M14 Shooter said:
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.
M14 Shooter said:
The argument goes omething like....
-The role of the state is to protect the rights of the people.
I'll agree with that.
M14 Shooter said:
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.
M14 Shooter said:
-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.
M14 Shooter said:
-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.
M14 Shooter said:
-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?
M14 Shooter said:
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.