1) prolife gp friend who doesn't refer patients for abortions still counsels them well. she bulk bills them, lets them say everything that's on their minds and together w the patient discusses pros and cons of 5 options (abortion, keeping child, open adoption, closed adoption, partially open/closed adoption). she gives the patients a wk or so to think of their decision. she herself does not refer patients on but she leaves them well informed enough to pursue abortions on their own if they choose to. in all her yrs only 3 patients have gone on to pursue abortions. later on they have come back to her practice and THANKED her for the counselling she gave. those who went on not to have abortions have also thanked her. 2) unwed pregnant teen friend from strict religious background found out from her gp she was pregnant. his response? this child will ruin your life, i'll call the abortion clinic. since when r prolife GPs who don't refer patients onto abortion incapable of good non-directive counselling? since when r pro-choice GPs necessarily any good at it?

Peter Hume you just proposed several solutions that each require laws, "rights" and ideology of someone that are to be imposed on someone else- and again, I ask- by WHO?

And the solution "Buy the forests" is phenomenally short-sighted. This simply means that people have to buy their rights, and means that having rights only comes down to having more money to bid than the person who is less honest. Same deal with the lumber tycoon bidding against the locals. Also, might I ask who owned the forest and why do THEY have a right to it?

And I should also ask- WHO SAYS which property is which? Who divided it? And who enforces these laws? Who even says they are laws? Who decides whether a person is correctly acting along these laws if they do so themselves? Under what circumstances?

MY point is, again, that ALL RIGHTS, laws and standards are nothing but declarations of entitlement by someone which they impose on someone else- it doesn't matter if it's by a government, a public or a libertarian individual who THINKS he's minding his own business (and assumes everyone else will do the same)- but they are ALL THE SAME. Regardless of how strongly they insist their personal beliefs are "the law of the land"- they aren't- they're just laws dreamed up by some individual.

Also, what if the government 'bought' the entire country previously? Wouldn't that just grant de-facto ownership- making the public tenants?

Amanda, as a medical student you still obviously have such a lot to learn.
As a nurse for many years, I too started my medical career with strong ideas like yours. Then I moved out to work in the real world and I changed my blinkered views accordingly.

If I wasn't happy working on a respiratory ward trying to help very sick patients who were there as a result of smoking, and would leave when they were better to go back home and continue smoking, then I would request not to work in the respiratory ward, if I couldn't keep my mouth shut about those patient's 'rights' to smoke if they wished to.

Comparing womens rights to have an abortion to their 'rights' to have genital mutilation is just bloodymindedness on your part if you ask me.

The genital mutilation has so many more medical and emotional repercussions than medically carried out abortions, and you know it.
Most of those poor women do not 'request' such mutilation, but rather are forced into it at an early age for religious reasons by their families, as a form of sexuality control.

Can I suggest that if you don't want to help women coming to you in the future for help to decide about what to do with a problem pregnancy, that you don't work on a gynecology ward or in general practice?

Can I suggest working at a Catholic run hospital?
It really is just that simple.

"Most of those poor women do not 'request' such mutilation, but rather are forced into it at an early age for religious reasons by their families, as a form of sexuality control."

paraphrasing...

All of those poor children do not 'request' abortion, but rather are forced into it at an early age for convenience reasons by their mothers, as a form of birth control.

It really is just that simple

A lot of people are talking about patients having the right to ALL the info...

Since abortion is such a strong risk factor for so many psychiatric issues (not to mention the physical risks) like 10-50% chance of moderate-severe depression within a year, 1/3 risk of being suicidal within 5 years, etc...

Maybe women should be forced to see an ultrasound of the child before aborting? So that if they go ahead with it they really want to, and they have a stronger understanding of what they're getting themselves into, rather than just committing the action and regretting it later?

BTW the smoking analogy is disingenuous. A smoker causes whatever harm they cause to THEMSELF and themself alone (assuming passive smoking is taken out of the equation). A woman who aborts her child isn't just taking out an action on her OWN body but on the body of another human being who happens to not have been born yet.

Does anyone else realise we are one of the few cultures historically to separate abortion and infanticide? People act as if this issue has been morally settled- abortion on demand is a moral good. But the truth is far from that. Sure, in ignorance, some people argued that abortion was about a woman's right to do whatever she liked to her own body back in the 70s. But medical science has developed since then... we have a much greater understanding of the development of the foetus, including, the fact that we now recognise a foetus is NOT simply a part of the mother, but instead happens to live inside of her as a separate living human being.

Also, do people realise abortions happened, even in the USA before Roe v. Wade? Abortion on demand is NOT necessary to prevent backyard abortions.

No HermanYutic, the real difference is that abortion is legal in this country and female genital mutilation is not.

This fact is something that prolife advocates choose to ignore.
The fight for women to have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, rather than have old celibate religious men decide for them is over.

Women have won that right already Herman.
It's as simple as that.