User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 48

  1. #31
    Member MJ_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFj
    Posts
    72

    Default

    I find the proposed legislation to be very disturbing.

    To be fair, I don't think its acceptable to force any healthcare provider to take actions they believe are morally repugnant. In some situations, it does no harm for a doctor/nurse/pharmacist to say 'I don't do ____, but I can refer you to my colleague on the other side of town/the other pharmacist on duty/another doctor in this practice'. Some things are not extremely time sensitive, some people are perfectly capable of being professional and ensuring that patient care is not compromised.

    In other situations, health care providers with strong convictions do take actions which are unethical. Like a pharmacist taking a prescription from a customer, refusing to fill it, and then keeping the prescription so that it cannot be filled elsewhere. Or a doctor refusing to treat or refer a patient to another health care provider. Some doctors/nurses have very few choices themselves based upon which hospital employs them (ie Catholic hospitals refusing to dispense drugs (RU 486, IIRC) in the case of ending an ectopic pregnancy and instead surgically removing the affected fallopian tube. Apparently, God is either okay with unnecessary surgery or easily fooled). You can imagine how this would affect medical care in rural areas where there are few choices of medical providers.

    Forcing other people to go without appropriate medical care is not a sacrifice. It doesn't matter if if someone disagrees with the morals or actions of the patient, its just wrong. If a person's beliefs are more important than ensuring a patient receives proper care, that person should find another position where they do not have to choose between the two. (That would be a sacrifice, and a choice that demonstrates the value a person places on their beliefs). I don't see why people's jobs should be protected, or hiring practices should be changed to protect that. If anything, the patient should be protected against health care providers who refuse to care for them, or refuse to refer them to someone who will, in a timely fashion.

    Its hardly religious discrimination to give someone a list of job requirements and ask 'Are these job requirements something you can do and will feel comfortable performing?'. Its a simple yes or no question, not a matter of beliefs or theology. If the answer is no, sometimes a potential employee can be accommodated and that person should be hired. If they can't be accommodated without compromising medical care, why should they be hired? If a medical practice/hospital must hire in a non discriminatory manner with no eye toward what their employees may or may not refuse to do, where does that end?

    And, no, there is no direct proof that the pill causes failure of implantation. If it does occur, it's thought to be a fairly rare occurrence. Orders of magnitude rarer than for women using non hormonal methods of birth control. Even some pro-life Ob/Gyns agree to that.
    Hormone Contraceptives: Controversies and Clarifications

    As well, women may need the pill to regulate their cycles for IVF (yes, using the pill to try to have kids, and yes, there was a case of a pharmacist refusing to dispense the pill in that situation). Or those with PCOS, fibroids or endometriosis who are trying to preserve their future fertility. Or those with a family history of ovarian cancer trying to reduce their own risk of dying or not being able to have children of their own. Or, women who should not have children due to health reasons. Its a long list, and that does not include the women who simply do not wish to have a child and have chosen a method of birth control that works for them. Really, the 'its possible that this drug may cause a fertilized egg to not implant' warning has been printed on the package insert of every type of oral contraceptive pill I've ever taken. Do people think that women can't read? Can't make decisions for themselves?

    When women can't have access to, (or have reduced access) to hormonal birth control, or IUD's, it should be noted that the women lose access to some of the most effective, non permanent methods of controlling their fertility. Its also important to consider the abortion rate and how contraceptive availability influences it.
    Recent Trends in Abortion Rates Worldwide
    RB-5055: Improvements in Contraception Are Reducing Historically High Abortion Rates in Russia
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/he...=1&oref=slogin

    We're talking about 30% of women in the USA (who use contraception) that use the pill, and having their access to their birth control potentially limited. Ditto for 2 % who use IUDs, 5 % that use Depo-provera. And a lot of people who have another method of birth control fail and would like to use Plan B (another hormonal method of controlling ovulation). This could impact the abortion rate. Not in a good way.

  2. #32
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Did you forget the part of the Bible where it says: And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." ?
    Being fruitful and multiplying doesn't pose a direct threat to the idea of being able to choose WHEN one wants one's fruits to ripen.

    Regardless, the Bible shouldn't be the law of a land which claims secularism and a strict wall between church and state.

    Oh, God... are we going to get into a thing about America's a "Christian nation"? It's dangerous territory.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  3. #33
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Based largely on MJ's, but also other people's posts, and everything (which is quite little) I know...

