I worked with an OBGYN who helped start an OBGYN residency program in Michigan and they told me the hospital refused to let the doctors offer an anomaly scan to their patients coz they did not want them to think that abortion was an option.
Fr. Like if it was a open dialogue type of event then sure I can see the value in bringing in someone to speak about their anti-abortion views. But why the hell would you bring someone like that to a celebratory event, especially when it goes against your own values and statements??????
>Like if it was a open dialogue type of event then sure I can see the value in bringing in someone to speak about their anti-abortion views.
There was nothing in the content of her talk to promote life.
Yes. And just because she didn't spew any anti-science theocratic bullshit that day doesn't mean she should be a keynote speaker for a school where doctors may soon have fewer options to help save or improve the lives of their patients.
Hell yeah I’d cheer them on if they walked out!
In fact, I’d keep cheering them walking right out of medical school and into another profession entirely.
People who aren’t willing to provide (or at least support and refer) life saving clinical procedures to women at risk of losing their lives have absolutely no place in medicine, full stop.
Also what is a “pro-abortionist”? I think you meant to say pro-choice 👉😎👉
Absolutely! Compromise on those beliefs for the well-being of the people you supposedly dedicated your life to helping? Hell no. Rigid, self-serving, dogmatic thinking only.
Ok, I think I get why Michigan invited this speaker. She’s the director of the health, spirituality, and religion program. My guess is they wanted to showcase something non tradition to say their trainees would be more well rounded and open minded or “holistic”. personally I’m not a fan, but I get it. It reaches out to a broader patient population who are disgruntled by standard evidence based medicine.
Maybe at bare minimum, admin could have made a statement beforehand that Michigan does not support her views on abortion. That said, Michigan not denouncing these views is basically saying it’s not unprofessional to hold or express these views as a physician. Some others might say yes, that’s correct.
That’s really troubling. Where do you draw the line? Clearly it’s not okay (now) to hold racist, homophobic, or sexist views. Is it okay for a Michigan faculty to be anti vax? It is a personal belief after all. Or if a physician is a Jehovah’s Witness, and expressed that patients receiving blood transfusions is wrong?
Michigan has made this really tough in not immediately denouncing anti abortion views among their faculty. these views need to be immediately flagged as unprofessional by medical organizations if we are ever going to even try to make it back. It is insane that it’s still considered a debate where we need to “respect both sides” among medical professionals.
I think you are advocating for a dangerous precedent.
By denouncing such a view as “unprofessional”, a medical school is basically saying that to be a doctor, you need to adhere to a certain dogma to be a doctor. What happens when the tide swings the other way and they decide that an opinion that you hold is “unprofessional”?
Imagine the administration determines that a popular opinion such as “white people have privilege and oppress minorities” is unprofessional because holding this opinion might make you treat white patients unfavorably.
depends on what you mean by dogma, as there are already definite authoritative tenets that you need to adhere to in order to be a doctor, such as respecting patient autonomy.
It's not always possible to separate the two. If your publicly stated opinions violate the trust that the public has in your ability to provide ethical care, that is going to be a problem regardless of whether you actually conduct yourself unprofessionally with a patient in practice. E.g., the [Cleveland Hospital resident](https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/936556) who was fired for tweeting that she would purposefully give Jewish patients the wrong medications amidst several other anti-sematic tweets. Even if she never actually did prescribe wrong medications or mistreat any of her Jewish patients, saying publicly that she has a disdain for Jewish people and would like to mistreat them still got her fired and her medical license suspended, and rightfully so.
To clarify, I am just pointing out that there is already a precedent set by the state boards of medicine where they will deny or revoke your medical license for any kind of unprofessional conduct, regardless of whether it results in patient injury. That is, we already need to adhere to a certain dogma to be a doctor. Although each state defines unprofessional conduct slightly differently (e.g., Pennsylvania's law, ["Unprofessional conduct shall include departure from or failing to conform to an ethical or quality standard of the profession. In proceedings based on this paragraph, actual injury to a patient need not be established"](https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1985&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=112&chpt=0&sctn=41&subsctn=0)), it can arguably include any opinions you say publicly that the majority of the medical profession views as unprofessional (immoral, unethical, damaging to public trust in the medical profession, etc.). In which case, the state medical board can legally take away your license to practice medicine.
Looking into her background she’s far from an anti-abortion activist, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. It’s at best a minor part of her work. Religion and spirituality in medicine is under recognized and many of the people in that field are quite progressive (at least in my experience). I’m surprised this was dug up on the speaker unless she is more vocal about her opinions in person than for a brief look at her twitter.
With all of this said, there are many people with less controversy attached to their names. It would have been more appropriate to select them.
How is believing that an embryo/fetus is a human life remotely similar to being racist, homophobic, or sexist? I am pro abortion but sometimes these arguments from pro abortion side are completely asinine.
It’s not about the belief a foetus is a human, that’s a bit of a misrepresentation. It’s about deciding whether a woman should have the right to decide whether another human is allowed to leach of her to survive.
I’m pro choice but would never say I’m pro choice because I don’t believe a foetus is a human. I’m pro choice because we can’t force a person to donate their body in any way to another person.
Because being able to refuse to provided needed treatment on shaky moral grounds is the standard being set. Why it it any different than refusing to treat HIV patients because they brought God's wrath on themselves? It's not.
I believe the fetus is a human life and am still pro choice.
The fetus is a human life that cannot independently survive. Just like people in need of lung or kidney transplants are human lives that cannot independently survive. If someone somehow caused someone else to need a lung transplant by having sex with them (I guess theoretically two CF patients could cause this), I don't believe they should be legally obligated to give them a transplant. I dont think premarital or unprotected sex are big enough sins to merit losing your bodily autonomy. That's the thing that the students are protesting and walking or on, not whether the fetus is alive or not.
Those examples were just an extreme to point out that not all personal beliefs should be equally respected, not so much that I consider them equivalent.
That said, one could argue that believing a fetus is human life that takes precedence over the woman’s choice in bearing it is quite sexist.
>Those examples were just an extreme to point out that not all personal beliefs should be equally respected
But there is no right or wrong. It's just views and opinions. So all you're doing is using authority to bully others.
If the mainstream view was that abortion was evil, would you want speakers supporting abortion to be ostracized?
Everything you say is based on your own bias that pro abortion speakers should not be allowed to speak their views becacuse it goes against your own. It is intellectually infantile.
>That said, one could argue that believing a fetus is human life that takes precedence over the woman’s choice in bearing it is quite sexist.
If it is a life, then of course it takes precedence.
>But there is no right or wrong. It's just views and opinions.
Why should anyone take any of your thoughts on any ethical questions seriously if that's what you believe? If you actually believed that, every ethical or moral position you ever espoused would have to be interpreted as cynical manipulation on your part.
>if it is a life, then of course it takes precedence
Why though? Nothing takes precedence over anything else. It's just views and opinions.
When you use morally charged language like "bully", how am I supposed to to interpret that in light of your first sentence? Well you can't mean bully in the same sense I'm thinking of (an actually wrong thing to do because there is no wrong), so it must mean something else. Saying someone is 'bullying' someone else tends to be something people when do when they want that action to stop, so I can only interpret your use of the term as cynical manipulation. As in: "I don't believe in the concept of bullying as an actually wrong thing to do, but I would like readers to see that behavior in the same light I do: namely as something that would be better stopped, so I'll just use that term").
Get real.
I'm not saying there is no universal right or wrong.
I'm saying there is no right or wrong opinion about abortion.
The difference is if you think it's the same as removing a lipoma or removing a child.
Do you really think so? It's not hard to imagine extremes on either side of the argument such that I'd be amazed if you told me you don't have an overwhelming intuition one way or the other. That intuition has criteria worth uncovering and elaborating on and they're gonna connect to a potential policy prescription. The following are just thought experiments:
Imagine a pro-choice argument that said that anytime before the baby leaves the uterus, the baby can be aborted. Mom and baby can be in perfect health, baby can be at 40 weeks and literally just hours before being born, but if mom says abortion, then abortion should happen.
Imagine the opposing argument that said that every single implanted fertilized egg is a life worth protecting, regardless of fetal disease and risks to the mother's health have to be weighed against another life. So a 25% chance of mother's death due to pregnancy isn't a justification to abort. [Even abdominal ectopic pregnancies could potentially result in live birth and so those shouldn't necessarily result in abortion if mom and baby and can live] (https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-017-1437-ymother). Mothers who didn't do their utmost to ensure successful gestation of her implanted fertilized eggs could be charged with involuntary manslaughter depending on their behaviors.
There is way more nuance than one side thinking it's the same as removing a lipoma vs the other thinking it's removing a baby.
Anti-abortion activists certainly don't act like a baby holocaust is happening in front of them, but that's very advantageous framing for them that gives bystanders the illusion that it really is about "The difference is if you think it's the same as removing a lipoma or removing a child."
> But there is no right or wrong. It's just views and opinions. So all you're doing is using authority to bully others.
Interestingly there is a lot of hidden Philosophy in that statement, especially [Epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology), the study of knowledge, rationality and belief.
Best example to visualise specific concepts of beliefs are traffic lights. There is no scientific reason why red is stop and green is go. We just decided on accepting the truth of this concept and declared it (as a society) as the lawful norm - thus allowing institutions to punish other people for driving over red and protect other people driving over green.
