|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rape victim denied emergency contraception based on religious beliefs of the doctor. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
The functional equivalency is the "coming out of the closet" part, trying to make their personal persuasions overrule established social contracts. In one case it's an evangelistic religion, in another a self-righteous sexual persuasion.
”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot writes:
I'm curious. What is your view on interracial marriage? The functional equivalency is the "coming out of the closet" part, trying to make their personal persuasions overrule established social contracts. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
Do you mean heterosexual marriages? I certainly do approve of interracial heterosexual marriages. What's the issue? I'm curious. What is your view on interracial marriage? ”Hm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The functional equivalency is the "coming out of the closet" part, trying to make their personal persuasions overrule established social contracts. Isn't that the problem? That two people are being unfairly denied the right to establish that social contract?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Thor Member (Idle past 5941 days) Posts: 148 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
I am personally scared because Pennsylvania seems to be the next in line for legislation in favor of these zealot doctors. I don't like the sound of that. What you get there is a situation where someone who is licensed by the government to provide a specific community service (in this case doctors or pharmacists), can arbitrarily refuse to provide only certain parts of that service which is expected of them. And it is written in law that they can do this! I wonder what kind of precedent that could set. What other licensed community service professionals will be allowed to pick and choose what parts of that service to provide, based on their religious beliefs? And to what extent would different religious beliefs be taken seriously? For example, could we see a situation where a Scientologist pharmacist could refuse to dispense anti-depressant medication? Maybe an Islamic police officer could refuse to investigate a burglary or hold-up at a liquor store. Maybe a Hindu firefighter could refuse to take part in putting out a fire at a mosque. Maybe an atheist road worker could refuse to do road works that facilitate traffic access to a church. I don't really see any of these examples as being any different in principle than the original birth-control situation under discussion. I'm not a lawyer, but I know legal precedent does count for something. It seems to me that passing such laws is potentially opening a huge can of worms. My bottom line is that if you're not willing to do all aspects of the job then it's best you find another line of work. I could say that at least it's not happening here in Oz, but if something starts happening in the US it always seems to show up here after a couple of years or so. We'll cop it soon enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot writes:
Well, I would think that you would have a problem with hetero interracial marriage because it used to be not the norms. Marriage used to be between a man and a woman of the same race. By forcing society to recognize that a black person and a white person could be married, those niggers really ruined it for everyone. What's the issue? Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Maybe an Islamic police officer could refuse to investigate a burglary or hold-up at a liquor store. Most Islamic cabbies working at the airport in Minneapolis/St. Paul will not take a fare if they know that the person is carrying alcohol. It's creating rather a nuisance situation. Apparently in at least a few cases, if the cabbie finds out about the alcohol during the ride, they will simply tell the rider to get out of the cab on the spot, regardless of where in the ride that happens to be. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 182 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
If there are any lawyers (or people familiar with the relevant legal issues) participating in this thread, it would be interesting for them to comment on whether the woman has any cause for action against the doctor to recover child care costs for any child resulting from the rape. Perhaps the most poetic justice would be to require that said doctor adopt and raise the child, which would also give the doctor the opportunity to indoctrinate the child in the doctor's religious convictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
When we briefly touched on "wrongful life" or "wrongful birth" causes of action in law school, the general trend seemed to be to not allow them, although I think there may have been one or two jurisdictions that did recognize them. A quick google search (it's late) didn't give me a definitive answer.
It usually comes up in one of three ways; a vasectomy that didn't take, a botched abortion, or a doctor's negligence in not diagnosing some kind of prenatal defect in the child in time for the pregnancy to be terminated. Hypothetically, in a jurisdiction where wrongful birth might be recognized, I can see a pharmacist's refusal to fill a doctor written prescription could be the kind of wrongful conduct that might give rise to liability. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What are you, some kind of feminist?
I hate feminists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
According to what social contract? Define "used to." Are you forgetting about John Rolfe and Pocahontas? Marriage used to be between a man and a woman of the same race. But that's not the point relevant to the OP. The point is that some Christian doctors are using the medical establishment to run their religious beliefs up the flag pole. And the gays are using the marriage institution to do the same thing with their homosexuality. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
cf writes:
So are you saying that Christian doctors should have the right to refuse services to a rape victim on religious grounds? They are claiming their rights to defy a social contract, too. Isn't that the problem? That two people are being unfairly denied the right to establish that social contract? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot writes:
Used to as in during Jim Crow.
According to what social contract? Define "used to." Are you forgetting about John Rolfe and Pocahontas? But that's not the point relevant to the OP. The point is that some Christian doctors are using the medical establishment to run their religious beliefs up the flag pole. And the gays are using the marriage institution to do the same thing with their homosexuality.
Again, those niggers used the marriage institution to run their agenda by marrying white gals. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I hate feminists. Oh my God; so do I! What a coincidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Most Islamic cabbies working at the airport in Minneapolis/St. Paul will not take a fare if they know that the person is carrying alcohol. I don't think this is the same issue because doctors are performing a vital public service that requires them to be licensed to practice. Cabbies and cab companies perform a very nice optional public service, but just as a resturaunt has the right to refuse service to someone who would create a negative experience for the rest of their clients, cabbies should have the right not to carry someone they don't want for a whole host of good reasons. If there was any regulation about this, it should be from the angle of consumer protection. If you which to exercise your right to refuse service you need to make it explicit (i.e. the signs in some resturants). SO the cabbies could put a sticker on their window saying that they don't provide services for customers carrying alcohol. In some states like Utah it may even simply be an issue of liability. There may be legitimate reasons although certainly it sounds like the Twin Cities cabbies are obviously doing it for religious reasons. Doctors though should have no recourse for stickers or signs proclaiming their refusal to perscribe certain medications. What then could have happened to this poor woman if she lived in a society where every doctor in a 200 mile radius had such a sign on their door? What if it was a community of JW doctors who refused to give patients blood transfusions? By the way, Admins need to tell Hoot to STFU about his gay bashing in a thread that is not related whatsoever to homosexuality. Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024