The American heartland

[evmori 11]

Once the liar card is played nothing else matters! Name calling is not debating! It is a direct attack on a poster! Which usually means the name caller is out of arguments!

[sheldonsmom 10]

If you are an individual pharmacy owner, you have the right to fire an employee. You do not have the right to remove that person from the profession. There is a big difference.(This message has been edited by sheldonsmom)

[skeptic 992]

So, when the court said Gays could marry anyway in California, and the county clerk suddenly found themselves going against their beliefs, it was okay to tell them to give a license or be fired? How is that right? As long as there are others who can perform the task without it infringing on their beliefs, the individual for whom it is a problem should simply be able to refer them.

 

In regard to medical procedures, I doubt there are many doctors who would not over-ride their normal objections if it was truly life or death at the moment. But they might choose to refer a patient to some other physician in non emergency situations which are matters of choice.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

The clerk who tried to deny my voter registration because I refused to answer her question about my beliefs was eventually told, by her supervisor, to register me anyway. Was that wrong?

[skeptic 992]

Not the same thing Pack; she had no right to ask you in the first place, as it has nothing to do with voter registration. So, no it was not wrong that she had to register you. It is another thing to fire, or threaten to fire someone when you change the rules and they will be forced to go against their personal beliefs for some reason.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

Once the liar card is played nothing else matters! Name calling is not debating!

 

And stating that someone is lying is not namecalling. It's needed in an honest debate if someone is not debating honestly.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

So, when the court said Gays could marry anyway in California, and the county clerk suddenly found themselves going against their beliefs, it was okay to tell them to give a license or be fired? How is that right?

 

Can county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses to mixed-race couples, if that's against the clerk's religion? Should clerks have been permitted to do this after Loving v. Virginia?

 

 

[evmori 11]

The clerk who tried to deny my voter registration because I refused to answer her question about my beliefs was eventually told, by her supervisor, to register me anyway. Was that wrong?

 

No it wasn't. The clerk was in the wrong.

 

No Merlyn, it is still name calling. In a civil debate, the debaters debate the topic, not the individual.

[packsaddle 753]

Skeptic, the clerk was doing something based on religious convictions. The law itself was based on religious convictions. I see the connection clearly.

The connection I see is the similarity between my situation with the voter registrar and sharia law. In my case, it was a Christian-based law and a Christian woman trying to deny my ability to vote. In another country it could be another religion and another religious person denying something based on their religious beliefs and religous laws.

It goes to the heart of the issue. Should one person, acting on their personal beliefs, be allowed to adversely affect the life of another who does NOT share those beliefs?

I answer this simply with 'NO'. My answer is that we should not be personally free to adversely affect the lives of others unless there is a good reason. A religious belief isn't good enough for me to be denied my vote, or my daughter denied medication, or my neighbor to be denied a medical procedure. I, my daughter, and my neighbor should be free to make those decisions for themselves, yes, even on the basis of their personal beliefs. But YOUR personal beliefs should not be allowed to make or limit or deny those same decisions.

As I've said several times now, we'll just have to disagree.

 

[vol_scouter 365]

First, I did not say that my personal belief equates all abortions to murder but some of my colleagues believe so.

 

Second, professionals in this country currently have the right to decide which cases that they wish to take and which they wish to refuse for whatever their reasons. An attorney does not have to accept ever case that walks through their door. Likewise accountants, architects, and until now physicians.

 

Physicians have recognized an obligation to take anyone who presents in an emergency situation and care for them in an appropriate manner. In that situation, the physician has an obligation to provide or arrange for the provision of life saving treatments. I know of Ob/Gyn's who have performed an abortion in order to save a woman's life but would refuse to perform elective abortions. Obama wants to force physicians to perform all abortions which negates a professional's ability to choose who they want to take as a case. It forces them to commit murder in their eyes - which is a greater issue than the counter examples.

 

If physicians can no longer decide what patients that they can take, then apply it to attorneys, accountants, etc. as well.

 

Also, pack, you are relegating your health care decisions to the government and yourself in this situation. I think that you wish your physician to have input. My medical practice had nothing to do with Ob/Gyn but I did care for patients who had an abortion. I have seen considerable suffering from elective abortions and had I ever been in a situation provide advice to a woman considering an elective abortion, my obligation as a physician would be to present all information. The Obama administration wishes to make such a discussion illegal. That is wrong.

 

When medical students learn about ethical issues, they are told that as professional they will not be forced to perform procedures that they believe are reprehensible. To tell those so trained individuals that they will have to commit murder is nothing but wrong. We tried physicians in post war Germany for performing experiments that Germany told them to perform. They were supposed to remain professional and do no harm. Partial birth abortions takes a child descending down the birth canal and kills it. In a few more minutes, the child will be independent of its' mother. To kill that infant is murder. Why not deliver it and kill it a few hours later? There is not an ethical difference

 

The future that this country is headed toward is one that will lead to its' destruction.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, I can't debate the topic if someone feels free to make up what I would say and falsely ascribe that to me.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

I have seen considerable suffering from elective abortions and had I ever been in a situation provide advice to a woman considering an elective abortion, my obligation as a physician would be to present all information. The Obama administration wishes to make such a discussion illegal.

 

I would REALLY like a cite for that.

[Beavah 205]

If I own a pharmacy and I have a pharmacist, who is Catholic, who refuses to dispense birth control to our customers, can I release him? Or do his morals trump the customers and mine?

 

If I run a telemarketing firm, can I release the evangelical Christian who cannot engage a client without asking them if they've found Jesus?

 

If I run a deli, will I have to make concessions because my Jewish clerk won't make my customers a BLT?

 

Not da issue, Gern.

 

Da issue is usin' the coercive power and economic clout of the government to repress a belief or viewpoint. These are all red herrings.

 

Da proper analogies would be that the government tells you that your deli must serve Peking Duck if a customer asks for it (like telling a Catholic hospital it must perform abortions). Or that your Jewish clerk can't work in any deli. Because da government is giving certificates good for free sandwiches for life to almost all da customers provided they only use da certificates at delis that don't employ believing Jews.

 

B

 

 

 

[GernBlansten 10]

Ok, so here's another analogy.

I am Walmart. I'm the biggest pharmacy chain in the nation. In order to get that big, I agree to take government funds in the form of Medicare/Medicaid and with my massive purchasing power, I can get drugs to consumers at a discount. Part of that agreement is to not restrict access to anything prescribed by doctors to customers. But I have a few Catholic pharmacists who refuse to dispense the pill. If I fire the Catholics, that's religious persecution. If I don't, I'm violating my agreement with the feds to provide medications to consumers. Wouldn't it be best for the Catholic pharmacists to not moralize with the customers. If they don't agree with the pill, they shouldn't take it themselves but by denying the pill to their customers, they are deciding for them too.

[packsaddle 753]

Beavah, what you seem to be saying is that in order to avoid government repression of religious beliefs, you should be allowed to limit MY access to health care based on YOUR personal religious beliefs.

If that is your argument, I disagree. If you were a physician, YOU should not be allowed to deny health care access to me or anyone else merely on the basis of YOUR personal religious beliefs.

 

Such a decision on your part would involve a professional medical decision about the life of another person on a non-medical, non-professional basis.

What would happen to an attorney who decided to reject legal remedies for a client, simply because the attorney's religion didn't allow THE ATTORNEY to engage in them - and as a result the client suffered harm that he wouldn't have suffered if the attorney allowed the remedy?

 

To me the difference in the above scenario is that in health care there may be no way for the patient to be made whole after the access has been denied.