Beavah Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Narraticong, in one sentence states that it matters not and in then later he implies that someone or something is trying to force his denomination to change their beliefs. That is quite alarming and whether Narraticong is mistaken, or if he has some evidence to support his assertion Yah, packsaddle, that's certainly what's goin' on, or at least being talked about indirectly, eh? Let's take a different issue, medical practitioners of conscience whose religious beliefs do not allow them to encourage, offer, or perform abortions or some other kinds of medical procedures. There are certainly many who would like a hospital or practitioner receivin' government money in any form to be required to offer or assist in such procedures. Da ACLU has dutifully sued to overturn regulations protecting workers making conscience choices. Essentially, they want O.R. nurses to be fired for not participating in abortions and the like. Here is da problem with big government. Given the huge government involvement in medical care, persons of conscience or institutions of faith cannot afford to turn down that money. When government is half your market and margins are small, yeh can't do that without goin' out of business. So da net effect of da ACLU suit, if successful along with other policy changes advocated by people of similar mind, is to say that Catholics can't run hospitals and Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews aren't allowed to be nurses, physicians, or medical techs in broad swaths of da medical field. Merlyn would say "sure they can, as long as they deny their faith." If they accept government money, they have to do what da government says, and provide all authorized services to everyone. If they can't compete with da government offering free health care, then they shouldn't be in medicine. And there yeh have it, economic coercion. Convert to our way of thinkin', or yeh can't work in your chosen field. Convert, or yeh have to choose a less rewarding career. Interested in Medicine under universal health care? Christians need not apply. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Beavah, stop lying and pretending you know what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 There we go! The liar card has been played! Atheists have the same rights as all American citizens! Your rights are not being trampled on, Merlyn! Neither is any other atheist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Good analogy Beevah. Big government is a mistake but both parties are moving towards larger more intrusive government. We will all pay an enormous price for our folly. Merlyn, being present on a board that discusses an organization which you are not a member illustrates what others have pointed out. The minority groups wish to deny others free exercise of religion and other rights. Whenever you start losing the argument as you usually do, you resort to name calling. I doubt that anyone on this board posts on atheist boards to annoy others. If I had any sympathy for your point of view in the past, you have convinced me otherwise. Ed is correct, you have the same rights as everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Beavah, the only conscience that should be involved in MY medical choices is MY conscience, not someone else's. We'll just have to disagree on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 So pack, you are comfortable with being forced to do something that you consider murder. After 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and then 4 years of residency to become an Ob/gyn, you cannot just say that the physician can do something else - what? Many have > $120,000 in debt. In order to practice, you must work at a hospital where you must take patients from the ER. You are essentially forced to participate in government programs. This is not right. It is coercion at its best and fascism at its worst. I believe that you are a teacher. What if in order to continue your job, you had to assist in executions? My personal views on abortions are rather moderate but colleagues believe that they are committing murder. Even the military has CO's who are not forced to participate in combat but physicians who are sworn to protect life are forced to murder. This is rapidly becoming a dictatorial society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Should they be prohibited from limiting my legal options because of their personal beliefs? In a word, yes. Rather than have someone I don't know apply their personal moral code to my healthcare without my consent or control, I would rather have them seek other employment. If they are not going to allow me the freedom to consider ALL medical options, I don't consider them qualified to be my health care provider. Again, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. Edited to add: I note that even if they get fired, they are still free to believe whatever they want to believe. Those BELIEFS are theirs and remain unchanged. They should NOT, however, be allowed to impose those beliefs on my life, without my consent or knowledge.(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Would a Jehovah's Witness doctor or nurse be giving the same moral pass when he allows a patient to die on the emergency room table because he won't administer a blood transfusion because of his beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 So vol_scouter, during those "4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and then 4 years of residency to become an Ob/gyn", it didn't occur to them that a specialty in Ob/Gyn might mean that they were asked to perform abortions? That maybe if such actions were "against their conscience", they might want to consider a different specialty? Why should their poor planning become the problem of their prospective patients? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Pack and Dan, The issue is that many consider it MURDER!! Just as most on the left believe that a legal execution is a murder. I know that the left has a hard time accepting that reasonable, well educated, thoughtful professionals view of the world is different than the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Yah, DanKroh, if that ain't da perfect definition of repression and bias I don't know what is, eh? "OB/GYN's needed. Christians and muslims need not apply." It's their fault for bein' Catholic or Orthodox or whatever. If those people really wanted a good career in medicine helpin' women and babies and young families they would have da decency to be atheists. They could always practice geriatrics instead, even though they have no interest in that field. Or, well, they could until da government tells 'em they have to assist in suicides. That's OK, we need more ditch diggers, and that's all those people are good for anyways. Just imagine the howl if it was suggested that an atheist should not be allowed to practice oncology, because da government felt that docs should provide religious comfort to cancer patients who requested it. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 vol_scouter writes: Whenever you start losing the argument as you usually do, you resort to name calling. What name calling? Beavah wrote 'Merlyn would say "sure they can, as long as they deny their faith."' Beavah is lying, because he is stating what I would say, as if he can read my mind. He can't. He's lying. That isn't namecalling just because some people use "liar" as a slur. I don't use the term as a slur. I use it when it's appropriate. Beavah lied about me, so I called him a liar. What argument am I supposedly losing, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 "OB/GYN's needed. Christians and muslims need not apply." H'mmm. I was unaware that all Christians and Muslims would deny medical treatments of certain kinds on the basis of their beliefs. Are you sure about this? Alternatively, as Dan implied, in medical school they could THINK about whether they would be doing something that could conflict with their beliefs and choose wisely. They're supposed to be smart people, right? The sword cuts both ways. If that person's beliefs cause him to deny a patient a lifesaving medical treatment just because it resulted from experimentation with fetal stem cells, therefore against his religious beliefs, I'd want him fired and the hospital sued. If a woman suffering from an ectopic pregnancy is denied lifesaving treatment because the practioner doesn't 'believe' in abortion and as a result she dies, the practitioner should be fired and prosecuted. A little forethought on their part could have placed them in promising careers working at banks or the stock market. No ethical concerns there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 "It's their fault for bein' Catholic or Orthodox or whatever" Yes, it is. If I was a Quaker and wanted to be a police officer, would I be allowed to be one while being unwilling to touch a firearm? Some professions are just incompatible with some religious/moral/ethical beliefs. It should be the responsibility of those pursuing those professions to make sure they do not have a conflict, not the people who they are supposed to be serving. *Especially* if they are going to go into ">$120,000 in debt" in the process, as in vol_scouter's example. Vol_scouter, what you call "MURDER!!", I call a medical procedure that may be legally done for a number of reasons (including *saving* a life), and it should not up to the physician to decide which reasons are good enough for them to deign to perform it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now