Force doctors to preform abortions?

[M14 Shooter]

There are three states that have just a single facility that preforms abortions -- ND SD and MS. Doctors in those states are unwilling to bear the social stigma attached to preforming abortions, and so doctors from other states come in to preform the 'procedure'.


Abortion is a right and as such, to deny someone the ability to have an abortion is to offend their civil rights.
Question:
Should states force doctors to preform abortions as a condition of their license to practice medicine?

 

[Kandahar]

Of course not. Doctors have the right to specialize in whatever field of medicine they want and are under no obligations to perform abortions. No one in their right mind wants to turn doctors into slaves. Why do you continue to make these straw-man polls?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course not. Doctors have the right to specialize in whatever field of medicine they want and are under no obligations to perform abortions. No one in their right mind wants to turn doctors into slaves. Why do you continue to make these straw-man polls?

Where's the straw man?
Given how whacky some of the pro-abortion people are, you think there aren't people that would say "yes"?

The argument goes omething like....
-The role of the state is to protect the rights of the people.
If the people cannot exercise their rights, do they actually have rights?
-So, the state must be sure people have the ability to exercise their rights.
-If there's no one around to preform an abortion, do you really have thje right to have an abortion?
-If its the job of the state to make sure people have the ability to exercise their rights, isnt it up to te state to make sure there are doctors that will preform abortions?

And, isnt there at least -some- precedent for it?
MO has a law that states pharmacists must dispense written prescriptions regardless of their moral objection to the prescritopn itself -- several MO pharmacists violated that law when they refused to dispsense prescriptions for the 'morning after pill'.

If pharmacists can be forced to dispense the morning after pill, why can't doctord be foreced to offer abortions?

 

[kal-el]

Question:
Should states force doctors to preform abortions as a condition of their license to practice medicine?

No way, last time I checked, this wasn't a communist country. States shouldn't force doctors to perform abortions against their will, what kind of asinine question is this?

 

[Caine]

the pro-abortion people

No such thing.

 

[Stace]

The argument goes omething like....
-The role of the state is to protect the rights of the people.

Yeah, pretty much.

If the people cannot exercise their rights, do they actually have rights?

Yes, they do. If they for some reason cannot exercise their rights, there's a serious problem.

-So, the state must be sure people have the ability to exercise their rights.

No argument there.

-If there's no one around to preform an abortion, do you really have thje right to have an abortion?

Yes, you still have the right. If there's no one in your local area, and you want an abortion that badly, you do some research till you find a doctor, even if you have to go to another state.

-If its the job of the state to make sure people have the ability to exercise their rights, isnt it up to te state to make sure there are doctors that will preform abortions?

No, because it's not the state's job to mandate what specialty any doctor practices. Not all states have top notch cardiologists, do they?

And, isnt there at least -some- precedent for it?
MO has a law that states pharmacists must dispense written prescriptions regardless of their moral objection to the prescritopn itself -- several MO pharmacists violated that law when they refused to dispsense prescriptions for the 'morning after pill'.

If pharmacists can be forced to dispense the morning after pill, why can't doctord be foreced to offer abortions?

Umm....that's apples and oranges. It's a pharmacist's job to fill prescriptions, not to write them, not to agree or disagree with the medication. If they have that big of a problem with certain prescriptions that are available, I suggest they find a new career.

But again, it is the doctor's choice as to what their field of specialty is.

And just for the record, it's spelled perform, not preform.

 

[vergiss]

Of course not. If there's really a shortage of doctors willing to do it, just get one or more from interstate. Problem solved, everyone's happy.

 

[Kandahar]

Where's the straw man?
Given how whacky some of the pro-abortion people are, you think there aren't people that would say "yes"?

No, I don't think anyone would say "yes" unless they were an unapologetic fascist or communist. Have you really lost touch with reality so completely that you honestly can't see the distinction between ALLOWING doctors to perform abortions and FORCING doctors to perform abortions? You might not agree with either one, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

The argument goes omething like....
-The role of the state is to protect the rights of the people.

I'll agree with that.

If the people cannot exercise their rights, do they actually have rights?

It depends why the people are unable to exercise their rights. Is the government somehow preventing them from exercising their rights? For example, in Russia you have the right to freedom of speech, but if you exercise that right the government will find some reason to arrest you. In other words, you don't really have the right to free speech in Russia.

But this isn't the same thing. It's not the government's fault if there's no doctors in North Dakota to provide abortions. There might be certain things the government can do to ensure that abortion clinics are able to do business, such as low corporate taxes, tort reform, and protecting them from terrorist groups like the Army Of God. But the right to have an abortion doesn't translate into a "right" to force someone else to provide you with one.

-So, the state must be sure people have the ability to exercise their rights.

The state's job is to stay out of the way of the free market and not PREVENT people from exercising their rights. The "ability" to exercise rights is a logical conclusion from the lack of any coercion.

-If there's no one around to preform an abortion, do you really have thje right to have an abortion?

Yes. You can travel anywhere in the country you want to get an abortion.

-If its the job of the state to make sure people have the ability to exercise their rights, isnt it up to te state to make sure there are doctors that will preform abortions?

Of course not. You support gun rights if I'm not mistaken, so here's an analogy for you. Should the government force all businesses to sell automatic weapons to anyone who requests them?

And, isnt there at least -some- precedent for it?
MO has a law that states pharmacists must dispense written prescriptions regardless of their moral objection to the prescritopn itself -- several MO pharmacists violated that law when they refused to dispsense prescriptions for the 'morning after pill'.

Personally I don't have a problem with it, as long as they give the prescription back so that it can be filled elsewhere. If the owner of the pharmacy has a problem with this, he can fire the pharmacist.

But the way the law is in most states, a pharmacist is liscensed to fill the prescriptions. In most states, they don't have the right to refuse it unless they suspect intentional abuse or accidental misuse.

Doctors specialize in many different things, and most doctors aren't even qualified to perform abortions. They aren't required to perform them unless they're working somewhere that provides them, and if they have a moral problem with this they can work somewhere else.