RSSDoctors Revolt Against Performing Abortions in UK
J.J. Jackson* | April 17, 2007
Rising numbers of doctors are refusing to carry out abortions, leading to a crisis in NHS provision.
The stance by staff, taken on ethical grounds, has led to a doubling of abortions carried out by private clinics, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
The swell of medical staff joining the unprecedented moral revolt means that there may soon not be enough doctors to carry out sufficient terminations to meet the public demand.
Don’t worry. Soon Big Daddy Government will simply force the doctors to carry out the murder of innocent children otherwise they will be thrown in jail, fined, not allowed to practice, or some other obscene coercion. It’s the way of the bureaucrat and the Nanny State don’t ya know?
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
29 Responses to “Doctors Revolt Against Performing Abortions in UK”
Leave a Reply
By posting a comment you agree to abide by the rules of this site.
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
Hold on just a minute, JJ! Are you saying that it’s ok for our pharmacists here in the states to refuse delivery of doctor prescribed medications to patients because they don’t agree with the doctor?
Your argument about the Nanny State is backwards. The people attempting to get the abortion are asking for a legal procedure. Normally, the Nanny State will create laws *preventing* the public from doing something.
I fall on the side of freedom on this issue. It’s none of my business how a woman decides to handle her pregnancy. My problem with this whole issue is when Big Daddy Government steps in and starts paying for such services.
I can hear all the arguments forming right now about the “freedom” of the unborn child. However, if the government is going to force the issue, then “we, the people” will have to care for that child. Sorry, but my charity only goes so far.
Mark what are you rambling about? His logic isn’t backwards!
You claim to believe in freedom. But that includes the freedom for a doctor to say that he or she will not perform a proceedure even if someone else prescribes it and believes that it should be done.
This would be like saying that if someone goes out to buy a car and wants a blue one that the car dealership has to sell them a blue one even if the dealer has decided to only stock silver cars. Doesn’t work that way. Freedom is really when that person has the right to go somewhere else to get the service and product they desire. If they can find no one to fullfil their request then they do not have the right to force someone to do so.
Seems to me you believe in only limited freedom. Such as that the woman has the freedom to have the abortion and once she has decided to have one the doctor MUST comply.
But that’s not what freedom is.
Sounds to me, especially with your last sentence, that you are just looking to justify the murder of innocent human life.
I think most everyone else here will agree?
Pingu - Please try to answer my first question. It is the real basis for the rest of my argument. I believe in freedom, yes. Don’t twist the logic. I have every right to receive legal treatment if I so desire. Your car analogy is rediculous. My initial question about pharmacists is much more to the point.
So what would you prefer? To have your local pharmacy change or deny your doctors advice based on a belief system you don’t hold or have them provide your medications based on you and your doctor’s agreement on what is best for you?
I want me and my doctor in charge…
Admittedly, good arguments can be made for both sides of the abortion issue. I would be perfectly willing to allow it to be resolved by each state. You know, states rights and all…
Mark, she answered your question. You just don’t like the answer.
Her car analogy is only “rediculous” to you because it proves a point you don’t want to deal with.
At issue is the concept of freedom. And that is can you force someone to do something against their will. Just because something is “legal” is not a basis for forcing someone to do it.
“Admittedly, good arguments can be made for both sides of the abortion issue.” - Mark
No that really is not true. The only people that say that is people that do not accept the scientific fact that a baby from the time it is fertilized is a human being and live. It’s all basic biology.
“I would be perfectly willing to allow it to be resolved by each state. You know, states rights and all… ” -Mark
Please explain to me (and the rest of us) exactly how the States have a “right” to deny someone their right to life without due process? Ever read the 14th Amendment?
I don’t think either of you want to face facts here:
RRR said, “At issue is the concept of freedom. And that is can you force someone to do something against their will. Just because something is “legal” is not a basis for forcing someone to do it.”
Oh really. So people that want to deny others of opportunity because of their race or religion have the “freedom” to do so? I think not. We have to force them to comply with the law. How about the 14 year old pregnant rape victim? Does she have the right, or “freedom”, to put her life back to as normal as possible after such an ordeal? I believe she does.
Who is going to care for the child of this rape victim when she is forced to carry the child to term?
Do doctors have the right not to choose this particular field of medicine? Sure they do. They also have the right to choose it without fear of being ridiculed or worse, killed, for choosing to perform a perfectly valid and legal service for others.
It’s ironic that the very same people who care so much about the sancitity of the life at the expense of all else couldn’t care less when a clinic is bombed and people providing these services are killed.
