captcrisis: Neither the "original" nor the "classic" version of the Hippocratic Oath mention keeping women from practicing medicine. If you can find a version that says that, show me.

“iv. to teach them this techne,...and of all the rest of learning, to my sons and to the [sons]of him who has taught me and to the pupils who have both make a written contract and sworn by a medical convention but by no other.”

So daughters at the very least are cut out by this statement and if teachers and students were exclusively men (which they would have been except in very rare instances in Ancient Greece and likely never in the medical field) the oath indeed bars women. This oath in the original is just another piece of patriarchal trash like the Torah fromt he same era which cannot even deign to address women. To bad only the oath has ever been updated.

“6. i. I will not cut, and certainly not those suffering from stone, but I will cede [this] to men [who are] practitioners of this activity.”

That does ban surgery, even when the patient is suffering. That is absurd since medical doctors routinely perform minor surgeries without being specilialised surgeons.

captcrisis: Even if it *did* keep women out of the profession, and *did* prohibit surgery, such provisions simply reflected the attitudes (and medical dangers) of a much earlier time.

Yet people like you refuse to accept the exact same argument when it comes to abortion. Having an abortion was dangerous and risked long-term reproductive health until modern times. No it can be done safely and there is certainly no need for additional people. The ban on abortion serves in my view little more than racial, economic, political and superstitious (i.e. religious) interests who seek power by expanded number. It should be a readily available service in the modern world.

captcrisis: By contrast, opposition to abortion was the near-unanimous viewpoint of both physicians *and* feminists, up until the last generation or so.

“Last generation or so” should read ‘three or four generations ago if not more’. Maybe you are showing your age, but just two generations ago is the late 60’s and abortion was definitely under discussion then. Feminists reaching back to Margaret Sanger and before supported population control of which abortion is a natural part even if they did not explicitly deal with it.

By the way citing the “near-unanimous viewpoint” of people in the past just shows what a conservative mindset you have. Why should I or any liberal-progressive care what popular attitudes were when racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. were the order of the day?

Of coursethis speaks to why you bashed transsexuals for no reason in an unrelated article last week.

quotes from: http://www.indiana.edu/~ancmed/oath.htm

There's probably also quite a few that would rather not get shot or blown up.

When I was in med school, there was never any mention made of abortion, even during my OB rotation and I never got a lecture on it or saw one being done. At the time I assumed that it was probably addressed more at the residency level, but I never ended up going into OB so I never found out.

At the risk of getting flamed, I do wish that more people recognized that those extreme cases in which abortion is a medically necessary procedure really do exist. Because of these extreme cases, there still needs to be doctors available who know how to perform this procedure--and it would be even better if they could learn it without the threat of being stalked or killed.

Neither the "original" nor the "classic" version of the Hippocratic Oath mention keeping women from practicing medicine. If you can find a version that says that, show me.

As for surgery ("cutting with a Stone"), it leaves that to the "practitioner of that art".

Even if it *did* keep women out of the profession, and *did* prohibit surgery, such provisions simply reflected the attitudes (and medical dangers) of a much earlier time.

By contrast, opposition to abortion was the near-unanimous viewpoint of both physicians *and* feminists, up until the last generation or so.

The U.S. itself can't afford to lose any abortion-providing OB-GYNs.

Far fewer than 30% of U.S. OB-GYNs provide abortion services. The chief reason we have stand-alone "abortion clinics" in this country is that the majority of physicians don't provide this service. Many of the doctors are pro-choice, they just don't have any abortion training in medical school or are prevented by their squeamish colleagues.

this post looks more like a fast quip than a well researched post.

For one, the Vatican doesn't write Italian laws. Catholic citizens and their elected legislators might do, but that's not the Vatican.

Then, those 12/24 weeks and similar rules are quite commonplace all over Europe. They are usually the result of some prolonged political struggle and actually reflect a hard won compromise on all sides - so they are not that contentious around here. One of the things that keep amazing me (and, I guess, many Europeans) is that the US seems to have lost the ability for consensus compromise between social groups.

Next, Italy isn't Kansas. When you don't get an abortion in Palermo, driving up to Rome isn't that much of a big deal around here. The Right To Have an Abortionist Within Walking Distance is a specifically American invention.

A little perspective wouldn't hurt before firing up the daily broadsheet missive, folks.

So should doctors be required to perform abortions as a condition of their license to practice as an OB/GYN? That seems wrong. Isn't this about choice?

Thanks for the clarifications.

We all know, the resolution of the subject of abortion, nor of any contentious issue, is ever cut and dried. As you state, there are de facto limits in much of the US in place.

My original intent and point was that really, putting aside all the noise from the anti abortion and pro choice crowds, we would all be better served to have a fruitful discussion that unifies the two sides, offering some limits on abortion while continuing to allow for it unfettered up to a certain point in time (and, hopefully, throwing in some limits on men's liability in cases where the pregnancy was an accident and the woman decided to keep it anyway but the man did not want it).