I gave my arguments in the above post, but thought this was interesting. It's a doctor's response to the Oath. Although it's a little off topic, it may prove to illustrate where I am coming from, as it enlightened me on how medicine may have changed as far as present ethics go.

NOVA Online | Survivor M.D. | The Hippocratic Oath -- Doctors' Responses Set 2

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied

So wait...is it now a serious health event or were you just playing when you said it was an elective surgery? The idea that cancer and breast implants carry the same gravity just doesn't jive with me for some reason.

Absolutely, and I have no issue with this idea of accessible information. What I do have a problem with is increasing the number of visits necessary to carry out a decision she has likely already made on the off chance that the "poor thing" might be just a little daft because, after all, she is just a woman.

Accessible information is not the issue here. Libraries are free, there is a wealth of advocacy groups on both sides, and pamphlet literature abounds in print and on the net.

Who do you think confirms the pregnancy test? If a woman goes to an abortion clinic to get pregnancy test results, I imagine a prayer and a sit down with a pro-life advocate ain't doing much to change her mind.

You know what I think would bring the industry "out of the back alley"? Some respect for women and a little honesty on both sides.

I'm surprised that you overlooked the part of the classic version that specifically states "will not give an abortive agent to a woman".

I don't view her as "just a little daft because, after all, she is just a woman.

I do, however, recognize that most unplanned pregnancies are stressful, especially the unwanted unplanned pregnancy. Rarely do you find stress in the absence of fear. Not the best mindset for making a life/death decision, especially not the best mindset for making a life or death decision, rashly. Understandably there's a feeling of "hurry up and get it over with so I don't have to think about it anymore." Unfortunately, some women aren't able to "stick to that" and stop thinking about it once it's over. I'm very much a "what's done is done" type and don't enjoy watching people punish themselves, but punishing themselves is what many do indeed do and many of them do it for a heck of a lot longer than nine months which seems a bit of a shame in light of things.

I said (in effect) it should not be a totally elective surgery. But should have some better guidelines than it has now.
And yes it is a serious procedure. People take it much too lightly.

O.K., that's where the real radicals on each side of this issue strain the truth as it pertains to a woman's health. I wasn't talking about asking the patient if she was sure this is what she wanted to do and why. Those things are no one's business but hers. But she is still a patient. Someone besides a representative of an abortion clinic should have a look at her.
I honestly don't have an axe to grind about making abortion illegal. I do think it should be something that is carried through with deliberation of all parties and in strict consideration of both physical and mental health.
No. Medical information is not free to the public except as a lay person can find on their own without expert interpretation. If you go to a doctor who refers you to a kidney specialist-that is a correct and helpful way of doing things. You would not walk into a dialysis clinic and tell them to hook you up without a referral, no matter how sure you were that that would help.

Again, you are mistaken to think I would disrupt a person's doctor visit with a religious presentation. Women's health is a big issue with me. I have always had good experiences personally through pregnancies, and menopause, and I think it is due in part to the wisdom of my mother's and grandmother's generations helping me along the way. Women today are disconnected from that slow process of taking in and weighing all the little tips and lessons women used to give each other. They must depend on modern medicine to show them the way. But mistakes have been made. In the area of child rearing, some young mothers took the "official" infant diet so literally in the eighties, there was a host of malnurtured babies and ones diagnosed as "failure to thrive".
We as a society have to be very careful to give the utmost respect to women when it comes to their health as we should with men. It was easy to tell men
thirty years ago that a vasectomy was completely benign. I never advised any friend of mine who was thinking about it to do anything but talk to his doctor and get all the available literature. There just weren't enough long term studies to say it was completely risk free. Why should women be any different? Oh, because we don't want to hurt their feelings and make them feel different than a man? Well they are different. And so are some of their health concerns.

My point in the link (if you'll flip back and read what I wrote), was to point out how the medical profession has changed in the eyes of the commenter; to help the pro and the con on this issue come to something of an understanding as to how our different outlooks and experiences may have built both our opinions.

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied