CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't think that popular support should impact abortion rights, I think that it becomes a matter of an individuals control over their own body. Appealing to what most people believe is right doesn't say anything about the ethics of abortion or how the law should be constructed.

The ethics of abortion is that it's wrong. It's that simple.
 
As I said, the majority of American women agree with me that baby-killing should be either outlawed or restricted, and disagree with your enthusiastic support for baby-killing.


You look at those statistics and see a glass half-full of "baby-killers" whatever the fuck those are. I see 77% of the people polled supporting abortion rights for women.

I think my math may better than yours.
 
financeguy, since you're back in this thread, throwing 'baby-killer" around, care to answer my question that was actually on topic?

Or would you rather derail the thread again so you don't have to answer?

The question is based on a premise that is false. No-one is denying medical treatment to gay people if they had heart disease, or cancer, or AIDS.

What these doctors, who have not forgotten their moral consciences, or even their Hippocratic oaths, are 'denying' is approving of and encouraging an activity - articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.
 
A woman's autonomy over her body extends to control over her reproductive system, I think that it is coercive and unethical to take away the individual autonomy of a living human being to preserve a potential human being.

Is the morning after pill wrong? Is it more or less wrong than a later surgical abortion? If one is acceptably wrong under the law where is the line drawn? If not must all forms be made illegal?
 
What these doctors, who have not forgotten their moral consciences, or even their Hippocratic oaths, are 'denying' is approving of and encouraging an activity - articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.
What makes artificial insemination wrong? Would it be moral and natural (which are entirely separate things, for instance siblicide is natural) if one of these lesbians was to deliver the complimentary genetic material directly from the donors throbbing member?

The act of delivering genetic material to make a child seems reasonable. That this child will be raised in a same-sex household also seems perfectly reasonable, the evidence about children raised in such an environment doesn't show that such arrangements inherently cause harm. The assertion that it is just plain wrong is just plain wrong.

Nobody is being harmed.

What do you think makes it wrong?

(I think it is wrong to coerce the doctors into performing the procedure - but I also think they are idiots for not approving of it)
 
- articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.


You know we agree on this.

But why do you get to make the laws that govern other people's bodies? How does AI affect you in any way? Why do you get to decide whether these women get to have children or not? What have they done to make you think they must bend to your will?
 
You know we agree on this.

But why do you get to make the laws that govern other people's bodies? How does AI affect you in any way? Why do you get to decide whether these women get to have children or not? What have they done to make you think they must bend to your will?

I'm not sure why you think I am assigning myself the right to 'make the laws that govern other people's bodies', I never said anything of the sort. Your implication is incorrect.

We've been here before, I am only condemning activities I consider to be wrong.

As communities, we outlaw plenty of activities that the majority consider to be unnatural, immoral or wrong.

That's how civilised democracies work.
 
Civilised democracies will structure laws around secular ethical principles, not morality.

Unnatural and immoral activities are not inherently wrong (you did seem to have implied a distinction by stipulating 'or')

Wrong activities must be justifiably wrong, and I would think in a civilised democracy that justification can't come from God or tradition but reasoned arguments grounded in principles such as harm and autonomy.

Appealing to the fact that communities in supposedly progressive liberal democracies routinely abuse the rights of citizens without justification doesn't say anything about the issue.
 
I think when it comes down to it, a doctor offers a service. You are not the mightier then thou law unto the world to cast your judgement onto your patients. You are there to help anyone when needs it. If someone smokes 20 packs of cigarettes a day, and then needs chemo for lung cancer, you provide it. If someone eats a steak every day and has a heart attack you save them. You are a SERVICE INDUSTRY. THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

I am of the school where people can choose whatever the hell they want to do with themselves. They wanna do drugs, they do it. They want to refuse a blood transfusion on religious grounds, they can do it. They want to have an abortion they can do it (i will say no more here, because you just can't argue with people of this one!).
We need to stop living in such a nanny state and let people do whatever the hell they bloody well want to THEMSELVES. (obviously i'm not talking about helping with depression re: suicide and the like). Its only when your behaviour impacts on someone else (and being "moral" and hating on the gays ain't one of them!) then something needs to be done.
A doctor is a human being with a job to do. You don't like helping lesbians have babies, get the fuck out of the reproductive industry. :shrug:
 
The question is based on a premise that is false. No-one is denying medical treatment to gay people if they had heart disease, or cancer, or AIDS.

What these doctors, who have not forgotten their moral consciences, or even their Hippocratic oaths, are 'denying' is approving of and encouraging an activity - articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.

If you don't wish to allow AI because it is "unnatural" you should also deny treatment of cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, strokes, and numerous other diseases since they are naturally occurring. Why should humans interfere with nature on these?
 
You should read the article again

I did read it, and from the other articles I've read the Bush administration is attempting to define abortion so broadly that it would include many types of birth control- including oral contraceptives.

http://forum.interference.com/f199/playing-politics-with-cancer-screening-for-women-174506-2.html

Not as many people cared as much in that thread, but when it can turn into yet another debate about abortion more people seem to care.

