Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on June 02, 2012, 12:35:53 PM
-
more of the jesus people thinking ::)
-
"As President, I will end planned parenthood." WOW.
-
"As President, I will end planned parenthood." WOW.
As a libertarian, I believe in fiscal conservatism but Planned Parenthood is essential to keeping the ghetto/ignorant population in check.
We actually need more Planned Parenthood!!!
I'd cut the Department of Education, and divert that money to population control. We'd all be much better off.
The biggest factor in why children cannot get a decent education in Public School is the fact that our Public Schools are over filled with the offspring of ignorant trash that just don't give a shit.
-
As a libertarian, I believe in fiscal conservatism but Planned Parenthood is essential to keeping the ghetto/ignorant population in check.
We actually need more Planned Parenthood!!!
I'd cut the Department of Education, and divert that money to population control. We'd all be much better off.
The biggest factor in why children cannot get a decent education in Public School is the fact that our Public Schools are over filled with the offspring of ignorant trash that just don't give a shit.
I say if the Republicans want to stop abortions, then let them pay for the children and nobody else. Republicans are morons when it comes to Abortion. Complete morons.
-
I say if the Republicans want to stop abortions, then let them pay for the children and nobody else. Republicans are morons when it comes to Abortion. Complete morons.
Good post, absolutely agree and as you know I'm an ignorant believer. :D
-
Meh. Would like to hear the whole sstory.
A doctor shouldn't be forced to prescribe the abortion pill if it violates his conscience. Just get another doc to do it. Should not be a big deal.
-
Meh. Would like to hear the whole sstory.
A doctor shouldn't be forced to prescribe the abortion pill if it violates his conscience. Just get another doc to do it. Should not be a big deal.
..."The whole story"......I'd like to hear it too because all we have heard is a chop shop version.
Were there any health reasons involved? Abortion pills aren't like eating advil or a multi-vitamin......
-
..."The whole story"......I'd like to hear it too because all we have heard is a chop shop version.
Were there any health reasons involved? Abortion pills aren't like eating advil or a multi-vitamin......
Exactly.
-
I say if the Republicans want to stop abortions, then let them pay for the children and nobody else. Republicans are morons when it comes to Abortion. Complete morons.
Morons would be people who have sex like jack rabbits, act surprised when a baby results, and expect somebody else to take care of them.
How about the people who actually have the babies take care of them. Try that on for size.
-
Morons would be people who have sex like jack rabbits, act surprised when a baby results, and expect somebody else to take care of them.
How about the people who actually have the babies take care of them. Try that on for size.
How about abortion.
-
How about abortion.
If you engage in the activity that makes babies, you take care of those babies. It's a pretty simple concept.
-
So..................no one can give use the entire story?
-
Meh. Would like to hear the whole sstory.
A doctor shouldn't be forced to prescribe the abortion pill if it violates his conscience. Just get another doc to do it. Should not be a big deal.
Will you say the same thing if a doctor tells you "you require life-saving surgery, but my consience prohibits me from giving it to you because <reason>"? Something tells me you wouldn't say "OK, not a big deal" then.
If you engage in the activity that makes babies, you take care of those babies. It's a pretty simple concept.
Simplistic examples, that paint the world in either black or white aren't really useful, because the world isn't black and white. And I'll prove it to you.
You say that if you engage in the activity that makes babies, you take care of your babies. Would you consider a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant as "having engaged in the activity that makes babies?" It's, by your own admission, a pretty simple concept, so you should have no problem giving us an equally simple and unequivocal yes or no answer.
And... go!
-
Will you say the same thing if a doctor tells you "you require life-saving surgery, but my consience prohibits me from giving it to you because <reason>"? Something tells me you wouldn't say "OK, not a big deal" then.
Simplistic examples, that paint the world in either black or white aren't really useful, because the world isn't black and white. And I'll prove it to you.
You say that if you engage in the activity that makes babies, you take care of your babies. Would you consider a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant as "having engaged in the activity that makes babies?" It's, by your own admission, a pretty simple concept, so you should have no problem giving us an equally simple and unequivocal yes or no answer.
And... go!
seeing as the VAST MAJORITY of abortions are elective and have nothing to do with rape.
Bringing up rape in response to the idea of taking responsibility for your own sexual actions is pretty lame to say the least.
Thats fine make exceptions for rape, take a rape kit, get DNA and then if the rapist turns up arrest them...
-
seeing as the VAST MAJORITY of abortions are elective and have nothing to do with rape.
So?
Bringing up rape in response to the idea of taking responsibility for your own sexual actions is pretty lame to say the least.
It's kind of stupid to distort my words, when people can just read them in the block of text you quoted; congratulations on making yourself look dishonest.
Thats fine make exceptions for rape, take a rape kit, get DNA and then if the rapist turns up arrest them...
