What are the motives of abortion doctors? Should these affect the abortion debate?

Oh, Source was supreme court.gov

 

^oh well that will be so easy to dig out^

A link please or something more specific to find this source.

 

None of us are qualified to speak for their thoughts, but we do know that women will seek their services. Since abortion laws cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society, these doctors provide the safest way for women to have this procedure.

 

I think it should only affect the debate insofar as how it relates to what type of abortions the doctors are performing, and the situations in which they are doing so.

I think my comment there really sort of has to be seen within the context of the original thread and what someone else brought up.

I was responding to Fox Hasting's statement:

I wasn't really claiming this was relevant, per se, but was holding it up as relevant if Fox Hasting's argument was relevant.

Sometimes you can raise an argument not because you believe it stands as valid on its own, but because it stands as a counter to an argument of your adversary in debate. Fox Hasting's comment wasn't really relevant, but I was arguing that if it was, then this other argument would be relevant as well, so it was kind of like a counter.

I know that may be a little complicated, but I hope that makes sense.

In other words, I concede that the feelings of abortion doctors are not relevant, so long as the reader is willing to concede that "pro-lifers treating women like cows" is not relevant. I mean you can't claim that the motivations from one side are relevant but not the other side.

 

I don't think abortion doctors are really "richer than other doctors", but there is a reason that they exist.
Abortion is an easy field for a doctor to get into, it doesn't require too much training, and getting that training is not competitive. And it is a lucrative field and the doctors can pretty much crank out money as fast as they can do abortions, so there is a lot of money if the doctors can get a big customer base and do a lot of work.

There was another video I posted some time back where one of them mentioned the stereotypes associated with people in their field. Like that they couldn't cut it in another residency training program, or the doctor previously had something else bad in their history holding them back and they didn't have many other options.

 

As usual, never saw any evidence of this...no proof, no stats, the usual nothing.

They are either doctors or they aren't....


Now, what TF does this have to do with abortion....are you going to question the motives of people who live in the same city as abortion clinics?

Question the janitor at the local clinic and his "evil" motives???

How about that "Receptionist With a Secret Agenda " ?

 

thanks for the timely response kaze!

maybe there are some questions of medical ethics in late-term abortions, sure, i can concede that.

if the comment only works in the context of the thread in which it was posted, why suggest making another?

kay. fair enough.

well yeah, if i'm being honest it is a bit hard to wrap my stupid girl brain around all this, but i'm sure trying my best, sir!

mhm, but abortion doctors and the whole pro-life movement are not equivalent. the pro-life analogue would more accurately be a crisis pregnancy center worker. so you could make the argument that crisis pregnancy center workers genuinely care about the women they convince to not abort, or you could make the argument that pro-choicers have just as misogynistic and dehumanizing of views as pro-lifers. but the argument you decided to pose is neither of those. it's completely misplaced even within the context you so desperately want it to be given.

 

Why not? If pro-lifers have less than noble motives, and you think that matters, then why would it not also matter if abortion doctors had less than noble motives?

That was really the only point I was trying to get across.

Look, I totally understand what you mean and are trying to say, but I disagree that it has to be a direct comparison.
Why wouldn't my point still be valid?

But I suppose if we really wanted to try to analyze this logically, we'd have to go to what you were saying, which is trying to answer the question why exactly do motives matter, and if they do.

(i.e. if pro-lifers really were a bunch of terrible people, how would that actually matter? And why would that matter any more than if abortion doctors were not acting out of good motives?)

 

Why?

Motives are meaningless and don't matter as long as women retain their rights....

