>

Jesus fucking Christ, I can’t even imagine. A mentally disabled 14-year old being raped by her fucking uncle and they expect her to have the baby? That’s fucking diabolical. I feel sick!
But doctors at several hospitals in eastern Poland refused to terminate the pregnancy, citing a so-called conscience clause that allows them not to carry out an abortion if they feel it goes against their beliefs. >

Conscience clauses are a cancer that should be fought tooth and nail. >

It's a double edged sword. Doctors should be allowed to refuse perform state-sanctioned mass sterilisation procedures (see Xinjiang, China), if doctors believe that this is morally wrong. >

Well, there is pretty big difference between being mandated to perform procedure on unwilling people by government and it being a request from the person in question. >

If you read the article, the girl is mentally disabled and is a victim of incest rape (uncle). The person who requested the abortion is her aunt. Now, is the request coming from the girl? What if the Chinese government claims that Muslims in Xian Jiang are unstable mentally (for believing in God), so they have forfeited the decision to reproduce to the state? I don't disagree that the girl in the article should get abortion, but ethics around doctor conscience is not a clear cut issue. >

Of course it isn't always clear. But morally equaling justified abortion request to state sanctioned mass sterlisation is ridiculous.  
Legal guardianship muddles water there, I admit. It's whole different conversation. But the girl is 14, even without her disability the request would be coming from her legal guardian. >

He never equated them. He used it as an example to show how doctor conscience is important in some situations and not a “cancer to be fought tooth and nail”