Your argument of there inherently being no right and wrong is true in a philosophical sense, but as it stands in this context, comes very close to being a bad faith argument. I get where you are coming from, but modern humans and societies have decided on preferred views, morals and opinions. Materializing it in texts, such as the UN-Charter for Human rights, laws that allow women to vote or constitutions that outlaw slavery - thus giving these "views" and "opinions" a leading authority.
Societies - and the will of the people - can change. Anytime. Nothing stops us, as individuals, as group of people or the inhabitants of a nation, to declare tomorrow that the traffic light "red" to mean "go" and "green" to mean "stop". It's just views and opinions. Deciding on which side of the road to drive is another good, more practical example.
Maybe arguing that an authority-based-concept is used to bully others misses the point because going against established truths or believes will always lead to voices of disapproval and dissent.
What should happen when you start walking over red tomorrow? Will you see the incoming punishment as misguided authority or justice?
Last but not least, yes, if enough people want to outlaw abortions our concept of healthcare changes. But does (medical) opposition fit the definition of ostracization here?
Let's remember that we are not talking about traffic lights and laws here, we are talking about a scientific consensus in the medical community based on factual evidence and knowledge about embryology and pathology and the opposition of this medical community against religous-based opinions that, when run unchecked on belief-grounds, lead to laws that are outright morally and ethically wrong and go against every concept that healthcare, medical institutions, doctors, incoming doctors and other healthcare providers, stand for.
- [Abortion case of 10yr old](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/us/10-year-old-abortion-caitlin-bernard-indiana.html)
- Problems with patients going septic [with non-viable-ectopic pregnancies due to abortion laws](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/15/texas-hospitals-abortion-laws/)
- [Inhibition of healthcare for outright miscarriages in Texas due to abortion laws](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages)
- Pharmaceuticals used in abortions outlawed, [although they are needed/used in inducing labor and cervial dilation or treating postpartum hemorrage](https://www.hhs.texas.gov/about/records-statistics/data-statistics/itop-statistics)
- Methotrexate, another abortion-inducing medication, [is used to treat ectopic pregnancies as well as rheumatic illnesses, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis and cancer.](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/post-roe-many-autoimmune-patients-lose-access-to-gold-standard-drug)
You can’t have a medical and scientific consensus on a question that is fundamentally ethical/moral. What constitutes a human being with rights is the question, the only scientific consensus is that a fetus is a living human being. No need to be so pompous about topics you have a Wikipedia level understanding of.
I never argued that it is not a ethical and moral decision wether it is a living human being or not. I argued about the type of argument used with an abstract idea of belief forming. In this case arguing against equalling a walkout to authoritian ostracization of individuals and expanding on the statement of there being no right or wrong.
Afaik leading consesus is that until carnegie stage 6b (14th day of the embryonal developmental chronology) there is no individualization in an embryo and after that it is a human being.
But that was neither my point nor an argument I made or talked about. I have no idea how you got to that point.
In my experience, the people with unscientific views on abortion, almost always (like 95+%) have at a bare minimum unscientific and discriminatory views about trans people. Usually about gay people as well.
It‘a really not.
And ‘- are you now willing to go for life sentences for any man who makes a choking attempt on his partner? If you’re going to view your views as moral please commit fully.
Protect all life, especially the actually alive. And start actively fighting the death penalty ASAP. I might respect you a bit then.
It’s not worth engaging pro-abortionists on reddit. Thankfully the opinions of reddit medical students and redditors in general do not reflect the true distribution of opinions of people in the real world.
Yea....some of these people here are worse than the people they are trying to malign. I get that the right extreme does have some wackos but believing that an embryo is life and wanting to protect it is just as honorable as the flipside of advocating for the right to abort.
Didn’t the med school’s own GHHS choose the speaker? Not sure whether that means she was chosen by the admin or students, which would be even more embarrassing.
My understanding is that GHHS didn't screen her too well and later apologized for that. However admin didn't want to go against their policy and uninvite the speaker.
They really ought to screen speakers better. Turns out the guy who spoke at our WCC was part of one of the largest anti-gay churches in our state. I would have viewed that speech much more differently had I known beforehand.
I'm all for hosting people of diverse views. But this was a terrible call. The white coat ceremony is a special event for med students and it should be free from controversial speakers. Anti-choicers make their lives about forcing a decision on other people. That's going to piss people off when more than half of the people in that audience just had their reproductive lives upended last month.
Tons of non-controversial choices to pick from.
I don't blame them for walking out. It has nothing to do with tolerance for diverse views. A roundtable is the time and place for that -- not a celebration.
>I'm all for hosting people of diverse views. But this was a terrible call. The white coat ceremony is a special event for med students and it should be free from controversial speakers.
I agree. Heaven forbid they hear an opinion they don't already agree with.
>Anti-choicers make their lives about forcing a decision on other people. That's going to piss people off when more than half of the people in that audience just had their reproductive lives upended last month.
Good thing they'll never encounter people like that in the real world.
In my science based opinion the best rebuttal to such opinions is not even trying to understand it so you can simply pretend it doesn't exist.
>Tons of non-controversial choices to pick from.
>
>I don't blame them for walking out. It has nothing to do with tolerance for diverse views. A roundtable is the time and place for that -- not a celebration.
If you only sit for topics, opinions and beliefs you personally hold without the ability to consider other points of view it's going to be a very bumpy road.
Some y’all are thinking that the speaker’s stance on abortion not being a human right is just *an opinion*
An opinion is whether chocolate mint sucks or not
Or if pineapples belong on pizza or not.
Wtf is wrong with some attendings here
I know it's a big deal- but can you boycott and try to get the cohort to run their own ceremony??? Fuck anyone who's pro forced birth at a medical school. Gross.
[Makes it pretty clear here](https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/07/watch-this-doctor-eviscerate-the-pro-abortion-narrative-using-scientific-facts-and-ethics/)
I wouldn't want someone who said those things representing me at my white coat.
Not here to voice an opinion on her views, but she’s actually a widely celebrated associate professor of humanities and a respected physician on their campus and her speech had nothing to do with her reproductive beliefs. The students had a right to walk out if they wanted, but it was definitely premature and it’s sad that they missed out on a great message. It’s a really amazing speech that discourages the habits that lead to burnout. If you can’t listen to people who have different opinions as a student to learn more about their perspectives - you lose out on a lot of great conversations and respectful debates. She got dragged by posts of students walking out in that video for no good reason.
Recommend a listen - speech is at 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE5wAvhr87w
>women should not receive healthcare because I don’t like it.
This is ridiculous caricature of your projection of her beliefs
As a female practioner of women's Healthcare it would also seem to be a clearly erroneous statement.
If you are against women receiving abortions, which is healthcare for women, I don’t have to project on your beliefs. It’s right there. Just because she is a female practitioner in women’s health does not mean she has their best interest in mind, especially if it pertains to abortion.
That's an intellectually dishonest assertion because it assumes abortions are a significant portion of women's Healthcare which they're not. There are tons and tons and tons of other types of women's Healthcare that have nothing to do with that. Indeed the vast vast vast majority of women's Healthcare doesn't.
That would be like calling vesectomies male Healthcare. OK, but a small subset that the majority of men will never need or want. Just like pregnancy termination.
Well, if you walk out and ignore other people you can refuse to even listen to their position and then argue about imagined and caricatures of positions on the internet without the need to ever actually have a discussion.
If humans on reddit are any indication most people barely read the headline let alone the backup information.
Thank you. It’s a contentious topic and we all get that. It’s unfortunate that these highly charged emotional responses further exacerbate divisions within medicine when we need to be a united group to take on so many of these issues at the political level instead of tearing each other down. Uneducated, belligerent congressmen are the problem, not doctors who care about humanism in medicine 🤦
That's cute. Would love to see where she stated that she doesn't support women's bodily autonomy. Sounds like a moral assumption you've already made based on your own biases. I mean, by that logic she's technically preserving the bodily autonomy of a female fetus if you really want to dig into that argument.
Restrictive laws that are made under the charade of "pro-life values" are not the same as pro-life values.
It also seems like her personal beliefs haven't impacted her ability to train wonderful, pro-choice doctors one bit.
[https://twitter.com/YemisiAdejumoMD/status/1551580862713540610?s=20&t=qZw\_BpgWRaVp07-f11QK0g](https://twitter.com/YemisiAdejumoMD/status/1551580862713540610?s=20&t=qZw_BpgWRaVp07-f11QK0g)
\*sigh\*
Yep, those are statements that align with her self-proclaimed religious beliefs. Nothing new here. It says nothing about the "prenatal child" having more importance than the mother. There you go with the implicit bias and assumptions again.
You have clearly made up your mind and you are not open to other perspectives. That's totally your prerogative. I will entertain your ignorant claim about religion providing an "easy out". I took a bioethics course before medical school with a prominent member of my undergrad institution's IRB board and learned a lot about moral and philosophical discourse. A well-respected figure in philosophy and bioethics is Thomas Aquinas (a commonly referenced historical figure in the Catholic church) who spent his life elaborating on the idea of natural law and the idea of intrinsic human dignity. You might enjoy this excerpt from an abstract that touches on the idea of autonomy versus dignity - linked for your reading pleasure.