    I will leave the U.S. the day it outlaws abortion, let alone contraception. It's not about whether or not I'm a woman... I just don't want to live somewhere where the government can impose its theological viewpoint on me.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  4. #34
    ✿ڿڰۣஇღ♥ wut ♥ღஇڿڰۣ✿ digesthisickness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,262

    Default

    there's a country that doesn't do that?
    ✻ღϠ₡ღ✻
    (¯`✻´¯)
    `*.¸.*'ღϠ₡ღஇڿڰۣ
    •.¸¸. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒჱܓ. இڿڰۣ.¸¸.இڿڰۣ´¯`·.─♥


    Cerebral Artery
    http://www.facebook.com/CerebralArtery

  5. #35
    Reigning Bologna Princess Rajah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    1,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Did I mention that a lot them favor the death penalty? They heavily undermine their own argument with these other stances of theirs.
    I used to be that way - pro-choice, pro-death penalty. You can hold both opinions without a logical disconnect, depending on when you determine life begins.


    (For the record, I'm now pro-choice, anti-death penalty.)


    I... suppose. Yeah!

  6. #36
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    I just don't want to live somewhere where the government can impose its theological viewpoint on me.
    Every government imposes its theological viewpoint on you. The difference in America, unlike many countries, is it is the collected theological viewpoint of the people who have been citizens of this country for the last 230 years, rather than one ruling family or religious sect with the biggest weapons.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  7. #37
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digesthisickness View Post
    there's a country that doesn't do that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Every government imposes its theological viewpoint on you. The difference in America, unlike many countries, is it is the collected theological viewpoint of the people who have been citizens of this country for the last 230 years, rather than one ruling family or religious sect with the biggest weapons.
    Points well made.

    But I think there's a significant difference between a widely (beyond national borders) accepted moral standard and a singular religious viewpoint. The Bible didn't give us the ten commandments... those moral laws or variations thereof have been expressed in many cultures around the world. For die-hard Christians to insist that the ethical standards of American jurisprudence are quintessentially Christian is to misread the picture of human ethics.

    Theology and ethics are worlds apart when it comes to enforcing law on one's citizens. I think one can have a moral code without having a theology to back it up.

    Besides, when it comes to things like abortion, habeas corpus, and the right for consenting adults to fuck whomever they choose, I have to draw a line in the sand, even though I'm not a woman (as a sexually-active male, however, I still have a stake in the right to choose), habeas corpus, and the right to choose one's sexual partner (even though I'm heterosexual and haven't had my rights infringed upon).

    Also, referring to the Bible for the writing of our law books flies against everything our Union was based on. We have a Constitution for a reason and interpreting that is difficult enough.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  8. #38
    ✿ڿڰۣஇღ♥ wut ♥ღஇڿڰۣ✿ digesthisickness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,262

    Default

    okay, so what is your back-up country?
    ✻ღϠ₡ღ✻
    (¯`✻´¯)
    `*.¸.*'ღϠ₡ღஇڿڰۣ
    •.¸¸. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒჱܓ. இڿڰۣ.¸¸.இڿڰۣ´¯`·.─♥


    Cerebral Artery
    http://www.facebook.com/CerebralArtery

  9. #39
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digesthisickness View Post
    okay, so what is your back-up country?
    Denmark, Uruguay, or the Netherlands.... Edit: I must say, though, Uruguay's my top choice because it's in South America... though it has more issues than the other two...

    And no, no country is perfect, so if someone's going to shoot back with problems, fine but I understand that already... two of these countries are 'constitutional monarchies' (I instinctively dislike the idea of a monarchy but they're basically monarchies in name and democratic-republics in practice) but I like their cultures and I think they're, relatively, some of the freest countries on earth... not to mention they have wonderfully rich opportunities in both art and commerce.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  10. #40
    ✿ڿڰۣஇღ♥ wut ♥ღஇڿڰۣ✿ digesthisickness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    Denmark, Uruguay, or the Netherlands.... Edit: I must say, though, Uruguay's my top choice because it's in South America... though it has more issues than the other two...

    And no, no country is perfect, so if someone's going to shoot back with problems, fine but I understand that already... two of these countries are 'constitutional monarchies' (I instinctively dislike the idea of a monarchy but they're basically monarchies in name and democratic-republics in practice) but I like their cultures and I think they're, relatively, some of the freest countries on earth... not to mention they have wonderfully rich opportunities in both art and commerce.
    i wasn't going to argue with you about your choices of what you find to be great countries.

    i was just curious. the most i'd do is ask 'why' and you answered that.

    no, it just seemed like a bit of an overblown reaction to one law that i disagreed with. that's way too much work over one principle. i'd just break the law.
    ✻ღϠ₡ღ✻
    (¯`✻´¯)
    `*.¸.*'ღϠ₡ღஇڿڰۣ
    •.¸¸. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒჱܓ. இڿڰۣ.¸¸.இڿڰۣ´¯`·.─♥


    Cerebral Artery
    http://www.facebook.com/CerebralArtery

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court Ruling Striking Down Anti-Abortion Law
    By Hard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 11:17 PM
  2. Transgendered Ruled by EEOC to be Protected under Civil Rights Act, Title VII
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 02:22 PM
  3. One ring to rule them all... blah blah blah (Not about LOTR)
    By Xander in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 05:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO