PDA

View Full Version : FDA Appointments [BK Mode]Why Bush should not be reelected[/BK Mode]



Dochter
22nd September 04, 11:45 AM
I don't think I've ever posted an email forward here. This one strikes me as worthy of doing so though. There are two areas which largely are determining my vote this November: environmental concerns and attempts at legislating morality.

The first I understand not everyone is going to be as concerned about. The second, regardless of religious beliefs, should offend every single american as absolutely appalling. Bush has already crossed out the changes in foreign aid made by clinton, banning funding to aid groups that even discuss birth control and abortion. Sure lets teach abstinence to tribes in africa that are starving. Cut foreign aid if you want, don't force it it to stay in line with your religion though. The list goes on domestically, attempting to attack the teaching of evolution. Attempting to "allow" prayer in school, etc.

So fuck it ban me.
This is absolutely outrageous:
> Hager FDA appointment :
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to
head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. This committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes
crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone
therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy
termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring
Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ
healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of
reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for
reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who
describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe
contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and
the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.

As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction
Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive
Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the
medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is
an abortifacient.

We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may
color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect
women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health. Dr. Hager's
track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical
decision-making makes him a dangerous
and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee.
Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by
anti-abortion politics.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
science and medicine, rather than politics and religion.

American women deserve no less.

There is something you can do. Below is a letter to be sent to the
White House, opposing the placement of Hager. Please copy all the text
of this email
and paste it into a fresh email; then sign your name below and SEND
THIS TO
EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW WHO IS
CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

Every 10th person please forward e-mail to [email protected]

I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a
policy-making position. Using the FDA to promote a political agenda is
inappropriate and seriously threatens women's health. Members of this
important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and
medicine,
rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.

Beatdown Richie
22nd September 04, 12:12 PM
Why not go whole hog and appoint the Pope?

(Oh, I forgot, he's not a reborn Christian. Probably not pious enough, either.)


You're right, this is horrible. Any government-appointed official should go through a mandatory reality check to see if he's living in this world or some mythical/ religious fantasy.

Phrost
22nd September 04, 12:15 PM
Ouch.

PeedeeShaolin
22nd September 04, 12:45 PM
Oooooooooh LMAO!

Is this friggin REAL Doch?

He's going to get elected again regardless my friend. Whatever the TV says the people obey. He could be charged with war crimes and FOX would spin it and make people think he's "protecting" their kids.

cyrijl
22nd September 04, 01:09 PM
Stop it with the fox bullshit. It is stupid. But this guy SHOULD be in a hospital. A mental hospital.

"Right this way Dr. Hager, we got a nice little room for you" At any rate, here is a reference.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/hager.htm

I have always said "I want the dems out of my pockets and the reps out of my bedroom"

cyrijl
22nd September 04, 01:15 PM
A few for the other side

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~karamani/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hager.htm


"He says that he does not refuse to prescribe birth control for unmarried patients."

blankslate
22nd September 04, 01:18 PM
Like its really going to matter one way or the other...

PeedeeShaolin
22nd September 04, 01:20 PM
I think it WILL matter. I doubt Kerry would appoint a religious zealot nutcase into a position like that. I cant name ANYONE else besides Bush that would do something like that.

And fuck FOX.

cyrijl
22nd September 04, 01:21 PM
Whether you like, believe, or watch fox has nothing to do with your arguments. In fact it detracts from them. As soon as you start going off on Fox ppl are likely to discount alot of what you say because it sounds like hate-mongering.

Just so you know. i don't have cable and do not watch fox news or any cable news. I am not voting for bush

cyrijl
22nd September 04, 01:24 PM
This will not matter politically since it is not a highly visible position. And alot of the 'stuff' that happens on the internet will be regrded as trivial conspiracy theory crap. Time wrote an article about this but you don't hear it the main tele and papers picking up on it. You know why? CUZ KERRY IS PRO-LIFE. He may politically be for a woman's right to choose. But he has stated that he believes that life starts at conception. To make a political affair of this might hurt kerry since ppl will realize that kerry and bush are not that different.

TylerDurden
22nd September 04, 01:36 PM
A woman's place is barefoot in the kitchen and pregnant damnit, why can you people not see that!

(Immediately hides from JDKChick and Shar)

PeedeeShaolin
22nd September 04, 01:53 PM
I just read and watch ALOT of news and I've never seen a news organization as screwed up as FOX. I try and bring it up every chance I get. We could be talking about doighnuts and I'd squeeze it in.

cyrijl
22nd September 04, 02:14 PM
but cnn and msnbc have the same problem. But becuz you agree with more of their bias you don't care.

Dochter
22nd September 04, 02:28 PM
To me the distinction of maintaining the right to choose is a damn big difference. If Kerry can keep his own version of morality out of it, good for him.

