|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rape victim denied emergency contraception based on religious beliefs of the doctor. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
Not during Jim Crow. Any uppity nigger who even winked a white gal back then never lived long enough to marry her. Used to as in during Jim Crow. Again, those niggers used the marriage institution to run their agenda by marrying white gals. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
So you agree with me. This is why I thought you'd be against interracial marriage... or desegregation in general, being a defender of tradition that you are.
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 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
I'll give you a D- for that one, Taz.
”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I'll even take an F if you want to give it to me.
Are you against desegregation and interracial marriage or not? Again, those niggers forced such views upon us whites and the established social order of the time. If you're so uptight about keeping tradition, shouldn't you be protesting to bring back segregation and jim crow laws? 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 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
OK, it's an F.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They are claiming their rights to defy a social contract, too. Er, wait, now you've lost me. A gay couple wants to establish a contract between the two of them. A doctor wants to violate his contract with the state. How are those comparable situations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
How can you hate feminists when you hold feminist viewpoints?
That must mean that you hate yourself. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
You are making the faulty assumption that same-sex "marriage" has any socially redeeming history to judge it by. The same thing is true for certain weirdos in unisex public restrooms”those with urinational fetishes. Why shouldn't people of opposite sexes who want to watch each other pee be denied their "rights" to so do in public places? Shouldn't they be granted their perversions, too, and shouldn't all public restrooms be required to function on a unisex basis for that reason?
UNISEX PEE WATCHERS UNITE! ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
StrawberryPatchBug Junior Member (Idle past 5964 days) Posts: 13 Joined: |
You have a great point here Thor (especially with the Scientologists)
It is starting something that could snowball into something terrible. And as was previously said, the bottom line is to be a doctor you need to have a license that allows you to practice medicine as a public service, failing to do so based on a belief, basically saying "no I don't feel like providing that service" should result in nothing less than having that license revoked. Also another note to the Admins, Hoot has dragged this thread far off topic and has said some very hateful things. Please tell him to stop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are making the faulty assumption that same-sex "marriage" has any socially redeeming history to judge it by. Nothing faulty about it. There's millenia of socially redeeming history for same-sex marriage. It hardly destroyed the societies in which it was practiced. Not to mention recent history - where a multitude of countries and even one US state now allow same-sex marriage. Last I checked Canada hasn't descended into anarchy; last I checked, Massachusetts hasn't slid off into the ocean. So actually there's plenty of socially redeeming history for same-sex marriage. It's just that you haven't been paying attention, apparently.
Why shouldn't people of opposite sexes who want to watch each other pee be denied their "rights" to so do in public places? I don't see how that's an analogous situation, either. Is that how it works in your head? "All kinds of pervy weirdos might want rights, too, so we better not let the queers get hitched." I don't understand the reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
cf writes:
Well, who's going to stand up for traditional rights and values? I think you may already know that I favor civil-union rights for queers. In my idealized world, same-sex civil unions would become legal, and "marriage" would be relegated to the churches to decide who's elegible. Maybe some churches will marry people's house pets: he was a handsome and mellow lab and she was a feisty bitch of a schnauzer. That's OK. And maybe other churches will marry the house pets to their owners. That's OK, too. The government gets out of this ambiguous business of "marriage" and puts its attention on where it ought to be”civil unions. Is that how it works in your head? "All kinds of pervy weirdos might want rights, too, so we better not let the queers get hitched." I don't understand the reasoning. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, who's going to stand up for traditional rights and values? Since same-sex marriage has been around in one form or another for thousands of years, does that count as a "traditional value"?
In my idealized world, same-sex civil unions would become legal, and "marriage" would be relegated to the churches to decide who's elegible. You know that I agree with you that the government should be in the business of civil marriage, not religious marriage, but what legitimate state interest is there in setting churches as the authority over who can call themselves "married" and who can't? I'm all for churches having freedom of conscience to decide who they'll marry, and who they won't, but if the legal structures of marriage are divorced from the term, I don't see a legitimate state interest in preventing people from simply calling themselves "married." I don't know, maybe we're talking about the same thing. I don't think that I need a church to tell me whether or not I can be married or not; only whether or not they'll marry me. If not, fuck 'em. I'm calling myself married to my wife anyway. Who's to stop me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Crash, why are you so focused on "marriage' when the legality of "civil unions" for gays is the issue? Do we have some civil need to grant "marriage" to a same-sex couple if we already have granted them their civil-union rights. I don't think the word "marriage" should appear on a civil-union license. There should be no such thing as a "marriage" license in any legal terms.
”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Thor Member (Idle past 5911 days) Posts: 148 From: Sydney, Australia 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. 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. As Jazzns mentioned I’d say this is not quite as serious as doctors and pharmacists withholding their services. An inconvenience for sure, but hardly life-changing. That said, cabbies are part of the whole public transportation infrastructure and I don’t think religion is a reasonable basis to deny that service to people. Where people are drunk, abusive, potentially violent or whatever I think that it’s quite within a cabbies rights to decide whether to accept the fare or not, as their personal safety is at risk. A normal, sober person who happens to be carrying alcohol is not a reasonable safety risk in itself. And from your other message .
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. I’ll bet there are a few lawyers out there that are greedily rubbing their hands together in anticipation of these situations. Some of those that are currently chasing ambulances might start hanging around outside pharmacies instead! Basically, a pharmacist is NOT a doctor and has no business acting against a doctor’s decision. A possible exception may be cases where specific pharmaceutical knowledge highlights issues, such as interactions between different medications, where a doctor may not be as up-to-date on the details as a pharmacist (and in such cases, I’d expect the pharmacist to be contacting the doctor and discussing it, not just refusing service). Say that a woman comes in with a prescription for emergency contraception. The pharmacist has no knowledge of the woman’s circumstances, for all he/she knows the woman may have a medical condition that makes it life-threatening for both her and the (potential) baby if she was to fall pregnant. Doctors know this stuff, pharmacists don’t. I think where a pharmacist goes against a doctor’s decision it’s a clear case of wrongful conduct whether or not it’s a wrongful birth issue. That’s my humble opinion anyway!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Thor Member (Idle past 5911 days) Posts: 148 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
You have a great point here Thor (especially with the Scientologists) It is starting something that could snowball into something terrible. Yeah I think it has the potential to be a right bloody mess, causing much conflict, cost and litigation.
And as was previously said, the bottom line is to be a doctor you need to have a license that allows you to practice medicine as a public service, failing to do so based on a belief, basically saying "no I don't feel like providing that service" should result in nothing less than having that license revoked. That’s what it comes down to and not much I can add to that. You’re licensed to provide this service that the community depends on so either do it in its entirety, or if you’re not willing then move aside for someone who will.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024