http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/18/abortion/index.html I prefer this one from BARF:

LINK : http://www.barf.org/ashcroft/

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Answers

Let's not holler till we're hurt CEEP. If the guy goes Christian ballistic I will help lead your parade.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

What do you mean WAIT? This man has already gone "Christian ballistic"! Giving this man the top law-enforcement role in the US is akin to giving a habitual drunken driver a brand new car. This man has proven time and time again that he has absolutely no respect for a woman's right to self determination or the safety of those of us who would protect that right. He fought to make it legal to murder abortion providers. Is that not "Christian ballistic" enough for you? Good night man, how long are you going to sit on your hands?

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

They guy is going to get confirmed Tarzan. Deal with it. What he actually does as AG deserves the same scrutiny as all those before him.

Your "make it legal to murder" needs some clarificaton at least for me.

Abortion is another deal. Talk about choice is cool unless you can't talk yet and sombody else is choosing. We won't agree here.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

You've got to be kidding me. This man sponsored legislation that not only made abortion illegal in Missouri but also is written in such a way as to categorize all hormonal contraception methods (which are the most effective methods available, some even slightly more effective than sterilization) as abortion (and thus illegal). This legislation also allows those who take exception to abortion (and possibly the dispensing of hormonal contraception) to KILL doctors (and possibly pharmacists). As if this wasn't bad enough, when then govenor Mel Carnahan opposed this legislation, Ashcroft cynically LIED about his position for political gain. The legislation overcame Carnahan's veto and is currently in the courts.

Abortion is indeed another deal. Carnahan has promised to uphold the law of the land, which allows access to abortion and contraception. However, last year, he was fighting tooth and nail to circumvent the law (and the law against murder). John Ashcroft wants to make your reproductive decisions for you. Not only does he not want you to have an abortion, he wants you to not have access to the most effective forms of contraception currently available.

Of course, maybe this is hunky dory with you. Maybe you think the government should be in the bedrooms and medicine cabinets of its citizens. Bear in mind that Roe v. Wade is based on a found right to privacy, and will not be dismantled unless that right to privacy is proven not to exist in the first place. And if that happens, then what's to contain the government to your bedroom and medicine cabinet?

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Well, I am dead set against the man's agenda, but am willing to give him a chance. I am not sure that he could equal Janet Reno's Oscar for best performance as a lap dog, but I'll be sure to get my popcorn before the curtain rises so I don't miss anything.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Tarzan,

I think the statement to which Carlos referred was this one:

He [Ashcroft] fought to make it legal to murder abortion providers.

Can you provide real evidence for this rather astonishing claim? Not spin, not logical "if a, then b follows, and therefore, this is the moral equivalent of saying that he supports such murder," but something resembling real, non-ethereal evidence that Ashcroft would actually support the murder of abortion providers?

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Tarzan, I think you're overthinking it. The scenarios you allude to just ain't gonna happen. The Roe v. Wade decision is adamantine. Period. As for my view on abortion, see above.

Will take you to task though. As an avowed atheist what the hell are you doing even commenting about what religious people do? Understand the bummer it must be to live in a nation "under God" but assume the choice is yours. Perhaps not. Me, I don't pick on atheists. Few do as far as I can tell. Still, people sitting in the catbird seat taking shots at the structure that produced and support them tend to piss me.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

The 'deadly force' article is here.........

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/18/abortion/index.html

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Just a few short notes before heading out for a late night. See you all in the morning. Can you provide real evidence for this rather astonishing claim? Not spin, not logical "if a, then b follows, and therefore, this is the moral equivalent of saying that he supports such murder," but something resembling real, non-ethereal evidence that Ashcroft would actually support the murder of abortion providers?

Yes. The actual statute, 565-300, contains a caveat that says, "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to exclude the defenses otherwise available to any person under the law including defenses provided pursuant to chapters 562 and 563, RSMo." 562 and 563 legalize the use of force to prevent the commission of a crime, up to and including deadly force. The bills author admitted that the bill was designed to allow deadly force on those who perform abortions, saying "I think that's justifiable in protecting a person." In Carnahan's veto, he said "Perhaps most outrageously of all, this bill will allow someone to legally commit acts of violence, including a lethal act against a physician, nurse or patient, in order to prevent a termination of a pregnancy by a procedure which the attacker reasonably believes would be a violation of this bill." Ashcroft campaigned hard for the passage of this bill, although the bill was passed on the state level and Ashcroft was a federal legislator at the time (my bad for saying he was a sponsor; he wasn't a sponsor, he was merely someone who advocated this bill and campaigned for it). For example, in April of 1999, Ashcroft issued a statement calling for Carnahan to "sign this important bill,".

