"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4226doF1gbj1cU1@individual.net...

"UK Ministry of St Luke" <rev+2@ukministry.org> wrote in message
news:p-ydnXwild8r6ybeRVn-pg@giganews.com...

"Joseph Hertzlinger"
<jcyclespersecondlongisland@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote in message
news:4qJuf.4475$M%4.655@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

On 3 Jan 2006 12:13:18 -0800, words of truth <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:

A European Union advisory panel has issued a statement saying that
medical professionals are not allowed to refuse to participate in
abortions. According to the EU Network of Independent Experts on
Fundamental Rights doctors should be forced to perform abortions, even
if they have conscientious objections, because the right to abort a
child is an "international human right."

Whatever happened to the idea that if you don't like abortion, you
don't have to be involved?

Is this an example of "an abortion should be between a woman, her
doctor, and a politician"?

What about the rights of the Father in all of this?

In the UK, women are allowed to abort without the Father's consent.

So are when in the US. Your point?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557

Interesting to know. I thought that the US had rights which apply to both
sexes, not just 'Wimmin'.

Mark Sebree wrote:

bam wrote:

"Joseph Hertzlinger"
<jcyclespersecondlongisland@nine.reticulatedcom.com>
wrote in message
news:4qJuf.4475$M%4.655@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

On 3 Jan 2006 12:13:18 -0800, words of truth <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:

A European Union advisory panel has issued a statement saying that
medical professionals are not allowed to refuse to participate in
abortions. According to the EU Network of Independent Experts on
Fundamental Rights doctors should be forced to perform abortions,
even
if they have conscientious objections, because the right to abort a
child is an "international human right."

Whatever happened to the idea that if you don't like abortion, you
don't have to be involved?

It never was an idea, and is not currently an idea.

Is this an example of "an abortion should be between a woman, her
doctor, and a politician"?

On the other hand, there is a defense of this. You can argue that
when
somebody becomes a doctor, he agrees to perform all medical duties.
Somebody who is not doing a job can be fired (except for union
members).

Deep, man, deep! Like a lawyer can't turn down a case?

Have you ever heard of the Hippocratic oath?

Yes. Doctors are not required to swear this oath, and it is not
considered to be a binding legal oath.

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, AEsculapius, and Health, and All-heal,
and
all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and
judgement, I
will keep this Oath and this stipulation.

TO RECHON him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents,
to
share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required;
to
look up his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to
teach
them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or
stipulation;
and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I
will
impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers,
and
to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according the law of
medicine,
but to none others.

Actively broken these days. since almost every aspect of medicine is
actively made available in medical journals and on the web.

I WILL FOLLOW that system of regimen which, according to my ability and
judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from
whatever is deleterious and mischievous.

Which means help people as they need it. Which means provide women
with abortions.

I will give no deadly medicine to
any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel;

The phrase "deadly medicine" here refers to giving a poison to someone
to end his or her life, as in euthanasia. This is an area where many
doctors over the years have broken this oath, and patients have been
given "the final sleep" by their families as well to end their
suffering.

and in like manner I will
not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

I see only ONE type of abortion proscribed. There is nothing there
that prohibits abortions in general. In fact, Hipocrates wrote about
how to perform a number of abortions in his "On Diseases of Women".

WITH PURITY AND WITH HOLINESS I will pass my life and practice my Art.
I
will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to
be
done by men who are practitioners of this work.

Reference to surgeons.

Into whatever houses I
enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will
abstain
from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from
the
seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves.

Still considered to be an ethical violation, and this one is enforcable
to all physicians because it is not tied to the Hippocratic Oath.

WHATEVER, IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not, in
connection
with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be
spoken of
abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept
secret.

This aspect is enforcable by law, and is in the USA. See the Fourth
Amendment and the HIPPA regulations.

WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me
to
enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all
times!
But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

BAM

Nothing in the oath forbids abortions in general, and only proscribes a
single category of abortions, pessaries. What's more, the Oath
requires aiding the patient, i.e. the woman that is pregnant.

According to this Oath, it sounds like doctors with the requisite
specialities are required to help women get desired abortions, since
refusing to would harm the patient, be deleterious and "mischevious".

I do not see how the Hippocratic Oath is supposed to support your
position, since it shows that doctors should be doing abortions to help
women.

Mark Sebree

Further to that.... I'm pretty sure that no-one actually recites the
oath any more.

