PDA

View Full Version : Our Own DAYoung Chimes in on the 2012 US Presidential Race



Pages : [1] 2

Phrost
23rd February 12, 08:31 AM
Look at him, all writing legitimate commentaries for legitimate media outlets. WHY DON'T YOU LOVE US ANY MORE, DAMON!?


From ABC.net.au (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3835656.html):

Like all Mormon ex-missionaries, Mitt Romney knows what is best for women.

"I respect and will protect," he said during his 2002 campaign for Massachusetts governor, "a woman's right to choose".

Unsurprisingly, this rhetoric did not last. As a conservative Christian, the Republican presidential candidate will oppose women's control over their own reproductive destiny. This is why Romney tried to veto a Massachusetts law requiring religious hospitals to provide contraception for rape victims. It is why he is now critical of Obama's plan to force religious institutions to cover contraception in their employee insurance.

Here's the rest of it: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3835656.html

Cullion
23rd February 12, 09:32 AM
I wish Damon would address the property rights issue here.

When does a woman's right to choose become a woman's right to insist that a religious institution provide her with a particular type of treatment ?

Yiktin Voxbane
23rd February 12, 10:00 AM
Damo !!

We miss ya mate .

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 10:26 AM
I wish Damon would address the property rights issue here.

When does a woman's right to choose become a woman's right to insist that a religious institution provide her with a particular type of treatment ?
I would argue that when that very same religious institution begins or continues to accept government monies in the form of Medicare/Medicaid while continuing to claim tax-exempt status.

I would like Damon to address:

In his Natural History essay, Gould argued that science is concerned with empirical facts and theories, and religion with value, including moral value and what might be called 'ultimate value'.
while continuing

The selectivity of this sleight of hand is telling

In short: faith is never wholly pure.

However, this freedom, as is so often noted by secular authors, is not a license to curtail the freedoms of others.
We have scientists promoting their own social agendas, under the auspices of "advancing mankind" while installing their own concept of morals and ethics by agreeing to not explore *other* aspects of science they see as distasteful.....such as human cloning.

There is a conscious selective application of the rules wherein science is considered "pure" yet religion is considered "stilted".

Commodore Pipes
23rd February 12, 11:05 AM
I would argue that when that very same religious institution begins or continues to accept government monies in the form of Medicare/Medicaid while continuing to claim tax-exempt status.



I don't think tax exempt status or Medicare/Medicaid has any bearing on the situation. It's not healthcare providers that's the issue, but health insurance providers.

Commodore Pipes
23rd February 12, 11:06 AM
We have scientists promoting their own social agendas, under the auspices of "advancing mankind" while installing their own concept of morals and ethics by agreeing to not explore *other* aspects of science they see as distasteful.....such as human cloning.


This is absolutely true, and it has gone other ways, too, with some scientists promoting radical social positions, usually when government gets involved. The Tuskeegee Experiment and Operations Plowshare, Plumbbob and Starfish Prime spring to mind.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 11:16 AM
I don't think tax exempt status or Medicare/Medicaid has any bearing on the situation. It's not healthcare providers that's the issue, but health insurance providers.
The Federal Mandate is pretty much set. If the exemption is expected or required for one, it will be equally applied to the other.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 11:18 AM
This is absolutely true, and it has gone other ways, too, with some scientists promoting radical social positions, usually when government gets involved. The Tuskeegee Experiment and Operations Plowshare, Plumbbob and Starfish Prime spring to mind.
Downwinders.

Commodore Pipes
23rd February 12, 11:22 AM
*gibbers madly, stalks family traveling in RV*

Commodore Pipes
23rd February 12, 11:24 AM
The Federal Mandate is pretty much set. If the exemption is expected or required for one, it will be equally applied to the other.

Explain, please. I have a counterpoint but I think it is a counterpoint to a point you didn't make, and I don't want us to waste any more time on serious discussions than we have to. There are dick jokes to be made, after all.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 11:37 AM
I would argue that when that very same religious institution begins or continues to accept government monies in the form of Medicare/Medicaid while continuing to claim tax-exempt status.

Why shouldn't an institution claim tax exempt status if it's offering non-profit service? Must all charities bend to the federal will ?

'We are going to shut down that non-profit hospital you ignorant fundies are running unless you forget your religion'. That's the message here. It's a fundamentally illiberal one.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 12:07 PM
Explain, please. I have a counterpoint but I think it is a counterpoint to a point you didn't make, and I don't want us to waste any more time on serious discussions than we have to. There are dick jokes to be made, after all.
At this juncture, the faith-based/church/religious medical institutions are essentially autonomous and are able to operate under their ecclesiastical prerogatives. The minute a law is signed *requiring* them to provide a service which countermands their belief, all bets are off.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 12:10 PM
Why shouldn't an institution claim tax exempt status if it's offering non-profit service? Must all charities bend to the federal will ?

'We are going to shut down that non-profit hospital you ignorant fundies are running unless you forget your religion'. That's the message here. It's a fundamentally illiberal one.
Not-for-profit doesn't mean they work at a loss, it strictly means there are no share/stockholders whom are expecting to make a profit on their investment.

Not-for-profit hospitals are expected to reinvest all income, over expenses back into the structure of hospital in the form of staffing, equipment, infrastructure. Not all not-for-profit hospitals are religious but I am quite certain all religious hospitals are not-for-profit and the concept of "reinvestment" doesn't necessarily mean all income over expenses goes directly back into the religious hospital, it merely needs to go back into the church.

Commodore Pipes
23rd February 12, 12:34 PM
At this juncture, the faith-based/church/religious medical institutions are essentially autonomous and are able to operate under their ecclesiastical prerogatives. The minute a law is signed *requiring* them to provide a service which countermands their belief, all bets are off.

But they are still compensated per procedure, aren't they? If St. Mary's doesn't do abortions, it doesn't get paid to do abortions. From a compensation standpoint, what is the difference between a care provider who doesn't perform a procedure for "moral" reasons vs one who doesn't perform a procedure for capability reasons? I can't necessarily get a heart transplant in any hospital, for example.

EDIT: I am not trying to score semantic points here, I really do not see a difference.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 12:48 PM
But they are still compensated per procedure, aren't they? If St. Mary's doesn't do abortions, it doesn't get paid to do abortions. From a compensation standpoint, what is the difference between a care provider who doesn't perform a procedure for "moral" reasons vs one who doesn't perform a procedure for capability reasons?
Choice.
A heart transplant procedure is far more technically advanced and requires a greater quantity of staff training and technical knowledge, not to mention far more advanced equipment than an abortion.

A smaller hospital might not have the financial wherewithall to recruit the surgeon capable of performing the procedure, might not have the facilities to perform the procedure, might not have the higher-skilled support staff to assist in the procedure nor the devices needed during the procedure.

It's not necessarily by choice but by limited growth, based on expenses/overhead vs. capital. Add to the mix that most hospitals are taxed on the land and building and religious hospitals, as an extension of the church, are at a disadvantage.

Virtually any medical facility of any size is staffed and equipped to perform abortions.

I can't necessarily get a heart transplant in any hospital, for example.


EDIT: I am not trying to score semantic points here, I really do not see a difference.
Hope that helped explain my viewpoint.

AAAAAA
23rd February 12, 01:46 PM
Is abortion in rape cases a right, or a service you are free to get by whoever provides it, or both?

Commodore Pipes
23rd February 12, 02:16 PM
Choice.
(cut for space)
Hope that helped explain my viewpoint.