Regardless this nutjob should not be in office, nor should any nutjob who appoints him.

cyrijl
22nd September 04, 02:41 PM
I do not want to discuss kerry here so that the thread does not get distracted.

I agree with the fact that this guy should not be appointed. But i do think some of the things said against him are either false or exaggerrated.

Dochter
22nd September 04, 02:47 PM
He did write those books, he is on record saying many of those things. The main point of contention seems to be whether or not he prescribes birth control to the unwed.

Even with that being ambigious this is reprehensible.

cyrijl
22nd September 04, 03:09 PM
Don't get me wrong, for the 3rd or 4th time, i would not want this guy appointed. But, i am getting more annoyed how 'liberals' which make up about 50% of the country think that all conservative ideas (about 50%) are invalid. Living in massachusetts i have to deal with the most obnoxiously politcial ppl. who know nothing but BUSH IS EVIL BUSH IS EVIL while they drive around in their expeditions, suburbans and denalis. While they taunt the poor and make comments about 'those ppl. If i lived in texas, or the boards here were reversed you'd hear me decrying bush alot more.

Dochter
22nd September 04, 05:29 PM
I never meant to imply you meant otherwise. I'm just generally appalled by this guy.




As for conservative "bashing" I think that strong arguments can be made in favor of their economic policies, despite not complete agreement. I don't claim to know enough about economics to really argue that front though.

Mainly I think the fact that the morality of the christian right so heavily influences the party is deplorable. It also is why I can never see myself voting republican for a national office as long as they hold sway. I also don't historically vote exclusively democratic.

Additionally, despite both parties being beholden to industrial influences, the democrats have a better track record regarding environmental concerns.

Dochter
22nd September 04, 05:30 PM
And for the record I carpool, ride a bike and am saving for a prius. My car right now is a '96 mustang though...

katana
22nd September 04, 05:38 PM
Public officials should be given a test where a religious quote is given and you must select which chapter/verse it matches. If you get any of the questions correct you aren't allowed to take office.

Dochter
22nd September 04, 05:40 PM
Seconded.


Motion on the floor.

Wounded Ronin
22nd September 04, 07:32 PM
The religious right is the real drag on this country.....

ICY
22nd September 04, 08:32 PM
Mainly I think the fact that the morality of the christian right so heavily influences the party is deplorable.

Why is that deplorable?

Anyway, I must say, legistlating morality is FUCKING AWESOME and I have wanted to see this kind of thing for a long time. In Canada it pretty much never happens, but if it can happen in America, mabye there's hope for us here.

Matt W.
22nd September 04, 09:03 PM
Hmmm. Well, since no one else is stepping up to the plate, I guess I'll volunteer to be the religious whipping boy in this thread.

First, I can understand where y'all are coming from. I would probably feel the same if they appointed a guy who had written books on how atheism was the answer to society's ills and believed in forced abortions as a valid form of population control. I would not think someone like that was mentally balanced, nor would I want them in office.

However, you have to consider that none of this takes place in a moral vacume. It is not the case that the religious impose their morals while the non-religious somehow manage to remain completely morally neutral. Everyone has morals. Mind you, I make no argument concerning the validity of people's morals one over the other, but everyone has morals. Everyone has things they believe are right and wrong. And everyong is going to bring those morals into play in what they do. That's just as true for the nonreligious as for the religious.

Do any of you honestly believe that being pro life is a morality based position, but being pro choice isn't? They both are. Different moral values, yes. But both are still a form of "morality". Essentially, what it seems you all are saying is thta it is okay for a public official to have their morality as long as it is not based on religion.

Deadpan Scientist
22nd September 04, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Dochter


So fuck it ban me.


??? what are you talking about?

TylerDurden
22nd September 04, 09:42 PM
The difference Matt is non religious types don't try to force their morality on others. Pro choice doesn't mean everyone has to have an abortion. Just that those who WANT to can. Those who are opposed, don't have to have one, simple as that. The religious right is constantly trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do. That's the difference.

katana
22nd September 04, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by TylerDurden
The difference Matt is non religious types don't try to force their morality on others.

Actually (and I'm not arguing the abortion argument or for religion) non-religious types certainly do try to force their morality on others. Their morality is often just different. Look at some of the radical left nutbaskets out there. They're just as bad as the conservative right.

Wounded Ronin
22nd September 04, 10:05 PM
At least their only justification is not "God told me so".

I mean, I agree that radical feminist theory, for example, is pretty silly. But it's still a step above "God told me so".

katana
22nd September 04, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Wounded Ronin
At least their only justification is not "God told me so".

I mean, I agree that radical feminist theory, for example, is pretty silly. But it's still a step above "God told me so".

Granted this is true. But here is how I explain the difference between Republicans and Democrats:

Republicans want to tell you what to do because they think the Bible knows what is best for you.

