So your justification of "medical necessity" starts out with "I'd rather". I think you're going to be hard pressed to convince anyone that doctors should strive to cater to your personal whims regarding birthrates.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

It does seem, though, that if one is going to enter the medical profession, one must be prepared to set aside certain beliefs in order to effectively serve the patient. Medicine is not about the doctor's squeamishness, it is about doing what's best for the patient. Refusing to prescribe birth control on religious grounds is not, IMHO, doing what's best for the patient. It's doing what's best for the doctor.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I tend to agree that such things are silly. However, would you support laws forcing doctors to do things they found unethical?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Exxxxxxxxaaaactly...

No.

I think that the medical community has a pretty good history of policing itself. I'd like to see those mechanisms exhausted first.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

That seems reasonable to me. One of my points all along is that you're not going to have a lot of doctors at abortion clinics that are unwilling to perform abortions, in general. And, if you have a religious doctor that won't put you on the pill... get a new doctor. Personally, I'd view that as a good way to vet a doctor anyway.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

That's reasonable, except when the doctor refusing to provide care is the only one in a reasonable distance. That's when I get concerned.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

That's a fair point. But, even in that circumstance, I'm not sure forcing that doctor to perform or do things he wasn't comfortable with would be the best option. He might well decide to move or stop practicing medicine, in which case you're certainly not better off.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Oh, absolutely. I can't see trying to force a physician to prescribe a medication against his will, much less perform a surgical procedure. It's clearly not a viable option.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that before med-school is even considered, there should be some counseling about the expectation of providing patient care, even if there may be a personal objection to the care.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

You know more about the field than I do. Wouldn't most physicians provide a reference, if they're unwilling to do it themselves?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

To the best of my knowledge, things have gone both ways. IIRC, referrals are up to physician discretion. I'd say that the good, honorable doctor would provide a referral, assuming he/she actually knew someone who could and would perform the procedure.

The spectrum of physicians is as striking as the rest of humanity. Genius to pure asshattery.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

A good reason why he shouldn't be acquitted for shooting me?
I can think of several. It would be an intentional and premeditated assault on someone doing harm to neither his person nor his property (assuming that I was just stuck to him). I could certainly argue that I was taken into the house against my will and that I was presumably doing everything in my power to leave as quickly as I could.
If the fact that this scenario involves me super-gluing myself to the guy bothers you, feel free to imagine that I was attached to this fellow without my consent. In fact, that would better parallel the abortion debate.

Really, I don't see how you can stand by the assertion that when two people are stuck together, one of this must automatically lose all his/her rights and can be freely killed by the other.

And by the same token, my rights haven't changed just because you and your nose have walked into range of my fists. Acknowledging your presence (and the fact that you have rights), doesn't eliminate my rights wrt to fist swinging, but it does limit the specific actions I can perform while exercising those rights.

I don't see the necessity to void anyone's rights.

Exactly what right gets voided for the women here? Let's say at 26th months we recognize the unborn as a person, giving it roughly the same protections as is currently granted to infants (with some obvious allowances made for it being in the womb). How have the mother's basic rights changed?
She can't perform acts that would kill the baby, but then she can't do that after its born either. The specific acts in question change with the situation, but the basic rights are the same.
Does this limit the activities she can perform? Of course it does, but everyone's activities are limited to those that don't result in the death of another innocent person.
Even if some sneaky person manages to super-glue a newborn infant to its mother, that doesn't give the mother the right to kill it.

It seems to me that it would make sense to first decide should and should be granted rights, and to make that decision based on the individual in question.
Then we could work on figuring out what to do when the rights of individuals conflict.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

Absolutely agree. They have to decide before they take their oath if they actually have the ability to compartmentalize their religious or other value systems (or lack) from their professional life. If they are not, then they should not take that oath. It's hard to serve more than one master and do both (or all) masters much justice.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'm not saying one must loose all of his rights. I'm saying that when a conflict between rights arises, the only solution to the conflict, when rights have already been granted, is to let the rights of one trump the rights of the other, - essentially rendering those rights useless although granted to the exact same extent as the rights that trump them. In case you succeed in arguing that you were taken into the house against your will etc., the other person's right to privacy is rendered useless by the inability of both of you to do anything else than cause you to intrude.

Of course, when rights have not yet been granted or only granted to one party, another solution exists.

Right, your rights haven't changed one bit, either. The limitation in actions you can perform while exercising the right to swing your fist does not occur due to the presence of another person. It occurs because that's how your rights are defined. They can be withdrawn in case you violate the laws of the society that granted you the rights.

Again, I'm not talking about violation of rights, I'm talking about rendering rights useless as a result of being trumped by what should be equal rights. A can only trump B if A is not equal to B.

It should be rather obvious that the woman no longer has a right to decide matters concerning her own body the instance you grant an entity in her body any rights. It should also be obvious that the instance the entity leaves the woman's body, it's no longer a hindrance for the womans right to her own body.

And by the way, I will not discuss innocence in this context. That's solely a moral judgment.