I was responding to MCWAY who painted things in black and white with a ridiculous blanket statement, by explaining that things, fortunately or unfortunately, aren't just black or just white. Your post doesn't actually address my argument but argues that exceptions should be made. I don't think exceptions are necessary. Either the emergency contraception pill and first-trimester abortions are always wrong or they are not. My position is that they aren't wrong.
-
..."The whole story"......I'd like to hear it too because all we have heard is a chop shop version.
Were there any health reasons involved? Abortion pills aren't like eating advil or a multi-vitamin......
the whole story?
what part do you think might be missing that would justify the doctors actions
the commentator said the woman was denied the mornging after pill (which is contraception and not an abortion pill - many fundies are too stupid to understand the difference) and was denied by the doctor who said that prescribing CONTRACEPTION violated her religious beliefs
granted, this was spoken by the commentator rather than having the rape victim on tape telling it to you herself but I'm sure you can understand why perhaps this rape victim would not like her name or image in the story
We've seen the type of story before. The fundie doctors religious beliefs trump the victims need for medical attention
I say if your religous beliefs prevent you from performing some part of your job then you are not qualified for teh job and should not be hired
-
Will you say the same thing if a doctor tells you "you require life-saving surgery, but my consience prohibits me from giving it to you because <reason>"? Something tells me you wouldn't say "OK, not a big deal" then.
exactly
the doctor could belong the ironically named "christian science" sect of christianity and be opposed to surgery and antibiotics
Would fundies be OK if they took their child to that doctor for some kind of emergeny medical problem only to be told sorry but my religious beliefs prevent me from giving your child antibiotics but I will pray with you that jesus heals your child
Simplistic examples, that paint the world in either black or white aren't really useful, because the world isn't black and white. And I'll prove it to you.
You say that if you engage in the activity that makes babies, you take care of your babies. Would you consider a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant as "having engaged in the activity that makes babies?" It's, by your own admission, a pretty simple concept, so you should have no problem giving us an equally simple and unequivocal yes or no answer.
And... go!
good luck trying to get any fundies on this board to understand what your'e talking about
many fundiies agree with Rick Santorum conception via rape is a gift from god
their religoius belief compels them, in fact seems to require them to restrict the freedom of others, even when that person doesn't share their religious views
they literally believe that their access to freedom of religious expression trumps everyone elses access to that very same freedom
-
So?
It's kind of stupid to distort my words, when people can just read them in the block of text you quoted; congratulations on making yourself look dishonest.
I was responding to MCWAY who painted things in black and white with a ridiculous blanket statement, by explaining that things, fortunately or unfortunately, aren't just black or just white. Your post doesn't actually address my argument but argues that exceptions should be made. I don't think exceptions are necessary. Either the emergency contraception pill and first-trimester abortions are always wrong or they are not. My position is that they aren't wrong.
Do you not understand that you also paint things as black and white?
they arent wrong in the first trimester?
at any time?
elective abortions? abortions based on sex?
LMFAO
-
exactly
the doctor could belong the ironically named "christian science" sect of christianity and be opposed to surgery and antibiotics
Would fundies be OK if they took their child to that doctor for some kind of emergeny medical problem only to be told sorry but my religious beliefs prevent me from giving your child antibiotics but I will pray with you that jesus heals your child
good luck trying to get any fundies on this board to understand what your'e talking about
many fundiies agree with Rick Santorum conception via rape is a gift from god
their religoius belief compels them, in fact seems to require them to restrict the freedom of others, even when that person doesn't share their religious views
they literally believe that their access to freedom of religious expression trumps everyone elses access to that very same freedom
are you really so dense that you dont understand that there are plenty of reasons to be against abortion that have absolutely nothing to do with religion?
-
are you really so dense that you dont understand that there are plenty of reasons to be against abortion that have absolutely nothing to do with religion?
You understand that we're talking about contraception and not abortion........right?
-
If you engage in the activity that makes babies, you take care of those babies. It's a pretty simple concept.
I completely agree, but they end up not taking care of those babies and it becomes all of our burden to support these kids. :(
-
I completely agree, but they end up not taking care of those babies and it becomes all of our burden to support these kids. :(
true fundies don't concern themselves with pesky little issues like reality
in fact, in contrast to their blind devotion to a microscopic cluster of cells in someone elses body, once the actually fully formed human being shows up they usually couldn't give less of a shit about it
this is how the same fundies that are so vehemently against contraception can also just as easily be against things like C.H.I.P (Childrens Health Insurance Program), free school lunches, food stamps, etc..
-
seeing as the VAST MAJORITY of abortions are elective and have nothing to do with rape.
Bringing up rape in response to the idea of taking responsibility for your own sexual actions is pretty lame to say the least.
Thats fine make exceptions for rape, take a rape kit, get DNA and then if the rapist turns up arrest them...
