CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-22-2008, 07:38 PM   #106
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
good. i'm glad you find this offensive. i'm wondering why so many little babies are murdered when they frequently do not attach to the uterine wall and are subsequently flushed down the toilet. this happens millions of times a year -- and it's a fully natural process. this is why objections to "Plan B" is utterly ludicrous, because what Plan B does is prevent the zygote from implanting in the womb by making the woman's body think that hse is already pregnant.
This is an extremely weak argument, I'm afraid.

Thousands of Bangladeshi die in floods, so let's invade Bangladesh, kill half its inhabitants and convert the rest to Christianity.

I mean, come on.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 07:39 PM   #107
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
You're still doing it. The fact that you specifically use the pronoun 'he
Just answer one question, if you wish - why do 24% of US women surveyed support a ban on abortion, and why do a further 40% support abortion rights but with greater restrictions than currently exist? Why is it that 2/3's of US women support my point of view, and do not support yours?

My honest answer to your question:

I don't know and I don't care. (And I know that anyone can go and alter anything in Wikipedia, too.)


I think I use the male pronoun because most of the anti-choice legislation seems to come from men. And most of the screaming about "murdered babies" here in FYM comes from men.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 07:50 PM   #108
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
because i have too much respect for you, i'll set aside the last sentence since it seems this struck an emotional chord. i am sorry for your friend's loss, but i am not sorry, not at all, at teasing out the faults of viewing every conception as a little baby and by simplifying an exceedingly complex issue to be about "murder."
Expressions such as 'murder' and 'baby-killing' probably shouldn't be used with regard to discussing abortion, because they tend not to lead to constructive debate, and I distinctly recall I said to a conservative-leaning FYM'r round about the time I first started posting here that he probably would be better off avoiding those kinds of phrases in relation to abortion, as it wasn't winning him any converts.

But the reality is, Irvine, that at this point I don't really feel any compunction about using those kinds of phrases to describe abortion because, frankly, there's one or two on your side that never give any ground, that consistently neglect in any way to take on board concerns and arguments raised by the anti-abortion side, and, worse yet, that assign motives to my side of the debate on a completely false basis. And I will not deny or water down my point of view to suit the liberal majority on here on this issue. I simply won't.

And contrary to the impression you seem to have, the liberal side restarts the abortion debate on FYM AT LEAST as often as the conservative side.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 07:53 PM   #109
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I think I use the male pronoun because most of the anti-choice legislation seems to come from men. And most of the screaming about "murdered babies" here in FYM comes from men.
Wow. Really scientific.

Hold on, I thought your side were the great supporters of rationality and progress and science?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 02:09 AM   #110
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Wow. Really scientific.

Hold on, I thought your side were the great supporters of rationality and progress and science?
Your generalizations are way more entertaining than mine. When did I ever claim to be scientific?

And, by the way, you're the one using Wikipedia statistics.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 02:10 AM   #111
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post

And contrary to the impression you seem to have, the liberal side restarts the abortion debate on FYM AT LEAST as often as the conservative side.
Not this time.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 02:11 AM   #112
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
And I will not deny or water down my point of view to suit the liberal majority on here on this issue. I simply won't.

And you can't bully me into watering down mine.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 10:15 AM   #113
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
This is an extremely weak argument, I'm afraid.

Thousands of Bangladeshi die in floods, so let's invade Bangladesh, kill half its inhabitants and convert the rest to Christianity.

I mean, come on.


the point is that these cells aren't children and thusly can't be murdered.

or, if they are children, then they are murdered in the millions every year by women across the globe.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 12:07 PM   #114
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 04:38 PM
not to go back on topic or anything

This was in the LA Times this morning. The bold text is my highlight.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...0,918624.story

Quote:
When religion and healthcare collide
Healthcare providers should not be allowed to let faith interfere with delivering care.
By Richard P. Sloan
August 23, 2008
Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court ruled against two physicians who allegedly denied -- based on their religious opposition -- a legal medical treatment to a patient based on her sexual orientation. The decision was issued in a lawsuit filed by a lesbian against doctors in a Vista, Calif., medical group who refused to artificially inseminate her.

This is a welcome, if unusual, turnabout in a disturbing trend that has characterized American medicine over the last three or so decades: an increasing willingness to allow the actions of individuals to disadvantage, and even endanger, others if those actions derive from religious faith.