Democrats want to tell you what to do because they think they know what is best for you.


So there really is very little difference between the two from my perspective. It just depends on how you like the justifications they provide.

ICY
22nd September 04, 11:01 PM
Having faith in the unproven ideas of someone else (ie the Bible) and having faith in your own unproven ideas is exactly the same.

Matt W.
23rd September 04, 05:45 AM
Tyler, I see your point. I guess I still would agree with what katana and ICY said regarding the different sources for morality. Also, I don't want to argue abortion here, but some of what you said is simply inherent to the abortion debate itself, and not necessarily stemming from the whole religion v nonreligion thing.

Wounded Ronin said...
At least their only justification is not "God told me so".


I'm sure there are many unthinking Christians that do that. However, I can't think of one issue, moral or otherwise, where my sole reason for holding that position is "the Bible sez so".

And Dochter, just wanted to add that I'm not trying to defend this guy personally. Even I can't agree with all his positions. I mean, no birth control??? The pill's an abortifacient??? Crazy stuff. And interestingly, not in the Bible! ;)

Phrost
23rd September 04, 08:58 AM
Even if Bush gets re-elected I doubt this guy will make it past congressional approval.

Dochter
23rd September 04, 09:40 AM
There is no congressional approval for the job, he already is on the committee. It seems that since there was an uproar he wasn't made chair though. There may also be some bs involved in saying he considered the pill abortificant.


Matt, You're right, we all look at things from our own perspective of morality. The issue lies in enforcing it, that's why choices need to be protected regardless of someone's position. Someone can be completely devout but still be medically and scientifically objective, this guy isn't. I wouldn't take my (future) daughters to see this guy, I certainly don't want him making decisions like he is no in a position to do when his objectivity is so obviously lacking.

Wounded Ronin
23rd September 04, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Matt W.

I'm sure there are many unthinking Christians that do that. However, I can't think of one issue, moral or otherwise, where my sole reason for holding that position is "the Bible sez so".



But you see, you aren't a "Christian" lobbyist. The problem is that the more crazy the person, the more they are motivated to try and influence the world.

cyrijl
23rd September 04, 10:20 AM
The difference Matt is non religious types don't try to force their morality on others.

What do you think social security, benefits and entitlements are? I have a job, pay all my bills and in addition because of someone else, also have to pay for others, some of whom should be working for themselves. This is a form of legislative morality. The underlying idea is that others should not suffer. But where does that notion come from?From tha vale of life. Where does that come from, our crazy religious founding fathers and FDR.

TylerDurden
23rd September 04, 10:23 AM
What the hell are you talking about? If you had a point it got lost in all that babbling.

Beatdown Richie
23rd September 04, 10:27 AM
> But where does that notion come from?From tha
> vale of life. Where does that come from, our crazy
> religious founding fathers and FDR.
There are plenty of nonreligious lines of reasoning why you should respect other people's lives. And yes, of course, all legislature is a manifestation of some kind of ethics. Why would anything be illegal if it weren't perceived as unethical or immoral?

The thing is, with ethics founded on rational (as far as possible) discourse, we can adjust to shifts in circumstances, whereas with a morality that was literally set in stone three thousand years ago, we can't, we can only pick and choose more or less arbitrarily.

cyrijl
23rd September 04, 10:38 AM
Tyler you are an idiot.

Beatdownrichie, give it a rest with reasonable discourse. That is not how ethics are derived. Ethics are derived some extracting generals from specifics. Laws are generated for morality in an 'ought' situation. How criminals get tried and the application of the moral theory of law becomes ethics when morality is faced with concrete examples. Morality cannot exist in everyday situations becuz of its framework. *Morality must be static or else it loses its power. However, we are faced continually with the dynamic forces of an aesthetic nature, which is inherently substance with no form. Ethics is the melding of the dynamic with the static. This is why in morality we say "Thou shalt not kill," but aesthetically we have merely a case where someone dies at the hand of the other and judgement is withheld.

If we take the case purely on the matter of morality, the person who has committed the murder must be punished according to morality and the law. But. the law realizes there are situations in which the 'murderer' may not be found worthy of punishment. So, we give the person a trial and determine whether he acted in accordance with our ethical standards.

Reasonable discourse is a relatively new political theory (40 or so years) and has alot of flaws. (if you want me to go into habermas and ralws here, it'd take a wihle)

Our welfare system (not black mothers, all welfare) is based on a moral notion of giving to those in need. If you cannot see the judeo-christian roots behind that i do not know what to tell you. Sometimes this is poor ppl sometimes this is seen a corporate welfare. It is still a moral underpining.

*added as clarification...edited

TylerDurden
23rd September 04, 10:59 AM
You can't write a single sentence without babbling like a drooling retard, but I'm the idiot. Great logic there dumbass. And the conjecture that only christians think the poor and eldery should be cared for is both ignorant and self important.