As an avowed atheist what the hell are you doing even commenting about what religious people do?

This argument might actually have a leg to stand on if it weren't for the fact that Ashcroft's support of this bill was in his role as a public, elected official. I don't know what country you live in, but in the US, no one is denied a voice in government, or the right to express their opinion, on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.

Still, people sitting in the catbird seat taking shots at the structure that produced and support them tend to piss me. You can be as pissed as you want, but the first amendment is still in effect and I am still allowed to express outrage at politicians that do their best to circumvent the law or support efforts to do so. I will express that outrage regardless of the religion, or lack thereof, of a particular politician. I refuse to respect your sacred cows (or anyone elses for that matter). If you have a problem with that, I suggest you either get over it or stop reading my posts.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Tripe.

Tarzan you're clearly too sharp not to see that Carnahan's comments were political. Either that or you're not sharp enough to realize that the proposed legislation would not have opened season on abortionists.

As for your first amendment rights, yeah I'm gonna take them away from you. Humph.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Tarzan, it is simply the conjecture of your cut and paste's author that this legalizes the use of deadly force on abortion workers. Please do hold yourself to higher standards.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Tarzan,

That's what I thought. Carnahan -- who was planning to run against Ashcroft for the Senate, remember, and needed to solidify his Democratic base -- put the worst possible spin on the thing. Whether you agree with Ashcroft's stand (that abortion is murder), the proposed law DID NOT declare open season on abortion providers.

Law enforcement personnel are permitted to use deadly force ONLY when their lives or the lives are others are in immediate danger ... *AND* ... the law enforcement officer deems that he has no choice but to use that deadly force at that moment; that there's no time for reflection, negotiation, whatever.

Carnahan did a marvelous job of contriving a completely ludicrous scenario:

(1) abortion is declared "murder" (which would never happen, anyway, because the Supreme Court would immediately strike it down)

(2) law enforcement personnel break in on a doctor in the very act of performing an abortion (also exceedingly unlikely)

(3) law enforcement personnel don't even cry, "stop" or "halt," they immediately pull their weapons and shoot the doctor (also exceedingly unlikely).

Now, contrive THIS scenario, which is probably more what Ashcroft had in mind: Abortion is declared illegal. Pro-choice advocates resist the new law, some violently. Law enforcement personnel defend themselves.

(Incidentally, this is why, even though I am PERSONALLY opposed to abortion and will do anything I can to talk a woman out of it in most cases, I am OPPOSED to overturning Roe v. Wade. Given current attitudes in this country, it will only result in chaos. That's where I disagree with Ashcroft.)

(We -- meaning pro-lifers in general -- have a good bit more work to do in persuading the public to our point of view before such a law could even be considered, much less passed.)

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Tarzan you're clearly too sharp not to see that Carnahan's comments were political. Either that or you're not sharp enough to realize that the proposed legislation would not have opened season on abortionists.

Carlos, the statute in question clearly allows for the legalized murder of doctors and nurses who perform abortions under sections 562 and 563 of the Missouri legal code. Even the drafter of the legislation admits that. This fact will not change despite your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Tarzan, it is simply the conjecture of your cut and paste's author that this legalizes the use of deadly force on abortion workers.

No it's not. Read the statute yourself. It is very clear.

Whether you agree with Ashcroft's stand (that abortion is murder), the proposed law DID NOT declare open season on abortion providers.

No, but the law does allow for the murder of abortion providers under the same portions of the law that allow for the use of violence in the prevention of the commission of a crime. In other words, according to this particular law, if a person suspects an abortion is about to take place, that person can kill the doctor and use sections 562 and 563 as his defense.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

One more thing you apparently missed, Stephen. 562 and 563 cover citizens, not police officers (with the exception of two subsections of 563). This law is specifically written to allow private citizens to murder doctors and use 562 and 563 as defense.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Tarzan:

I seriously doubt if such a defense would stand up in any court. If this was really Ashcroft's intent, it won't work that way.