It helps explain your viewpoint, but I am not sure that it matters regarding Medicare/Medicaid compensation and not-for-profit status. I mean, how do we decide what procedures we make compulsory? I understand that this can lead to "women's healthcare deserts" where there may be large swaths of area where no provider is willing to perform this procedure, but I think federal legislation might be too unwieldy a tool to correct that.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 02:31 PM
Is abortion in rape cases a right, or a service you are free to get by whoever provides it, or both?
Generally speaking, I don't believe it is considered a "covered" service under most medical insurance plans and isn't considered a "right". It is usually an "elective procedure" wherein you would pay cash at a clinic.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 02:46 PM
Not-for-profit doesn't mean they work at a loss, it strictly means there are no share/stockholders whom are expecting to make a profit on their investment.

Not-for-profit hospitals are expected to reinvest all income, over expenses back into the structure of hospital in the form of staffing, equipment, infrastructure. Not all not-for-profit hospitals are religious but I am quite certain all religious hospitals are not-for-profit and the concept of "reinvestment" doesn't necessarily mean all income over expenses goes directly back into the religious hospital, it merely needs to go back into the church.

So ? Why should a church be offered to accept medicaid payments specifically for services it finds ethically unacceptable to offer?

'The govt. is willing to pick up the tab for people who want treatment X, Y and Z'

'Okay, we only want to offer X and Z because we personally find Y ethically unacceptable. They can get that someplace else'

"HOW DARE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ETHICAL VIEWS TO US! THIS IS FORBIDDEN AND YOUR HOSPITAL MUST CLOSE!".

That's the argument, right there.

Indefensible from a liberal perspective.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 02:46 PM
It helps explain your viewpoint, but I am not sure that it matters regarding Medicare/Medicaid compensation and not-for-profit status. I mean, how do we decide what procedures we make compulsory? I understand that this can lead to "women's healthcare deserts" where there may be large swaths of area where no provider is willing to perform this procedure, but I think federal legislation might be too unwieldy a tool to correct that.
from my understanding, there will be Federal Mandates detailing coverage and compulsory procedures. The Feds currently will revoke a hospital's "Claim Number" or billing ability to receive funding from Medicare, which essentially renders the hospital at less than 50% useful.

Hell, Medicare was...don't know if they did.....however they were discussing not providing funding for treatment of falls which occur in a hospital or nursing home or hospice
-or-
the common transmittal of MRSA or the secondary staph infection which is common in health-care facilities.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 02:50 PM
So ? Why should a church be offered to accept medicaid payments specifically for services it finds ethically unacceptable to offer?

'The govt. is willing to pick up the tab for people who want treatment X, Y and Z'

'Okay, we only want to offer X and Z because we personally find Y ethically unacceptable. They can get that someplace else'

Because that is how Medicaid billing works. You accept what they offer or don't admit Medicaid patients.



"HOW DARE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ETHICAL VIEWS TO US! THIS IS FORBIDDEN AND YOUR HOSPITAL MUST CLOSE!".

Essentially they *would* end up closing, as Medicaid is huge business for health care providers....
however....they *need not close* they just would not be able to bill Medicaid for services rendered. They would either need to bill private insurance or accept private pay patients or, you know, do the Christian thing and just heal the sick, regardless.



Indefensible from a liberal perspective.
Who is the liberal?

Cullion
23rd February 12, 02:54 PM
Because that is how Medicaid billing works. You accept what they offer or don't admit Medicaid patients.

It works that way only because the federal government wants to use it to prevent people applying the ethical stanards of their religion. You understand that, right ? There's absolutely no practical reason why they couldn't use medicaid billing only for those services they feel are ethically acceptable to offer.


They would either need to bill private insurance or accept private pay patients or, you know, do the Christian thing and just heal the sick, regardless.

How is it 'the Christian thing' to offer abortion and contraceptive services that denomination feel is in disagreement with their interpretation of the bible ? Where did you just pull your definition of Christian family planning from, and how did you morph it into 'healing the sick' ?

If your goal here is to force all Christian denominations to follow your interpretation of the Bible, we're talking about something fairly authoritarian, no ?

AAAAAA
23rd February 12, 02:55 PM
Generally speaking, I don't believe it is considered a "covered" service under most medical insurance plans and isn't considered a "right". It is usually an "elective procedure" wherein you would pay cash at a clinic.

I guess this would breed strange cases such as rapists being sentenced to pay for their victim's abortion?

Cullion: if there's a place to look for the "Influential Atheist Associations", this would be it, doing the opposite of said Christian clinics (like, financing abortions instead of refusing them).

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 03:05 PM
It works that way only because the federal government wants to use it to prevent people applying the ethical stanards of their religion. You understand that, right ?
Medicaid is, essentially, the Federally required State low-income medical provision.
It kinda goes hand in hand with Medicare, yet is run separately.

So to a certain degree, yes, Cullion, I understand it. I also understand that hospitals prime reason for being is to provide health care. I also understand that hospitals, for-profit or not-for-profit, are in business to make as much money as possible, as their secondary mission.

Further espousing their religious doctrine should be either second or a distant third. Forcing religious dogma by withholding certain medical procedures isn't any different than forcing ethical prerogatives by withholding taxpayer's money.

If they wish to take their moral stand, fine. Do it without the expectations of receiving one red cent of public funds and pass that collection plate twice during Sunday services.




How is it 'the Christian thing' to offer abortion and contraceptive services that denomination feel is in disagreement with their interpretation of the bible ? Where did you just pull your definition of Christian family planning from, and how did you morph it into 'healing the sick' ?
I pulled it from the prime purpose of a hospital's existence.
Family planning should occur at the OB/GYN's office.


If your goal here is to force all Christian denominations to follow your interpretation of the Bible, we're talking about something fairly authoritarian, no ?
We were already dipping our toes into authoritarian the minute tax-payer's monies enter the equation.
Until that point, if it is privatized insurance, private pay or church budgets, it doesn't matter to me.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 03:07 PM
I guess this would breed strange cases such as rapists being sentenced to pay for their victim's abortion?
I haven't looked, however I am sure there is at least one civil case somewhere out there where a rape victim sued her court-certified guilty assaulter for damages, including medical expenses.

But, as I said, there are places like Planned Parenthood clinics that do these procedures for free/low cost.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 03:10 PM
Medicaid is, essentially, the Federally required State low-income medical provision.
It kinda goes hand in hand with Medicare, yet is run separately.

So to a certain degree, yes, Cullion, I understand it. I also understand that hospitals prime reason for being is to provide health care. I also understand that hospitals, for-profit or not-for-profit, are in business to make as much money as possible, as their secondary mission.

Further espousing their religious doctrine should be either second or a distant third.

Surely that's up to the trustees of the non-profit. Why do you want the right to overrule their ethical judgements ?



Forcing religious dogma by withholding certain medical procedures isn't any different than forcing ethical prerogatives by withholding taxpayer's money.

Yes it is, because in the case where a specific procedure is withheld, so is the hypothetical payment for it. Again, you are insisting that an entire hospital close if the trustees are either unwilling to offer treatments they find unethical. Would you insist that any doctor approached must be willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions, regardless of their religions.

What you are doing is essentially conscripting medical staff into a form of federal indentured servitude where they aren't allowed to make any ethical decisions about what services they are willing to offer to the poor. And to make this argument you're trying to complain about the non-use of public funds for services not rendered. It's crazy.

You'd rather close a whole hospital than tolerate a collective of medical staff who didn't offer certain specific services like abortion on demand or contraceptive services, and that's really authoritarian.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 03:19 PM
Surely that's up to the trustees of the non-profit. Why do you want the right to overrule their ethical judgements ?
Again, they can remove the entire discussion by choosing to not accept public funding.


Yes it is, because in the case where a specific procedure is withheld, so is the hypothetical payment for it.
The *choice* for the patient to request a specific procedure as requested.



Again, you are insisting that an entire hospital close if the trustees are either unwilling to offer treatments they find unethical. Would you insist that any doctor approached must be willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions, regardless of their religions.
I'm not insisting anything.
I am stating a fact:
that when a business whose majority operating capital is coming from public funding, they lose much of their autonomy.
Don't want to be beholden to the government, set your parameters to not be.


