Artman @_@ and PS5533's two posts pretty much said it for me.
Count me in along with Kirkland as another disgruntled Catholic. You've no business being in the business of administering medical care if you feel you have the right to pick and choose who is and isn't deserving of medical care.
Although many deny it, there are situations where a mother's life may be in danger if she carries her pregnancy to term. Like any Christian, I personally see abortion as wrong, but in situations where the mother's life is in danger, I believe the choice should ultimately be up to the mother.
I can imagine a situation where someone's wife may be in such a situation. Is her life suddenly forfeit? Is it of no consequence at all? Her husband may as well put a loaded gun to her head and pull the trigger.
When a doctor grants services to someone, it's a privilege.
But it's clearly a privilege for both the patient and the doctor. A doctor can't practice medicine without the help and the blessing of society. A doctor doesn't have a right to practice medicine.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
...you sure as **** should be healthy in this pursuit...so American doctors better treat every American...and people anywhere. They're ****ing physicians!
To hell with this "law". To hell with the doctors or physicians who "obey" them.
You are WAY OFF. Pursuit of happiness is about the allowance for what you might call excess. That is, the right for people to have fun by their own means. Some enlightenment thinkers said "Life, Liberty, Prosperity." Some said "Life, Liberty, Fraternity." TJ said "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't have anything to do with a right to medical treatment. It has everything to do with our Declaration given right to do whatever we might enjoy that doesn't inflict on others' personal property.
So in other words, Spline thinks only the rich and well off deserve to be happy, to have medical care, to have the things any moral society should give its citizens.
Libertarianism is a philosophy of elitism that would put burdens so onerous as to be deadly on the underclasses of society and call that "freedom" ? the freedom to walk all over the backs of those less fortunate than you, those who didn't luck out at birth.
A nation as rich as America has a moral imperative to insure a certain standard of living is available for every citizen, and that standard must include a base level of medical coverage.
when jfk was shot in the head, doctors tried desparetely to save him...if hitler was brought into the same hospital with the same wounds, the same doctors would try just has hard to save him...we do not judge the wounded, we heal them...judging is for courts and churches, bedrooms and barstools...if, as a doctor, you want to judge people but not heal them, time to change your profession
when jfk was shot in the head, doctors tried desparetely to save him...if hitler was brought into the same hospital with the same wounds, the same doctors would try just has hard to save him...we do not judge the wounded, we heal them...judging is for courts and churches, bedrooms and barstools...if, as a doctor, you want to judge people but not heal them, time to change your profession
g
If anyone disagrees with this statement, then they just lost their arguement.
You are WAY OFF. Pursuit of happiness is about the allowance for what you might call excess. That is, the right for people to have fun by their own means. Some enlightenment thinkers said "Life, Liberty, Prosperity." Some said "Life, Liberty, Fraternity." TJ said "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't have anything to do with a right to medical treatment. It has everything to do with our Declaration given right to do whatever we might enjoy that doesn't inflict on others' personal property.
You work in a book store. Look up John Locke.
Actually, you seem not to grasp the concept of the word "state", go look up Montesquieu.
when jfk was shot in the head, doctors tried desparetely to save him...if hitler was brought into the same hospital with the same wounds, the same doctors would try just has hard to save him...we do not judge the wounded, we heal them...judging is for courts and churches, bedrooms and barstools...if, as a doctor, you want to judge people but not heal them, time to change your profession
g
Funny, I could have sworn the very FIRST post in this thread established that anyone needing emergency help could not be refused.
The Straw Men are always great company, but no matter how this is spun, the fact is the law isn't aimed directly at gays and is meant to help workers not to faced mandatory conscience violations by government.
Could the wording be improved so any "wingnut" couldn't take advantage of it? Certainly, that's what the amendments process is for.
But it seems very few here, while preaching tolerance daily, are willing to give Catholics a break 'cause they're an easy target. The same tolerance that allows Muslims to have their own prayer rooms in schools can be extended to Catholics/others who prefer not to handle some procedures.