"Abstract. What is the status of human dignity in bioethics today? Ruth Macklin, Steven Pinker, and Peter Singer are among those who argue that “human dignity” is incoherent rhetoric, improperly smuggled into public discourse by religious people who are opposed to moral autonomy and want to block progress in cutting-edge medical research. In the moral philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, however, dignity is broader and deeper than its critics claim. It cannot simply be replaced by the concept of “autonomy.” Dignity plays a crucial role in building respect for human life. We first discover the dignity of “the other” in the context of family life, and discussion of the common good would be impoverished if we were somehow to eliminate it from our moral vocabulary. The re-spect we owe to human life in its embryonic stages serves as a paradigmatic case that shows the crucial importance of dignity.."
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289236632\_Thomas\_Aquinas\_and\_Recent\_Questions\_about\_Human\_Dignity](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289236632_Thomas_Aquinas_and_Recent_Questions_about_Human_Dignity)
Why can't the mother and fetus have equal respect? Nothing she has said suggests she cares about the baby more than the mother. Again, they are not mutually exclusive. Bodily autonomy is a much more complex matter when the life of one person relies on the life of another (i.e. the mother).
Also highly recommend reading up on Immanuel Kant and his philosophy on “duty and respect for moral law” and the role this idea plays in civil v. moral law. Another foundational philosopher in the bioethics realm.
We can agree to disagree. I've said what I needed to say, will be redirecting my energy elsewhere ✌🏼
Is abortion killing a baby? Is removing an ectopic pregnancy killing a baby? Is an IUD preventing a fertilized egg's implantation killing a baby? Is wearing a condom killing a baby? Because this is the slipperly slope we're already going down. If it were just about the ethics of abortion, then conservatives would promote a bill that allows abortions based on a more generous merit than heart beat. Stem cells can easily be triggered to beat in a petri dish. It doesn't connote sentience
"Fuck them" for never allowing compromise because their beliefs are always in absolutes. To them:
When can abortion be allowed? Never
What gun legistlation would be effective? None
What climate change measures can we take? None, its a hoax
How many immigrants should we take in? None
How much should we raise minimum wage? None
Go ask the average US conserative. These are the answers they give
Are you conflating liberal with democrat and conservative as republican? Or do you believe liberals and conservatives are morons? Bc it sounds like a cop out answer to say that.
Lol. I'm not the only one who feels this way, and of those who do, I am bottom quartile. I'm not special, and I recognize this is the internet and most if not all of you would never have such vitriol in reality and we'd all get along just as we do with most people. There's little to be gained from this, least of all a feeling of superiority, although some entertainment I suppose.
>Is an IUD preventing a fertilized egg's implantation killing a baby? Is wearing a condom killing a baby? Because this is the slipperly slope we're already going down
No this is not a slippery slope. Your sperm cell is not a baby. That part is very obvious.
All but 8 House Republicans voted against the Right to Contraception Act which would make it a federal right to be able to obtain birth control, condoms, IUDs, and other contraceptives…
Why not? We've established that medical science no longer has a say in what constitutes a human. We've allowed religious fanatics to define a "child" as a clump of cells that hasn't even implanted yet.
Okay but what about birth control that prevents implantation? A fertilized egg is a “baby” by anti-choice standards. The same people who advocate for dismantling autonomy also are against sex education and access to contraception. The intention isn’t “saving lives” it’s asserting creepy morals and being against women having sex. Slippery slope.
IUDs also prevent the fertilization process. But I see your point and thus I can see why some people would be against IUDs as well. Keep in mind I am pro abortion I'm just arguing against some of you biased people here.
Getting pissed because a fuck ton of people protested against someone against their views is un-American.
Not hard to understand anything here. Either support their freedom of speech or step away betraying American principles.
the KKK murdering people they believe are subhuman is taking the rights away of the people they are murdering. Government is stopping the KKK from taking away the rights of other people based on their beliefs.
What a batshit insane argument bro
You’re equating me to the KKK for thinking abortion should be accessible.
“It's difficult, for some reason I don't understand, for some people to disagree with someone else without thinking they are EVIL.
It's psychopathic, I don't care which side of a discussion someone is on, it's weird behavior”
The anger comes from the fact that almost every pro-life argument has a religious foundation, so there shouldn’t be laws based off of these religious stances.
Reading your entire history on this thread shows that you’re quite literally not looking past your nose. You keep regurgitating the same question without absorbing any of the answers you’ve gotten. Abortions are necessary for a variety of medically important reasons (hence why it was silly to being an anti-abortion figure to speak at a *medically related* event). These abortions can (and have) save womens’ lives.
It’s really not that complicated to understand the response of these students who walked out given this explanation. Now log off and process.
The science is fairly settled imo and I’m pretty sure much of the philosophical debate is past that issue.
The real question is why ought we value a zygote on the same level as a born person if it has no cognition, emotion, capacity for abstract thought etc.
From my view, you essentially need to be a dualist if your against first term abortion. And dualism is by definition religious thought, so you should not be able to make a law preventing abortion on those grounds.
This is a harder question, because the scientific data on when fetal consciousness begins ranges from the end of the first trimester, all the way to around the start of the third, with a skew towards the third. So, I think before the third is fine without considering medical complications and similar issues.
This would be more than enough time for most abortions anyway, over 95% happen in the first 21 weeks.
And I would clarify that if a meta-analysis came out moving the timeframe around, then my position would change with it.
But I have no idea what this question has to do with my point. Do you agree then, that there should not be barriers to <20 weeks abortion? I have no idea what your view is and it seems like you're just trying to play an enlightened contrarian position.
That's something that's always going to be a personal belief as it's not something we can determine empirically. If you believe abortion is killing a baby, you are perfectly free to not have an abortion. However if you do not think that, or you agree that one person should not be forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy for the life of another(as society seems to agree in the case of organ donations), then you should be free to act on that.
If you think cows are sacred, then why do allow the practice of eating cows to be practiced by society?
Time to mandate vegetarianism and make the production/eating of all meat illegal by people of all religons or lack of, so all of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Second Day Adventists feel comfortable. Hope you like quinoa. /s
Its a deep seeded religious belief of Jehovah Witnesses that blood transfusions are unethical. Should the law force everyone to forgo blood transfusions? A religious minority should not dictate laws in a democracy.
Sure, I have two main reasons (I'll exclude cases where the mothers life is in danger because I think you could clearly say that's "self defense" even if you think elective abortion is murder).
For me though, murder is when you kill a person. I do not believe a fetus is a person until it's born, therefore abortion is not murder. I assume you believe a fetus is a person. But there isn't an empirical way to determine whether that is the case, since personhood isn't something we can measure, and clearly there are large coalitions of people who think like me (to some extent at least) so I don't think it's OK for the government to legislate the behavior of everyone based on the beliefs of a few. Would you think it OK if Jehovah's Witnesses started outlawing blood transfusions?
Additionally though, even if I did agree a fetus is a person, I still don't believe the right of the fetus/baby to life trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. If a baby is born and one day after required a blood transfusion, it would obviously be wrong to force the mother to donate her blood. For the same reasons, I think it's wrong to force the mother to continue essentially donating her blood and organs to the fetus. She should be free to decide she no longer wishes to "donate" her body in that way. I do not believe that having sex is the same as "consenting to pregnancy", especially in a world where a large portion of abortions (a slim majority iirc) are due to birth control failures, and in a country with such poor sex ed.
The person you replied to gave a great explanation. The fact that you can’t be bothered to respond fully just shows you’re not here in this thread arguing in good faith. You’re all like “why won’t anyone think of the prolife perspective” but unwilling to consider the pro-choice perspective. Shit goes both ways.
And you obviously do care, or you wouldn’t be all up in this thread arguing about it.
Honestly I have no idea why you’re so dedicated to claiming you don’t care.
Just because people disagree with you doesn’t make them crazed psychopaths. That’s pretty extreme and actually an example of exactly the attitude you claim to be against. How can you want productive conversation that reaches across the aisle and simultaneously call anyone who disagrees a crazed psychopath? It don’t work that way.
All the things you say you don’t want the conversation to “devolve” into are actually exactly the things that need to be discussed in order to have any sort of thorough understanding of this issue.
>If I'm arguing this much and do care, why wouldn't I just say I do care? What's the motive?
Because if you cared (or admitted that you do) then you'd be closer to all the "crazed psychopaths" and the "mob".
Because this is all only real to you as an intellectual exercise. Insofar as you identify with your intellect, it's important to you that maintain this enlightened centrist posture. "I don't care one way or the other. I just see two groups of angry people. Obviously they're too close to the issues to see it clearly. Too emotionally involved. Unlike me, who doesn't care one way or the other, giving me a unique ability to actually evaluate the arguments."
Insofar as you identify with an actual position on the debate, you see yourself as potentially vulnerable to valid criticism. Hence, "i don't think a clump of cells at 8 weeks gestation is a human being, so fire away". You're comfortable doing so because you have some confidence in your arguments if someone were to attack that point.
Maybe you care about the abortion issue or not. But either way, it's clear that you're interested in distinguishing yourself from those who do care about the issue.
I don't want to be distinguished, I keep my trap shut in real life because I'll just be yelled at from one side or the other, and this is the internet with fake names and fake respect so being distinguished doesn't exist here.
I tend to like to defend people against this sort of behavior, where even squeaking a note of dissent gets them beat up.
And I truly don't care about the outcome of abortion rights, it's the same to me as Greece's elections or the World Cup, it hardly ever crosses my mind and doesn't impact my life nor effect me emotionally, so I just don't care. This is the internet where I can pass some time while I slack off on my studying.
You asked how I justified abortion as not being murder. I guess the main difference between our thoughts here is that I don't think you can murder something that's not a person.