What you are doing is essentially conscripting medical staff into a form of federal indentured servitude where they aren't allowed to make any ethical decisions about what services they are willing to offer to the poor. And to make this argument you're trying to complain about the non-use of public funds for services not rendered. It's crazy.
They long have been Federal indentured servants, and, again, it isn't the Non-use/Non-rendered argument, it is the conscious decision to cherry-pick acceptable services from a government contract they willingly entered.
They were never forced to accept the contract except they wanted more capital and to protect their community marketshare.


You'd rather close a whole hospital than tolerate a collective of medical staff who didn't offer certain specific services like abortion on demand or contraceptive services, and that's really authoritarian.
I would rather they evolve and develop their own new revenue streams.
They are the church.
They are big and smart and powerful.
They can do it, I know they can.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 03:24 PM
Again, they can remove the entire discussion by choosing to not accept public funding.

Why should they have to make that choice ? It's as if you think accepting federal funding turns you into a slave.



The *choice* for the patient to request a specific procedure is requested.

Do I have a right for you to fix my car ?

Would I if you were receiving a federal unemployment benefit ?

No? Then why must a hospital doctor of a particular religion be forced to offer reproductive treatments he or she feels contravene the tenets of their religion ?

A woman's right to choose is not an entitlement to have others be her indentured servants.



I'm not insisting anything.
I am stating a fact:

No, you're very clearly espousing the view that federal funding negates the right to make any ethical decisions regarding what medical services you offer.

Angry Mandrill
23rd February 12, 03:39 PM
there are plenty of fucking idiots in this country who deny their own children legal and common medical services (such as insulin) because it goes against the tenets of their religion. when these children die from such idiocy, their idiot parents are prosecuted for negligent homicide.

that said, the rest isn't that hard.

contraception and abortion = legal medical services. gubmimt represents ALL people. gubmint give munny to hospital, hopital give service ALL people.

that's the deal. if you take the deal, fucking suck it up.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 03:41 PM
contraception and abortion = legal medical services. gubmimt represents ALL people. gubmint give munny to hospital, hopital give service ALL people.

that's the deal. if you take the deal, fucking suck it up.

Again, the argument from unused money for services not rendered.

The deal is unjust.

Why should somebody be forced to perform abortions simply because they happen to be willing to treat federally funded eye operations or knee surgery?

You haven't made any kind of argument other than to say 'well this is the status quo'.

Feryk
23rd February 12, 03:49 PM
You know, if you had a federal health care system that was worth a damn, this wouldn't be an issue.

You could set up Abortion Clinics and run them at non demoninational hospitals. That way, anyone who wants the service has access - and anyone who doesn't want to offer it, doesn't have to.

And no one has to worry about who is funding what because it is funded by the Federal Gov't and the Gov't is mandated to (you guys have Roe v. Wade to fall back on).

If your private health care were truly private, then the government would keep it's mitts out of who funds what. Clearly, what you have is a Frankenstein's monster of competing public/private interests. Is this supposed to be more efficient? I'm not seeing it.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 03:51 PM
This argument will go away once the American social elite has more direct and widely accepted eugenic methods at their disposal.

Angry Mandrill
23rd February 12, 04:15 PM
welp, the context i provided in my little story about negligent parents was intended to make my point clearer: religious convictions aren't a valid reason to deny basic health services to people in need. contraceptive services and sexual health are basic health services.

yes, this is more status quo argumentation. sorry. unfair deals are concluded every day. they're not forced to sign. taking taxpayer money means serving all taxpayers. this can hardly be a completely foreign concept.

if it makes any difference, individual medical personnel have the right to refuse to perform abortions due to religious beliefs, and cannot be prosecuted or persecuted for such refusal.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 04:22 PM
Why should they have to make that choice ? It's as if you think accepting federal funding turns you into a slave.
Because the patient is no longer the contracting party, the person paying the bill, the Government, is now able to set forth mandates and restrictions.
It isn't any different with private insurance, Cullion, with exception that the Government can set forth more stringent penalties. The private insurance can only threaten to pull that particular hospital from their service contract list for all their clients.




Do I have a right for you to fix my car ?
And have the Government pay for it? No. Do I have a right for another car manufacturer's service department provide warranty service with no out-of-pocket expense? No.


Would I if you were receiving a federal unemployment benefit ?



No? Then why must a hospital doctor of a particular religion be forced to offer reproductive treatments he or she feels contravene the tenets of their religion ?
Because that doctor, in the pursuit of greater financial rewards, *requested hospital privileges*, which are not a "right". By allowing this doctor access, that doctor has agreed to abide by the policies and procedures of another's building.



A woman's right to choose is not an entitlement to have others be her indentured servants.
Again, if they are wholly dependent on the taxpayers, they have already made themselves indentured.


No, you're very clearly espousing the view that federal funding negates the right to make any ethical decisions regarding what medical services you offer.
I am espousing the view that your choice to accept Federal dollars equates your choice to accept everything which comes along with it.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 04:26 PM
welp, the context i provided in my little story about negligent parents was intended to make my point clearer:

It was a stupid analogy because you were comparing a parent's duty to preserve their child's life to postulated duty for a doctor to perform any service that is legal for them to perform, at any patient's demand.


religious convictions aren't a valid reason to deny basic health services to people in need. contraceptive services and sexual health are basic health services.

No they aren't, and your argument would still fail if they were. Doctors are not your slaves. You don't have an inherent right for any particular doctor to perform any medical service. If you did, then you would have a 'right' to any form of sports medicine, instantly, from whichever doctor you chose. And you don't.


taking taxpayer money means serving all taxpayers.

But not to provide any particular service or amount of attention that taxpayer happens to desire.



if it makes any difference, individual medical personnel have the right to refuse to perform abortions due to religious beliefs, and cannot be prosecuted or persecuted for such refusal.

What about a whole medical practice or hospital of such medical staff ?

Oh now you get it.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 04:27 PM
Why should somebody be forced to perform abortions simply because they happen to be willing to treat federally funded eye operations or knee surgery'.
Generally speaking those two are going to be outpatient surgery procedures which occur in the doctor's own surgery center with very little service overlapping, based on doctor's own licensing requirements.

An Opthomalogist won't be permitted to perform surgery below the neck and a Rheumatologist can't be bootypokin'.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 04:28 PM
Generally speaking those two are going to be outpatient surgery procedures which occur in the doctor's own surgery center with very little service overlapping, based on doctor's own licensing requirements.

An Opthomalogist won't be permitted to perform surgery below the neck and a Rheumatologist can't be bootypokin'.

The expertise analogy is irrelevant here.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 04:29 PM
Because the patient is no longer the contracting party, the person paying the bill, the Government, is now able to set forth mandates and restrictions.

But that doesn't mean that they have to set restrictions nullifying medical practitioners' religious and ethical beliefs, does it? That's completely unnecessary, isn't it?

So why do it unless you've decided the federal government has a mandate to stamp out certain ethical & spiritual opinions ?

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 04:29 PM
also, I missed the response on this because I didn't understand the context:


Would I if you were receiving a federal unemployment benefit ?

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 04:34 PM
The expertise analogy is irrelevant here.
It is, from the standpoint that those two surgeries would not be affected.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 04:36 PM
What made you hate baby jesus so much, Snake ?

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 04:38 PM
But that doesn't mean that they have to set restrictions nullifying medical practitioners' religious and ethical beliefs, does it? That's completely unnecessary, isn't it?
The Medical Practitioner can choose to not request hospital privileges at a facility which assault their religious sensitivities.

The framework of the contract is being changed and the choice is there to accept the new contract or refuse it.