On the other hand, Ashcroft's religious inflexibility is genuine cause for concern, because religious absolutes are practically guaranteed to lead to poor policy and terrible judgment.

I agree with Ashcroft's stance on nearly everything except the War on Drugs (a horrible mistake, guaranteeing the opposite of its intent), and his religious dogma. But these alone have me convinced there have GOT to be better nominees for this position.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Flint-

Why would you doubt that such a defense would stand up in court in Missouri? There are plenty of examples of Missouri citizens using violence to prevent a criminal act against a third party in the past and being found innocent of any crime. After all, it's the law in Missouri that a third party can use violence (up to deadly force) to prevent the commission of a crime. This is not by any means a far- fetched scenario.

I agree that there are certainly better candidates for this position. A man who has dedicated himself to circumventing constitutional law is a poor choice to uphold that law. Does anyone recall a story about the fox and the henhouse?

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2001

Tarzan,

The restrictions and limitations that I described for law enforcement ALSO apply to civilians -- even MORE strongly. There's still nothing in law (or court precedent) that will allow citizens to act as vigilantes. In fact, the opposite is true.

I'd like to read the text of that law and decide for myself. I'll still bet you dollars to donuts that Carnahan took the worst possible interpretation and ran with it as a political football.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Tarzan,

Here's the oath that older physicians swore to before getting their M.D.s.

Hypocratic Oath

Hippocrates, 400 BC

Translated by Francis Adams

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation - to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, ant to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and by that precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate, may the reverse be my lot!

2400 hundred year-old wisdom there, Tarzan. BTW,the "oath" was changed within the last thiry years at many institutions of higher learning to delete the part about not providing abortion services. A doctor is supposed to first, do no harm. To me that does NOT mean killing 1/2 of all your patients deliberately. The people who make their living providing abortion services IMO have turned their back on their duty to mankind for profit, making the practice of medicine less noble.

But from a religious perspective, that doesn't mean they should be killed however, just as bottom-feeding lawyers have a right to practice their trade free from murder. But from your athiestic position, why should a doctor or nurse's life be any more valuable than a fetus'? What makes an older biological organism more worthy to live than a younger one?

I still don't get how you can be so passionate about giving people the right to kill 8 month olds.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

I'd like to read the text of that law and decide for myself.

Do you need a link? I'll be happy to provide one.

I'll still bet you dollars to donuts that Carnahan took the worst possible interpretation and ran with it as a political football.

Even if he did, you still have to contend with the actual text of the law and the unfortunate fact that the bill's own author admitted that he left the possibility of using 562 and 563 as defense for the murder of doctors who perform abortion.

But from your athiestic position, why should a doctor or nurse's life be any more valuable than a fetus'?

Because they are full, complete, individual, sentient, and actualized human beings. I'm surprised this point escapes you so consistantly and thoroughly.

I still don't get how you can be so passionate about giving people the right to kill 8 month olds.

Come on Frank, stop lying. Can't your argument stand without deliberately distorting my position?

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Does anyone else find it hilarious that king homophobe Frank has no problem referring to the wisdom of a society that encouraged its men to engage in anal sex with each other? What was it the Greeks used to say, "A wife for children, a man for conversation, a boy for pleasure," I'm not saying anything is wrong with homosex only that Frank wouldn't dream of calling the Greeks wise except for this one small instance where they happen to agree with his worldview. For that he's a hypocrite but I'll bet you figured that out long ago.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

I would like to see the original greek for the oath. And I would like to know where the translation comes from that Frank posted. As we all know, translation is inexact at best, misleading at worst. This is why we have so many versions of the Bible.

And I would love to take someone up on that free medical school training.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Good point, FS. Everyone talks about the points of the Hippocratic oath which seem to forbid abortion and euthenasia, but no one demands medical schools stop charging tuition.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Oh God. More freebies.

But that's another subject.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Tarzan,

Because they are full, complete, individual, sentient, and actualized human beings. I'm surprised this point escapes you so consistantly and thoroughly.

As I'm sure you're aware, according to Maslow only ~1% of people ARE actualized, so is it acceptable to kill the other 99% in your opinion!?! Is that the point that escapes me, that only 1% of the population is worth saving?

I still don't get how you can be so passionate about giving people the right to kill 8 month olds.