Why do you want more people to populate the United States? ???
-
The only thing that will make this right is having the dumpsters of this society overflow with bodies of dead babies aborted because they weren't the parents preferred sex.
We have to satiate the blood lust somehow.
I want blood everywhere. Kill 'em all.
Wrong eye color? Kill em
Wrong sex? Kill em
Wrong hair color? Kill em.
They ain't people, just inconveniences.
-
You understand that we're talking about contraception and not abortion........right?
go back and reread the post of avxo you quoted, that was in response to MCWAYS post on abortion................ ......................
-
Why do you want more people to populate the United States? ???
nice straw man,
since you dont want more ppl in the US am I safe in assuming you would institute a manditory euthanisia past a certain age?
straw mans are a wonderful thing arent they?
-
We need the streets overflowing the bodies of dead babies.
That is the most important part of it all.
-
is that what they do with the babies :o
-
Why do you want more people to populate the United States? ???
Why don't the people who are so concerned about population control lead by example and start woofing down some sleeping pills or put guns to their heads?
-
Why don't the people who are so concerned about population control lead by example and start woofing down some sleeping pills or put guns to their heads?
would jesus approve of you saying that ???
-
true fundies don't concern themselves with pesky little issues like reality
in fact, in contrast to their blind devotion to a microscopic cluster of cells in someone elses body, once the actually fully formed human being shows up they usually couldn't give less of a shit about it
this is how the same fundies that are so vehemently against contraception can also just as easily be against things like C.H.I.P (Childrens Health Insurance Program), free school lunches, food stamps, etc..
We concern ourselves with reality such as RESPONSIBILITY, something you don't seem to grasp.
Your blind devotion is to people screwing without any good sense, resulting in babies that (by your cracked reasoning) either have to be dismembered in utero or given care by people who weren't responsible for their being conceived, in the first place.
If you don't take care of them, we have to kill them, even though it's our fault these babies are here. That's brilliant!! ::)
-
nice straw man,
since you dont want more ppl in the US am I safe in assuming you would institute a manditory euthanisia past a certain age?
straw mans are a wonderful thing arent they?
That's the next logical step. But, Straw Man, Blacken, and others can't quite wrap their heads around that.
-
would jesus approve of you saying that ???
Perhaps, He would, if such were based on righteous anger to make a point (something you have a tough time doing), since He did not let wrongdoing go unchallenged.
-
hahahaha jesus would say go kill yourself :D :D
-
nice straw man,
since you dont want more ppl in the US am I safe in assuming you would institute a manditory euthanisia past a certain age?
They practically have that in ObamaCare. If the libs deem certain old people ain't worth keeping alive........
hahahaha jesus would say go kill yourself :D :D
Hardly!!! But, thanks for playing, O ye of little sense.
-
mcway's jesus says Why don't the people who are so concerned about population control lead by example and start woofing down some sleeping pills or put guns to their heads? :D :D :D :D
-
Do you not understand that you also paint things as black and white?
That's a fair point. It's not entirely accurate, but it is fair.
they arent wrong in the first trimester?
No, because as I explained before, I don't think that women can be forced to become or forced to remain walking, talking incubators, with no control over the workings of their bodies. It really is that simple. As to why I think the first trimester is a fairly bright red line in my opinion? Quite simple really: before the first trimester, it is impossible for the fetus to survive (given current and forthcoming technology). I believe the earliest preemie to survive was significantly older than that at over 20 weeks, but I don't have the reference in front of me. Is the line perfect? No. But I'm not concerned with perfection.
at any time?
Like many others, I am torn, not so much as to whether there should be a bright line, but as to where that line should be on the temporal axis. I think that, ultimately, the only line that is bright and unambiguous enough, is birth. Let me be clear: I'm not suggesting that abortions at 48 weeks are OK. I'm merely pointing out that arbitrary line drawing is a difficult problem; most answers as to where the line should be placed are rather simplistic and have serious unintended consequences.
elective abortions? abortions based on sex?
I have no problem with elective abortions if the fetus has (or will have) serious medical complications. As for abortions based on sex, that's a rather specious argument. If someone desperately wants a kid of a particular gender (or of particular characteristics) there are much better ways to go about it than fucking, then testing and aborting the results that don't pass the quality check. So I don't worry too much about this issue.
I also think that it's a bad idea to categorically rule out the necessity of such procedures. There might, for example, come a time when there is a dramatic imbalance in the male to female ratio in the world, and more children of a particular gender are needed to help ensure the survival of the species.
But I have allowed this discussion to drift away from contraception to abortion. So let's go back:
Imagine a surgeon saying "the patient has lost a lot of blood, and needs a blood transfusion; autotransfusion isn't an option and as a Jehovah's Witness blood transfusions violate my conscience, so I must refuse to perform this procedure." Back to pharmacists and the filling of prescriptions, this translates to: "I see your otherwise valid prescription, but contraception violates my consience, so I must refuse to fill this prescription."