And nobody goes to medical school to become a condom-hander outer.
I'm going away for the weekend, so I'll have to leave it there.
and maybe you missed my earlier post of how i worked with (and still do) many catholics and they were never made to do any procedure they didn't want to for religious or ethical reasons...so why make a law that can be abused and instantly needs amending to remedy a problem that doesn't exist?
and maybe you missed my earlier post of how i worked with (and still do) many catholics and they were never made to do any procedure they didn't want to for religious or ethical reasons...so why make a law that can be abused and instantly needs amending to remedy a problem that doesn't exist?
g
(If I'm late for the airport, gelding will buy me a new ticket....)
A quick Google search will bring up cases where people have been forced.
This was an issue a couple of years ago in Toronto. The problem does exist.
There are many hospital administrators who are as dismissive of conscience rights as many of those who've posted in this thread.
I believe the law isn't aimed at homosexuals, and any concerns on that front can be remedied. I applaud the Republicans for trying to protect conscience rights. As North Americans seems more and more "split 50-50" in terms of values, politics etc. I think conscience rights will become more important to having everyone get along in society without provoking hostilities.
A quick Google search will bring up cases where people have been forced.
This was an issue a couple of years ago in Toronto. The problem does exist.
Yes, because Toronto is in the United State. :rolleyes
Quote:
I believe the law isn't aimed at homosexuals, and any concerns on that front can be remedied.
The Catholic Church hates gays. You expect us to believe that this bill just happens to leave the door wide open for evil bigot doctors to cackle maniacally while the gays who should be under their care (say, the only specialist in a city, or the only doctor in town) die from lack of treatment?
Never. The bigots wrote this law specifically to help them in their crusade to eliminate all gay people everywhere. The abortion shit is just a cover.
perhaps frank can explain the cases to me better, but you don't write laws to cover one or two cases, especially if these cases are covered under other laws (unless you have other purposes with the new law)...if you refuse to do something and get fired, you can challenge the firing, you can sue the hospital etc ...
of course the simpliest solution is if you are catholic, don't get a job at an abortion center
if you are homophobic, don't get a job working at a san francisco aids clinic
as an atheist i don't expect my name on the short list of possible popes when the latest version is called to heaven
as a pasifist i don't expect to become a four star general in the army
once again, i have worked in hospitals now since 1985...we have often had people do things they don't want to do...sometimes because they are lazy, sometimes because the job is gross, sometimes because the person is a pain in the ass, but we never never never had a person perform an abortion when they were against them, we never had a person perform a surgery they didn't agree with...
once again, if you don't want to care for people, no biggie, don't...
but if you want to be a doctor or a nurse or just about any health care worker, then you care for people without regard or color or race or sex or religion or whether you agree with that patient on any level...
As long as their on the public payroll, they can do whatever their damn well told. We all pay taxes, and as a result deserve proper medical treatment, emergency or elective.
They new and trained for all the proceedures they'd have to perform - how is it "unbelievable" that a Catholic be forced to participate in an abortion? What did they think they were going to do working in the medical field?
We can thank god religion doesn't have the political pull in Canada it has in the U.S.
Actually, we don't all pay taxes. It's estimated that we have rolled about 50% of the population off the tax rolls. They have no obligation. As for doing whatever you are damn well told, I didn't know that people had to check their rights at the door in order to earn back the money already taken from them via taxation.
and maybe you missed my earlier post of how i worked with (and still do) many catholics and they were never made to do any procedure they didn't want to for religious or ethical reasons...so why make a law that can be abused and instantly needs amending to remedy a problem that doesn't exist?
g
Why would you assume that just because your anecdotal situation worked out perfectly, that the same would be true everywhere else?
Comments
Count me in along with Kirkland as another disgruntled Catholic. You've no business being in the business of administering medical care if you feel you have the right to pick and choose who is and isn't deserving of medical care.
Although many deny it, there are situations where a mother's life may be in danger if she carries her pregnancy to term. Like any Christian, I personally see abortion as wrong, but in situations where the mother's life is in danger, I believe the choice should ultimately be up to the mother.