So why do it unless you've decided the federal government has a mandate to stamp out certain ethical & spiritual opinions ?
It isn't. It is an extension of service provisions.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 04:39 PM
What made you hate baby jesus so much, Snake ?
Resolve

Cullion
23rd February 12, 04:50 PM
The Medical Practitioner can choose to not request hospital privileges at a facility which assault their religious sensitivities.

The framework of the contract is being changed and the choice is there to accept the new contract or refuse it.


It isn't. It is an extension of service provisions.

Seriously; constantly repeating 'but they can take or leave it' isn't any kind of moral justification for using Federal funding to explicitly try to bias the medical profession against refusing to offer these services.

This isn't anything to do with the legal, economic or operational practicalities of running medicare, this is about whether the Federal government has a mandate to try and stamp out a doctor's witholding of certain services for ethical reasons. What do you want to stamp out next ? medicaid to any doctor who ever performs male circumcision for religious reasons ?

You might as well argue that women on welfare in states where stripping and prostitution are legal should be obliged to become strippers or whores by saying 'well it's up to them whether they take the welfare money'. It just doesn't stand up, and I think you can see it.

Feryk
23rd February 12, 04:52 PM
Actually, I'd be okay with your last point.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 04:54 PM
Dudes too. And no federal contracts to be awarded to any business employing people who refuse to make use of the new same-gendered federally funded companionship services. Just because.

Oh, the stupid and unethical things we can do with federal grants whilst insisting people can 'just take it or leave it'.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 04:56 PM
I wholeheartedly hope Damon rethinks his commitment to indentured labour as an unintended consequence of his support of the 'feminist' brand of Sanger-ite eugenic policy.

Feryk
23rd February 12, 05:02 PM
Dudes too. And no federal contracts to be awarded to any business employing people who refuse to make use of the new same-gendered federally funded companionship services. Just because.

Oh, the stupid and unethical things we can do with federal grants whilst insisting people can 'just take it or leave it'.

Still okay with it. I know your example is absurd, but really the question is: 'if someone is capable of working (in any capacity, no matter how morally repugnant), then should they be allowed to have government funding?'

Should a religious person (christian, muslim, jewish doesn't matter) have the freedom to say no to the 'opportunity' to debase himself/herself for money and still expect a government handout? Depends on your definition of 'freedom of religion', I guess.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 05:06 PM
It's this simple: Some doctors think it's wrong to perform abortions (possibly only certain types of abortion) for private religious or other ethical reasons. They're still willing to fix knees, hearts, kidneys, eyes. Those are still very useful and important services.

Don't you find it a little bit weird that the Federal government believes it has a mandate to deny funding to those doctors just for performing the services they're willing to perform, because it insists that to do so they must also perform the procedures they believe to be immoral ?

"Oh! but we can't pay them for the procedures they actually perform. We have to pay them for a plethora of services they may never perform and then go nuts when we find out they didn't perform some of our favourite procedures! it's just the only way the billing system can function!"

Sorry, but that's an absurd red-herring. Please drop it.

Sounds like a pretty blunt attempt to stamp out freedom of conscience to me. Anybody who just cannot tolerate the idea that some doctors might not perform some services for them is a fairly entitled bigot IMHO.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 05:10 PM
Seriously; constantly repeating 'but they can take or leave it' isn't any kind of moral justification for using Federal funding to explicitly try to bias the medical profession against refusing to offer these services.
Mostly because religious hospitals are going to be the only ones affected. It is a small market share of affected health care providers and individual doctors will be affected in as much as they can choose to request hospital privileges at other hospitals, should they choose.
Also, for the most part, it is an elective procedure and not the manner of procedure performed in a religious hospital. The hospital can *choose* to not offer OB/GYN services nor have an OB/GYN on call for emergency services, wherein the emergency services staff would only be required to stabilize the patient until transport to a properly equipped facility can be arranged.


This isn't anything to do with the legal, economic or operational practicalities of running medicare, this is about whether the Federal government has a mandate to try and stamp out a doctor's witholding of certain services for ethical reasons. What do you want to stamp out next ?
Yes, WITHHOLDING. This is the key. The doctor and by proxy the hospital is choosing to accept the contract to provide the services as stated by the contracting agent, the government.
Either accept the terms and conditions or don't. The hospital doesn't have any right to that money.


medicaid to any doctor who ever performs male circumcision for religious reasons ?

my son's pediatrician is a very devout Muslim man whom performed his circumcision....does that mean he performed a Khitan?


You might as well argue that women on welfare in states where stripping and prostitution are legal should be obliged to become strippers or whores by saying 'well it's up to them whether they take the welfare money'. It just doesn't stand up, and I think you can see it.
Yes, your analogy doesn't stand, Cullion. I do see that.
There was no expectations of the performance of legal work attached to that welfare which would necessitate an army of jobless peelers.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 05:14 PM
Snake, I can only conclude that you're trolling me now. Constantly telling me what the contract says without making any defence of the unjust terms of the contract which are entirely at the federal governments behest is just not an answer.

My analogy stands. If a woman doesn't have to strip where it's legal for her to do so whilst receiving government money, why should a doctor, even an obstetrician, be compelled to perform abortions ?

There's no reason why.

Angry Mandrill
23rd February 12, 05:16 PM
right! god forbid govt should force its ethics on an institution seeking to force its ethics on the populace.

Feryk
23rd February 12, 05:16 PM
So, Snake, if the doctor decides to refuse the contract, what are his options? Your point only makes sense if he can offer his services somewhere else for roughly equivalent money. My impression of the White House's position on this is that he would have to fold up his practice and just stop being a doctor, because there is NOWHERE else to offer his services.

Or do I have that wrong?

Cullion
23rd February 12, 05:19 PM
right! god forbid govt should force its ethics on an institution seeking to force its ethics on the populace.

By 'forcing it's ethics' you mean 'being unwilling to do work that they find ethically objectionable, no matter how much some people may want them to do it', right ? Because that's what we're talking about here.

It's called 'freedom of conscience' AM. Being uncomfortable with the idea of people with different religious or political having the right not to do work which contradicts those beliefs is exactly the kind of secular authoritarianism I was describing in that other thread.

Do you also believe that religious orphanages that refuse to adopt children out to gay couples should be shut down too? Because that happened here in the UK.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 05:19 PM
Snake, I can only conclude that you're trolling me now.
Not trolling, just engaging as devil's advocate.


Constantly telling me what the contract says without making any defence of the unjust terms of the contract which are entirely at the federal governments behest is just not an answer.

My analogy stands. If a woman doesn't have to strip where it's legal for her to do so whilst receiving government money, why should a doctor, even an obstetrician, be compelled to perform abortions ?
The DOCTOR isn't being compelled to do *anything*. There is absolutely no reason that if a hospital wants to accept Federal money they need to expect to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract.
If the contract calls for their facility to offer that service, they can either refuse the contract
-or-
HIRE an OB/GYN whom has no problem performing the procedure.

The other doctors don't have to perform it, if there is someone, on staff, willing and capable of performing the service.

The other doctors may not *like* it, however they aren't being forced to do anything, except cash their check. If their conscience is such that they equate this to "bloodmoney", they can *choose* to hire on elsewhere.

The defense of the action is inherent with the acceptance of the contract.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 05:22 PM
So, Snake, if the doctor decides to refuse the contract, what are his options? Your point only makes sense if he can offer his services somewhere else for roughly equivalent money. My impression of the White House's position on this is that he would have to fold up his practice and just stop being a doctor, because there is NOWHERE else to offer his services.

Or do I have that wrong?
He can work out of his own private practice where he choose his own methods of payment.

There is no law......right now......which requires physicians to request a Medicare Billing Number and accept Medicare payments -or- Medicare patients.

Most do because it is easy money and a constant influx of new patients.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 05:23 PM
The DOCTOR isn't being compelled to do *anything*.

Yes he is.