When it comes down to it, I don't think it's a big problem, since most pharmacies usually have at least two people behind the counter, so it should be fairly easy for the conscientious pharmacist to say "Yes ma'am. One moment while we fill this prescription" or "Your prescription will be ready for pickup in 5 minutes" before handing it off to the other pharmacist who is able to do their job right, or, if worse comes to worst, to refer the woman to another nearby pharmacy. But in principle, I find it unacceptable for people to refuse to do a job they voluntarily applied and were hired for on the grounds that the job requirements violate their conscience, when they knew that up front what the requirements of the job were. I believe that in such instances, the employees should either quit or get fired.
I also find it completely unacceptable for a pharmacist who would refuse to fill a prescription to then refuse to return it so that the woman can find another pharmacy, willing to fill it. I believe that such actions should, at the very least, result in the pharmacist losing their license to practice.
We concern ourselves with reality such as RESPONSIBILITY, something you don't seem to grasp.
No. You concern yourself with enforcing your particular views on the subject at the cost of treating women as walking, talking incubators with no rights.
Your blind devotion is to people screwing without any good sense, resulting in babies that (by your cracked reasoning) either have to be dismembered in utero or given care by people who weren't responsible for their being conceived, in the first place.
Now children, as a fun exercise, try to see how many logical fallacies are in the above sentence.
-
in fact, in contrast to their blind devotion to a microscopic cluster of cells in someone elses body, once the actually fully formed human being shows up they usually couldn't give less of a shit about it
I'm glad to hear you say this!
It's funny, when they're in their mothers belly their life is sacred. When they're a little older though, we have no problem sending them off to die in the Middle East.
-
Why don't the people who are so concerned about population control lead by example and start woofing down some sleeping pills or put guns to their heads?
People that have sense enough to recognize what a gigantic issue over-population will be are generally the kind of people that benefit society by sticking around.
-
I'm glad to hear you say this!
It's funny, when they're in their mothers belly their life is sacred. When they're a little older though, we have no problem sending them off to die in the Middle East.
Ummm....they're usually not little kids, when they VOLUNTEER to be a member of the Armed Forces. They're adults.
They have a choice in the matter (to a degree). The unborn babies....not so much.
-
No. You concern yourself with enforcing your particular views on the subject at the cost of treating women as walking, talking incubators with no rights.
Killing someone, for whom you're responsible for conceiving, just because they are an inconvenient, is beyond absurd.
What happens when someone decides they have the right to kill YOU, just because you are a nuisance or a burden on their way of life?
Not to mention, when it comes to this selective abortion stuff, notice how most of the unborn babies killed are FEMALE. Talking about no rights? What better way to deprive women of rights than destroying them before they're even born, simply because they're female?
-
The only thing that will make this right is having the dumpsters of this society overflow with bodies of dead babies aborted because they weren't the parents preferred sex.
We have to satiate the blood lust somehow.
I want blood everywhere. Kill 'em all.
Wrong eye color? Kill em
Wrong sex? Kill em
Wrong hair color? Kill em.
They ain't people, just inconveniences.
Wait until it becomes:
Wrong race? Kill 'em.
Wrong "orientation"? Kill 'em
-
Will you say the same thing if a doctor tells you "you require life-saving surgery, but my consience prohibits me from giving it to you because <reason>"? Something tells me you wouldn't say "OK, not a big deal" then.
Absurd. The issue is a doctor being forced to prescribe an abortion pill, not perform life-saving surgery.
What kind of whacked out world do you live in??
-
The only thing that will make this right is having the dumpsters of this society overflow with bodies of dead babies aborted because they weren't the parents preferred sex.
We have to satiate the blood lust somehow.
I want blood everywhere. Kill 'em all.
Wrong eye color? Kill em
Wrong sex? Kill em
Wrong hair color? Kill em.
They ain't people, just inconveniences.
And why not? If a woman has an absolute right to kill her unborn baby, she should be able to do it for any reason, including eye color, sex, disability, etc. Sounds horrendous, but that's the logical extension of their viewpoint.
-
Let me be clear: I'm not suggesting that abortions at 48 weeks are OK.
Uh, pregnancy is 40 weeks.
-
I thought this thread was about a rape victim trying to make sure she didn't get pregnant by the rapist. I guess not ::)
-
the way Beach Bum and MCWAY want the world to be
-
Uh, pregnancy is 40 weeks.
Err, my bad. I meant to type 24 weeks (i.e. 6 months) so I'm not sure what went wrong there. I blame my brain!
-
Killing someone, for whom you're responsible for conceiving, just because they are an inconvenient, is beyond absurd.
Killing a person is wrong. But is the fetus a person?