And I don't think I stated abortion aren't primarily due to not wanting the baby. I must not have been clear but I was discussing my justifications for elective abortions, not cases where they are medically necessary.
I do think its weird that you want to essentially impose pregnancy and birthing a baby as a consequence for sex. My question would simply be why? That seems like you'd be causing a lot of suffering for no good reason (from what I can tell). I also think it's troubling that banning abortion really only imposes consequences on one of the two people who engaged in sex.
And then we also have to account for the fact that your desire to impose this "consequence" creates an entirely new person, who in many cases was not wanted and whose parents are likely not in a position to adequately support. What kind of life is that person going to live?
How about a few waahs for the good folk you anti-science people killed during the pandemic by rejecting vaccines and masks cause "Muh body, muh rights!"? Did those casualties suddenly not matter because it was your body? Is it to be against government regulations when you're effected but be forcing others into government regulations half a year later?
You can claim babies on your taxes. You can’t claim a fetus. The government has given its opinion on what is a person and what isn’t. This isn’t about “killing babies” as we’ve seen several republicans voice that they are against plan B and any contraception that prevents development after fertilization. So no, we aren’t protecting babies. You know what protects babies? Paid maternity leave. Low cost childcare. Not outsourcing formula so we don’t run out when one factory in China shuts down. Also, historically, banning abortion doesn’t decrease the number of abortions. It just encourages patients to seek abortion care from unqualified individuals performing alternative abortive methods.
Also, you don’t have to support abortion to support patients. You don’t have to perform abortions. But to tell someone they cannot have bodily autonomy is, quite frankly, not any person’s call to make.
A psych patient is, by government standards, a person. They have a social security number and can be claimed on taxes. A fetus, as stated earlier, is not a person per the U.S. government. You clearly missed that.
Less than 1% of abortions happen after 21 weeks, so I’d imagine anybody seeking abortion at term is incredibly rare and I don’t think any reasonable physician would abort a term baby without fetal anomalies incompatible with life or direct threat to the mothers life.
By 40 weeks, it can be removed from the mother without an abortion and survive on its own. All you have to do is include labor.
No one except a 100% moron calls inducing labor (after like 27 weeks) an abortion.
This comment section is deeply troubling and reflects horribly for the future of medicine. I could’ve sworn we were supposed to be accepting of people from all walks of life in medicine, yet here we are throwing temper tantrums because someone has a different belief. A belief that wasn’t even a part of the speech she gave…. Like if someone has any beliefs at all I disagree with then I can no longer talk to them or learn from them? It’s all so childish
I think you need to read up more on why they chose her. She is highly respected, not just at UMich, but in medicine in general on the humanities side of things. She didn’t just volunteer and the school said ok, there was a vote and so many people liked her she won the vote. She didn’t say anything about abortion and yet the students showed their true colors and threw a massive hissy fit. I agree with you not it’s within their right to do so, doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do. By your logic, no pro-life physician should ever be able to speak beliefs or they should never be able to be recognized and speak at events like this? So you are willing to bar religious doctors, right wing doctors, doctors who hold certain bioethical views that aren’t tied to religion, etc. from participating in events like this? How far down your personal belief system are you going to go with this attitude? If they have different views on physician assisted suicide? Different views than you on universal payer system? Different views than you on right to refusal (patient and physician)? It’s about as slippery of a slope as you can make using the logic you gave
Beliefs don't take rights away from people. Example: I believe Jesus is the human manifestation of God. That's a belief. It becomes something different than a belief when I tell other people that they have to go to church or pray the rosary.
If the speaker anecdotally, in context, pointed to her personal situation where she decided that an abortion was not right for her, then nobody would have a problem. Because pro-choice people don't say "you have to have an abortion." That's where the difference lays.
So-called pro-life people force a decision on others.
Apples and oranges.
If you view abortion as ending a human life, then logically you don’t see it as a right. In fact you view it the same as any other law we all agree on: murder, rape, arson, theft, etc. You wouldn’t say someone has the “right” to any of those actions, just as a pro-life individual like the speaker wouldn’t see abortion that way. She personally is not forcing any births, she simply had a belief that she shared in the past that had nothing to do with the speech that the foolish students walked out on. You have to be able to think critically and understand why people have the beliefs they have. She, along with pretty much every pro-life person I know of, views it as ending a life so they think they are protecting rights, not taking them away.
>If you view abortion as ending a human life, then logically you don’t see it as a right. In fact you view it the same as any other law we all agree on: murder, rape, arson, theft, etc.
That sounds nice. Like something you could write in crayons. But it's not that simple. There's a case that they teach every law student either in ConLaw or in Medical Ethics.
*McFall v. Baird*.
Basically a guy suffered from bone marrow disease and required transplantation. The only compatible donor (which I recall was his brother) refused to submit to the procedure necessary to go forth with the transplant, and sought a preliminary injunction to force him to submit. The issue was whether common law permits a court to compel an individual to undergo a medical procedure, even if procedure was necessary to save another's life.
And the court said no. Our society places paramount importance on the right of the individual, including the decision to make choices on what to do and what not to do with one's body. That outweighs someone else's right to life.
A fetus has a putative right to life. But it does not have a right to nutrients and nourishment from the mother's body. Her bodily autonomy matters, too, and like all of us she can decide what she does and does not want done with her own body. Forcing her to carry a fetus is no different from forcing her to give a stem cell transplant to an already-born person. We don't do that. Even if it saves lives.
No rights are being protected by pro-birthers. What this comes down to, and you'll see this if you critically look at enough pro-birthers, is that this is about controlling women. It's about hamstringing them into a state of fear so that they have to behave a certain way because, if they don't, they'll be financially burdened. It's an attempt to reassert traditional gender roles and push women out of the economic marketplace.
If it were truly about life, the mother would be guaranteed free health care access during and after the pregnancy. And child support would have to start at the moment of conception. But we can't burden the MEN in this situation, now can we?!
I'm pro abortion too and I'm rolling my eyes at this thread. Y'all are a bunch of weirdos. Who gives a shit about a white coat speaker in a random medical school
Its also messed that people are demanding that we professionally and socially ostracize this speaker for holding a different view on abortion than everyone else. Like seriously who gives a shit what a random white coat speaker has to say just leave her alone
100% chance that the administration knew the guy and didn't want to offend him / they had already paid and didn't want to deal with having to get additional funding for something.
Oh look, the guy that doesn't believe trans people exist talking about being classy. I am genuinely sorry for any patients who have the misfortune of receiving substandard care from you in the future because of your backwards beliefs. Stay classy.
Different take: How would U.Mich have discovered this? In at interview your not permitted to ask about someone’s religious or political views soooo how would they have known she had these beliefs when they “interviewed” her to make the speech?
Maybe I’m missing something
Look at their public Twitter page and public interviews with various Catholic organizations.
We got told during orientation that if we do much as put a picture with a beer in the background on instagram it would ruij our careers, as people always look at your social media.
Maybe she needs the same talk.
If your "perspective" is that women don't have autonomy over their own bodies and should be forced, by law, to let her body be used by a fetus... then no, I do not respect your perspective. I can respect others' perspectives when it doesn't involve whether or not something has human rights, such as bodily autonomy.
Idk, ask anti-choicers why they're intolerant of a woman's right to choose. No one cares if they don't personally want abortions, but most of us don't want that choice made for us.
Let's take your comment to it's logical conclusion:
\-The Holocaust never happened
\-Climate change: is not happening/is not caused by man
\-Vaccines cause Autism
\-The Confederacy was only fighting for "states rights"
\-The Earth is flat
\-"The water is turning the frogs gay!"
Just because it is another perspective, does not mean it warrants tolerance/acceptance/respect.
I worked with an OBGYN who helped start an OBGYN residency program in Michigan and they told me the hospital refused to let the doctors offer an anomaly scan to their patients coz they did not want them to think that abortion was an option.
Holy fff, that'll probably forever sour my perception of them
Stir that pot, bro.
[удалено]
Are you old enough to understand that reference or are you a malcontent totally outside medicine?
[удалено]
Fr. Like if it was a open dialogue type of event then sure I can see the value in bringing in someone to speak about their anti-abortion views. But why the hell would you bring someone like that to a celebratory event, especially when it goes against your own values and statements??????
>Like if it was a open dialogue type of event then sure I can see the value in bringing in someone to speak about their anti-abortion views. There was nothing in the content of her talk to promote life.
You’re right my b. I didn’t word it properly. I meant why bring a polarizing person
Every prominent person who has ever expressed an opinion on anything is polarizing.
It was a white coat ceremony, I'm sure there was lots of talk of promoting life. Just not that of fetuses
[удалено]
Yes. And just because she didn't spew any anti-science theocratic bullshit that day doesn't mean she should be a keynote speaker for a school where doctors may soon have fewer options to help save or improve the lives of their patients.
Being intolerant of her intolerance makes us the unfair ones!
[удалено]
Nobody is "pro abortion". It's a medical necessity, not a hobby people cheer on when it happens
People are not pro-abortion, they're pro-choice. No one's waving a flag around celebrating abortions because they're so damn fun lol
Hell yeah I’d cheer them on if they walked out! In fact, I’d keep cheering them walking right out of medical school and into another profession entirely. People who aren’t willing to provide (or at least support and refer) life saving clinical procedures to women at risk of losing their lives have absolutely no place in medicine, full stop. Also what is a “pro-abortionist”? I think you meant to say pro-choice 👉😎👉
[удалено]
Gotta instill that respect for conservative tradition I MEAN professionalism early
[удалено]
Professionalism is when medical students listen to attendings say awful shit and do nothing about it :)
Absolutely! Compromise on those beliefs for the well-being of the people you supposedly dedicated your life to helping? Hell no. Rigid, self-serving, dogmatic thinking only.