Come on Frank, stop lying. Can't your argument stand without deliberately distorting my position?

Tarzan, I don't see how you can make a distinction between a baby one month after birth and one month before, that's all. Can you explain to me what the big difference is?

To the Pinworm posting as "Laughing at You",

Does anyone else find it hilarious that king homophobe Frank has no problem referring to the wisdom of a society that encouraged its men to engage in anal sex with each other?

Maybe you haven't figured it out yet, but this is NOT a thread on homosexuals. I know that YOUR existence is centered on the anus, but not everyone else's is. You don't have to bring homosexuality on to every thread you post to. And BTW, if it's beneath your dignity to post to me using your normal handle, it's really pathetic that you'd post to me using an anonymous one. Figure it out chief, the reason you can't hold a job isn't that they're all mean to you, it's that you are too imature to fulfill your employment resposibilities.

FS,

It's a pretty standard translation. Stedman's lists the line as "will not give a woman a pessary to procure abortion". I don't speak Greek, so don't have the original handy, but an internet search would probably find it somewhere. Can YOU find a translation where it is NOT translated in this way?

As far as medical school, do the individual physicians involved in teaching the students get paid for them (directly) or does just the school? I'd bet (to Klintonize) no physician is breaking their oath even if associated with a 20th century med school.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Change "imature" to "immature".

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Hell yes doctors at medical schools get paid! So do Doctors at teaching hospitals and doctors who mentor interns at hospitals too.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Side note,

I didn't SAY they didn't get paid, but do they get paid directly by the student? Nope.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

I didn't SAY they didn't get paid, but do they get paid directly by the student? Nope.

Man you're cutting it thin there Frank. The oath YOU POSTED says, ", I will keep this Oath and this stipulation - to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, ant to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and by that precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

My father's a doctor. He graduated from Duke roughly 35 years ago. No, he didn't take the oath. Moreover, he never regarded any of his professors as his parents, hasn't taught their sons medicine, and has accepted money to lecture to students on more than one occasion, none of whom were his children, the children of his teachers, or even all sons for that matter (there were women in the class!). Clearly he's in violation of his hippocratic oath, though he's never performed an abortion or assisted a suicide (he's an ear, nose, and throat guy, not much call for it there).

Regarding the actualization issue, quite frankly, you're once again splitting hairs between actualization and self-actualization. Good spin though.

I have only known of two D&X's (what some call Partial Birth Abortions). In both instances, because of the deformaties of the fetuses, the D&X was the only option available and neither of the fetuses were at all viable. If you can provide me with an actual account of a PBA being used for any reason other than medical necessity, I'll be happy to discuss it. The only instances I've ever seen in compulsory pregnancy propaganda have been apocryphal stories.

While I'm no "laughing@you", I would like to see you address this. No Greek doctor would perform an abortion, but they regularly engaged in homosexual activities. Is this also 2400 year old wisdom?

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Whoops, I'm wrong, my dad did take the Hippocratic oath when he his completed his residency(he happened to call a few minutes ago), though it sounds like more of a lark- they were all very drunk and at a party to celebrate. He said that most others he knew had taken it under similar circumstances, in other words, not very seriously. "Do you really expect a bunch of 20th century Americans to make an oath to Apollo and whoever the hell else and take it seriously?" And no, that has never stopped him from collecting money for teaching medicine and no, he has never "shared his substance" with his professors" or "relieved his necessities".

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Tarzan,

With regards to me "cutting it thin" on charging for Medical teaching, if you'll read back to my original answer to FS, I said,

As far as medical school, do the individual physicians involved in teaching the students get paid for them (directly) or does just the school? I'd bet (to Klintonize) no physician is breaking their oath even if associated with a 20th century med school.

I was trying to say in my response to him that I knew it was a stretch, but I guess that got lost between posts.

My father's a doctor. He graduated from Duke roughly 35 years ago. No, he didn't take the oath. and

Whoops, I'm wrong, my dad did take the Hippocratic oath when he his completed his residency

What were you basing the first statement on then, if you don't mind my asking?

Regarding the actualization issue, quite frankly, you're once again splitting hairs between actualization and self-actualization. Good spin though.

Thank you. What is "actualization" if not Maslow's "Self-actualization"? I thought that is what you meant. Is there some other "new-age" meaning?