What happens when someone decides they have the right to kill YOU, just because you are a nuisance or a burden on their way of life?
See above.
Not to mention, when it comes to this selective abortion stuff, notice how most of the unborn babies killed are FEMALE. Talking about no rights? What better way to deprive women of rights than destroying them before they're even born, simply because they're female?
I find it difficult to notice this fact, but I'll take your word for it. Even if true, you are continuing to suggest that it's acceptable for one person to be forced to live for the sake of another person. There is a name for that you know.
-
Absurd. The issue is a doctor being forced to prescribe an abortion pill, not perform life-saving surgery.
What kind of whacked out world do you live in??
Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away...
I don't go to doctor for sermons. If I wanted sermons I'd go to a church. I will repeat my point: If the doctor cannot, in good conscience, practice medicine then he shouldn't be a doctor.
Would you defend a doctor "forced" to treat a patient who was black if the doctor was racist? How is that any different that refusing to prescribe contraceptives? And if you would, what kind of whacked out world do you live in?
-
nice straw man,
since you dont want more ppl in the US am I safe in assuming you would institute a manditory euthanisia past a certain age?
straw mans are a wonderful thing arent they?
Don`t have a clue what you are talking about. I am for tax breaks for people who do not want children or incentives given.
-
Don`t have a clue what you are talking about. I am for tax breaks for people who do not want children or incentives given.
And the reason they should get tax breaks would be......
-
Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away...
I don't go to doctor for sermons. If I wanted sermons I'd go to a church. I will repeat my point: If the doctor cannot, in good conscience, practice medicine then he shouldn't be a doctor.
Would you defend a doctor "forced" to treat a patient who was black if the doctor was racist? How is that any different that refusing to prescribe contraceptives? And if you would, what kind of whacked out world do you live in?
Actually, pharmacists don't prescribe abortion pills and most of them cannot prescribe medication. But let's not let the facts get in the way.
If you don't like you're doctor's views, go find another doctor.
A doctor can practice medicine and his faith, especially in this instance.
-
Actually, pharmacists don't prescribe abortion pills and most of them cannot prescribe medication. But let's not let the facts get in the way.
I didn't suggest they could or did. I wrote: "Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away..." which I think pretty accurately describes the function that a pharmacist performs in filling and dispensing a prescription.
If you don't like you're doctor's views, go find another doctor.
I certainly would. But remember, we're talking about pharmacists. And it's a small problem when the pharmacist, like Neil Noesen did, takes the prescription and not only refuses to fill it but also doesn't refer you to another pharmacist and refuses to either return or transfer the prescription.
A doctor can practice medicine and his faith, especially in this instance.
Doctors (and pharmacists) have an ethical duty to their patient, and if they can't uphold that duty, they should not be doctors (or pharmacists). It's really simple: if you are a health care professional but cannot practice medicine without compromising your faith, then you should find another job.
Seriously, your position reminds me of a story I read about a medical student who wanted the University to not flunk him in obstetrics and gynecology. He received a failing grade and was not allowed to graduate because he refused to fulfill the course requirements (by participating in an abortion) and refused to even refer patients to another doctor for the procedure. Again, this was a guy who wanted to become an obstetrician! Seriously?!?
-
I didn't suggest they could or did. I wrote: "Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away..." which I think pretty accurately describes the function that a pharmacist performs in filling and dispensing a prescription.
I certainly would. But remember, we're talking about pharmacists. And it's a small problem when the pharmacist, like Neil Noesen did, takes the prescription and not only refuses to fill it but also doesn't refer you to another pharmacist and refuses to either return or transfer the prescription.
Doctors (and pharmacists) have an ethical duty to their patient, and if they can't uphold that duty, they should not be doctors (or pharmacists). It's really simple: if you are a health care professional but cannot practice medicine without compromising your faith, then you should find another job.
Seriously, your position reminds me of a story I read about a medical student who wanted the University to not flunk him in obstetrics and gynecology. He received a failing grade and was not allowed to graduate because he refused to fulfill the course requirements (by participating in an abortion) and refused to even refer patients to another doctor for the procedure. Again, this was a guy who wanted to become an obstetrician! Seriously?!?
I wonder if that is Ron Poop you are referring to?
-
I do think it's with in the doctors right to refuse this type of aid based on her beliefs.
That being said, I think the self-righteous bitch should be fired.
(at the very least moved out of being in a position to decide)
I think it's pretty cold and inhuman the doctor denying a woman who had just been raped aid in preventing a unwanted pregnancy. It's not like she was having irresponsible sex.
Part of being a doctor is not to let personal beliefs decide whether or not aid should be given.
-
I do think it's with in the doctors right to refuse this type of aid based on her beliefs.
That being said, I think the self-righteous bitch should be fired.