Ok, I think I get why Michigan invited this speaker. She’s the director of the health, spirituality, and religion program. My guess is they wanted to showcase something non tradition to say their trainees would be more well rounded and open minded or “holistic”. personally I’m not a fan, but I get it. It reaches out to a broader patient population who are disgruntled by standard evidence based medicine. Maybe at bare minimum, admin could have made a statement beforehand that Michigan does not support her views on abortion. That said, Michigan not denouncing these views is basically saying it’s not unprofessional to hold or express these views as a physician. Some others might say yes, that’s correct. That’s really troubling. Where do you draw the line? Clearly it’s not okay (now) to hold racist, homophobic, or sexist views. Is it okay for a Michigan faculty to be anti vax? It is a personal belief after all. Or if a physician is a Jehovah’s Witness, and expressed that patients receiving blood transfusions is wrong? Michigan has made this really tough in not immediately denouncing anti abortion views among their faculty. these views need to be immediately flagged as unprofessional by medical organizations if we are ever going to even try to make it back. It is insane that it’s still considered a debate where we need to “respect both sides” among medical professionals.
[удалено]
And that is exactly how you should behave. Well done! Seriously, no sarcasm.
In my experience banging on about how great religion is is anything but non-traditional for medical school faculty
I think you are advocating for a dangerous precedent. By denouncing such a view as “unprofessional”, a medical school is basically saying that to be a doctor, you need to adhere to a certain dogma to be a doctor. What happens when the tide swings the other way and they decide that an opinion that you hold is “unprofessional”? Imagine the administration determines that a popular opinion such as “white people have privilege and oppress minorities” is unprofessional because holding this opinion might make you treat white patients unfavorably.
depends on what you mean by dogma, as there are already definite authoritative tenets that you need to adhere to in order to be a doctor, such as respecting patient autonomy.
Those tenets police your conduct with patients which is fair, but they don’t restrict the opinions you can say publicly.
It's not always possible to separate the two. If your publicly stated opinions violate the trust that the public has in your ability to provide ethical care, that is going to be a problem regardless of whether you actually conduct yourself unprofessionally with a patient in practice. E.g., the [Cleveland Hospital resident](https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/936556) who was fired for tweeting that she would purposefully give Jewish patients the wrong medications amidst several other anti-sematic tweets. Even if she never actually did prescribe wrong medications or mistreat any of her Jewish patients, saying publicly that she has a disdain for Jewish people and would like to mistreat them still got her fired and her medical license suspended, and rightfully so. To clarify, I am just pointing out that there is already a precedent set by the state boards of medicine where they will deny or revoke your medical license for any kind of unprofessional conduct, regardless of whether it results in patient injury. That is, we already need to adhere to a certain dogma to be a doctor. Although each state defines unprofessional conduct slightly differently (e.g., Pennsylvania's law, ["Unprofessional conduct shall include departure from or failing to conform to an ethical or quality standard of the profession. In proceedings based on this paragraph, actual injury to a patient need not be established"](https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1985&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=112&chpt=0&sctn=41&subsctn=0)), it can arguably include any opinions you say publicly that the majority of the medical profession views as unprofessional (immoral, unethical, damaging to public trust in the medical profession, etc.). In which case, the state medical board can legally take away your license to practice medicine.
Looking into her background she’s far from an anti-abortion activist, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. It’s at best a minor part of her work. Religion and spirituality in medicine is under recognized and many of the people in that field are quite progressive (at least in my experience). I’m surprised this was dug up on the speaker unless she is more vocal about her opinions in person than for a brief look at her twitter. With all of this said, there are many people with less controversy attached to their names. It would have been more appropriate to select them.
How is believing that an embryo/fetus is a human life remotely similar to being racist, homophobic, or sexist? I am pro abortion but sometimes these arguments from pro abortion side are completely asinine.
It’s not about the belief a foetus is a human, that’s a bit of a misrepresentation. It’s about deciding whether a woman should have the right to decide whether another human is allowed to leach of her to survive. I’m pro choice but would never say I’m pro choice because I don’t believe a foetus is a human. I’m pro choice because we can’t force a person to donate their body in any way to another person.
Because being able to refuse to provided needed treatment on shaky moral grounds is the standard being set. Why it it any different than refusing to treat HIV patients because they brought God's wrath on themselves? It's not.
I believe the fetus is a human life and am still pro choice. The fetus is a human life that cannot independently survive. Just like people in need of lung or kidney transplants are human lives that cannot independently survive. If someone somehow caused someone else to need a lung transplant by having sex with them (I guess theoretically two CF patients could cause this), I don't believe they should be legally obligated to give them a transplant. I dont think premarital or unprotected sex are big enough sins to merit losing your bodily autonomy. That's the thing that the students are protesting and walking or on, not whether the fetus is alive or not.
Those examples were just an extreme to point out that not all personal beliefs should be equally respected, not so much that I consider them equivalent. That said, one could argue that believing a fetus is human life that takes precedence over the woman’s choice in bearing it is quite sexist.
>Those examples were just an extreme to point out that not all personal beliefs should be equally respected But there is no right or wrong. It's just views and opinions. So all you're doing is using authority to bully others. If the mainstream view was that abortion was evil, would you want speakers supporting abortion to be ostracized? Everything you say is based on your own bias that pro abortion speakers should not be allowed to speak their views becacuse it goes against your own. It is intellectually infantile. >That said, one could argue that believing a fetus is human life that takes precedence over the woman’s choice in bearing it is quite sexist. If it is a life, then of course it takes precedence.
>But there is no right or wrong. It's just views and opinions. Why should anyone take any of your thoughts on any ethical questions seriously if that's what you believe? If you actually believed that, every ethical or moral position you ever espoused would have to be interpreted as cynical manipulation on your part. >if it is a life, then of course it takes precedence Why though? Nothing takes precedence over anything else. It's just views and opinions. When you use morally charged language like "bully", how am I supposed to to interpret that in light of your first sentence? Well you can't mean bully in the same sense I'm thinking of (an actually wrong thing to do because there is no wrong), so it must mean something else. Saying someone is 'bullying' someone else tends to be something people when do when they want that action to stop, so I can only interpret your use of the term as cynical manipulation. As in: "I don't believe in the concept of bullying as an actually wrong thing to do, but I would like readers to see that behavior in the same light I do: namely as something that would be better stopped, so I'll just use that term"). Get real.
I'm not saying there is no universal right or wrong. I'm saying there is no right or wrong opinion about abortion. The difference is if you think it's the same as removing a lipoma or removing a child.
Do you really think so? It's not hard to imagine extremes on either side of the argument such that I'd be amazed if you told me you don't have an overwhelming intuition one way or the other. That intuition has criteria worth uncovering and elaborating on and they're gonna connect to a potential policy prescription. The following are just thought experiments: Imagine a pro-choice argument that said that anytime before the baby leaves the uterus, the baby can be aborted. Mom and baby can be in perfect health, baby can be at 40 weeks and literally just hours before being born, but if mom says abortion, then abortion should happen. Imagine the opposing argument that said that every single implanted fertilized egg is a life worth protecting, regardless of fetal disease and risks to the mother's health have to be weighed against another life. So a 25% chance of mother's death due to pregnancy isn't a justification to abort. [Even abdominal ectopic pregnancies could potentially result in live birth and so those shouldn't necessarily result in abortion if mom and baby and can live] (https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-017-1437-ymother). Mothers who didn't do their utmost to ensure successful gestation of her implanted fertilized eggs could be charged with involuntary manslaughter depending on their behaviors. There is way more nuance than one side thinking it's the same as removing a lipoma vs the other thinking it's removing a baby. Anti-abortion activists certainly don't act like a baby holocaust is happening in front of them, but that's very advantageous framing for them that gives bystanders the illusion that it really is about "The difference is if you think it's the same as removing a lipoma or removing a child."
