Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web and Women Help Women

Should doctors be forced to perform <P:procedure> they don't ~~condone~~[A:believe is medically safe and appropriate for a diagnosis|B:wish to support or endorse on non-medical grounds].

To me, and for most reasonable people I've properly been able to have a conversation with on this subject, the answer is universally an emphatic NO for the vast majority of possible procedures P, in both cases A and B. However, where things diverge is that most people believe there should be consequences for the doctor refusing on grounds B to perform a procedure other doctors would consider to fit the criteria of A, for virtually every P I've thought of. These consequences typically include removal of their license to practice medicine, and may include civil or criminal penalties in egregious cases where a doctor might claim religious objection to something like CPR in a situation where they were the only doctor working at an ER and the CPR was clearly medically necessary, for example.

No person should be forced to perform actions they don't condone.

But there is no unalienable right to be a doctor. If someone wants to be a doctor and not perform health care procedures, then that's not compatible with being that kind of doctor.

They are entirely free to switch careers to do something else.

Not really true. They've been repeatedly shown in studies to be safe for home use. They're evaluating packaging and instructions for possible OTC sale in the the future:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...

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.

The only way is to make access easy. If you make it hard, then demand for black market drugs will drive supply. Which in turn would drive a repressive machine. Sites blocked, people convicted and so on.

I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.

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.

[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]

Big fine? Of course.

Another easy one: the US has legalized political bribery to a degree that would (and has) landed many European politicians in prison for years.

But I would add, I don't think we can define a person as anything other than a genetically distinct individual of the species Homo sapiens. If a definition were to be proposed not on the basis of what something is, but rather how it functions, where it exists, or its level of dependence on other persons, then personhood ceases to be an inherent property and becomes a conditional privilege. And historically, whenever society has tried to separate biological human status from legal 'personhood,' it has paved the way for dehumanization and injustice.

To preserve human equality, personhood must be tied strictly to objective biological reality.