(at the very least moved out of being in a position to decide)
I think it's pretty cold and inhuman the doctor denying a woman who had just been raped aid in preventing a unwanted pregnancy. It's not like she was having irresponsible sex.
::)
I don`t believe in sewing up this trauma patient because his severe head wound looks like the face of Jesus. Lets have him die instead.
-
::)
I don`t believe in sewing up this trauma patient because his severe head wound looks like the face of Jesus. Lets have him die instead.
It's not all or nothing or black or white. There is a difference between a person asking for a rape kit versus a person DYING from head wounds.
On a side note, this is probably why Christian scientists arent doctors lol. At least I think there aren't. Lol
Important note: I don't think what the doctor did here was right.
-
It's not all or nothing or black or white. There is a difference between a person asking for a rape kit versus a person DYING from head wounds.
On a side note, this is probably why Christian scientists arent doctors lol. At least I think there aren't. Lol
Important note: I don't think what the doctor did here was right.
there are christian psychos that are doctors.
Just hope nobody here ever has to have a loved one go through a brutalizing exorcism by a stupid christian doctor because the doctor thinks cancer is caused by the devil... ::) Been there done that don't recommend it for anyone.
-
I didn't suggest they could or did. I wrote: "Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away..." which I think pretty accurately describes the function that a pharmacist performs in filling and dispensing a prescription.
I certainly would. But remember, we're talking about pharmacists. And it's a small problem when the pharmacist, like Neil Noesen did, takes the prescription and not only refuses to fill it but also doesn't refer you to another pharmacist and refuses to either return or transfer the prescription.
Doctors (and pharmacists) have an ethical duty to their patient, and if they can't uphold that duty, they should not be doctors (or pharmacists). It's really simple: if you are a health care professional but cannot practice medicine without compromising your faith, then you should find another job.
Seriously, your position reminds me of a story I read about a medical student who wanted the University to not flunk him in obstetrics and gynecology. He received a failing grade and was not allowed to graduate because he refused to fulfill the course requirements (by participating in an abortion) and refused to even refer patients to another doctor for the procedure. Again, this was a guy who wanted to become an obstetrician! Seriously?!?
Read the title of the thread. This is supposedly about a doctor prescribing an abortion pill, not a pharmacist handing out a bottle of pills.
We're not talking about pharmacists. We're talking about doctors.
Not sure if you're aware of that whole First Amendment thing, but the government cannot force a doctor to whatever the government wants.
Don't know anything about the story you mentioned, and it has zero to do with whether a doctor should be forced to prescribe an abortion pill.
-
Read the title of the thread. This is supposedly about a doctor prescribing an abortion pill, not a pharmacist handing out a bottle of pills.
We're not talking about pharmacists. We're talking about doctors.
Not sure if you're aware of that whole First Amendment thing, but the government cannot force a doctor to whatever the government wants.
Don't know anything about the story you mentioned, and it has zero to do with whether a doctor should be forced to prescribe an abortion pill.
avxo - this is why you are wasting your time
the whole story?
what part do you think might be missing that would justify the doctors actions
the commentator said the woman was denied the morning after pill (which is contraception and not an abortion pill - many fundies are too stupid to understand the difference) and was denied by the doctor who said that prescribing CONTRACEPTION violated her religious beliefs
granted, this was spoken by the commentator rather than having the rape victim on tape telling it to you herself but I'm sure you can understand why perhaps this rape victim would not like her name or image in the story
We've seen the type of story before. The fundie doctors religious beliefs trump the victims need for medical attention
I say if your religous beliefs prevent you from performing some part of your job then you are not qualified for the job and should not be hired
-
there are christian psychos that are doctors.
Just hope nobody here ever has to have a loved one go through a brutalizing exorcism by a stupid christian doctor because the doctor thinks cancer is caused by the devil... ::) Been there done that don't recommend it for anyone.
That doctor who refused contraception must be one of them. Nothing like etremist religious freaks.
-
Read the title of the thread. This is supposedly about a doctor prescribing an abortion pill, not a pharmacist handing out a bottle of pills.
I was referring to the particular subject I was trying to discuss.
We're not talking about pharmacists. We're talking about doctors.
We can talk about doctors if you'd prefer, although pharmacists are just as important. After all even if you can a prescription by a doctor, what good is it if the pharmacist takes it and refuses to fill it or return it so that you may fill it elsewhere?
I have no particular problem with doctors refusing to perform certain procedures (provided that doing so doesn't have immediate and direct repercussions to the health of their patient) on conscientious grounds, but then the doctor has an ethical obligation to refer the patient to another doctor.
And again I will point out the issue that you're avoiding: these people became doctors knowing full well that they may be faced with situations where their conscience would prevent them from treating their patients. Why, then, would they choose to become doctors?
Not sure if you're aware of that whole First Amendment thing, but the government cannot force a doctor to whatever the government wants.