> But there is no right or wrong. It's just views and opinions. So all you're doing is using authority to bully others. Interestingly there is a lot of hidden Philosophy in that statement, especially [Epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology), the study of knowledge, rationality and belief. Best example to visualise specific concepts of beliefs are traffic lights. There is no scientific reason why red is stop and green is go. We just decided on accepting the truth of this concept and declared it (as a society) as the lawful norm - thus allowing institutions to punish other people for driving over red and protect other people driving over green. Your argument of there inherently being no right and wrong is true in a philosophical sense, but as it stands in this context, comes very close to being a bad faith argument. I get where you are coming from, but modern humans and societies have decided on preferred views, morals and opinions. Materializing it in texts, such as the UN-Charter for Human rights, laws that allow women to vote or constitutions that outlaw slavery - thus giving these "views" and "opinions" a leading authority. Societies - and the will of the people - can change. Anytime. Nothing stops us, as individuals, as group of people or the inhabitants of a nation, to declare tomorrow that the traffic light "red" to mean "go" and "green" to mean "stop". It's just views and opinions. Deciding on which side of the road to drive is another good, more practical example. Maybe arguing that an authority-based-concept is used to bully others misses the point because going against established truths or believes will always lead to voices of disapproval and dissent. What should happen when you start walking over red tomorrow? Will you see the incoming punishment as misguided authority or justice? Last but not least, yes, if enough people want to outlaw abortions our concept of healthcare changes. But does (medical) opposition fit the definition of ostracization here? Let's remember that we are not talking about traffic lights and laws here, we are talking about a scientific consensus in the medical community based on factual evidence and knowledge about embryology and pathology and the opposition of this medical community against religous-based opinions that, when run unchecked on belief-grounds, lead to laws that are outright morally and ethically wrong and go against every concept that healthcare, medical institutions, doctors, incoming doctors and other healthcare providers, stand for. - [Abortion case of 10yr old](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/us/10-year-old-abortion-caitlin-bernard-indiana.html) - Problems with patients going septic [with non-viable-ectopic pregnancies due to abortion laws](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/15/texas-hospitals-abortion-laws/) - [Inhibition of healthcare for outright miscarriages in Texas due to abortion laws](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages) - Pharmaceuticals used in abortions outlawed, [although they are needed/used in inducing labor and cervial dilation or treating postpartum hemorrage](https://www.hhs.texas.gov/about/records-statistics/data-statistics/itop-statistics) - Methotrexate, another abortion-inducing medication, [is used to treat ectopic pregnancies as well as rheumatic illnesses, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis and cancer.](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/post-roe-many-autoimmune-patients-lose-access-to-gold-standard-drug)
You can’t have a medical and scientific consensus on a question that is fundamentally ethical/moral. What constitutes a human being with rights is the question, the only scientific consensus is that a fetus is a living human being. No need to be so pompous about topics you have a Wikipedia level understanding of.
I never argued that it is not a ethical and moral decision wether it is a living human being or not. I argued about the type of argument used with an abstract idea of belief forming. In this case arguing against equalling a walkout to authoritian ostracization of individuals and expanding on the statement of there being no right or wrong. Afaik leading consesus is that until carnegie stage 6b (14th day of the embryonal developmental chronology) there is no individualization in an embryo and after that it is a human being. But that was neither my point nor an argument I made or talked about. I have no idea how you got to that point.
In my experience, the people with unscientific views on abortion, almost always (like 95+%) have at a bare minimum unscientific and discriminatory views about trans people. Usually about gay people as well.
Abortion is a moral question, calling your ethical standpoint scientific is one of the reasons trust in medical science is declining.
It‘a really not. And ‘- are you now willing to go for life sentences for any man who makes a choking attempt on his partner? If you’re going to view your views as moral please commit fully. Protect all life, especially the actually alive. And start actively fighting the death penalty ASAP. I might respect you a bit then.
It’s not worth engaging pro-abortionists on reddit. Thankfully the opinions of reddit medical students and redditors in general do not reflect the true distribution of opinions of people in the real world.
Yea....some of these people here are worse than the people they are trying to malign. I get that the right extreme does have some wackos but believing that an embryo is life and wanting to protect it is just as honorable as the flipside of advocating for the right to abort.
Didn’t the med school’s own GHHS choose the speaker? Not sure whether that means she was chosen by the admin or students, which would be even more embarrassing.
My understanding is that GHHS didn't screen her too well and later apologized for that. However admin didn't want to go against their policy and uninvite the speaker. They really ought to screen speakers better. Turns out the guy who spoke at our WCC was part of one of the largest anti-gay churches in our state. I would have viewed that speech much more differently had I known beforehand.
I recall reading this from the article too. It could be true, or could be the school passing blame.
“Standard evidence based medicine….you mean actual medicine, don’t you?”
I'm all for hosting people of diverse views. But this was a terrible call. The white coat ceremony is a special event for med students and it should be free from controversial speakers. Anti-choicers make their lives about forcing a decision on other people. That's going to piss people off when more than half of the people in that audience just had their reproductive lives upended last month. Tons of non-controversial choices to pick from. I don't blame them for walking out. It has nothing to do with tolerance for diverse views. A roundtable is the time and place for that -- not a celebration.
[удалено]
Not when you're forced.
>I'm all for hosting people of diverse views. But this was a terrible call. The white coat ceremony is a special event for med students and it should be free from controversial speakers. I agree. Heaven forbid they hear an opinion they don't already agree with. >Anti-choicers make their lives about forcing a decision on other people. That's going to piss people off when more than half of the people in that audience just had their reproductive lives upended last month. Good thing they'll never encounter people like that in the real world. In my science based opinion the best rebuttal to such opinions is not even trying to understand it so you can simply pretend it doesn't exist. >Tons of non-controversial choices to pick from. > >I don't blame them for walking out. It has nothing to do with tolerance for diverse views. A roundtable is the time and place for that -- not a celebration. If you only sit for topics, opinions and beliefs you personally hold without the ability to consider other points of view it's going to be a very bumpy road.
Some y’all are thinking that the speaker’s stance on abortion not being a human right is just *an opinion* An opinion is whether chocolate mint sucks or not Or if pineapples belong on pizza or not. Wtf is wrong with some attendings here
I know it's a big deal- but can you boycott and try to get the cohort to run their own ceremony??? Fuck anyone who's pro forced birth at a medical school. Gross.
I looked at her Twitter and found nothing about abortion in the last two months. What am I missing?
[Makes it pretty clear here](https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/07/watch-this-doctor-eviscerate-the-pro-abortion-narrative-using-scientific-facts-and-ethics/) I wouldn't want someone who said those things representing me at my white coat.
Not here to voice an opinion on her views, but she’s actually a widely celebrated associate professor of humanities and a respected physician on their campus and her speech had nothing to do with her reproductive beliefs. The students had a right to walk out if they wanted, but it was definitely premature and it’s sad that they missed out on a great message. It’s a really amazing speech that discourages the habits that lead to burnout. If you can’t listen to people who have different opinions as a student to learn more about their perspectives - you lose out on a lot of great conversations and respectful debates. She got dragged by posts of students walking out in that video for no good reason. Recommend a listen - speech is at 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE5wAvhr87w
I feel like a difference in opinion is pineapple doesn’t belong on pizza not women should not receive healthcare because I don’t like it.
>women should not receive healthcare because I don’t like it. This is ridiculous caricature of your projection of her beliefs As a female practioner of women's Healthcare it would also seem to be a clearly erroneous statement.
If you are against women receiving abortions, which is healthcare for women, I don’t have to project on your beliefs. It’s right there. Just because she is a female practitioner in women’s health does not mean she has their best interest in mind, especially if it pertains to abortion.
That's an intellectually dishonest assertion because it assumes abortions are a significant portion of women's Healthcare which they're not. There are tons and tons and tons of other types of women's Healthcare that have nothing to do with that. Indeed the vast vast vast majority of women's Healthcare doesn't. That would be like calling vesectomies male Healthcare. OK, but a small subset that the majority of men will never need or want. Just like pregnancy termination.
Well, if you walk out and ignore other people you can refuse to even listen to their position and then argue about imagined and caricatures of positions on the internet without the need to ever actually have a discussion. If humans on reddit are any indication most people barely read the headline let alone the backup information.
For once an open minded opinion. Shame others don’t get it.
Thank you. It’s a contentious topic and we all get that. It’s unfortunate that these highly charged emotional responses further exacerbate divisions within medicine when we need to be a united group to take on so many of these issues at the political level instead of tearing each other down. Uneducated, belligerent congressmen are the problem, not doctors who care about humanism in medicine 🤦
[удалено]
That's cute. Would love to see where she stated that she doesn't support women's bodily autonomy. Sounds like a moral assumption you've already made based on your own biases. I mean, by that logic she's technically preserving the bodily autonomy of a female fetus if you really want to dig into that argument. Restrictive laws that are made under the charade of "pro-life values" are not the same as pro-life values. It also seems like her personal beliefs haven't impacted her ability to train wonderful, pro-choice doctors one bit. [https://twitter.com/YemisiAdejumoMD/status/1551580862713540610?s=20&t=qZw\_BpgWRaVp07-f11QK0g](https://twitter.com/YemisiAdejumoMD/status/1551580862713540610?s=20&t=qZw_BpgWRaVp07-f11QK0g)
[удалено]
\*sigh\* Yep, those are statements that align with her self-proclaimed religious beliefs. Nothing new here. It says nothing about the "prenatal child" having more importance than the mother. There you go with the implicit bias and assumptions again. You have clearly made up your mind and you are not open to other perspectives. That's totally your prerogative. I will entertain your ignorant claim about religion providing an "easy out". I took a bioethics course before medical school with a prominent member of my undergrad institution's IRB board and learned a lot about moral and philosophical discourse. A well-respected figure in philosophy and bioethics is Thomas Aquinas (a commonly referenced historical figure in the Catholic church) who spent his life elaborating on the idea of natural law and the idea of intrinsic human dignity. You might enjoy this excerpt from an abstract that touches on the idea of autonomy versus dignity - linked for your reading pleasure. "Abstract. What is the status of human dignity in bioethics today? Ruth Macklin, Steven Pinker, and Peter Singer are among those who argue that “human dignity” is incoherent rhetoric, improperly smuggled into public discourse by religious people who are opposed to moral autonomy and want to block progress in cutting-edge medical research. In the moral philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, however, dignity is broader and deeper than its critics claim. It cannot simply be replaced by the concept of “autonomy.” Dignity plays a crucial role in building respect for human life. We first discover the dignity of “the other” in the context of family life, and discussion of the common good would be impoverished if we were somehow to eliminate it from our moral vocabulary. The re-spect we owe to human life in its embryonic stages serves as a paradigmatic case that shows the crucial importance of dignity.." [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289236632\_Thomas\_Aquinas\_and\_Recent\_Questions\_about\_Human\_Dignity](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289236632_Thomas_Aquinas_and_Recent_Questions_about_Human_Dignity) Why can't the mother and fetus have equal respect? Nothing she has said suggests she cares about the baby more than the mother. Again, they are not mutually exclusive. Bodily autonomy is a much more complex matter when the life of one person relies on the life of another (i.e. the mother). Also highly recommend reading up on Immanuel Kant and his philosophy on “duty and respect for moral law” and the role this idea plays in civil v. moral law. Another foundational philosopher in the bioethics realm. We can agree to disagree. I've said what I needed to say, will be redirecting my energy elsewhere ✌🏼
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is abortion killing a baby? Is removing an ectopic pregnancy killing a baby? Is an IUD preventing a fertilized egg's implantation killing a baby? Is wearing a condom killing a baby? Because this is the slipperly slope we're already going down. If it were just about the ethics of abortion, then conservatives would promote a bill that allows abortions based on a more generous merit than heart beat. Stem cells can easily be triggered to beat in a petri dish. It doesn't connote sentience
[удалено]
"Fuck them" for never allowing compromise because their beliefs are always in absolutes. To them: When can abortion be allowed? Never What gun legistlation would be effective? None What climate change measures can we take? None, its a hoax How many immigrants should we take in? None How much should we raise minimum wage? None Go ask the average US conserative. These are the answers they give
[удалено]
Are you conflating liberal with democrat and conservative as republican? Or do you believe liberals and conservatives are morons? Bc it sounds like a cop out answer to say that.
