Abortion Schmooshmortion

Meanwhile, in an alternate reality...

Meet Roger.


Roger is a doctor. After years of gruelling study, he decided to ply his trade as a General Practitioner in a little corner office, just down the road from you.

Roger isn't your average doctor, though. See, Roger has a strange foible. A QUIRK, if you will.

See, ever since Roger was a wee little kiddie, he's had an imaginary friend called Manuel. No one can actually SEE Manuel, but Roger believes, with all his heart, that Manuel is real.

Manuel is an true friend. Manuel is ALWAYS there to listen to Roger, and always has the perfect advice to help Roger navigate the troubled waters of life.

If truth be told, Roger couldn't live without Manuel, and Roger knows it.

Most of all, Roger relies on Manuel's rules. Years and years ago, Manuel came up with a whole stack of rules that provided a blueprint for how Roger needs to live his life. Roger follows these rules without exception.

Most of Manuel's rules are just common sense. Manuel demands that Roger is nice to people, looks after people who are less fortunate, and treats his wife well. All pretty standard stuff.

Well, ALMOST all of them...

One of Manuel's rules is a little different. See, Manuel doesn't believe that cancer should be treated.

Manuel maintains that cancer is a living, growing being. To subject a living thing to bursts of radiation and a malevolent scalpel blade is akin to murder.

This presents something of a moral dilemma for Roger. As a doctor, he occasionally has patients come into his surgery that have cancer symptoms. He knows that providing medical assistance is the reason why he gets paid every month, but to treat the cancer would go against the rules set by his imaginary friend.

Luckily, there is no law against Roger refusing to treat these people. Roger is a human being, with all of the rights afforded to the rest of society. Roger has the option to conscientiously object to treating cancer, should his imaginary friend require it.

But, as with every right in our society, Roger's right to follow Manuel's decrees must be balanced against the right of the patient to access treatment for his cancer.

So the law was written to protect Roger's right to decline treatment, but only on the condition that he should give his patient the phone number of a doctor who WILL treat them.

Sounds fair enough, right? Well, Roger disagrees.

See, deep down, Roger resents the fact that ANYONE is permitted to treat cancer. Roger resents the fact that not everyone believes in Manuel's existence and follows Manuel's rules.

Roger resents the idea that he- a medical practitioner- should be forced to inform his patients of a LEGAL treatment option.

In short, Roger wants to be able to make receiving treatment for cancer as difficult as humanly possible.

Roger wants to be able to force his PATIENTS to live by his beliefs.

__________________________________________

Now, I'm sure most of you have seen through my clumsy analogy.

Disclosure time: When it comes to abortion-on-demand, I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice, in that I would never want MY offspring terminated without a very good medical reason, but I recognise that my personal views shouldn't affect the choices of others.

I ALSO realise that, as someone who was born SANS UTERUS, my opinion on the subject is about as ridiculously pointless as OJ embarking on a search for the "real" killers.

Look, you can bleat about it all you want, but until the foetus is independently viable, it is a part of the mother's body. I reckon about 16-18 weeks would make a decent cutoff point, but I am neither a obstetrician nor a parliamentarian, so what the f--k would I know?

Her body, her call. Sure, it's not exactly fair to the OTHER half of the procreation team, but shit happens. The fact that only ONE gender has their genitals torn asunder during childbirth isn't exactly the last word in parity, either.

You have to take the good with the bad, y'know?

I have no issue with the idea that a doctor should have the right to decline to perform the procedure. Similarly, I have no objection to the laws compelling those same doctors to refer their patients to a doctor who will.

I remember a few years ago, when those truly offensive "anti-terror" laws were rushed through the federal parliament. We were told that we had to balance the loss of some rights against the wellbeing of the community.

This is the same damn thing. The doctors' sensibilities are being placated by excusing them from performing a function of their profession (that being performing the abortion) while balancing the right of a woman to receive a legal medical treatment.

And for once, an Australian parliament has actually struck the RIGHT balance- UNLIKE those anti-terror laws. Wonders will never cease.

Finally, there was one quote from an anti-abortion MP jumped out at me as defining this entire situation:

Labor backbencher Christine Campbell, a longstanding opponent of abortion, said the lack of a true conscience clause was one of several flaws in the legislation.

"The doctors should be respected in their professional judgment," she said.

This is exactly the point. When a doctor refuses to give his patient any information on a legal termination without a good MEDICAL reason, he is making the conscious decision to put his professionalism on the backburner in favour of his personal moral beliefs. A doctor has a duty to fully inform his patient of ALL the medical options, so that she can give informed consent for treatment.

To withhold a legal and safe medical option is the very DEFINITION of unprofessionalism.

Abortion-on-demand needs to be both legal AND available.

(And please, don't bother throwing up the psuedo-indignant "you just compared an innocent widdle baby to a CANCER" strawman. Save it for someone who'll bite.)