Why would you not want a law prohibiting abortifacient birth control (all hormonal contraceptives and IUDs)? Shouldn't murder always be illegal?

Yes, all abortifacient should be illegal, I would support laws to enforce that. The question poised was different:

So let's ask this, Roger: would you support a law making it illegal to have sex outside of marriage? How about a law making birth control illegal for those that are not married? For those that are married?

To which I responded:

The answers are: No, No and No

Not all birth control acts as an abortifacient.

While I would never use birth control, considering it a sin, I would not want to enforce laws to outlaw all "sin". God gave us free will to love him or not.

And for those who have a hard time with me calling it a "sin", a "sin" is just when you do not follow God's way.

On prior blog post some of the reasoning for this mindset (contraception being against God's ways) has been presented, but it's probably too much for this blog post, and although I know some, I don't know if I'm fully capable of explaining well.

God Bless,
Roger

Karen K said a baby can feel pain at 8 weeks, not 4 weeks as you misstated.

KarenK,
I went back and re-read the post. My apologies. You did say 8 weeks. It was not my intention to misrepresent what you had said. However, I do stand by my post in response.

First, Karen K said a baby can feel pain at 8 weeks, not 4 weeks as you misstated.

Next, you still do not understand the significance of the research I presented. So, one more time: It does not matter whether or not the research was done in fetal animals. The point is, that the sophisticated brain structure that you insist is necessary for pain perception is not truly necessary for a being to feel pain. My research says that you cannot conclude that animals with smaller PFCs feel less pain. You cannot also conclude that PFCs are necessary to feel pain, as the lobotomized patients demonstrate. Therefore, you cannot conclude, as your research suggests to you (though the wording is tricky), that preborn babies cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.

I did not give a timetable for pain. Noone knows for sure. Therefore, we must err on the side of caution. It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that when the nervous system is capable of directing coordinated movement (e.g., swimming, kicking, thumb sucking in utero–much of which occurs before 8 weeks), it may also be capable of sensing pain.

And, unfortunately, you appear to have the "Doctor-as-god" syndrome. You believe that because someone has letters after his name, he is somehow better and smarter than the rest of us, with an omniscience suddenly conferred by those letters. I'll let you in on a secret: doctors are not gods. Those letters don't give them complete knowledge of the universe, or even the human body. Some doctors even have trouble with common sense. I know. I've seen it. I've seen college students headed for med school who could spit back passages from textbooks verbatim, yet could not think their way out of a paper bag. That's one of the reasons I decided not to go into medicine. I thought I could be of better service going into education to teach people how to THINK.

A U of C researcher who can think rationally would not so readily dismiss the research that points to a possible abortion/breast cancer link. I've got news for you: There is research to back both sides of the issue. None is flawless. All have critics. Therefore, a rational scientist will say there is doubt. The latest study that predicts breast cancer rates based on abortion rates has not yet garnered any substantial criticism. Some complain that the journal it was published in is biased to the pro-life position. But I have yet to find a criticism of his methodology. And I've looked, because the study comes from a statistician, and I have not had any courses in statistics. So I was looking for criticism from statisticians, but have found none–yet. But it is new research, and any scientist should know that time will be the test–time, and additional research.

The purported mechanism of an ABC link is certainly plausible.

Don't underestimate the knowledge, intelligence, and acumen of a competent mom.

While I agree that many times things do go off topic, it appears ok for the long, rambling Bible quotes as long as they support your view. When using Bible quotes that do not support your view (and are in direct contradiction to the ones being posted by others) they are censored — even if they are in direct relation to a previous post.

As the owner of the board you can, obviously, censor anything you wish. But let's please call it for what it is.

Your posts where not removed for the bible verses, but for you comments about those verses. If you are really interested in answers to the questions you posed, please use the forum.

God Bless,
Roger

Good discussion though. Student, and I ask this with no agenda, I'm not sure where I stand 1000%, does medical training put a moral obligation on a person to provide medical treatment? Under what circumstances? If it is a moral obligation where do they get off charging money for it?

I am not sure where I stand on this either. I would hate for someone to be having a heart attack and have a qualified physician stand by and not administer assistance. Are doctors required to do pro bono work like lawyers are? If not, why not? Certainly, they have a right to be compensated to some degree so they can pay off their education and pay their bills. Then there is the HUGE issue of medical malpractice insurance.

For example, I would not expect a dermatologist to provide treatment of a heart condition past immediate care needs. But could I reasonably expect a dermatologist to offer a diagnosis of skin cancer outside the office if they notice it? How does *that* get compensated? I would hate for them to allow a galloping melanoma (which can kill within a day) go untreated.

If a doctor has a religious objection to blood transfusions, can they reasonably expect to be an open heart surgeon? If a doctor refuses treatment with a blood transfusion where it is seen as 'medically necessary' based on such an objection, is that a basis for malpractice? My offhand bias is yes.

Likewise, does owning a pharmacy put a moral obligation on a person to dispense any medicine in the world? What if someone has a legitimate prescription from a doctor for pain killers, but the pharmacist can tell the person is obviously addicted to them? Doesn't he have a moral obligation not to give them to him? What if someone believes with all their heart that giving the pill to a girl will harm her? Should he be forced to dispense medication he believes will harm a person?

It's not clear to me where the breakdown of responsibility is between the doctor prescribing and the pharmacist delivering. If the pharmacist suspects a problem, I could easily see having a professional responsibility to discuss it with the doctor before filling the prescription. If the doctor insists after being informed, is the pharmacist relieved of responsibility? What if the patient is getting medications from several different doctors?

Clearly, a pharmacist can't be required to have *every* medication on the planet. But if they *can* get one required by a patient, do they have a responsibility to do so, or at least to provide a referral? I would tend to say yes. That is part of their job. Again, what do you expect when you become a pharmacist?

Lots of interesting questions. I might just start another thread on this.

Sounds like a good idea. Lots and lots of good questions with no clear answers.