The fact is that legal and free are NOT interchangeable. If a person has the law on their side, they have the right to persue that particular activity. Now if it’s not legal, then that right disappears. Be careful though, someday it may be your daughter that becomes the 14 year old described above. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Mark,
I am with PinguMama. You are just trying to justify a stance that cannot be justified based on even the most basic of logic. And you have a false premise as well.
“I don’t think either of you want to face facts here:” Mark
Mark, you are an example of someone that is on the loosing end of reality.
“RRR said, “At issue is the concept of freedom. And that is can you force someone to do something against their will. Just because something is “legal” is not a basis for forcing someone to do it.”
Oh really. So people that want to deny others of opportunity because of their race or religion have the “freedom” to do so? I think not.”
That last sentence sums it up. You don’t “think”. If someone doesn’t like someone because of the color of thier skin or the way they wear their hair and doesn’t want to offer them a job sure it may not be fair but it is their right. It is not the government’s job to dictate to others how they must treat people beyond basic protections of rights. If you think otherwise then you are one of the reasons why we have overwhelming numbers of laws managing every aspect of our lives.
It may not be right that they wish to deny other oportunity based on such shallow things, but you should not be allowed to force them to do so.
“We have to force them to comply with the law.”
Spoken like a true Stalinist. The law should not be allowed to force someone to do something they find immoral.
“How about the 14 year old pregnant rape victim?”
WHat about the innocent baby? Why are you punishing he or she with a death sentence?
“Does she have the right, or “freedom”, to put her life back to as normal as possible after such an ordeal? I believe she does.”\
Sure she does in so much as she does not infringe on the unalienable rights (ie. life) of another.
“Who is going to care for the child of this rape victim when she is forced to carry the child to term?”Again, you have failed to address the simple fact that the child is alive and a human as well and granted certain unalienable rights. You do not have a right to be “happy” which is what you are trying to argue should be the over ridding concern towards the mother here. She only has a right to “pursue happiness”. Like all other rights they only extend as far as such that you are not infringing on the rights of another.
“Do doctors have the right not to choose this particular field of medicine? Sure they do. They also have the right to choose it without fear of being ridiculed or worse, killed, for choosing to perform a perfectly valid and legal service for others.”
Uh, now you are just drifting. You are trying to dance around the fact that abortion murders a human being with complaints about those that chose to commit said murder being ridiculed? They should be.
“It’s ironic that the very same people who care so much about the sancitity of the life at the expense of all else couldn’t care less when a clinic is bombed and people providing these services are killed.”
What the Hell are you on about? Are you trying to somehow claim that this statement pertrains to either Mr. Jackson or others that are posting in response to your ravings? If so you can now back it up or drop it. I am waiting for a citation from you to prove this contention is true of anyone here.
“The fact is that legal and free are NOT interchangeable.”
I don’t think anyone made that argument so what are you wailing about?
“If a person has the law on their side, they have the right to persue that particular activity.”
But you DO NOT have the right to force someone else to help you. For example it is prefectly legal to get a job but you DO NOT have the right to FORCE someone to give you a job.
“Now if it’s not legal, then that right disappears.”
Again you are confusing “legal” with “someone must do this for me”. That is an incorrect assumption.
“Be careful though, someday it may be your daughter that becomes the 14 year old described above. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.”
ANd with that final and irrelevant point Mark’s latest complain falls silent.
Mark seems confused about the concept of “freedom”. Apparently in his world “freedom” means you can force someone to do something against their will for whatever reason the state deems fit. This is not what “freedom” means. Only legitimate functions can be dictated by the state. Mandating that someone has to take the life of a human being who has not been found guilty and being punished for a crime after due process is not usch a finction.
Sure you can force someone to do something against their will such as force a bank robber to go to jail or some other such thing but that is only because they have committed an act of harm against the rights of another.
There is no “right to be aborted”. Not that I can find. Hence no act of harm to anyone’s rights has been committed. Granted, this is in England but I think that they haven’t fallen that far!
However I can clearly find “life” protected in several places of our founding documents. Not certain about the UK however. Perhaps life simply is not that precious.
Wait! Back up the turnip truck here! So let me get Mark’s line of reasoning straight here. The “big” state (federal govt) doesn’t have the right to murder babies but the “little” state (state govt) does? If this is true then by extrapolation does that mean that my local township has the right to murder unwanted 6 yr olds? Ya know since it seems that the more local one gets in governance the more lax the protection of rights are?