If you can provide me with an actual account of a PBA being used for any reason other than medical necessity, I'll be happy to discuss it.

My point wasn't regarding an individual case, but whether conceptually it is acceptable at all. If it is, why wouldn't you allow the same right for a mother to kill her child one week or month after birth? What's the difference?

While I'm no "laughing@you", I would like to see you address this. No Greek doctor would perform an abortion, but they regularly engaged in homosexual activities. Is this also 2400 year old wisdom?

I'd like to stay focused on this for now, I really am curious as to why abortion doesn't bother you. There's plenty of time to entertain this fellow at a later date.

though it sounds like more of a lark- they were all very drunk and at a party to celebrate.

That suprises me to be honest. Duke then is the first med school I've heard of to let its grads out *without* taking at least *some* oath. I wonder if he isn't just having selective retention of events, but maybe he's right, who knows. If I get the time & inclination I'll browse their med school's website.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

What were you basing the first statement on then, if you don't mind my asking?

Dad has always said he didn't take the Hippocratic oath when he graduated. I just assumed he didn't take it at all. Duke offers a seperate ceremony for the Hippocratic oath, which my father missed due to illness (well, that's what he told his folks; he was just actually very drunk). The oath is viewed as more of a nice ceremony than a requirement of graduation. Even without the oath, he's still a doctor.

Sidenote: two of my siblings are also doctors, my sister and my middle brother (actually he's an intern) both were given the opportunity to take the oath.

A fully actualized human being is one who is self-aware and sentenient. This includes pretty much everyone but the comatose.

My point wasn't regarding an individual case, but whether conceptually it is acceptable at all.

Balls. It's conceptually possible that plastic surgeons could create a second non-functional nose in the middle of the forehead. Does this mean we should outlaw rhinoplasty? If you don't think we should outlaw rhinoplasty, does it then follow that you are pro-non functional noses being placed in the middle of the forehead?

I have never heard of a D&X being performed except in very extreme circumstances. It's hard to imagine a woman who would go eight months being pregnant and then decide to terminate the pregnancy, or a doctor who would accomodate her if the fetus were healthy. I've seen a lot of rhetoric on this point, but absolutely no verifiable proof. If you have some, please present it.

I'd like to stay focused on this for now, I really am curious as to why abortion doesn't bother you.

Oh come on. Abortin doesn't bother me for the same reason rhinoplasty doesn't bother you.

Duke then is the first med school I've heard of to let its grads out *without* taking at least *some* oath.

WHOA! Don't twist my words there, Sparky. I'm talking about one particular grad who didn't take the oath but still graduated and became a licensed doctor, NOT Duke University. While we're on the subject however, I'd like to ask you about something else you said.

BTW,the "oath" was changed within the last thiry years at many institutions of higher learning to delete the part about not providing abortion services.

I did some looking around. The modern Hippocratic oath also deletes references to Greek dieties, providing medical training for free, covering the debts of those who have taught you medicine, and abstaining from treating masons (meaning brick layers, not members of the Masonic Order). I think it's disingenuous in the least and a deliberate distortion to pretend that the references to abortion were the ONLY parts of the oath that were changed. Why did you say this?

For anyone who cares, here's the Hippocratic oath offered at Duke.

I do solemnly swear by whatever I hold most sacred, That I will be loyal to the profession of medicine and just and generous to its members. That I will lead my life and practice my Art in uprightness and honor. That into whatsoever home I shall enter it shall be for the good of the sick and the well to the utmost of my power and that I will hold myself aloof from wrong and from corruption and from the tempting of others to vice. That I will exercise my Art, solely for the cure of my patients and the prevention of disease and will give no drugs and perform no operation for a criminal purpose and far less suggest such thing. That whatsoever I shall see or hear of the lives of men which is not fitting to be spoken, I will keep inviolably secret. These things I do promise and in proportion as I am faithful to this oath, may happiness and good repute be ever mine, the opposite if I shall be forsworn.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Tarzan,

Yes, I agree that Duke *does* give the oath every year to its graduating students. Link . It's also true that some people don't take it (feigning illness) or don't care what they say and will act accordingly, there's no force of law here to bind anyone to anything.

