[loup-vaillant]

> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.

Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret, including from the family, especially if she’s underage.

I don’t think that’s the direction they’re headed though. I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.

[lelanthran]

> Indeed, access must be made easy.

That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy.

> I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.

I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice must be totally theirs to make, not the states.

I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.

[loup-vaillant]

> No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being.

I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important?

> I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.

France, and many other countries, makes it a crime (misdemeanour I think?) not to help people. If I see someone about to die, and I could prevent that, and I don’t, then I could go to jail.

This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences.

[lelanthran]

> I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important?

The right to not kill, obviously. What kind of question is this? You want to judge someone for not being (in their minds) a murderer instead of a controller-of-other-people?

> This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences.

Sure, but we aren't talking about immediate danger. All those countries you list don't compel you to help someone who is in no immediate danger.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

Wouldn't selling pills online effectively remove the dilemma? The doctors can avoid killing and the women are free to go through abortion

[loup-vaillant]

It would, but then there’s another dilemma: in a country where there’s a limit to how far into pregnancy you can abort, that pill could easily be used over that limit, and then you have to question whether the increased availability is worth a possible increase in late(er) abortions. I think I would prioritise availability, but not everyone would want to.

(Now this is assuming an actual increase in late(er) abortions: I believe I have seen evidence that increased availability tend to lead to earlier abortions, not to mention safer. And we need to couple all that with regular contraceptives and sex education, so unwanted pregnancies don’t happen that often in the first place.)

[dwaltrip]

> I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.

This feels too broad. What modern government doesn't compel action?