I can imagine a situation where someone's wife may be in such a situation. Is her life suddenly forfeit? Is it of no consequence at all? Her husband may as well put a loaded gun to her head and pull the trigger.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
When a doctor grants services to someone, it's a privilege.
But it's clearly a privilege for both the patient and the doctor. A doctor can't practice medicine without the help and the blessing of society. A doctor doesn't have a right to practice medicine.
Originally posted by Artman @_@
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
...you sure as **** should be healthy in this pursuit...so American doctors better treat every American...and people anywhere. They're ****ing physicians!
To hell with this "law". To hell with the doctors or physicians who "obey" them.
You are WAY OFF. Pursuit of happiness is about the allowance for what you might call excess. That is, the right for people to have fun by their own means. Some enlightenment thinkers said "Life, Liberty, Prosperity." Some said "Life, Liberty, Fraternity." TJ said "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't have anything to do with a right to medical treatment. It has everything to do with our Declaration given right to do whatever we might enjoy that doesn't inflict on others' personal property.
You work in a book store. Look up John Locke.
Originally posted by Frank777
I'm think they thought they'd be healing people as opposed to killing children.
And FYI, Christians - Catholic or otherwise, have been in the medical field long before your 'public payroll' existed.
Funny, that they had NOOOO idea they would be asked to perform medically sound proceedures.
The Catholic religion has always been ass backwards when it comes to the medical field anyway ... "We don't need to wear condoms!"
Libertarianism is a philosophy of elitism that would put burdens so onerous as to be deadly on the underclasses of society and call that "freedom" ? the freedom to walk all over the backs of those less fortunate than you, those who didn't luck out at birth.
A nation as rich as America has a moral imperative to insure a certain standard of living is available for every citizen, and that standard must include a base level of medical coverage.
g
Originally posted by thegelding
when jfk was shot in the head, doctors tried desparetely to save him...if hitler was brought into the same hospital with the same wounds, the same doctors would try just has hard to save him...we do not judge the wounded, we heal them...judging is for courts and churches, bedrooms and barstools...if, as a doctor, you want to judge people but not heal them, time to change your profession
g
If anyone disagrees with this statement, then they just lost their arguement.
even within the absurd notions of morality espoused by the modern Catholic Church
I am pretty sure the Vatican doesn't agree with this.
Puritans going around calling themselves Catholic. It's wrong.
It's because they are american.
Such things only happen here, this country is screwed up.
Originally posted by soulcrusher
And seriously, it's not because they are religious, homophobic or whatever.
It's because they are american.
Such things only happen here, this country is screwed up.
Not quite. They had laws identical in spirit to these in apartheid South Africa and the Soviet Union from Stalin's time.
Great company, Michigan.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You are WAY OFF. Pursuit of happiness is about the allowance for what you might call excess. That is, the right for people to have fun by their own means. Some enlightenment thinkers said "Life, Liberty, Prosperity." Some said "Life, Liberty, Fraternity." TJ said "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't have anything to do with a right to medical treatment. It has everything to do with our Declaration given right to do whatever we might enjoy that doesn't inflict on others' personal property.
You work in a book store. Look up John Locke.
Actually, you seem not to grasp the concept of the word "state", go look up Montesquieu.
Originally posted by thegelding
when jfk was shot in the head, doctors tried desparetely to save him...if hitler was brought into the same hospital with the same wounds, the same doctors would try just has hard to save him...we do not judge the wounded, we heal them...judging is for courts and churches, bedrooms and barstools...if, as a doctor, you want to judge people but not heal them, time to change your profession
g
Funny, I could have sworn the very FIRST post in this thread established that anyone needing emergency help could not be refused.
The Straw Men are always great company, but no matter how this is spun, the fact is the law isn't aimed directly at gays and is meant to help workers not to faced mandatory conscience violations by government.
Could the wording be improved so any "wingnut" couldn't take advantage of it? Certainly, that's what the amendments process is for.
