8 ms·

It is indeed legal, but gynaecologists can object to help for conscientious reasons (65% do) and in quite a few hospitals, 100% do object, especially in the sou

It is indeed legal, but gynaecologists can object to help for conscientious reasons (65% do) and in quite a few hospitals, 100% do object, especially in the south. So in practice access to it is not always that easy.

altern8 2mo ago
That's because they don't want to get sued. So, you think the government should force doctors to perform abortions, like putting them in jail if they don't want to do it?
- lelanthran 2mo ago
  I don't think GP was making that argument (well, I didn't read it that way). He's just saying that access may not be easy. [EDIT: I see GP did reply to parent, and he apparently was making that asinine argument :-/ Oh well, at least I interpreted original GP comment charitably]
  - gpderetta 2mo ago
    of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed).
    - lelanthran 2mo ago
      > of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed). I agree, they should! But what do you do if your society just does not have enough people (nevermind doctors) who share the beliefs of pro-choicers? At the point where you cannot find enough people to carry out an order for one side of an issue, it's a signal that the society itself has already taken a stand on the issue.
- gpderetta 2mo ago
  how's that different from any other medical procedure?
- realo 2mo ago
  Jail? No. Big fine? Of course.
lelanthran 2mo ago
> So in practice access to it is not always that easy. Understood, but the solution cannot be "allow prescription drugs to be sold online". If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.
- altern8 2mo ago
  Sure, but access is easy enough. Not worse than anything else than the government does. Much better than--let's say--getting an MRI. Looks like this thread has gotten the attention of weird activists that want to find injustice everywhere and jump to conclusion--as long as the conclusion is women oppressed and censored.
- gpderetta 2mo ago
  Agree about that. The question is whether all websites providing black-market potentially generous medications are being targeted or specifically just abortion pills. I genuinely do not know, this might be making the news but actually be part of a wide blockage.
- loup-vaillant 2mo ago
  > If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret, including from the family, especially if she’s underage. I don’t think that’s the direction they’re headed though. I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
    > Indeed, access must be made easy. That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy. > I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible. I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice must be totally theirs to make, not the states. I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.

altern8 2mo ago

That's because they don't want to get sued. So, you think the government should force doctors to perform abortions, like putting them in jail if they don't want to do it?

lelanthran 2mo ago
I don't think GP was making that argument (well, I didn't read it that way). He's just saying that access may not be easy. [EDIT: I see GP did reply to parent, and he apparently was making that asinine argument :-/ Oh well, at least I interpreted original GP comment charitably]
- gpderetta 2mo ago
  of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed).
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
    > of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed). I agree, they should! But what do you do if your society just does not have enough people (nevermind doctors) who share the beliefs of pro-choicers? At the point where you cannot find enough people to carry out an order for one side of an issue, it's a signal that the society itself has already taken a stand on the issue.
gpderetta 2mo ago
how's that different from any other medical procedure?
realo 2mo ago
Jail? No. Big fine? Of course.

lelanthran 2mo ago

> So in practice access to it is not always that easy. Understood, but the solution cannot be "allow prescription drugs to be sold online". If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.

altern8 2mo ago
Sure, but access is easy enough. Not worse than anything else than the government does. Much better than--let's say--getting an MRI. Looks like this thread has gotten the attention of weird activists that want to find injustice everywhere and jump to conclusion--as long as the conclusion is women oppressed and censored.
gpderetta 2mo ago
Agree about that. The question is whether all websites providing black-market potentially generous medications are being targeted or specifically just abortion pills. I genuinely do not know, this might be making the news but actually be part of a wide blockage.
loup-vaillant 2mo ago
> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret, including from the family, especially if she’s underage. I don’t think that’s the direction they’re headed though. I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.
- lelanthran 2mo ago
  > Indeed, access must be made easy. That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy. > I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible. I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice must be totally theirs to make, not the states. I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.