There is absolutely no reason that if a hospital wants to accept Federal money they need to expect to abide by the terms and conditions of the contract.
If the contract calls for their facility to offer that service, they can either refuse the contract
-or-
HIRE an OB/GYN whom has no problem performing the procedure.

But there's no reason why they should be forced to make that choice unless the federal government is trying to stamp out freedom of religious conscience in the medical profession, is there ?



The defense of the action is inherent with the acceptance of the contract.

But you have no defence of the terms of the contract itself, which is where your entire argument falls apart.

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 05:28 PM
Yes he is.
He isn't being compelled to perform abortions, which is what you purported.




But there's no reason why they should be forced to make that choice unless the federal government is trying to stamp out freedom of religious conscience in the medical profession, is there ?
Anymore so than the doctor's refusal to treat patients in a hospital which performs any number of "offensive medical practices", such as the circumcision you previously mentioned, treatment of the homosexual or elective gender reassignment surgery.



But you have no defence of the terms of the contract itself, which is where your entire argument falls apart.
There need be no other defense to the willingness acceptance of a voluntary employment contract.
The entire argument is predicated upon these doctors having no choice, which they clearly do.

Cullion
23rd February 12, 05:38 PM
He isn't being compelled to perform abortions, which is what you purported.

He is compelled to do so if he wants to offer any other services to medicaid patients.



Anymore so than the doctor's refusal to treat patients in a hospital which performs any number of "offensive medical practices", such as the circumcision you previously mentioned, treatment of the homosexual or elective gender reassignment surgery.

No, because we're talking about people having the right to refuse to perform certain types of work, not a freedom from a particular intrusion upon your own rights. For your argument argument to work we'd have to pretend there was no difference between negative and positive rights. You'd have to conflate the right not to be stolen from with the right to have somebody else pay for all your food, all the time, which is exactly the kind of muddled thinking hard-left socialists do constantly.



There need be no other defense to the willingness acceptance of a voluntary employment contract.
The entire argument is predicated upon these doctors having no choice, which they clearly do.

No that's ridiculous because the medicaid money is derived from taxation.

The burden of government spending imposed on an economy where the state mandates such removal of freedom of conscience is effectively the degree to which you are enslaved.

Imagine a country where 99% of all spending in the economy was one by the state and then see the effect of such contracts removing moral agency. The fact that the US government does less than 99% of the spending is only a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one. Medicaid only exists as an opportunity cost on other forms of activity, so presenting it as a simple opportunity which may be readily refused, as you have, is absurd (even before you ignore it's price-distorting effects).

You're simply dancing around the central fact here: The US Federal government is acting exactly like an agency that wanted to stamp out doctor's freedom to refuse to perform procedures against their personal ethical standards would act. Do you support the Federal government in this crusade ? if so, why ?

Spade: The Real Snake
23rd February 12, 06:20 PM
He is compelled to do so if he wants to offer any other services to medicaid patients.
No, he isn't.
If he has requested hospital privileges at a facility that choose to accept Medicare funding and offer OB/GYN services, he *may* have to experience another physician that chooses to perform abortions in the same facility.
That's it.
Remove any one of the factors above and the entire equation is changed.




No, because we're talking about people having the right to refuse to perform certain types of work, not a freedom from a particular intrusion upon your own rights.
For your argument argument to work we'd have to pretend there was no difference between negative and positive rights. You'd have to conflate the right not to be stolen from with the right to have somebody else pay for all your food, all the time, which is exactly the kind of muddled thinking hard-left socialists do constantly.
No, for your argument to work there would need to be a complete and total removal of choice from any step up to and including the actual religiously objectionable procedure.

These are adults, making these occupational choices.




No that's ridiculous because the medicaid money is derived from taxation.
Yes, I know and have pointed this out numerous times.
However there is no law mandating an employee enter into a government contract by force. It is by choice of the contractee, seeking greater quantities of revenue. The physician nor hospital need chase that dollar.


The burden of government spending imposed on an economy where the state mandates such removal of freedom of conscience is effectively the degree to which you are enslaved.
It isn't slavery if you enter the agreement willingly.


Imagine a country where 99% of all spending in the economy was one by the state and then see the effect of such contracts removing moral agency. The fact that the US government does less than 99% of the spending is only a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one. Medicaid only exists as an opportunity cost on other forms of activity, so presenting it as a simple opportunity which may be readily refused, as you have, is absurd (even before you ignore it's price-distorting effects).
I have, at my disposal, numerous Federal Government Employment Contracts that I willingly choose not to accept as I know, full well, what they entail. They would bring a greater market share but at a lower overall profit per service ratio. I have never been forced, by the Federal Government, to perform any action within my workplace which I found morally or ethically reprehensible because I chose to not be beholden to them for the almighty dollar.
So, yeah, I have no pity for the "doctor's rights".


You're simply dancing around the central fact here: The US Federal government is acting exactly like an agency that wanted to stamp out doctor's freedom to refuse to perform procedures against their personal ethical standards would act. Do you support the Federal government in this crusade ? if so, why ?
Because twinned to that central fact is the choice of the facilities to accept or decline, based on the tangible merits.

They want both the Federal money -AND- the moral and ethical perogitives. Sometimes they can and have had both. This time, it doesn't look like they can. So either lobby harder or don't sign the contract. It really is that simple.

Robot Jesus
23rd February 12, 06:26 PM
So ? Why should a church be offered to accept medicaid payments specifically for services it finds ethically unacceptable to offer?

'The govt. is willing to pick up the tab for people who want treatment X, Y and Z'

'Okay, we only want to offer X and Z because we personally find Y ethically unacceptable. They can get that someplace else'

"HOW DARE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ETHICAL VIEWS TO US! THIS IS FORBIDDEN AND YOUR HOSPITAL MUST CLOSE!".

That's the argument, right there.

Indefensible from a liberal perspective.

what if Y is blood transfusions, and the hospitals mandate is to offer wildly risky options for people who need surgery, but are religiously prohibited from transfusions? should the government back such an organization; or could it be argued that after a point it's not a health care provider with a religious background, but a religious institution that has medical training.

Commodore Pipes
23rd February 12, 11:13 PM
I'm most concerned about left wing, misandrist midwifes coming 'round our villages and giving mothers-to-be terrible advice. What if Louisa hadn't taken those antibiotics? She and Doc Martin would have lost the baby! It's simply irresponsible.

Cullion
24th February 12, 02:32 AM
No, he isn't.
If he has requested hospital privileges at a facility that choose to accept Medicare funding and offer OB/GYN services, he *may* have to experience another physician that chooses to perform abortions in the same facility.
That's it.
Remove any one of the factors above and the entire equation is changed.

You still haven't given any reason why the contract is written in such a way as to force this choice.

Why should the federal government be forcing such a choice ? Until you address this, your argument is void of meaning, it's just a repetitive stating of the status quo. Variations on 'but he can take it or leave it!'.

That is not an ethical argument, stop saying it over and over again. It's completely nullified when we're discussing money extracted by tax from the general population. It's not private money.

Cullion
24th February 12, 02:33 AM
what if Y is blood transfusions, and the hospitals mandate is to offer wildly risky options for people who need surgery, but are religiously prohibited from transfusions? should the government back such an organization; or could it be argued that after a point it's not a health care provider with a religious background, but a religious institution that has medical training.

But that isn't what's happening. What if they started prescribing heroin ? Oh see that isn't what we're discussing either.

Spade: The Real Snake
24th February 12, 12:37 PM
You still haven't given any reason why the contract is written in such a way as to force this choice.

Why should the federal government be forcing such a choice ? Until you address this, your argument is void of meaning, it's just a repetitive stating of the status quo. Variations on 'but he can take it or leave it!'.
There will be a choice, regardless. Either choose to allow the procedure into the contract, choose to request hospital privileges from a facility which offers this procedure, choose to have the procedure.
Quite simply, that is how Government contracts are written. All-encompassing to minimize redundancy or minimize the number of repetitive contracts needed to be created. They are going to cover any and all areas related to that specific area with the maximum number of services provided.