But it seems very few here, while preaching tolerance daily, are willing to give Catholics a break 'cause they're an easy target. The same tolerance that allows Muslims to have their own prayer rooms in schools can be extended to Catholics/others who prefer not to handle some procedures.
And nobody goes to medical school to become a condom-hander outer.
I'm going away for the weekend, so I'll have to leave it there.
See you next week.
g
Originally posted by thegelding
and maybe you missed my earlier post of how i worked with (and still do) many catholics and they were never made to do any procedure they didn't want to for religious or ethical reasons...so why make a law that can be abused and instantly needs amending to remedy a problem that doesn't exist?
g
(If I'm late for the airport, gelding will buy me a new ticket....)
A quick Google search will bring up cases where people have been forced.
This was an issue a couple of years ago in Toronto. The problem does exist.
There are many hospital administrators who are as dismissive of conscience rights as many of those who've posted in this thread.
I believe the law isn't aimed at homosexuals, and any concerns on that front can be remedied. I applaud the Republicans for trying to protect conscience rights. As North Americans seems more and more "split 50-50" in terms of values, politics etc. I think conscience rights will become more important to having everyone get along in society without provoking hostilities.
That's what AI is for.
Originally posted by Frank777
A quick Google search will bring up cases where people have been forced.
This was an issue a couple of years ago in Toronto. The problem does exist.
Yes, because Toronto is in the United State. :rolleyes
I believe the law isn't aimed at homosexuals, and any concerns on that front can be remedied.
The Catholic Church hates gays. You expect us to believe that this bill just happens to leave the door wide open for evil bigot doctors to cackle maniacally while the gays who should be under their care (say, the only specialist in a city, or the only doctor in town) die from lack of treatment?
Never. The bigots wrote this law specifically to help them in their crusade to eliminate all gay people everywhere. The abortion shit is just a cover.
of course the simpliest solution is if you are catholic, don't get a job at an abortion center
if you are homophobic, don't get a job working at a san francisco aids clinic
as an atheist i don't expect my name on the short list of possible popes when the latest version is called to heaven
as a pasifist i don't expect to become a four star general in the army
once again, i have worked in hospitals now since 1985...we have often had people do things they don't want to do...sometimes because they are lazy, sometimes because the job is gross, sometimes because the person is a pain in the ass, but we never never never had a person perform an abortion when they were against them, we never had a person perform a surgery they didn't agree with...
once again, if you don't want to care for people, no biggie, don't...
but if you want to be a doctor or a nurse or just about any health care worker, then you care for people without regard or color or race or sex or religion or whether you agree with that patient on any level...
g
Originally posted by the cool gut
As long as their on the public payroll, they can do whatever their damn well told. We all pay taxes, and as a result deserve proper medical treatment, emergency or elective.
They new and trained for all the proceedures they'd have to perform - how is it "unbelievable" that a Catholic be forced to participate in an abortion? What did they think they were going to do working in the medical field?
We can thank god religion doesn't have the political pull in Canada it has in the U.S.
Actually, we don't all pay taxes. It's estimated that we have rolled about 50% of the population off the tax rolls. They have no obligation. As for doing whatever you are damn well told, I didn't know that people had to check their rights at the door in order to earn back the money already taken from them via taxation.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't know that people had to check their rights at the door in order to earn back the money already taken from them via taxation.
And what right is that exactly?
The right to not treat certain sick people because you don't like them.
And these people call themselves Christian. Disgusting.
Originally posted by thegelding
and maybe you missed my earlier post of how i worked with (and still do) many catholics and they were never made to do any procedure they didn't want to for religious or ethical reasons...so why make a law that can be abused and instantly needs amending to remedy a problem that doesn't exist?
g
Why would you assume that just because your anecdotal situation worked out perfectly, that the same would be true everywhere else?
Nick
Originally posted by Harald
And what right is that exactly?
The right to not treat certain sick people because you don't like them.
And these people call themselves Christian. Disgusting.
You can call names all you like. No one is being denied emergency care.
Nick