states. So Congress has authority over things like weights and measures, travel, tariffs, etc. Prior to 1789, the states were essentially independent countries, with tariffs and trade barriers. Power over interstate commerce gave the federal government the ability to create a unified market, like the Zollverein or EEC, since a unified market helps unify the nation, and provides a boon to commerce.

It was never meant to give Congress authority over anything that may involve money changing hands and that may ever occur between two states. Hell, here in Maryland you're never more than an hour from another state. That means that a lot of what we buy and sell may have at one time been in Virginia or Delaware or wherever. That doesn't mean that Congress has authority over everything. There's a difference between eating pretzels made in Pennsylvania, and engaging in interstate commerce. The interstate commerce is when the manufacturer or wholesaler deals with the retailer. Once I buy a bag of pretzels at the supermarket, it's no longer interstate. Congress no longer has authority.
ween the states. So Congress has authority over things like weights and measures, travel, tariffs, etc. Prior to 1789, the states were essentially independent countries, with tariffs and trade barriers. Power over interstate commerce gave the federal government the ability to create a unified market, like the Zollverein or EEC, since a unified market helps unify the nation, and provides a boon to commerce.

It was never meant to give Congress authority over anything that may involve money changing hands and that may ever occur between two states. Hell, here in Maryland you're never more than an hour from another state. That means that a lot of what we buy and sell may have at one time been in Virginia or Delaware or wherever. That doesn't mean that Congress has authority over everything. There's a difference between eating pretzels made in Pennsylvania, and engaging in interstate commerce. The interstate commerce is when the manufacturer or wholesaler deals with the retailer. Once I buy a bag of pretzels at the supermarket, it's no longer interstate. Congress no longer has authority.
The reason why abortion should be dealt with by the states is because it is not a power given to the national government. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is conflicting evidence to what the intent of the founders was when they wrote the commerce clause, like every other constitutional provision (See 96 Nw. U. L. Rev. 695 and many other useless articles that argue that the founders intended a broad meaning of the commerce clause). It obviously can't mean just the power to regulate tariffs and fix weight and measurements since those powers are dealt with explicitly in other parts of the Constitution. Frankly, determining the intent of the framers is exercise in futility. The text of the Constitution says congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, couple that with the N&P clause and outlawing abortion falls under Congress power.

[IssuessBratte]

abortion is such an easy topic... only religion could **** it up

Of course.

http://atheistnexus.ning.com/group/prolifenonbelievers
http://godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=Atheist+pro-life

[Redys]

Nowhere. There is no duress on doctors to require that they are trained to perform abortions. Where are you getting this from? They are required to refer up here. If a young lady goes to the doctor, and she doesn't get referred, they can and have complained. There have been many doctors that have lost their jobs.

You don't even need to shakily base the Hippocratic Oath prohibition on primum non nocere. The next line is "...will not give a woman a pessary to perform an abortion." It's the primary principle upon which the other actions are based upon, the meta-ethical principle that justifies the normative principles stated throughout the oath.

That said the Oath is kind of outdated since it also prevents doctors from removing kidney stones and bladder stones, and promotes nepotism in medical schools. Not to mention the first part where it's all sworn on Apollo. Many medical schools don't use the Oath in ceremony anymore. They should. Many of the principles by which they still abide, including doctor-patient confidentiality are stated throughout the oath. It's rather an emblem of the modern age that they would accept the oath when referring to confidentiality, when rejecting the oath wrt abortion.

In fact, I would state that any medical school abandoning the oath also abandons the concept of first do no harm, in favour for some kind of combination of autonomy, and benificence. That being, if there is good that can come from surgery, or the surgery is requested by the patient, it should be ok. The fact that the surgery has drawbacks doesn't really come into play.

As far as abortion healing a woman - current statistics, that may or may not change, say that abortion is healthier up to sixteen weeks in. Please cite the statistic, I'd be interested in seeing the source. I have done research, and the answer is quite the contrary. Women who have had an abortion are 5x as likely to commit suicide within the following year. You must consider the effects after the abortion as well, without these you get only a fraction of the picture.

You can't just say that abortion doesn't improve health until it becomes true. We have no way of knowing for sure because in North America, you cannot do studies to trace the prevalence of certain illnesses in those who have abortion. All the studies are done elsewhere, particularly Finland.

You cannot say that abortion is healthier, when you ignore all the long-term effects altogether. That's bad science. You can say that fewer women are likely to die on the table then to die from childbirth, but that is all you can say.

Yes, reporting could be better, and when we fix the rules so that we can further beef up our data, if the statistics change then I think we can happily revisit that point. But for now let's either work with the best we've got and accept that it can be good for health, or drop this avenue, as I don't feel studied enough to accept your premise in the face of peer-reviewed research. Well, please state your peer-reviewed research, and I'll be happy to provide my counter-evidence which has also been peer-reviewed. As I said, I am always interested in understanding where people are getting their data.

The fetus is not an unarmed civilian. Somebody who trains in abortion procedures, and willfully works at an abortion clinic, is doing what they signed on for. I'm pretty sure that's the only people that do abortions. The question arises at a level of training. Should all doctors be trained to perform abortions? I have seen arguments for that up here, although they don't have to do so. There is significant pressure, particularly on those who work in the public system to refer for abortions.

Likewise, somebody who is trained in pharmacy and works as a pharmacist is in licensed to dispense all medicine ordered by doctors, and they sign on to such a license or else their home state won't let them operate. If they're not doing part of their job then you revoke their license and fire them. What makes Christian doctors special wrt their belief and occupation? Should we let fundamentalist Muslims get hired by bars so they can refuse to be bartenders? Again, if we followed your example, should we allow a physician to refuse to perform an abortion? The answer, is obviously, yes. This is why we cannot require a pharmacist to dispense of medications that they believe will be harmful. Their ethics are the same, to first do no harm, and there are cases in which the pharmacist is required to refuse to prescribe, as in the case of a medical conflict, or in suspicions of abuse.

A better analogy would be a bartender who refused to dispense absinthe. The pharmacist is dispensing medications, just not a few which they consider harmful.

This is apples and oranges. State publicity campaigns against FAS are not coercive in that they don't force women to not drink. An abortion ban would be coercive in that it would force women to not get abortions. The right to privacy is invaded only when the state is coercive. Yes, and you've missed my point. Abortion is worse then drinking while pregnant. Therefore, a policy that is harsher on abortion then drinking while pregnant would be appropriate. That a policy is coercive for abortion is not prima facie wrong if you are asking us to consider that we do not force women to stop drinking while pregnant.

While it is true that a majority SCOTUS would overturn it, the whole point of the original decision being from SCOTUS was that abortion is already law because it's derived from the Constitution. It's not accurate to say it was "made law." Law was interpreted. It was already there. According to the interpretation. It is made law, because it has no basis in the constitution. Abortion was well known at the time the constitution was drafted, yet it was not seen fit either for the constitution or for an amendment to make it clear that they were in fact referring to abortion. There is nothing to suggest that there is an explicit right to abortion in the constitution.

The implicit argument is based on privacy, and as we have said, it does nothing to counter the argument that the constution justifies protection of the unborn. Their status trumps everything else. If they are persons, then they are explicitly protected under the 14th.

[Ggskbpbz]

There are a lot more countries beyond your borders.

No way!