They aren't being written for the benefit of the hospitals. The hospital's benefit if financial rewards and protected marketshare with a promise of repeat business.


That is not an ethical argument, stop saying it over and over again. It's completely nullified when we're discussing money extracted by tax from the general population. It's not private money.
It is being stated as an ethical argument because you keep positioning it as such by your repetitive mantra of:
consider the doctor's religious rights

The rights of the taxpayers as a whole trump the doctor's own individual religious rights when they, the taxpayers, are paying for an umbrella-coverage service that the doctor finds distasteful. I have already given you plausible response wherein the doctor is not being required to perform a, to his own moral/ethical beliefs, procedure. He merely needs to be working in the same facility where it may occur.

If the taxpayers of the United States find this objectionable, they merely need to vote out of office those whom inserted this into the contract.

Angry Mandrill
24th February 12, 12:48 PM
By 'forcing it's ethics' you mean 'being unwilling to do work that they find ethically objectionable, no matter how much some people may want them to do it', right ? Because that's what we're talking about here.

It's called 'freedom of conscience' AM. Being uncomfortable with the idea of people with different religious or political having the right not to do work which contradicts those beliefs is exactly the kind of secular authoritarianism I was describing in that other thread.


we've established that individual doctors have the right to refuse performance of certain treatments on moral grounds. that argument is over. it was never a real issue, anyway. nobody was forcing anybody to perform abortions.

the debate at hand, as noted in damon's article, currently involves an act being pushed through congress that would expand the current right of religious institutions to deny insurance coverage to their own employees for medical services their boards of directors find objectionable to include the right to deny performance of such services at all religiously-affiliated businesses, such as hospitals, social services orgs, and colleges.

depending on the source you cite, catholic institutions currently control between 10 and 20% of all hospitals in the us and serve between 15 and 30% of the population. these are not 'private' hospitals; they all receive government funding (not merely fees for services) and serve the general public. so it's not a matter of a single patient being denied a service at a specific hospital due to a single doctor having a moral objection, it's about an organization seeking to impose its morals on the public by preventing anyone anywhere within their reach from receiving such services. forcing ethics, indeed. all while paying zero taxes and receiving government funding to run their hospitals.

remove their public funding and tax-exempt status, and they can do whatever they like. just like other private institutions.



Do you also believe that religious orphanages that refuse to adopt children out to gay couples should be shut down too? Because that happened here in the UK.

shut down? no, not at all. denied taxpayer funding for having policies that discriminate against certain taxpayers? yes. does my definition of 'denied taxpayer funding' include loss of tax-exempt status? betchyer ass it does.

Cullion
24th February 12, 12:56 PM
we've established that individual doctors have the right to refuse performance of certain treatments on moral grounds.

No we haven't, because it's impossible for them to offer other services to medicaid patients whilst working with other like-minded doctors in a religious hospital.


nobody was forcing anybody to perform abortions.

But they were forcing them to perform them if they also wanted to offer other services to medicaid patients whilst working with like-minded doctors at a religious hospital.

All you keep repeating, is that you think the federal government should discriminate against religious hospitals then trying to kind of talk around that clear definition when I point out how authoritarian it is.


shut down? no, not at all. denied taxpayer funding for having policies that discriminate against certain taxpayers? yes. does my definition of 'denied taxpayer funding' include loss of tax-exempt status? betchyer ass it does.

It doesn't discriminate against any taxpayer. Once again, you're arguing about money not paid for services not rendered. We aren't talking about hospitals only open to Christians, or Bahai, or Atheists. We're talking about hospitals not offering certain services. And the services they don't perform... they don't receive any public money for.

So your argument does indeed reduce to saying 'I want the federal government to threaten doctors who refuse to perform certain procedures for religious reasons'.


But, um, that's how it works now?

That's still not a cogent argument Snake.

Angry Mandrill
24th February 12, 01:38 PM
All you keep repeating, is that you think the federal government should discriminate against religious hospitals then trying to kind of talk around that clear definition when I point out how authoritarian it is.


and all you're doing is arguing that it's unfair a government should grant tax-exempt status and funding to a hospital and then expect it to follow government guidelines. seems a little naive to me.



So your argument does indeed reduce to saying 'I want the federal government to threaten doctors who refuse to perform certain procedures for religious reasons'.


nope. more like 'I want the federal government to ensure institutions receiving any gubmint cheese (as nob puts it so perfectly) provide adequate medical services to all citizens.' if that requires them to hire a morally bankrupt physician willing to perform such medical services when their staff doctors refuse to perform procedures for religious reasons, so be it.

recently here in philadelphia there was a big dustup between the city and the boy scouts of america (a catholic org, i might add). the city has been granting rent-free accomodations to BSA for 60 years. when someone recently noticed that BSA doesn't permit gays into its organization, the city pressed it to change that. BSA said no. BSA is a private organization, and so no one can force them. but the city took away its accomodations, which were valued at around a half million a year. is that unfair? according to your argument it is. i disagree. so do most people. so did the courts when BSA sued.

Cullion
24th February 12, 01:51 PM
and all you're doing is arguing that it's unfair a government should grant tax-exempt status and funding to a hospital and then expect it to follow government guidelines. seems a little naive to me.

I'm arguing that the specific guidelines in question are clearly designed to prevent medical professionals from applying their own religious / ethical codes when deciding which procedures they are prepared to perform. Do you agree that this is the case, yes or no ?



nope. more like 'I want the federal government to ensure institutions receiving any gubmint cheese (as nob puts it so perfectly) provide adequate medical services to all citizens.'

Institutions are just collections of individuals. If you prevent 'institutions' from doing something whilst claiming you still allow individuals to do it you're simply trying to impinge on their freedom of association to make them tow your line. This should be pretty obvious.


but the city took away its accomodations, which were valued at around a half million a year. is that unfair? according to your argument it is. i disagree. so do most people. so did the courts when BSA sued.

No, because I've already explained the distinction between refusing to perform a particular procedure, and refusing to offer medical services to a particular class of taxpayer. A more apt analogy to your case with the homophobic boyscouts would be public funding for a hospital that refused to treat black people. In the former case, public funds are not paid for non-performance of services.

In the latter case, because we're talking about funds which are partially supplied by black taxpayers, there is an unfair use of their contributions. That's ethically distinct from refusing to accept money to perform a procedure you don't want to perform regardless of the patient's demographic status.

Surely this is obvious ?

Angry Mandrill
24th February 12, 02:15 PM
this is awesome. you don't get why i don't get it, and i don't get why you don't get it.

meet me after dark tonite. we'll have a few drinks, dance... wait, it's already dark over there, inn't? be right over.

Cullion
24th February 12, 02:25 PM
Are you suggesting that people who paid taxes are entitled to get abortions from people who don't want tax money to perform abortions?.

Yes, yes you are.

Are they entitled to have their car washed too ?

No. I didn't just say that a tax-funded carwash refused to serve black customers. Pay attention please.

Angry Mandrill
24th February 12, 02:40 PM
nope. i'm saying i've grown bored debating this.

i say institutions, you say doctors. i say reproductive health, you say abortion. i say preventing discrimination, you say engaging in discrimination. i say nobody's forcing anybody to perform abortions, you say they are. i say contractual obligation, you say unfair.

yep. nope.

Cullion
24th February 12, 02:50 PM
i say institutions, you say doctors.

Because they are the same thing unless you don't believe doctors should have freedom of professional association.


i say reproductive health, you say abortion.

Because abortion and contraceptive services are explicitly amongst the procedures and services in contention here.


i say preventing discrimination, you say engaging in discrimination.

That's because the state is discriminating here.


i say nobody's forcing anybody to perform abortions, you say they are.

