Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Inaction is action. When the supreme court decided Roe in 1973, they rejected the Oath as a guide to medical ethics and practice. There is a movement among ethical doctors to reinstate the oath as it was originally taken by doctors (it was changed sometime in the 80's to allow for abortion) which would make facilitating abortion grounds to remove a doctor's license.
Not any more. A bill passed in 2004 which gave hospitals and individual doctors the right to refuse to provide abortions. There is considerable effort on the part of pro choice to have the law stricken from the books and have punishments put back in place for doctors or hospitals that refuse. Here is an article from the approximate time the law was passed.
Congress approves anti-abortion clause | World news | The Guardian |
So, you are saying that prior to 2004, all doctors had to....perhaps against their will....be able to perform abortions on demand? Why? Under what circumstances did this happen?
Quote:
Again, there is a movement by ethical doctors to bring the oath back to its original state. It was changed in the 80's (I believe) to allow for abortion.
The issue within the medical community is not over whether they are human beings but whether it is OK to kill them. The pro choice movement in general is responsible for the illusion that unborns are not actually human beings. If they admitted the nature of unborns, then a great deal of their support would dry up.
|
Why would this even be an issue if they truly believe they are human?
__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...