Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (229402)	4/15/2005 5:20:47 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576601

Doctors take an oath to first do no harm. It is the belief on many (often but not always for religious reasons) that abortion an act of harm against the fetus. It is a fact that "the morning after pill" often works not by preventing conception but destroying the life that was created by that conception. And in fact the original form of the oath, still used by many doctors says "...I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy..." As for the law - It is not generally speaking the law that a doctor most pick any treatment that a patient wants, the doctor may prefer to treat a situation a different way and normally the law will not compel what treatment he uses. It is also not generally the law that a doctor must perform an abortion. In any case this particular controversy was about a proposed changed in the law in one state, so saying "the doctor must do this, it is "the LAW", is a pretty irrelevant statement. The fact that something is the law doesn't mean that law should not be changed, nor of course does it mean the law should be changed. It is not itself directly relevant to the question of changing the law. Tim