That's because that's what they're doing.



i say contractual obligation, you say unfair.


'But there's a contract!' doesn't make the contract fair.

Spade: The Real Snake
24th February 12, 03:18 PM
doctors uber alles.
No.


It doesn't discriminate against any taxpayer. Once again, you're arguing about money not paid for services not rendered. We aren't talking about hospitals only open to Christians, or Bahai, or Atheists. We're talking about hospitals not offering certain services. And the services they don't perform... they don't receive any public money for.
It does discriminate.
It removes their choice for the progression of lawful medical treatment they chose, despite their paying into, consistently and without choice by direct removal of monies from their wagepacket.
The doctor is making the choice of what is available to the patient. It isn't considered an acceptable practice with other treatments, why this?

Cullion
24th February 12, 06:02 PM
It does discriminate.
It removes their choice for the progression of lawful medical treatment they chose, despite their paying into, consistently and without choice by direct removal of monies from their wagepacket.

You just made up a right for any taxpayer to demand any legal service they want from anybody in receipt of federal money for any other service, and that's really fucking stupid.



The doctor is making the choice of what is available to the patient. It isn't considered an acceptable practice with other treatments, why this?

What on earth are you talking about? Doctors have personal opinions on treatment in myriad ways. You're just making up a federal prerogative to stop people treating medicaid patients unless they meet with your loony insistence that they are willing to prescribe treatments they don't ethically agree with.

What do you mean 'why this?' because that's the what the doctor is willing to offer.

You have a state licence to practice your profession, how do you feel about a state mandate that you conduct business according to hours they set because some people in your neighbourhood insist on everybody in your profession being open and available at 2am?

I mean, it's up to you whether you still practice in Arizona, right? Take it or leave it?

Have you lost your fucking mind ?

Spade: The Real Snake
24th February 12, 06:19 PM
You just made up a right for any taxpayer to demand any legal service they want from anybody in receipt of federal money for any other service, and that's really fucking stupid.
Quit trying to punch the edges to make your point fit.
The contract specifically states what manner of medical provisions the HOSPITAL FACILITY is expected to offer.
That is all.
The patient isn't asking for anything above or beyond the expectations of the contractual rights, it is the doctor whom is choosing to refuse.
Their God Complex doesn't extend to willful refusal of Federal Mandates.





What on earth are you talking about? Doctors have personal opinions on treatment in myriad ways. You're just making up a federal prerogative to stop people treating medicaid patients unless they meet with your loony insistence that they are willing to prescribe treatments they don't ethically agree with.
Their personal opinions aren't the end-all, be-all.
It is at the discretion of the patient to subscribe to their suggested course of treatment.
Withholding of beneficial treatment based on the doctor's own personal belief is likely actionable as malpractice.


What do you mean 'why this?' because that's the what the doctor is willing to offer.

Despite entering into a contractual agreement to the contrary.
They can't *DO* that.
They are not permitted to cherry-pick the terms and conditions based on whim and fancy.


You have a state licence to practice your profession, how do you feel about a state mandate that you conduct business according to hours they set because some people in your neighbourhood insist on everybody in your profession being open and available at 2am?
They actually *do* and I am legally required to have personnel available 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year.


I mean, it's up to you whether you still practice in Arizona, right? Take it or leave it?
It is actually *Federally Mandated* we have personnel available at all hours.


Have you lost your fucking mind ?
Perhaps.

Cullion
24th February 12, 06:36 PM
Quit trying to punch the edges to make your point fit.
The contract specifically states what manner of medical provisions the HOSPITAL FACILITY is expected to offer.
That is all.

A HOSPITAL FACILITY is a building full of medical staff, not an independent intelligence with it's own ethical decision making capability.



The patient isn't asking for anything above or beyond the expectations of the contractual rights, it is the doctor whom is choosing to refuse.
Their God Complex doesn't extend to willful refusal of Federal Mandates.

Okay. 75% of your potential customers now have their bills paid by the Federal Goverment. In order to collect payment for these customers, your wife has to strip for them in the waiting room. Take it or leave it. Your God Complex doesn't extend to willful refusal of Federal Mandates.



Their personal opinions aren't the end-all, be-all.
It is at the discretion of the patient to subscribe to their suggested course of treatment.
Withholding of beneficial treatment based on the doctor's own personal belief is likely actionable as malpractice.

Many of your customers would really like to see your wife strip. By your own logic you have no reason to object to this new federal arrangement.



Despite entering into a contractual agreement to the contrary.
They can't *DO* that.
They are not permitted to cherry-pick the terms and conditions based on whim and fancy.

There's nothing wrong with your government mandating that your wife strip for your customers in order for you to get paid. IT'S IN THE CONTRACT.



They actually *do* and I am legally required to have personnel available 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year.


It is actually *Federally Mandated* we have personnel available at all hours.


Perhaps.

I've just changed the terms to reflect the stipulation of a service which you are now obliged to offer in order to service federal customers and retain your licence. It's in the contract on offer. You can take it or leave it, but you have no grounds to politically object to the contract terms themselves.

Spade: The Real Snake
24th February 12, 06:51 PM
A HOSPITAL FACILITY is a building full of medical staff, not an independent intelligence with it's own ethical decision making capability.
The decisions are made by a Board of Directors and carried out by the CEO and Chief of Staff.
The decision doesn't rest upon the doctor alone.




Okay. 75% of your potential customers now have their bills paid by the Federal Goverment. In order to collect payment for these customers, your wife has to strip for them in the waiting room. Take it or leave it. Your God Complex doesn't extend to willful refusal of Federal Mandates.
These are desperate conditions and a clumsy analogy.
I expect better of you.




Many of your customers would really like to see your wife strip. By your own logic you have no reason to object to this new federal arrangement.
Since I don't own a strip club with a Government Contract providing funding for said stripping, I am not seeing you correlation.




There's nothing wrong with your government mandating that your wife strip for your customers in order for you to get paid. IT'S IN THE CONTRACT.
Then I could choose to not sign the contract in the first place, couldn't I?




I've just changed the terms to reflect the stipulation of a service which you are now obliged to offer in order to service federal customers and retain your licence. It's in the contract on offer. You can take it or leave it, but you have no grounds to politically object to the contract terms themselves.
Stripping isn't anything associated with my profession.
I really, really wish it were, however.
I'd spent a shitload less time on this website, if it were.
Hell, I might even send you some pix.

Cullion
24th February 12, 07:01 PM
The decisions are made by a Board of Directors and carried out by the CEO and Chief of Staff.
The decision doesn't rest upon the doctor alone.

Doesn't matter. They built a religious hospital. The doctor's religious and wants to work there and doesn't want to perform abortions.



These are desperate conditions and a clumsy analogy.
I expect better of you.

Nope, it's an entirely pertinent analogy you just don't have an answer to.



Since I don't own a strip club with a Government Contract providing funding for said stripping, I am not seeing you correlation.

The catholic doctor working for a Christian hospital foundation doesn't see why he should perform abortions either.



Then I could choose to not sign the contract in the first place, couldn't I?

Sure you could. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's a reasonable contract for the federal government to offer. It doesn't make it any less of an attack on your right to make certain ethical decisions.



Stripping isn't anything associated with my profession.

It is now. You don't get to decide what's a necessary component of conducting your profession any more, the federal government does.

Are you uncomfortable with this contract yet ?

Spade: The Real Snake
25th February 12, 12:57 AM
Nope, it's an entirely pertinent analogy you just don't have an answer to.
Abortions are a medical procedure and would be performed by a medically qualified professional in a medical facility, all factors related and cogent to the topic at hand, not clumsily shoehorned into the equation for titillation....like stripping.