Balls

I think this means you disagree... I don't find elective superfluous rhinoplasty morally wrong, (other than being a waste of resources). I'm neither pro nor con on it. I *would* allow it to be performed if someone wanted it. The question was, would YOU allow a mother to kill her one week old infant if she wanted to (in the same spirit as I would allow rhinoplasty), given that under certain circumstances you'd allow her to *before* the baby passed through the birth canal?

I'd like to stay focused on this for now, I really am curious as to why abortion doesn't bother you.

Oh come on. Abortin doesn't bother me for the same reason rhinoplasty doesn't bother you.

That's what I'm trying to understand Tarzan, how can you compare abortion to rhinoplasty?

BTW,the "oath" was changed within the last thiry years at many institutions of higher learning to delete the part about not providing abortion services.

I did some looking around. The modern Hippocratic oath also deletes references to Greek dieties, providing medical training for free, covering the debts of those who have taught you medicine, and abstaining from treating masons (meaning brick layers, not members of the Masonic Order). I think it's disingenuous in the least and a deliberate distortion to pretend that the references to abortion were the ONLY parts of the oath that were changed. Why did you say this?

Uh, Tarz old bean, would you care to do a little MORE looking around first before accusing me of being disingenuous? It would only be polite. For instance, look at what YEAR they changed the oath, if there had been a push to change the oath by ANYONE to change the masons part, etc. before abortion became an issue, etc. If you are asserting that I'm deliberately trying to mislead you, please back up your assertion with something other than unfounded accusations.

That I will exercise my Art, solely for the cure of my patients and the prevention of disease and will give no drugs and perform no operation for a criminal purpose and far less suggest such thing.

Even in the new & improved version it seems to me that killing 1/2 of the patients that walk through your door is in violation of the oath, but maybe it's just me.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

The question was, would YOU allow a mother to kill her one week old infant if she wanted to (in the same spirit as I would allow rhinoplasty), given that under certain circumstances you'd allow her to *before* the baby passed through the birth canal?

The only circumstances under which a woman would terminate a pregnancy that late would be if the fetus were extremely and severely deformed and/or if the woman's life were in danger. Of course, a woman's life would be in danger by an abortion that late anyway, so I would leave that decision up to her and her doctor.

After birth, an infant is a seperate being who is not capable of directly threatening the woman's life. The fact of its birth is irrevocable, the decision has been made. If a woman becomes pregnant and does not wish to give birth and become a mother, she has only one option, which is abortion. However, if she has already given birth and no longer wishes to be a mother, she has other options, such as adoption. So a woman who has an infant of one week should not be allowed to end its life it UNLESS the infant is so badly deformed that it will not survive and is suffering. Under that condition, I think euthanasia should be allowed.

That's what I'm trying to understand Tarzan, how can you compare abortion to rhinoplasty?

They're both elective surgical procedures.

If you are asserting that I'm deliberately trying to mislead you, please back up your assertion with something other than unfounded accusations.

You might have a case to make if you didn't say,"BTW,the "oath" was changed within the last thiry years at many institutions of higher learning to delete the part about not providing abortion services. Since the oath was changed to omit SEVERAL OTHER details, and not solely abortion, you distorted the facts severely and to compound the mess jumped to one hell of a wild-eyed conclusion. It's as though we were given a jigsaw puzzle and you picked up one piece and said, "Aha! This piece is blue, therefore we're dealing with a water scene!"

Looking at one version of the Hippocratic oath and another side by side, and taking one detail (out of seven or eight) that has been omitted, and deciding that that one detail was the reason the entire thing has changed is faulty logic, plain and simple.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Tarzan,

Since the oath was changed to omit SEVERAL OTHER details, and not solely abortion, you distorted the facts severely and to compound the mess jumped to one hell of a wild-eyed conclusion.

Please. You're trying to take the easy way out. Look at the timing Tarzan, and consider human nature. If something doesn't bother you much, you don't bother to "fix" it (the masons). If you're going to "fix" something anyway (due to changing abortion laws / acceptability), there's no reason not to "fix" everything. You haven't shown me to even be *trying* to be disingenuous OR showing that any of the other changes you mentioned were the Cause for the change! Give me a break Tarzan, where is the big American concern in the 70s and 80s about treating Masons? Do you REALLY think that these were motivational forces on par with abortion, or are you just arguing for argument's sake?

Seriously, at this point, this is a pretty weak effort to on your part.