I think you are confused about the meaning of the First Amendment. Besides, this has nothing to do with government coercion and everything to do with a doctor who, despite knowing that his chosen profession might require him to violate his conscience, chose to become a doctor anyway.
Don't know anything about the story you mentioned, and it has zero to do with whether a doctor should be forced to prescribe an abortion pill.
Even if you don't know much about the case, do you think it's appropriate for a medical school student who is seeking a degree in gynecology and obstetrics to not only request a waiver from course requirements because the course violates his conscience, but to openly admit that not only will be not perform certain procedures on his future patients but that he will not even refer them to someone who will?
What if he story mentioned by the OP was about a gp who refused to treat Jews on the same grounds? Or an oncologist who would not prescribe chemotherapy because it violated his conscience? Or a surgeon who refused to use transfusions during surgery because it violates his conscience?
The bottom line is that doctors have ethical obligations and responsibilities to their patients. If they know in advance that they cannot meet those responsibilities or uphold those ethical obligations then they should not try to become doctors.
-
It's funny, when they're in their mothers belly their life is sacred. When they're a little older though, we have no problem sending them off to die in the Middle East.
Oh, did the USA bring back the draft? Is anyone forced to join the military?
Seems like personal responsibility is a very foreign concept to many posting on this board.
-
Ummm....they're usually not little kids, when they VOLUNTEER to be a member of the Armed Forces. They're adults.
They have a choice in the matter (to a degree). The unborn babies....not so much.
If they're adults why don't they get treated like adults?... They can't even go have a fucking beer for fuck sake. Sure, go die for America but don't you dare try to buy a beer ::)
refuckingtarded.
-
there are christian psychos that are doctors.
Just hope nobody here ever has to have a loved one go through a brutalizing exorcism by a stupid christian doctor because the doctor thinks cancer is caused by the devil... ::) Been there done that don't recommend it for anyone.
Seriously?
Where was this?
Can't you sue for something like that? Or at least get his/her medical license revoked?
-
I say if the Republicans want to stop abortions, then let them pay for the children and nobody else. Republicans are morons when it comes to Abortion. Complete morons.
+1000
-
If you engage in the activity that makes babies, you take care of those babies. It's a pretty simple concept.
So you are against people deciding for themselves what to do with their bodies?
-
Any doctor who doesn't know the difference between contraception and abortion should be immediately subject to a review by state licensing board to confirm that he/she actually understands where babies come from. If they still insist that the morning after pill is an abortion they should lose their license
if the doctor doesn't understand this very basic part of human physiology they shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine
-
Any doctor who doesn't know the difference between contraception and abortion should be immediately subject to a review by state licensing board to confirm that he/she actually understands where babies come from. If they still insist that the morning after pill is an abortion they should lose their license
if the doctor doesn't understand this very basic part of human physiology they shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine
Agreed.
My stance is this
A - I believe the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't put in my body etc.
B -I don't like abortion, not a big fan.
So if I believe in A then I would have to say that a woman should also have the right to have an abortion, it is her body, correct? It seems a bit 'off' if I was to tell the government to stop telling me what I can eat/drink/tan whatever and then turn around and tell a woman that she can't have an abortion.
-
Agreed.
My stance is this
A - I believe the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't put in my body etc.
B -I don't like abortion, not a big fan.
So if I believe in A then I would have to say that a woman should also have the right to have an abortion, it is her body, correct? It seems a bit 'off' if I was to tell the government to stop telling me what I can eat/drink/tan whatever and then turn around and tell a woman that she can't have an abortion.
and in the case of this woman it would be access to contraception and not abortion
-
and in the case of this woman it would be access to contraception and not abortion
Well, yes, but my post was speaking in generalities. I know the difference between the two.
-
Well, yes, but my post was speaking in generalities. I know the difference between the two.
yeah, I figured you did and I only mentioned it because I want to point out that many fundies (such as Bum) have had this explained to them many times and yet they choose to perpetuate ignorance and continue to refer to emergency contraception as a "abortion pill". If fact, willful ignorance and perpetuating lies seems to be an absolute requirement in order to maintain a fundie point of view.
This particular characterstic of of fundies (christians, muslims, etc..) is bizarro and I see no reason why we as a society need to respect or even tolerate it, especially when they insist that the rest of us buy into their patenly false beliefs. This is also why it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion or debate on the topic. You're starting out talking with someone who's position is immune to fact and even contrary to facts
-
So you are against people deciding for themselves what to do with their bodies?
Nope. But then again, the mother isn't getting her arms and legs ripped off, or her head crushed with a vice, or having her brain sucked up with a tube. Nor is she being burned with a chemical solution.
-
I was referring to the particular subject I was trying to discuss.