 

pro-lifers treating women like animals is something inherent to their ideology (or at least can be argued to be). the point is that the devaluation of women in comparison to fetuses is inseparable from the idea of preventing women from having access to abortion. that's something that's extremely relevant when you're talking about the merits of pro-life beliefs. whereas i don't think anyone here is saying every abortion doctor has greedy motives; that's not a prerequisite to being an abortion doctor in the same way as having and exercising dehumanizing views of women is to being pro-life, nor does it have any real implications for the merits of pro-choice politics because it applies only to medicine. (and it may impact your trust of claims of medical safety and efficacy of some procedures, but that's not really particular to abortions, that applies to pretty much any medical procedure).

because you're comparing apples to oranges. you can try to make a point out of it but it won't have any real substance because you're looking at two totally different things.

the point isn't that pro-life beliefs are wrong because its adherents are terrible people or misogynists or whatever. i mean, maybe that's what fox hastings is saying. his wording could lend itself to that interpretation, or it could just be poorly-stated. but that's not my point or that of feminists in the wider context of the abortion debate. the point, rather, is that that misogyny is directly reflected by pro-life ideology and practice; i.e., pro-life beliefs are not merely held by misogynists, they are misogyny.

contrast this to other beliefs held by misogynists whose merits can be recognized by the same people who oppose pro-life ideology because they do not inherently require misogyny. catharine mackinnon, one of the more influential feminist scholars of our time, harshly criticizes engels for his misogyny, but still acknowledges the broad validity of the marxist theory he espoused (if not some of the details). illegitimate motives are only an issue when they are requisite to a belief system.

pretty sure i addressed this at the start so not gonna beat a dead horse

 

More projection. Stupid projection at that.

 

Interesting.

Please tell us how you yourself continue to exist without murdering life.

 

Not wanting women (or men) to be murdered is "treating women like animals"?
??????????????????

 

in particular, sows or cows. the idea central to pro-life ideology is that women's bodily autonomy exists only to a point, only if men can still breed; she is ultimately destined for reproduction and is therefore worth less than the offspring, her needs less important than the whims of the male.

 

Yours does too. Everyone's does. That "point" is the point where you exercising your autonomy will end my (or anyone else's) life.

 

you want to pretend that stabbing someone is the same thing as removing an organism from inside of your own body, be my guest. very embarrassing, though

 

Most People distinguish between certain life forms. Some don't respect animals, so they buy battery eggs or meat from slaughterhouses. Some other humans don't even respect their own species, so they want women to abandon their unborn babies.

We live in a shattered world. Let's make the best of it.

 

oh, are you a vegetarian?

 

Why would anyone want to bring a kid into a "shattered world" ?

 

Doctors who work in abortion clinics have not only had to deal with constant harassment and death threats...some of them have been MURDERED by those opposed to women's reproductive rights.

It is utterly DELUSIONAL to believe that those compassionate doctors are doing it only for the money.

Yes, they deserve to earn a decent income but it is ABSURD to believe that they would be willing to risk their lives to do so for the same income that they could earn elsewhere in their profession WITHOUT that risk.

 

Our kids can make a difference. They correct what we did wrong. Any unborn child can be the ultimate savior.

 

Respect for your species, in the way that human beings understand it, means respecting the autonomy of an individual to make their own choices. That's what abortion is. A choice being made by an individual about themselves and their bodies. I get that anti-abortionists think of a fetus in the same way they think of a born child, and that will always be a point of disagreement, but it has nothing to do with respect, or the lack thereof. There's no right answer here, because both the pro-choice and anti-abortion movements rely on a relative interpretation about the sanctity of life. There are no creatures in the animal kingdom that can exist without consuming life in one form or another. Therefore even our own existence is predicated upon the murder of other life to sustain our own. We need to survive so very few people have a problem with that, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes the sanctity of life a relative thing, not an absolute thing.

 

so far the billions of people on earth who were in fact once fetuses don't seem to be succeeding at that

 

LOL, we've had about 10,000 years of "our children correcting what their parents did wrong""....GEE, the world should be perfect by now!

You're the one who said , "We live in a shattered world."


Any child can be a mass murderer....so let's stop having them ...

AND, again, NO one is obligated to provide children and this is Off Topic.....

Topic:What are the motives of abortion doctors? Should these affect the abortion debate?

 

10,000 years aren't enough. "Keep on going on" is the magical formula of evolution.
We're all part of it. You might hate and deny reality, but you can't escape.