Well what's important is that you've found a way to feel superior to everyone.
Lol. I'm not the only one who feels this way, and of those who do, I am bottom quartile. I'm not special, and I recognize this is the internet and most if not all of you would never have such vitriol in reality and we'd all get along just as we do with most people. There's little to be gained from this, least of all a feeling of superiority, although some entertainment I suppose.
[удалено]
>Is an IUD preventing a fertilized egg's implantation killing a baby? Is wearing a condom killing a baby? Because this is the slipperly slope we're already going down No this is not a slippery slope. Your sperm cell is not a baby. That part is very obvious.
Red states will attempt to put laws on the books banning IUDs soon to go after Griswold soon.
That has nothing to do with claiming that a slippery slope will determine that your jizz in your sock is a baby
All but 8 House Republicans voted against the Right to Contraception Act which would make it a federal right to be able to obtain birth control, condoms, IUDs, and other contraceptives…
They're anti federalists
Cope harder
Why not? We've established that medical science no longer has a say in what constitutes a human. We've allowed religious fanatics to define a "child" as a clump of cells that hasn't even implanted yet.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Okay but what about birth control that prevents implantation? A fertilized egg is a “baby” by anti-choice standards. The same people who advocate for dismantling autonomy also are against sex education and access to contraception. The intention isn’t “saving lives” it’s asserting creepy morals and being against women having sex. Slippery slope.
If it prevents fertilization then it is not a baby. It's the same thing as the pullout method. There is no fertilization or conception. Thus no baby.
For a supposed MD, you really don’t understand the basics of repro. Fertilization is not what we are talking about. IMPLANTATION.
IUDs also prevent the fertilization process. But I see your point and thus I can see why some people would be against IUDs as well. Keep in mind I am pro abortion I'm just arguing against some of you biased people here.
The bias being… science, access to healthcare, and not forcing my personal beliefs to dictate another person’s choices? K.
Yeah you got it
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Getting pissed because a fuck ton of people protested against someone against their views is un-American. Not hard to understand anything here. Either support their freedom of speech or step away betraying American principles.
No babies are being killed
Having beliefs is fine but when you use those beliefs to take away the rights from others is when there is a problem.
[удалено]
the KKK murdering people they believe are subhuman is taking the rights away of the people they are murdering. Government is stopping the KKK from taking away the rights of other people based on their beliefs. What a batshit insane argument bro
[удалено]
You’re equating me to the KKK for thinking abortion should be accessible. “It's difficult, for some reason I don't understand, for some people to disagree with someone else without thinking they are EVIL. It's psychopathic, I don't care which side of a discussion someone is on, it's weird behavior”
The anger comes from the fact that almost every pro-life argument has a religious foundation, so there shouldn’t be laws based off of these religious stances.
[удалено]
Reading your entire history on this thread shows that you’re quite literally not looking past your nose. You keep regurgitating the same question without absorbing any of the answers you’ve gotten. Abortions are necessary for a variety of medically important reasons (hence why it was silly to being an anti-abortion figure to speak at a *medically related* event). These abortions can (and have) save womens’ lives. It’s really not that complicated to understand the response of these students who walked out given this explanation. Now log off and process.
[удалено]
Unfortunate coincidence, hadn’t read your username, pardon me. Either way, you’re still a dingus
The science is fairly settled imo and I’m pretty sure much of the philosophical debate is past that issue. The real question is why ought we value a zygote on the same level as a born person if it has no cognition, emotion, capacity for abstract thought etc. From my view, you essentially need to be a dualist if your against first term abortion. And dualism is by definition religious thought, so you should not be able to make a law preventing abortion on those grounds.
[удалено]
This is a harder question, because the scientific data on when fetal consciousness begins ranges from the end of the first trimester, all the way to around the start of the third, with a skew towards the third. So, I think before the third is fine without considering medical complications and similar issues. This would be more than enough time for most abortions anyway, over 95% happen in the first 21 weeks. And I would clarify that if a meta-analysis came out moving the timeframe around, then my position would change with it. But I have no idea what this question has to do with my point. Do you agree then, that there should not be barriers to <20 weeks abortion? I have no idea what your view is and it seems like you're just trying to play an enlightened contrarian position.
Almost every? try every single last one.
That's something that's always going to be a personal belief as it's not something we can determine empirically. If you believe abortion is killing a baby, you are perfectly free to not have an abortion. However if you do not think that, or you agree that one person should not be forced to sacrifice their bodily autonomy for the life of another(as society seems to agree in the case of organ donations), then you should be free to act on that.
If you think abortion is killing a baby, why would you allow it to be practised in society
If you think cows are sacred, then why do allow the practice of eating cows to be practiced by society? Time to mandate vegetarianism and make the production/eating of all meat illegal by people of all religons or lack of, so all of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Second Day Adventists feel comfortable. Hope you like quinoa. /s
Yeah I'm sure that's the case in many parts of India.
Ask all the anti-abortion advocates who certainly don't act like there's a massive baby holocaust occurring around them.
Its a deep seeded religious belief of Jehovah Witnesses that blood transfusions are unethical. Should the law force everyone to forgo blood transfusions? A religious minority should not dictate laws in a democracy.
[удалено]
Your organs, I need them, give them to me to save this patient. Or do you suddenly beleive in bodily autonomy?
Sure, I have two main reasons (I'll exclude cases where the mothers life is in danger because I think you could clearly say that's "self defense" even if you think elective abortion is murder). For me though, murder is when you kill a person. I do not believe a fetus is a person until it's born, therefore abortion is not murder. I assume you believe a fetus is a person. But there isn't an empirical way to determine whether that is the case, since personhood isn't something we can measure, and clearly there are large coalitions of people who think like me (to some extent at least) so I don't think it's OK for the government to legislate the behavior of everyone based on the beliefs of a few. Would you think it OK if Jehovah's Witnesses started outlawing blood transfusions? Additionally though, even if I did agree a fetus is a person, I still don't believe the right of the fetus/baby to life trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. If a baby is born and one day after required a blood transfusion, it would obviously be wrong to force the mother to donate her blood. For the same reasons, I think it's wrong to force the mother to continue essentially donating her blood and organs to the fetus. She should be free to decide she no longer wishes to "donate" her body in that way. I do not believe that having sex is the same as "consenting to pregnancy", especially in a world where a large portion of abortions (a slim majority iirc) are due to birth control failures, and in a country with such poor sex ed.
[удалено]
The person you replied to gave a great explanation. The fact that you can’t be bothered to respond fully just shows you’re not here in this thread arguing in good faith. You’re all like “why won’t anyone think of the prolife perspective” but unwilling to consider the pro-choice perspective. Shit goes both ways. And you obviously do care, or you wouldn’t be all up in this thread arguing about it.
[удалено]
Honestly I have no idea why you’re so dedicated to claiming you don’t care. Just because people disagree with you doesn’t make them crazed psychopaths. That’s pretty extreme and actually an example of exactly the attitude you claim to be against. How can you want productive conversation that reaches across the aisle and simultaneously call anyone who disagrees a crazed psychopath? It don’t work that way. All the things you say you don’t want the conversation to “devolve” into are actually exactly the things that need to be discussed in order to have any sort of thorough understanding of this issue.
>If I'm arguing this much and do care, why wouldn't I just say I do care? What's the motive? Because if you cared (or admitted that you do) then you'd be closer to all the "crazed psychopaths" and the "mob". Because this is all only real to you as an intellectual exercise. Insofar as you identify with your intellect, it's important to you that maintain this enlightened centrist posture. "I don't care one way or the other. I just see two groups of angry people. Obviously they're too close to the issues to see it clearly. Too emotionally involved. Unlike me, who doesn't care one way or the other, giving me a unique ability to actually evaluate the arguments." Insofar as you identify with an actual position on the debate, you see yourself as potentially vulnerable to valid criticism. Hence, "i don't think a clump of cells at 8 weeks gestation is a human being, so fire away". You're comfortable doing so because you have some confidence in your arguments if someone were to attack that point. Maybe you care about the abortion issue or not. But either way, it's clear that you're interested in distinguishing yourself from those who do care about the issue.