We can talk about doctors if you'd prefer, although pharmacists are just as important. After all even if you can a prescription by a doctor, what good is it if the pharmacist takes it and refuses to fill it or return it so that you may fill it elsewhere?
I have no particular problem with doctors refusing to perform certain procedures (provided that doing so doesn't have immediate and direct repercussions to the health of their patient) on conscientious grounds, but then the doctor has an ethical obligation to refer the patient to another doctor.
And again I will point out the issue that you're avoiding: these people became doctors knowing full well that they may be faced with situations where their conscience would prevent them from treating their patients. Why, then, would they choose to become doctors?
I think you are confused about the meaning of the First Amendment. Besides, this has nothing to do with government coercion and everything to do with a doctor who, despite knowing that his chosen profession might require him to violate his conscience, chose to become a doctor anyway.
Even if you don't know much about the case, do you think it's appropriate for a medical school student who is seeking a degree in gynecology and obstetrics to not only request a waiver from course requirements because the course violates his conscience, but to openly admit that not only will be not perform certain procedures on his future patients but that he will not even refer them to someone who will?
What if he story mentioned by the OP was about a gp who refused to treat Jews on the same grounds? Or an oncologist who would not prescribe chemotherapy because it violated his conscience? Or a surgeon who refused to use transfusions during surgery because it violates his conscience?
The bottom line is that doctors have ethical obligations and responsibilities to their patients. If they know in advance that they cannot meet those responsibilities or uphold those ethical obligations then they should not try to become doctors.
The discussion had/has nothing to do with pharmacists.
This is the only thing you've said that I agree with: "I have no particular problem with doctors refusing to perform certain procedures (provided that doing so doesn't have immediate and direct repercussions to the health of their patient) on conscientious grounds, but then the doctor has an ethical obligation to refer the patient to another doctor."
End of story. Who cares about some absurd, nonexistent, unrealistic hypothetical? (I don't.)
-
The discussion had/has nothing to do with pharmacists.
This is the only thing you've said that I agree with: "I have no particular problem with doctors refusing to perform certain procedures (provided that doing so doesn't have immediate and direct repercussions to the health of their patient) on conscientious grounds, but then the doctor has an ethical obligation to refer the patient to another doctor."
End of story. Who cares about some absurd, nonexistent, unrealistic hypothetical? (I don't.)
of course it does
watch the video
the woman speaking said the doctor would not PRESCRIBE the morning after pill
If the doctor had prescribed it the woman would have still needed to go to a pharmicist to fill the prescription and the pharmacist could have also refused to fill it ....not doubt for the very same false belief that it was an abortion pill or maybe even just because that particular pharmacist doesn't believe in contraception
-
Yeah Straw, but the story isn't about a pharmacists its about a doctor.
The doctor and the pharmacists are both with in their rights to refuse but also subject to consequences of getting fired for it.
-
Yeah Straw, but the story isn't about a pharmacists its about a doctor.
The doctor and the pharmacists are both with in their rights to refuse but also subject to consequences of getting fired for it.
fair enough but it would be the same false premise by either the doctor or the pharmacist
This story is about refusal of access to contraception and we've seen stories in the past where a patient walks in with a prescription for emergency contraception (aka = The Morning After Pill) and is turned away by the pharmacist for the same false reasoning that Bum perpetuated in this thread
-
fair enough but it would be the same false premise by either the doctor or the pharmacist
This story is about refusal of access to contraception and we've seen stories in the past where a patient walks in with a prescription for emergency contraception (aka = The Morning After Pill) and is turned away by the pharmacist for the same false reasoning that Bum perpetuated in this thread
What's Bum's reasoning?
-
What's Bum's reasoning?
his "reasoning" is the willfully ignorant statement that contraception is abortion
Read the title of the thread. This is supposedly about a doctor prescribing an abortion pill, not a pharmacist handing out a bottle of pills.
We're not talking about pharmacists. We're talking about doctors.
Not sure if you're aware of that whole First Amendment thing, but the government cannot force a doctor to whatever the government wants.
Don't know anything about the story you mentioned, and it has zero to do with whether a doctor should be forced to prescribe an abortion pill.
-
As long as doctors serve as the gatekeepers for perfectly legal drugs, they have an obligation to not let their religious beliefs affect a patient.
-
As long as doctors serve as the gatekeepers for perfectly legal drugs, they have an obligation to not let their religious beliefs affect a patient.
I totally agree
good luck getting any fundie on this board to agree with that
-
As long as doctors serve as the gatekeepers for perfectly legal drugs, they have an obligation to not let their religious beliefs affect a patient.
Boom thank you, best post i read today by far
-
If a pregnancy resulting from rape is religiously protected, are the rapists doing god's work?
-
If a pregnancy resulting from rape is religiously protected, are the rapists doing god's work?
;D
God is a rapist
Is that why you believe in him Dario?