CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment - Page 9 - 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 08-23-2008, 09:01 PM   #121
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I like these stats.
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.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:02 PM   #122
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:10 PM   #123
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:11 PM   #124
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
The ethics of abortion is that it's wrong. It's that simple.

For you. You don't get to tell me what to do with my body. Even if you were girl, I'd say that.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:13 PM   #125
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Even if their moral conscience lets them deny treatment to people based on sexual orientation?
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?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:20 PM   #126
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
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.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:21 PM   #127
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:33 PM
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?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:26 PM   #128
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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)
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:27 PM   #129
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post

- 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?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:39 PM   #130
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
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.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:47 PM   #131
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:33 PM
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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 01:41 AM   #132
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 11:33 PM
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.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 01:42 AM   #133
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.
So you want to deny this option to straight couples as well?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-24-2008, 02:07 AM   #134
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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?
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 07:49 AM   #135
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
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/p...-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.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen 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 07:33 AM.


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