Dear AJ Philips,

<<...overridden by a doctor’s duty of care and obligation to at least direct their patient to someone who will assist them.>>

This assumes that the doctor in question has a duty of care or undertook such an obligation. If they did (for example in order to receive public funds), then of course they must keep their obligation, but what if they did not?

<<When those who oppose abortion can provide evidence of a god and evidence that this god is against abortion>>

That is completely irrelevant. It only matters that the doctor has such convictions and is immaterial how s/he obtained them or whether these are objective or not - if you don't like these convictions, then don't hire this doctor.

Dear Cobber,

<<I wonder what the author would think if they had to have blood if a group of people hounded her and told what she was doing would make her burn in hell, that she was a evil person?>>

That would be a form of assault - clearly a matter for the police.

<<what if the emergency doctor believed blood transfusions were against his religous beliefs and therefore she wouldn't get one what would she do?>>

It is up to the particular hospital to employ or not such a doctor.

It is up to the patient to choose that hospital or another. If the author does not share similar beliefs, then she should not use the services of this hospital.

If people were to protest outside dentists’ with signs like, “Save the Teeth”, “Teeth are people too”, I wonder if laws would be introduced to make that illegal or at least require that such protesters be 150m away from the premises?

I doubt it. We would probably just feel that these protesters were crazy and perhaps in need of sympathy or help. Now while many people don’t like going to the dentist I don’t think anyone would say that these protesters were making it very difficult for people, who are already facing the hardest choice in their life, to go ahead with it.

No, the reason why there is so much emotion over abortion is because we all really do know that there is an enormous difference between removing a tooth and removing the child in the womb. We would just feel sorry for tooth protesters but many feel only fury for abortion protesters and that is because they don’t like being reminded that abortion takes a young human life.

If abortion really doesn’t take the life of a child then why does it matter that someone says that it does? It is no more of a problem than people protesting to try and save teeth. Tooth protesters might be crazy but just ignore them and they’ll probably go away. There would be no need to lock them up in jail for a year. If anti- abortion protesters are completely wrong there is no need to lock them up either.

Why are those in favour of access to abortion so precious that those who disagree with them have to be locked up?

Yuyutsu,

I'm not sure why any of this matters to you if existence is only and illusion.

<<This assumes that the doctor in question has a duty of care or undertook such an obligation. If they did (for example in order to receive public funds), then of course they must keep their obligation, but what if they did not?>>

Then they are an immoral person and they’re endangering lives, so it doesn't really help the author's argument - which is heavily influenced by a desire to preserve life and defend what they believe is moral.

<<That is completely irrelevant. It only matters that the doctor has such convictions and is immaterial how s/he obtained them or whether these are objective or not - if you don't like these convictions, then don't hire this doctor.>>

Wrong. It is absolutely relevant.

Governments (are at least supposed to) legislate to reduce harm overall (the Harm Principal) and spiritual harm is not as (or even based on anything as) measurable, demonstrable or verifiable as the harm done by an unwanted pregnancy forced to full term through inadequate services or haemorrhaging from a coat hanger. So if a doctor’s actions (or decisions not to act) potentially have real (and serious) consequences for real people, then they need to demonstrate that the source of the convictions that lead them to act (or not act) in such a way are demonstrable, measureable and verifiable if they’re to hold any weight. And if a god just isn’t any of those, but is still exists*, then that’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t change anything. If it did, then we'd be opening the doors to just any old claim being made for any old reason, no matter how sinister.

I'm sorry, but this is how a rational (and non-solipsistic) world works. A lot of theists would even agree with me there, they’re just under the illusion that they CAN actually demonstrate the existence* of their gods. Our health overrides freedom of religion. This is why harmful religious practices are still outlawed.

*Please don’t start on your unique definition of existence.

You are wrong again in your assumptions carz, I have the utmost compassion for mothers to be and those they carry. It distresses me greatly that the only way they they can see forward is a termination. But you still haven't answered my question. Do you belive that taking the life of an unborn, but none the less living, child is humane?

"Chelsea Pietsch is the Executive Officer of Freedom 4 Faith, an ecumenical religious freedom organisation."

So we can tell in advance what her conclusions about abortion will be; no need to read the article. Interesting that her religious affiliations didn't get a mention, though. Could it be that theists are finally starting to realise that 'because my Sky Daddy says so!' is not actually a credible reason for supporting -- or opposing -- anything at all? So they have a nice try at confabulating feeble non-reasons instead. Like this one.

Dear AJ Philips,

There's a fundamental disagreement between us, which is fine:

Unlike yourself, I believe that spiritual well-being is more important than physical well-being, thus religion is more important than health.

I respect your wishes to not have endless discussions about this subject-matter.

I respect your wish to place health above religion, and have no desire or intention to restrict yourself or your doctors in that matter. I don't even demand in the slightest that you attempt to prove your point-of-view and I wouldn't even dream of doing so even if I had complete governmental powers.

You however, seem to disrespect my choices and values and are willing to use force, even the barrel of a gun if necessary (for that's what legislation and governments do), to try enforcing your values on me.

The issue thus is not about who is right, theists or atheists, nor whether my views are in alignment or not with those of the author. The issue is whether it is acceptable to use violence against people who do not share your views and values. It is my stern view that violence is unacceptable.