On abortion, I think I understand what you believe now, but find it incomprehensible.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Frank-

If you've got proof, present it. Otherwise, all you have is a thoroughly modernized oath, an opinion, and the potential for a really strange conspiracy. An anti-pagan, anti-free-loading, pro- masonry, conspiracy.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Tarzan aren't you willing to accept "it just makes sense" as proof? If it was good enough to prove that redheads are witches it should be good enough to prove that duke Med School was overrun with prochoice activists in the 1960s

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2001

Right Tarzan,

It's just another strange coinkydink.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Just as I thought.

Absolutely no proof whatsoever, just "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Abortion wasn't even legal in most of the US when you claim the oath was changed, yet schools like Duke (which is closely tied to the Methodist church) decided to rewrite the Hippocratic oath to remove the references to abortion and just in case anyone got wise removed the references to pagan dieties, covering your teachers debts, not accepting money to teach medicine, and treating masons. It wasn't a new translation, it was a CONSPIRACY to make abortion acceptable. Yeah, that's it! Only instead of just deleting references to abortion, they inserted a reference to not performing illegal acts, just in case abortion became legal some day. How insidious! Why, it's a conspiracy of pro-choice, blue collar psychic doctors!

You're getting soft in the head there, Frank.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Tarzan,

Once again, you accuse me of things, and your behavior becomes increasingly boorish, and without "presenting any evidence" of your own. Figures. As an FYI,

The Oath of Hippocrates had usually figured at least ceremonially in medical school graduations, even if his principles were beginning to be forgotten. But even this ceremonial reverence was dropped after 1973, when in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Oath as a guide to medical ethics and practice.

Beginning about twenty years ago, a number of physicians and scholars began to look critically at the discarded Oath, some rejecting it, but others seeing it as a potential guide out of a growing ethical chaos. Most readily accessible is the work of my Trinity colleague Nigel M. de S. Cameron, The New Medicine (Crossway), which deals with Hippocrates' significance for medicine today.

Agreeing with Cameron are two west European writers, Professor Charles Lichtenthaeler of the Hamburg University Faculty of Medicine and Professor Giacomo Mottura of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Turin (Torino). Lichtenthaeler wants us to make Hippocrates' deep religious insights once again our own, not simply in their original form, but as they were preserved and deepened by his Jewish and Christian successors in medicine and theology. Mottura emphasizes the physician's responsibility to the whole of society, as well as to men and to God (or the divine) and wants to see it reaffirmed and accepted again today as in the past. Yet, others disagree. In his 1981 paper, "Farewell to Hippocrates: Medical Ethics Between Hippocrates and the Geneva Oath," East German physician Dr. Ulrich Wolff expresses respect for Hippocrates but feels that the world of medicine has so changed that it is time to say goodbye to his precepts. Wolff seems to think that the age of genetic research, abortion, and euthanasia requires us to change our Hippocratic ideals. He feels that changes in the law (giving some countries easy abortions), the increasing age of the population, and many other factors have rendered Hippocrates' view of human dignity obsolete. "The Hippocratic principles have not so much been tried and found wanting as found demanding and not tried."

And

Contemporary versions of the oath generally retain the statements emphasizing the physician's obligations to the medical profession and patients as well as some aspects of the personal conduct and character of the physician, such as maintaining confidentiality. Notably missing from these versions of the oath are the covenant with the gods, prohibitions on euthanasia and on performing abortions, individual conduct with regard to sexual relationships with patients, and personal accountability for one's judgment and actions.

Link and Link.

Tarzan, I can handle your disagreeing with me, but there's no excuse for your behavior.

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Good night Frank, that's all you have? One man who himself think Hippocrates was a monotheist (!) and who cites another man who paraphrases an East German physicain from 20 years ago who seems to agree with you and an article about changes in the Hippocratic oath over time? And you consider this proof? Quit pulling my dick Frank.

The irony of it is that the second article you posted actually undercuts your position that the oath has been altered solely to legitimize abortion.

As the medical teachings of the Hippocratic corpus came to define the Western approach to disease and illness, use of the oath as the essential expression of medical values gained wide acceptance and defined medical professional conduct well into the early 19th century. At that point, as scientific medicine eclipsed the humoral understanding of disease and illness, the Hippocratic oath was abandoned as an outdated relic of a bygone era. It was believed that scientific expertise and the certainty it would bring to the clinical encounter would be the best assurance not only of technical competence but also of the highest ethical and professional conduct based on such expertise.

