Seriously?So you recommend doing away with empathy?The only folks who should be outraged are those who are female or have female relatives or friends.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Seriously?So you recommend doing away with empathy?The only folks who should be outraged are those who are female or have female relatives or friends.
I've seen proposals that do not. And, clearly, Malta does not have that exception.
Of course any state will have its own language. This is an excerpt of what I meant:
Abortion restrictions are now more likely to contain extremely narrow exemptions to save the lives of pregnant people, severe criminal penalties for providers and to lack exemptions for rape and incest.
That puts doctors in the position of trying to interpret legislation that is often extremely narrow. In one recent example, an Oklahoma abortion ban makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. In addition, medical exemptions for the procedure are exceedingly narrow.
An abortion can be legally performed only in the event the medical emergency “cannot be remedied by the delivery of the child”. “Medical emergency” is strictly defined as when a threat to a person’s life “by a physical disorder, physical illness or physical injury including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself”.
‘A severe chilling effect’: abortion bans will inhibit doctors’ advice to patients, experts fear
There may be language of exceptions, but if the language is narrow and doctors may be prosecuted even if later found not guilty it is a risk they don't want to take. We see the far right is not very tolerant or reasonable in how they approach the abortion issue. Do doctors have a reason to trust the far right if they do reasonable medical tasks the far right thinks is immoral?
WooooshSo you recommend doing away with empathy?
Oops, I think you're right. Bad (or hasty) reading on my part.You responded to, "The only folks who should be outraged are those who are female or have female relatives or friends." I thought that he was being sarcastic. Didn't he just name everybody?
I apologize, I may have read your thought incorrectly.Seriously?
Empathy should be kept in moderation...for those who have it.So you recommend doing away with empathy?
It's easy for we non-doctors to speculate about how actual doctors react to these laws, especially when they face serious threats for even necessary procedures. We can afford to look at these topics abstractly and causally. But you put yourself in their shoes. If you were a doctor, with a job and family, and you have reason to distrust the far right who are in positions of legal authority and may decide your judgment and treatment violated the law, and you face indictment. That means arrest. That means you'd likely lose your job. That means you'd have to hire a lawyer and looking at $100K in legal fees, and the time spent in court. Would you want to face that in your life?The chilling effect of abortion bans is certainly a legitimate concern. However, the tiny percentage of abortions performed due to medical emergencies are unlikely to be targeted for legal action. Doctors assess medical conditions and determine whether they are emergent/life-threatening all the time.
Legal action would be much more likely in other circumstances, especially if medical offices give patient advice on how to access abortions outside the state, etc.
You have not been paying attention. That was in another country where even those protections are gone.So you wholeheartedly accept the premise that only an abortion can save the woman but summarily reject the possibility that anti-abortion laws have exceptions for such cases.
I knew that. But this was posted in the North American forum and the woman is a US citizen. Therefore the discussion is not limited to Maltese law alone.You have not been paying attention. That was in another country where even those protections are gone.
I agree. an American citizen has lost some of her rights and now her life is threatened. Not too far from what the anti-abortionists in the US seem to want.I knew that. But this was posted in the North American forum and the woman is a US citizen. Therefore the discussion is not limited to Maltese law alone.
It's easy for we non-doctors to speculate about how actual doctors react to these laws, especially when they face serious threats for even necessary procedures. We can afford to look at these topics abstractly and causally. But you put yourself in their shoes. If you were a doctor, with a job and family, and you have reason to distrust the far right who are in positions of legal authority and may decide your judgment and treatment violated the law, and you face indictment. That means arrest. That means you'd likely lose your job. That means you'd have to hire a lawyer and looking at $100K in legal fees, and the time spent in court. Would you want to face that in your life?
That fear is what some doctors are expressing. And they are compromising care for patients because they fear the far right in authority.