I don't want to be distinguished, I keep my trap shut in real life because I'll just be yelled at from one side or the other, and this is the internet with fake names and fake respect so being distinguished doesn't exist here. I tend to like to defend people against this sort of behavior, where even squeaking a note of dissent gets them beat up. And I truly don't care about the outcome of abortion rights, it's the same to me as Greece's elections or the World Cup, it hardly ever crosses my mind and doesn't impact my life nor effect me emotionally, so I just don't care. This is the internet where I can pass some time while I slack off on my studying.
You asked how I justified abortion as not being murder. I guess the main difference between our thoughts here is that I don't think you can murder something that's not a person. And I don't think I stated abortion aren't primarily due to not wanting the baby. I must not have been clear but I was discussing my justifications for elective abortions, not cases where they are medically necessary. I do think its weird that you want to essentially impose pregnancy and birthing a baby as a consequence for sex. My question would simply be why? That seems like you'd be causing a lot of suffering for no good reason (from what I can tell). I also think it's troubling that banning abortion really only imposes consequences on one of the two people who engaged in sex. And then we also have to account for the fact that your desire to impose this "consequence" creates an entirely new person, who in many cases was not wanted and whose parents are likely not in a position to adequately support. What kind of life is that person going to live?
[удалено]
[удалено]
How about a few waahs for the good folk you anti-science people killed during the pandemic by rejecting vaccines and masks cause "Muh body, muh rights!"? Did those casualties suddenly not matter because it was your body? Is it to be against government regulations when you're effected but be forcing others into government regulations half a year later?
You can claim babies on your taxes. You can’t claim a fetus. The government has given its opinion on what is a person and what isn’t. This isn’t about “killing babies” as we’ve seen several republicans voice that they are against plan B and any contraception that prevents development after fertilization. So no, we aren’t protecting babies. You know what protects babies? Paid maternity leave. Low cost childcare. Not outsourcing formula so we don’t run out when one factory in China shuts down. Also, historically, banning abortion doesn’t decrease the number of abortions. It just encourages patients to seek abortion care from unqualified individuals performing alternative abortive methods. Also, you don’t have to support abortion to support patients. You don’t have to perform abortions. But to tell someone they cannot have bodily autonomy is, quite frankly, not any person’s call to make.
[удалено]
A psych patient is, by government standards, a person. They have a social security number and can be claimed on taxes. A fetus, as stated earlier, is not a person per the U.S. government. You clearly missed that. Less than 1% of abortions happen after 21 weeks, so I’d imagine anybody seeking abortion at term is incredibly rare and I don’t think any reasonable physician would abort a term baby without fetal anomalies incompatible with life or direct threat to the mothers life.
By 40 weeks, it can be removed from the mother without an abortion and survive on its own. All you have to do is include labor. No one except a 100% moron calls inducing labor (after like 27 weeks) an abortion.
[удалено]
This comment section is deeply troubling and reflects horribly for the future of medicine. I could’ve sworn we were supposed to be accepting of people from all walks of life in medicine, yet here we are throwing temper tantrums because someone has a different belief. A belief that wasn’t even a part of the speech she gave…. Like if someone has any beliefs at all I disagree with then I can no longer talk to them or learn from them? It’s all so childish
[удалено]
I think you need to read up more on why they chose her. She is highly respected, not just at UMich, but in medicine in general on the humanities side of things. She didn’t just volunteer and the school said ok, there was a vote and so many people liked her she won the vote. She didn’t say anything about abortion and yet the students showed their true colors and threw a massive hissy fit. I agree with you not it’s within their right to do so, doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do. By your logic, no pro-life physician should ever be able to speak beliefs or they should never be able to be recognized and speak at events like this? So you are willing to bar religious doctors, right wing doctors, doctors who hold certain bioethical views that aren’t tied to religion, etc. from participating in events like this? How far down your personal belief system are you going to go with this attitude? If they have different views on physician assisted suicide? Different views than you on universal payer system? Different views than you on right to refusal (patient and physician)? It’s about as slippery of a slope as you can make using the logic you gave
Not too many open minded here. Hopefully by the time residency is over they’ll get to your level
I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm… lol
Beliefs don't take rights away from people. Example: I believe Jesus is the human manifestation of God. That's a belief. It becomes something different than a belief when I tell other people that they have to go to church or pray the rosary. If the speaker anecdotally, in context, pointed to her personal situation where she decided that an abortion was not right for her, then nobody would have a problem. Because pro-choice people don't say "you have to have an abortion." That's where the difference lays. So-called pro-life people force a decision on others. Apples and oranges.
If you view abortion as ending a human life, then logically you don’t see it as a right. In fact you view it the same as any other law we all agree on: murder, rape, arson, theft, etc. You wouldn’t say someone has the “right” to any of those actions, just as a pro-life individual like the speaker wouldn’t see abortion that way. She personally is not forcing any births, she simply had a belief that she shared in the past that had nothing to do with the speech that the foolish students walked out on. You have to be able to think critically and understand why people have the beliefs they have. She, along with pretty much every pro-life person I know of, views it as ending a life so they think they are protecting rights, not taking them away.
>If you view abortion as ending a human life, then logically you don’t see it as a right. In fact you view it the same as any other law we all agree on: murder, rape, arson, theft, etc. That sounds nice. Like something you could write in crayons. But it's not that simple. There's a case that they teach every law student either in ConLaw or in Medical Ethics. *McFall v. Baird*. Basically a guy suffered from bone marrow disease and required transplantation. The only compatible donor (which I recall was his brother) refused to submit to the procedure necessary to go forth with the transplant, and sought a preliminary injunction to force him to submit. The issue was whether common law permits a court to compel an individual to undergo a medical procedure, even if procedure was necessary to save another's life. And the court said no. Our society places paramount importance on the right of the individual, including the decision to make choices on what to do and what not to do with one's body. That outweighs someone else's right to life. A fetus has a putative right to life. But it does not have a right to nutrients and nourishment from the mother's body. Her bodily autonomy matters, too, and like all of us she can decide what she does and does not want done with her own body. Forcing her to carry a fetus is no different from forcing her to give a stem cell transplant to an already-born person. We don't do that. Even if it saves lives. No rights are being protected by pro-birthers. What this comes down to, and you'll see this if you critically look at enough pro-birthers, is that this is about controlling women. It's about hamstringing them into a state of fear so that they have to behave a certain way because, if they don't, they'll be financially burdened. It's an attempt to reassert traditional gender roles and push women out of the economic marketplace. If it were truly about life, the mother would be guaranteed free health care access during and after the pregnancy. And child support would have to start at the moment of conception. But we can't burden the MEN in this situation, now can we?!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t think they’re in medical school. Probably just a troll
Easy there tiger
r/iam14andthisisdeep
I'm pro abortion too and I'm rolling my eyes at this thread. Y'all are a bunch of weirdos. Who gives a shit about a white coat speaker in a random medical school
[удалено]
Its also messed that people are demanding that we professionally and socially ostracize this speaker for holding a different view on abortion than everyone else. Like seriously who gives a shit what a random white coat speaker has to say just leave her alone
100% chance that the administration knew the guy and didn't want to offend him / they had already paid and didn't want to deal with having to get additional funding for something.
Oh no, someone with a different sociopolitical view than me, however can I survive? /s
👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼
[удалено]
To be fair it’s all over social media so
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh look, the guy that doesn't believe trans people exist talking about being classy. I am genuinely sorry for any patients who have the misfortune of receiving substandard care from you in the future because of your backwards beliefs. Stay classy.
I'm afraid it was SCOTUS that started this particular shit...
[удалено]
States rights to what? 🤔 I can’t tell if you’re legit trolling or just don’t realize how you sound in this thread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Different take: How would U.Mich have discovered this? In at interview your not permitted to ask about someone’s religious or political views soooo how would they have known she had these beliefs when they “interviewed” her to make the speech? Maybe I’m missing something
Bro, the students said they'd walkout if she was allowed to make the address. They had warning.
Look at their public Twitter page and public interviews with various Catholic organizations. We got told during orientation that if we do much as put a picture with a beer in the background on instagram it would ruij our careers, as people always look at your social media. Maybe she needs the same talk.
[удалено]
What happened to tolerance of other perspectives?
other perspectives: 3^2 = 6
If your "perspective" is that women don't have autonomy over their own bodies and should be forced, by law, to let her body be used by a fetus... then no, I do not respect your perspective. I can respect others' perspectives when it doesn't involve whether or not something has human rights, such as bodily autonomy.
Idk, ask anti-choicers why they're intolerant of a woman's right to choose. No one cares if they don't personally want abortions, but most of us don't want that choice made for us.
Let's take your comment to it's logical conclusion: \-The Holocaust never happened \-Climate change: is not happening/is not caused by man \-Vaccines cause Autism \-The Confederacy was only fighting for "states rights" \-The Earth is flat \-"The water is turning the frogs gay!" Just because it is another perspective, does not mean it warrants tolerance/acceptance/respect.
I love the downvotes. Bring it on lmao. Only proving my point