If alteration of the oath proves the existance of an insidious conspiracy of pro-choice, blue collar, psychic doctors, what does it's complete disappearance for roughly 50 years mean? How about the other alterations that occured in the oath over the last 2500 years? Were those about making abortion acceptable as well? From the very same article:

Use of the oath did not gain wide acceptance until the early Middle Ages, when it was revised to reflect the ideals and beliefs of Christianity.

The Hippocratic oath has a long history of alteration and usage, or more accurately, lack of usage. It has been changed to suit the knowledge and ethics of the time, and even dropped altogether as irrelevant. You would have us believe that the only substatial changes to the Hippocratic oath have occured within the last thirty years as part of a political movement, but that is simply not the case. It is as though you came to a conclusion and then went looking for evidence to support that conclusion rather than coming to that conclusion after a search for evidence. You would do well to heed the advice in the last paragraph of the article you cited.

Despite changes in the content throughout the centuries, the fundamental role of the Hippocratic oath is to demand that the medical profession, first and foremost, view itself as engaged in a moral enterprise. Rather than seeing the changing content of the oath as proof of its inadequacy for 21st-century physicians, these changes can be understood as reflecting the medical profession's struggle to define its moral position in the society of its day.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

BTW, for anyone who cares, here's an article by a doctor who's actually done research on the modern use of the Hippocratic oath. It's worth noting that, according to these guys at least, many more schools administered the Hippocratic oath in 1993 than in 1928. Since there were fewer med schools in 1928 and fewer med students, it is highly likely that there are a higher number of schools administering an oath that forbids abortion today than there were administering an oath at all in 1928. So much for the good old days. I'm too lazy to hotlink, so here you go:

http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.ama.html

1. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

2. In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

3. Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.

4. 68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.

5. 100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.

6. Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.

7. 14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.

8. Only 11% invoke a diety.

9. 8% prohibit abortion.

10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients.

From - "The Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A Review of 20th Century Practice and a Content Analysis of Oaths Administered in Medical Schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993." by Robert D. Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Tarzan,

There you go! You *tried* to look up the issue at least. I note your quoted source is from "www.imagerynet.com". What is that site? Doesn't exactly sound like the AMA or an university to me. If you actually had pulled the paper they supposedly quote, I might be willing to go along, but to quote some effectively no-name source's take on what another wrote is seriously deficient scholarship! What was the premise of Robert D. Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D.'s paper? What were their *conclusions*? Since you didn't READ the paper, you don't know. Why would you expect ANYONE to believe you based on what "imagerynet" claims the authors were trying to express?

Back to the drawing board, chief,

Frank

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Oh how very, very sad. Looks like Frank's applying one standard for himself (theologists who quote third-hand, paraphrased resources are perfectly acceptable) and another to me in yet another attempt to cover up the fact that he has absolutely no evidence at all.

Frank if you find yourself incapable of conducting a search for the article in question, just let me know.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Frank is being as misleading as possible, period.

As reference his baby one month before and after bullshit.

Abortion after the second trimester (sixth month for Frank) is greatly restricted in every state, usually for only those situations where the fetus is dead or unable to live after birth, or the process of birth will kill the mother. As Frank must know, unless he has rotted his brain reading the bullshit on the Internet about abortion.

And, BTW, those restrictions also apply to the much maligned PBA procedure. Tell you what, Frank, why don't you petition the DA in some of those PBA clinic areas to have the doctors performing PBA's arrested? If they have ever, even once, performed a PBA for any purpose not deemable as medically necessary, in a COURT (not before a medical board), why, you could put them in jail.

Wonder why this has never been done? Because the PBA people are full of it, and they know it. They only bring up the procedure because it sounds nasty to a layman.

Tell you what, old sport, suppose we discuss the procedure for resecting two lobes of a diseased lung, and saving the other lobe, while preserving the diaphragm so the single lobe can expand? Sounds pretty nasty - maybe we should ban it?

Or how about the process for removal of diseased large intestine? Or maybe the removal of a kidney from a doner to transplant into a relative? Well, damn me, I hurt the doner and there was no need for him to be hurt. I suppose we should give up live doner kidney transplants, right? Bet you change your mind when you need one.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2001