Talk about a gigantic loop hole!
Like Ron said, ever read the 14th Amendment? I wonder if they have something similar in the UK.
Why do I get the feeling that Mark has already staked out a position he wishes beyond hope to be true and is willing to say anything in order to justify it? It seems that way to me.
Oohrahman - Oh! You got me there! Nice post. Short and straight to the … um - point.
TiggerMama - What a completely ignorant post! Apparently, you’ve never heard of the Civil Rights Act or the Equal Opportunity Commission. If you are offering jobs, and decide not to hire me because you don’t like the color of my skin, I will sue you. And I will win - easily. Thereby, forcing you to comply with the law! You do not have the right to deny me opportunity on that basis.
You said, “It may not be right that they wish to deny other oportunity based on such shallow things, but you should not be allowed to force them to do so.” Umm, yeah. Holy cow! Were you serious when you said this? Well it’s not right AND it IS against the law. We are not living in the 1940’s anymore.
Let’s move on.
You’re arguments that the unborn child has unalienable rights and has constitutional protection are noble and, at first glance, almost valid. However, rights are only granted to citizens of the United States. Like it or not, the Constitution declares that people born in the US are citizens. It does not say concieved, but born. A technicality? No. Imagine the bedlam when people cry out that their child was concieved in the US and thereby should be a citizen. You can try to amend the Constitution to say what you want, it’s your right. Good luck with that.
Let’s move on further.
How dare you try to inject into this conversation that I am trying to portay Mr. Jackson as being uncaring when a clinic is bombed. I have complete respect for Mr. Jackson.
Moving on yet again.
Oh brother, here we go again! Yes I DO “have the right to force someone to give me a job” IF they are denying me the job because of my race, religion, etc! Get over yourself!
Still moving on.
So my point about being careful of what you wish for - “…someday it may be your daughter becomes the 14 year old…” is irrelevant? It is certainly not irrelevant. It goes to the very core of this whole issue.
So apparently it’s ok with you if a company won’t give you a job because you believe in God, or are black, or are Asian. What a joke! You can’t be serious.
Apparently it’s ok with you if a pharmacists won’t provide the cancer medication you desperately need because they don’t agree with the treatment. Or better yet because you are black, Asian, etc. Or even better yet because they just don’t feel like it!
The just concieved egg you keep referring to is not yet “life”, as you keep saying. It is potential life. Should we try to protect it. Yes, sure we should. Should we protect it at the expense of the mothers physical well being? Should we protect it at the expense of the mothers mental health (remember the 14 year old?). Sorry, in my book - and most others, too - the health of the mother comes first.
To everyone here - Look, you guys are fighting this battle with emotions instead of logic. So much of the “logic” you apply to this argument, when applied to other issues, just falls apart completely. I agree that there are way too many abortions performed in this country. However, you must have concern for people in certain situations (like the 14 year old). Without that little bit of give and take, you just come off to the public as overzealous religous not jobs. And I know most of you are not.
Hugo - What? Whatever point you’re trying to make just isn’t coming through. Oh, yeah - ok. Right - I said that some government has the right to murder babies. Are you out of your mind? I never said that. Your thinking is very whacked.
Umbros - Again. Nice post. Short and straight to the um… point.
Mark, your pathetic attempt to respond shows exactly how ignorant you are. I’ll let others address how you (like before) simply ignore clear and relevant points that destroy your line of what I guess you would call “thought”.
I’ll address the three most ridiculous points.
“How dare you try to inject into this conversation that I am trying to portay Mr. Jackson as being uncaring when a clinic is bombed. I have complete respect for Mr. Jackson.”
You said and I quote and everyone can see it ““It’s ironic that the very same people who care so much about the sancitity of the life at the expense of all else couldn’t care less when a clinic is bombed and people providing these services are killed.”” So exactly who were you refering to? If it wasn’t directed at Mr. Jackson or any of us why make that statement because it would be irrelevant.
I know, you searched this site and couldn’t find anything so now you are trying to backtrack.
Moving on (as you like to say):
“Oh brother, here we go again! Yes I DO “have the right to force someone to give me a job” IF they are denying me the job because of my race, religion, etc! Get over yourself!”
Sure you do. IF you are a Stalinist and believe that the state should be able to dictate to people how to live thier lives when they are NOT infringing on other people’s rights. You are more than welcome to show anywhere where the “right” to a job is mentioned anywhere as an unalienable right.