Almost every state in the nation has legislation permitting healthcare professionals -- from physicians to nurses to pharmacists -- to deny patients legal medical treatments that they may find religiously objectionable. At the federal level, the Bush administration announced plans Thursday to implement a regulation that would deny federal funds to hospitals, health plans and other entities that do not permit their employees to opt out of participating in legal medical procedures -- including those associated with reproduction and terminal sedation -- that they oppose out of religious conviction.



This summer, a "pharmacy for life" was set to open in the suburbs of Washington. Like other similar pharmacies, it won't stock condoms, contraceptives or the so-called morning-after contraceptive Plan B, despite the fact that pharmacies are licensed by state governments giving them the exclusive right to dispense medications. In exchange for these monopoly rights, pharmacists have an ethical obligation to act in the interests of patients.

Recent studies have shown that 14% of U.S. doctors, when confronted by possibly objectionable but legal medical treatments, not only would refuse to deliver such care but also would refuse to inform their patients about it or refer them to physicians who would deliver the care. That translates to about 40 million people who would receive substandard care from these physicians, who believe that their religious convictions are more important than the well-being of their patients.



The tradition of religious freedom in the United States is one of the founding ideals of this country. But as our framers envisioned it, religious freedom referred to a right to practice one's own religion free of interference from others. It did not refer to religiously based interference with the rights of others, who may have their own and different religious traditions. Even in the relatively religiously homogeneous era of the framers, such interference was not acceptable. It is even less so in 21st century America. With religious heterogeneity growing, the devotional demands of one group may be increasingly at odds with those of others.



Yet too often, our deference to religion in contemporary American society has allowed us to subordinate all other values. It has allowed us to routinely accept religiously motivated behaviors that we otherwise would have no reluctance to sanction and that, indeed, would be impermissible with any other justification.

So it's time to say "enough." In the United States, we all are free to practice our religion as we see fit, as long as we do not interfere with the well-being of others by imposing our religious views on them. If physicians or other healthcare providers who have religious objections to legal medical treatments will not at a minimum inform their patients about those treatments and refer them to others who will deliver them, they should act in a way that is consistent with their convictions and the well-being of their patients and find other professions.

Freedom of religion is a cherished value in American society. So is the right to be free of religious domination by others.

Richard P. Sloan is a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 12:27 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:38 PM
"Recent studies have shown that 14% of U.S. doctors, when confronted by possibly objectionable but legal medical treatments, not only would refuse to deliver such care but also would refuse to inform their patients about it or refer them to physicians who would deliver the care. That translates to about 40 million people who would receive substandard care from these physicians, who believe that their religious convictions are more important than the well-being of their patients. "


If those figures are accurate and I will assume they are for now, that part of it is the most frightening--not that an individual physician will not perform a specific procedure--but that they would refuse to inform or refer.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 01:36 PM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonosSaint View Post
"Recent studies have shown that 14% of U.S. doctors, when confronted by possibly objectionable but legal medical treatments, not only would refuse to deliver such care but also would refuse to inform their patients about it or refer them to physicians who would deliver the care. That translates to about 40 million people who would receive substandard care from these physicians, who believe that their religious convictions are more important than the well-being of their patients. "


If those figures are accurate and I will assume they are for now, that part of it is the most frightening--not that an individual physician will not perform a specific procedure--but that they would refuse to inform or refer.
that 14% should be stripped of their licenses and barred from any future practice. not informing or referring is simply unacceptable.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 02:09 PM   #117
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,691
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
This is an extremely weak argument, I'm afraid.
It's an excellent argument(that seemed to go over your head) for those that think life starts at conception, because as Irvine pointed out that's not the case. And it's usually an argument that gets ignored or swept under the rug such as you did...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:28 PM   #118
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Your generalizations are way more entertaining than mine. When did I ever claim to be scientific?

And, by the way, you're the one using Wikipedia statistics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in537570.shtml
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:38 PM   #119
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:38 AM
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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:44 PM   #120
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Quote:
Seventy-seven percent of respondents said abortion should either be generally available, or available but with stricter limits than now. Just 22 percent said abortion should not be permitted.

Quote:
The latest findings show the number of Americans who believe that abortion should be generally available is up slightly from two years ago

I like these stats.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com