Would you want your wife and/or daughter's access to health care restricted by political agendas? Medical science vs ideology-which one has the Bush administration favored in its' health policies?

As far as I know doctors are not being forced to perform abortions. Seems to me that contraception leads to fewer abortions.
 
I'm not sure why you think I am assigning myself the right to 'make the laws that govern other people's bodies', I never said anything of the sort. Your implication is incorrect.

We've been here before, I am only condemning activities I consider to be wrong.

As communities, we outlaw plenty of activities that the majority consider to be unnatural, immoral or wrong.

That's how civilised democracies work.

So.... which is it? Is abortion outlawed? Is it legal? Is the access to medical care available to all? Or not?
 
As far as I know doctors are not being forced to perform abortions. Seems to me that contraception leads to fewer abortions.



and this is where my earlier point -- about elements of the pro-life movement being nothing more than a set of reactionary attitudes towards female sexuality that measure a woman's worth in her virginity -- comes into play.

if it were all about the babies, the focus would be on preventing unwanted pregnancies, not on preventing sex itself.

further, and i mean all of this as a broad point, if it were all about the babies, we would never hear about "exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother." because if it was all about the babies, it doesn't matter if the child was created by rape or incest or whatever. it's a child, end of story, and therefore must be carried to term.

when you make these exceptions, it belies, to me, the attitude that pregnancy is a punishment for women who have sex.
 
if it were all about the babies, we would never hear about "exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother." because if it was all about the babies, it doesn't matter if the child was created by rape or incest or whatever. it's a child, end of story, and therefore must be carried to term.


There are some who don't even make this exception. Ask the kind citizens of South Dakota about that.

And most people who claim to make an exception in those cases, really have no idea how to implement it. I truly think it's just a bone they throw out, trying to make themselves sound reasonable, or at least let themselves sleep at night. :shrug:
 
There are some who don't even make this exception. Ask the kind citizens of South Dakota about that.

And most people who claim to make an exception in those cases, really have no idea how to implement it. I truly think it's just a bone they throw out, trying to make themselves sound reasonable, or at least let themselves sleep at night. :shrug:



i think the ones that don't want to make the exception,

are at least more consistent

and less overly anti-women-having-sex.
 
There are some who don't even make this exception. Ask the kind citizens of South Dakota about that.

Interesting. Are you the same Martha, not days ago, that was complaining about citizens of other states trying to affect legislation in California?
 
i think the ones that don't want to make the exception,

are at least more consistent

and less overly anti-women-having-sex.

I did not realise you guys were living in some backward country where the government outlawed contraceptives.

For some reason, I laboured under the delusion that you guys were inhabitants of a jurisdiction in which contraceptives are more or less freely available.
 
^

I don't think that you got her point - you seem to assume she's saying something she's not. Probably because you're not familiar with SD.

In SD, the pro-life groups and state senate pushed a complete abortion ban a couple of years ago. Then when wishful thinking turned into a reality, the citizens of the state had a huge and rather public case of buyer's remorse.
 
Interesting. Are you the same Martha, not days ago, that was complaining about citizens of other states trying to affect legislation in California?

Dude, you need to get a grip on your dislike for me. It's affecting your posting again.

Where the hell did you come up with that conclusion? I was stating a fact as an example. Sheesh. :tsk:
 
I did not realise you guys were living in some backward country where the government outlawed contraceptives.


It's been tried here, and some states allow doctors to withhold prescriptions and access. Go reread some of the articles posted in this thread.

And then have some fun researching the Bush administration's restrictions on how US government agencies can handle contraception information in developing nations.

Your high horse is a little too high lately. You make assumptions and then have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
 
I see this thread got rather ugly while I was away...

I don't see any good reason for this to be turned into an abortion thread (unless MrsS wants that, it's her thread); the procedure in question (AI) is routinely enough performed for infertile heterosexual couples, so the issue is whether it can be refused to lesbians on grounds of a doctor's moral objections to lesbian parenting. Obviously abortion isn't analogous to that; people who want abortion banned aren't looking to ban it only for women from certain social groups, while considering it A-OK for others.

martha and financeguy, I suggest you guys set each other to ignore; you don't seem to be able to interact for long without both of you losing your tempers and getting really nasty, and I think I've reached the end of any "reasoning" with either of you I can do about it.
I was tempted to tell "Martha" to simply F#*K OFF but thought that would be rude...so...
As BVS already pointed out, this is no different from "simply" saying it, which is obviously not OK. When you think a rude post directed at you needs to be addressed, but can't manage a response that isn't rude yourself, then I suggest you report the post instead.
 
I see this thread got rather ugly while I was away...

I don't see any good reason for this to be turned into an abortion thread (unless MrsS wants that, it's her thread); the procedure in question (AI) is routinely enough performed for infertile heterosexual couples, so the issue is whether it can be refused to lesbians on grounds of a doctor's moral objections to lesbian parenting. Obviously abortion isn't analogous to that; people who want abortion banned aren't looking to ban it only for women from certain social groups, while considering it A-OK for others.


Absolutely. Abortion has nothing to do with it....
 
Back
Top Bottom