And finally I will address your most insane comment. Like a good little lefty you misread the constiution and insert your own language over it.
You said “You’re arguments that the unborn child has unalienable rights and has constitutional protection are noble and, at first glance, almost valid. However, rights are only granted to citizens of the United States. Like it or not, the Constitution declares that people born in the US are citizens. It does not say concieved, but born. A technicality? No. Imagine the bedlam when people cry out that their child was concieved in the US and thereby should be a citizen. You can try to amend the Constitution to say what you want, it’s your right. Good luck with that.”
WRONG! The fourteen amendment specificially says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Got that? It says “person” with respect to the right to life not “citizen”.
S0 come back when you have actually read the COnstitution and maybe you can say something of some relevance.
Umbros:
He’s found his hill to die on it seems.
TriggerMama:
I agree with you. Mark really needs to make sure he is acurrately quoting the Constitution otherwise he looks foolish. The fact that a simple Google search gives the actual wording just shows me that he has picked his possition and will say whatever he thinks he can get away with. Fortunately I have found that most people here are far too intelligent for his petty attempts.
Mark:
You’ve dug a really deep hole here. It is odd to me that everyone else seems to be able to follow what was origninally stated with ease except you. That should tell you something. Maybe if you hadn’t been so confrontational to start with (and continuing through each post) you might get a little respect.
Can I echo Ronnie here and say that Mark simply did not like the answer he was given therefore that is why he ignored it?
And I mean really Mark, stooping to misquoting the Constitution around here is like stepping into a hornets nest. You will be stung and it will be painful.
Observation if I may. Mark seems to react baddly to anyone that has a differning opinion than his and actually presents facts to refute his claims.
Mark, your babbling response to TriggerMama’s complete undressing of your previous post is just plain sad. And your sophomoric responses to others that present you with information, opinions and even hillarious mockeries of the logical extention of your statements is even worse.
I think I tend to agree with you Sham
Ok. Nevermind. You ARE overzealous religious nut jobs. I cannot argue with idiots. It just brings me down to their level.
Red Tornado said: “There is no ‘right to be aborted’.”
If there is, then we’ve all had our rights to be aborted infringed! I demand reparations!
Just remember that this article is about the UK, not the United States. Although I posted it as a warning as to what the response can be if an oppressive and over reaching state should decide to interfere. So make sure to keep issues about things like the 14th Amendment to places where it is relevant like Ron did with regards to Marks own opinions about the difference between states and fed.
Truddi, it would be more correct to say “He’s found the hill on which he is willing to let other people be murdered” … or so it seems
Ok Mark that is quite enough.
I find it laughable that you make the comment “I have complete respect for Mr. Jackson.” and expect to be taken seriously when your response to your blatant misquote of the 14th Amendment is to call those that pointed it out to you “idiots”.
If you had respect for me you wouldn’t be bringing that sort of trash to my site. Nor would you misrepresent what the Nanny State is in your first post in this thread in order to pick a fight.
I think it is sad that you have resorted to such a fairly typical line of attacking people who are correcting your misconceptions and confronting you about basic truths.
You have completely ignored anyone that has put facts before you and when that hasn’t worked you have resorted to bold faced lies.
The intelligence level of the regulars that frequent this site is not even questionable. So get over yourself.
Well put Jeff. Well put.
I find it amuzing that Mark’s opinions are so shallow and that he resorts to the lamest of the lame brain tactics to try and save face by denouncing anyone that isn’t in line with his bizzare thinking “idiots”.
Good thing idiocy isn’t contageous. Because if it was, Mark would have infected us all.
OOHRAH!
“You ARE overzealous religious nut jobs.” Comment by Mark
ROFLMAO! Is that the best response you have to being shown that your claims about what the 14th Amendment says are false?
You are just a “nut job”. Always count on an open-minded liberal fool to fall apart when confronted with the facts. Everyone watch your step. His brains fell out and the floor is slippery!
Wow Mark, you are all over the place and ended your journey in the shallowness of your own mind.
I wonder if this outburst from Mark is a desperate cry for help? Seriously!
Come on Mark. You were wrong. Get over it! If you can’t deal with it take your tantrum somewhere else.
Like Jeff says, keep them talking long enough and they always expose themselves.
Markl said: “The just concieved egg you keep referring to is not yet “life”, as you keep saying. It is potential life.”
Inncorrect. Ever take (much less pass) a biology course? Life is defined as something that has the following characteristics: Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli and Reproduction. Guess what! That fertilized egg possesses all of those. Any other lies you want to tell?