Beatdown Richie
23rd September 04, 11:25 AM
> How criminals get tried and the application of the
> moral theory of law becomes ethics when morality
> is faced with concrete examples.
I am not sure if this is a sentence. In any case, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

And I meant rational discourse as in, let us *discuss* what should be considered ethical in a given society rather than declaring it by fiat, not in a philosphical-technical sense.

Sharing with members of your in-group who are in need is not a particularly Christian thing. What is more typically Christian is to extend that notion to all of mankind. Regardless of the origin, I don't see what's wrong with the notion.

cyrijl
23rd September 04, 11:25 AM
You let me know what is babble and i can simplify it for you.

I never said christians only care about the poor. I said in this country that is where it comes from. You are so blinded by some sort of self-righteous political view you can't see that both sides are just as corrupt.

If i write a simple sentence you say it is not proof. If i give you short arguments you say i am babbling.

Dochter
23rd September 04, 11:38 AM
Who said the US social system isn't jd-chrstn reflective? Duh, look at the population.

That doesn't mean that religion is the only source of morality.

cyrijl
23rd September 04, 11:48 AM
Religion is the basis of morality for the most part of human existence. You can't justify morality any other way. The defining characteristic of morality is its static nature. HOWEVER, i believe you can easily justify ethics without morality a la hobbes and marx. A theory of cooperation makes a good basis for ethics.

Because when someone asks 'why' to a moral code, the reply of "you just shouldn't" is no real answer.

Matt W.
23rd September 04, 11:48 AM
That doesn't mean that religion is the only source of morality.

I know that your comment wasn't directed at me, but I completely agree. That was, sort of, the basis for my first post in thsi thread.

Dochter
23rd September 04, 11:54 AM
Sorry, I think you're right and I misspoke. Ethics derived from other than religion can govern personal action whereas morality presupposes external judgement (I think?)

Beatdown Richie
23rd September 04, 11:55 AM
> You can't justify morality any other way. The defining characteristic of morality is its static nature
This seems to boil down to a semantic argument. I looked up definitions of morality and ethics and honestly can't find a significant difference. And your claim that you CAN'T justify it without religion is just plain wrong. In fact, it looks like people have innate psychological mechanism for moral behavior, and they will express themselves in some way, religion or not.

Matt W.
23rd September 04, 11:59 AM
Hmm. I was using morals and ethics interchangably. But here's what Webster sez...


Main Entry: 2mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-; 3 is m&-'ral
Function: noun
1 a : the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b : ETHICS
3 : MORALE


Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy

Matt W.
23rd September 04, 12:02 PM
The difference in religious versus nonreligious is not morals versus no morals. It is absolute/non-relative morality versus reletavistic morality. And even that is an over-generalization!

cyrijl
23rd September 04, 12:05 PM
It is not semantics and that cliche is so ignorant. I am not saying you are ignorant but let me explain. Semantic is the study of meaning. So all conversations IS semantic by nature.

I get in arguments all the time. I always say i do not belive in human rights. Because such a notion implies some external governing body. I believe in civil rights. Getting governments to recognize civil rights is more effective and practical than trying to convince ppl of some etheral human right.

Humans in nature have no rights. What is yours i can freely take if i can overpower you.

Matt W.
23rd September 04, 12:08 PM
cyrijl, It seems some of your definitions are rather arbitrary.

Peter H.
23rd September 04, 12:18 PM
Cyril is just very Hobbsian in his thinking. So were some of our founding fathers. A lot of the utopian thinkers are look to Locke. Somewhere in the middle is the happy place of society.

Feryk
23rd September 04, 12:44 PM
IMO the separation of Church and State was a hell of a good idea. It pisses me off when people keep trying to re-integrate them, and that is not solely the purview of any political party (both have religious figures that populate their membership). A political leader is entitled to have a faith. But he should not let that faith make the decisions he will be forced to make. A religious leader is entitled to a political view, but that should not allow him to espouse it in the pulpit as some form of divine ordinance. Unfortunately, I see this happening more and more lately.

As for the 'moral/ethical/semantics' debate, well, I missed that philosophy class. Luckily.

cyrijl
25th September 04, 03:17 PM
Matt W. I think many years in academic philosophy would verify my terms. They are not arbitrary. Definitions are important. Morality is something very different from ethics. (I don't mean to sound like an ass, the internat has a way of making that happen though.)

I myself am no a hobbsian. Eco had an interesting little essay on establishing ethics without morality or god in his book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0151004463/qid=1096143335/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-2666461-7362214

The short of it is that we respect people because we would like that in return. But this is not anyway to establish law since law needs to hold even for those who do not believe in cooperation. A good book on establishing rights, ethics and law is:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262581620/qid=1096143435/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-2666461-7362214