Mark Sebree wrote:

bam wrote:

"Joseph Hertzlinger" <jcyclespersecondlongisland@nine.reticulatedcom.com>
wrote in message news:4qJuf.4475$M%4.655@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

On 3 Jan 2006 12:13:18 -0800, words of truth <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:

A European Union advisory panel has issued a statement saying that
medical professionals are not allowed to refuse to participate in
abortions. According to the EU Network of Independent Experts on
Fundamental Rights doctors should be forced to perform abortions, even
if they have conscientious objections, because the right to abort a
child is an "international human right."

Whatever happened to the idea that if you don't like abortion, you
don't have to be involved?

It never was an idea, and is not currently an idea.

Is this an example of "an abortion should be between a woman, her
doctor, and a politician"?

On the other hand, there is a defense of this. You can argue that when
somebody becomes a doctor, he agrees to perform all medical duties.
Somebody who is not doing a job can be fired (except for union
members).

Deep, man, deep! Like a lawyer can't turn down a case?

Have you ever heard of the Hippocratic oath?

Yes. Doctors are not required to swear this oath, and it is not
considered to be a binding legal oath.

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, AEsculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and
all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I
will keep this Oath and this stipulation.

TO RECHON him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to
share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to
look up his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach
them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation;
and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will
impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and
to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according the law of medicine,
but to none others.

Actively broken these days. since almost every aspect of medicine is
actively made available in medical journals and on the web.

I WILL FOLLOW that system of regimen which, according to my ability and
judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from
whatever is deleterious and mischievous.

Which means help people as they need it. Which means provide women
with abortions.

I will give no deadly medicine to
any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel;

The phrase "deadly medicine" here refers to giving a poison to someone
to end his or her life, as in euthanasia. This is an area where many
doctors over the years have broken this oath, and patients have been
given "the final sleep" by their families as well to end their
suffering.

and in like manner I will
not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

I see only ONE type of abortion proscribed. There is nothing there
that prohibits abortions in general. In fact, Hipocrates wrote about
how to perform a number of abortions in his "On Diseases of Women".

WITH PURITY AND WITH HOLINESS I will pass my life and practice my Art. I
will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be
done by men who are practitioners of this work.

Reference to surgeons.

Into whatever houses I
enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain
from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the
seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves.

Still considered to be an ethical violation, and this one is enforcable
to all physicians because it is not tied to the Hippocratic Oath.

WHATEVER, IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not, in connection
with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of
abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept
secret.

This aspect is enforcable by law, and is in the USA. See the Fourth
Amendment and the HIPPA regulations.

WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to
enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times!
But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

BAM

Nothing in the oath forbids abortions in general, and only proscribes a
single category of abortions, pessaries. What's more, the Oath
requires aiding the patient, i.e. the woman that is pregnant.

According to this Oath, it sounds like doctors with the requisite
specialities are required to help women get desired abortions, since
refusing to would harm the patient, be deleterious and "mischevious".

I do not see how the Hippocratic Oath is supposed to support your
position, since it shows that doctors should be doing abortions to help
women.

Mark Sebree

Further to that.... I'm pretty sure that no-one actually recites the
oath any more.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:59:13 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

Dubh Ghall wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 21:06:49 -0000, "UK Ministry of St Luke"
<rev+2@ukministry.org> wrote:

[...]

A European Union advisory panel has issued a statement saying that
medical professionals are not allowed to refuse to participate in
abortions.

[...]

What about an individuals right of consicence?

What about the employer's/government's, right, to expect you to do the job you
are paid for.

If you do not want to perform abortions, then do not work for a an agency that
will require it of you.

In "Socialist" countries there aren't enough citizens off the dole to
provide for a robust independent medical profession.

Relevance?

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 19:40:43 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1crlr19cstovolbessiifctjfo7h1nggom@4ax.com...

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 21:06:49 -0000, "UK Ministry of St Luke"
<rev+2@ukministry.org> wrote:

[...]

A European Union advisory panel has issued a statement saying that
medical professionals are not allowed to refuse to participate in
abortions.

[...]

What about an individuals right of consicence?

They don't have one. It's like refusing to perform an appendectomy.
They have no say in the matter. The patient is the important one.

When were you born?

What's that got to do with it? If they're not prepared to do the
jobthey were employed to do then they lose it.