The catholic doctor working for a Christian hospital foundation doesn't see why he should perform abortions either.
I guess the Catholic doctor wants to cast the poor, unwed, incest rapevictim patient out into the backalley butchershops, after she has stripped for sufficient wombscraping money, for her abortion and I guess you support that, too. What about the starving teachers?

Is this a PLoops enuff answer for you?





Sure you could. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's a reasonable contract for the federal government to offer. It doesn't make it any less of an attack on your right to make certain ethical decisions.
In order for it to be somewhat relevant to the discussion, it needs to be a facet somewhat associated with the profession at hand.

Expecting a bar owner to install stripper poles, yes...that is interrelated. Trying to put strippers into every business, while I support such a move, isn't germane.






Are you uncomfortable with this contract yet ?
No, because it will never happen.
Working as an OB/GYN, all of those doctors have had regular exposure to the possibility of abortion of a fetus, for whatever reason.

Next you will be suggesting these Catholic doctors should withhold the application of amniocentesis as a prenatal screening, cuz Jesus loves all the little children.

nihilist
25th February 12, 02:54 AM
Doesn't matter. They built a religious hospital. The doctor's religious and wants to work there and doesn't want to perform abortions.



Nope, it's an entirely pertinent analogy you just don't have an answer to.



The catholic doctor working for a Christian hospital foundation doesn't see why he should perform abortions either.



Sure you could. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's a reasonable contract for the federal government to offer. It doesn't make it any less of an attack on your right to make certain ethical decisions.



It is now. You don't get to decide what's a necessary component of conducting your profession any more, the federal government does.

Are you uncomfortable with this contract yet ?

Babies don't have souls until they have been baptized.

These neo-Christian 'ethics', if I may call them such, have only been invented for political reasons.

IF YOU WANT SUPPORT, YOU MUST ABORT.

Adouglasmhor
25th February 12, 04:01 AM
I wish Damon would address the property rights issue here.

When does a woman's right to choose become a woman's right to insist that a religious institution provide her with a particular type of treatment ?

When they are her health insurance provider.

Adouglasmhor
25th February 12, 04:46 AM
It's this simple: Some doctors think it's wrong to perform abortions (possibly only certain types of abortion) for private religious or other ethical reasons. They're still willing to fix knees, hearts, kidneys, eyes. Those are still very useful and important services.

Don't you find it a little bit weird that the Federal government believes it has a mandate to deny funding to those doctors just for performing the services they're willing to perform, because it insists that to do so they must also perform the procedures they believe to be immoral ?

"Oh! but we can't pay them for the procedures they actually perform. We have to pay them for a plethora of services they may never perform and then go nuts when we find out they didn't perform some of our favourite procedures! it's just the only way the billing system can function!"

Sorry, but that's an absurd red-herring. Please drop it.

Sounds like a pretty blunt attempt to stamp out freedom of conscience to me. Anybody who just cannot tolerate the idea that some doctors might not perform some services for them is a fairly entitled bigot IMHO.

Fine no one is stopping hospitals employing them in those roles. Maybe they should think about employing a doctor in an FP clinic to do the things holy Willie doesn't want to do.
I don't go to an oncologist to get my liver checked, I don't go to a plastic surgeon for advice about my dodgy knee so maybe a Birth control specialist should be employed instead of a heart surgeon for FP stuff.
As for insurance if it's part of your remuneration for working or paid from the public pool, do I tell you how to spend your wages? Does your employer? Do they say don't buy booze with it and actively prevent you? So why be so specific with health care?

resolve
25th February 12, 05:26 AM
Babies don't have souls until they have been baptized.

Wat.

Cullion
25th February 12, 05:34 AM
Abortions are a medical procedure and would be performed by a medically qualified professional in a medical facility, all factors related and cogent to the topic at hand, not clumsily shoehorned into the equation for titillation....like stripping.

It's not relevant that the doctor happens to know how to perform the procedure he morally objects to. You don't have a right to force people to do things just because they're capable of them.



I guess the Catholic doctor wants to cast the poor, unwed, incest rapevictim patient out into the backalley butchershops, after she has stripped for sufficient wombscraping money, for her abortion and I guess you support that, too.

You mean you don't believe there are non-Catholic doctors who will happily do it and collect that medicaid money instead ? Don't be ridiculous.

Would you happily see a hospital close because it's trustees don't want to offer abortion procedures ? These kinds of mandates do see such agencies shut down you know.

Why did you then start asking me what other services I thought the Catholic doctors should or should not offer in return for medicaid money? It's up to them that's the whole point

Cullion
25th February 12, 05:37 AM
Fine no one is stopping hospitals employing them in those roles. Maybe they should think about employing a doctor in an FP clinic to do the things holy Willie doesn't want to do.
I don't go to an oncologist to get my liver checked, I don't go to a plastic surgeon for advice about my dodgy knee so maybe a Birth control specialist should be employed instead of a heart surgeon for FP stuff.

How about if a hospital doesn't want to employ a birth control specialist at all, or only employ one who makes it quite explicit they don't offer certain forms of birth control ?



As for insurance if it's part of your remuneration for working or paid from the public pool, do I tell you how to spend your wages? Does your employer? Do they say don't buy booze with it and actively prevent you? So why be so specific with health care?

Nobody is telling people they can't use medicaid money to procure an abortion, they're simply allowing doctors to practice whilst retaining the right not to accept public money to perform abortions.

Would you insist that a corner shop owned by an elderly Quaker stock alcohol before allowing people on the dole to spend their money in there?

nihilist
25th February 12, 05:38 AM
It's not fair to ask Muslims to operate on a patient's stomach because there might be some bacon in there.

nihilist
25th February 12, 05:40 AM
Would you like to see a hospital close down because it refused to save the lives of people who don't practice Sharia law?

resolve
25th February 12, 06:05 AM
Abortion technically isn't about saving lives...

Cullion
25th February 12, 07:47 AM
Would you like to see a hospital close down because it refused to save the lives of people who don't practice Sharia law?

Have you ever heard of a muslim doctor refusing on the grounds that the patient's stomach may contain pork ?

Even once ?

Spade: The Real Snake
25th February 12, 08:25 AM
This whole arguement is silly because everyone knows that there are no Catholic doctors.
They are all the Jew and Arab.

Spade: The Real Snake
25th February 12, 08:36 AM
It's not relevant that the doctor happens to know how to perform the procedure he morally objects to. You don't have a right to force people to do things just because they're capable of them.
and again, I say:
nobody is forcing the doctor to do anything.
The doctor doesn't want this procedure being performed in "his" hospital because it offends him.




You mean you don't believe there are non-Catholic doctors who will happily do it and collect that medicaid money instead ? Don't be ridiculous.
Of course I do and I stated it as such numerous times in my post.
THOSE are the doctors the hospital can hire in the event the stripper rapeincest victim wanders in looking for a government funded abortion.
St. Doctor The Pious need not sully his clean-hands and can cast this sinner down to the lesser reputable blasphemer doctor and then can go pray for both of their souls.
Oh, wait.
St. Doctor the Pious doesn't even want this being done is his clean house of Godly medicine because it might ruin his chance at heaven.


Would you happily see a hospital close because it's trustees don't want to offer abortion procedures ? These kinds of mandates do see such agencies shut down you know.

Well, then.
This is a very different argument than the one you put forth previously.
You know, the one wherein you were stating the government was forcing the doctors to do this.
The hospital board of trustees can decide to hire some evil atheist doctor to do this or do away with the OB/GYN department. If the money brought in from baby delivery is enough to sooth their conscience like a balm, they'll hire the atheist and rest their saved and just heads on the pillow of forgiveness knowing that while the Virgin Mary doesn't approve, at least it is being done in a Christian environment and the mother can be "saved" as well.


Why did you then start asking me what other services I thought the Catholic doctors should or should not offer in return for medicaid money? It's up to them that's the whole point
No, it is first up to the patient, provided it isn't in violation of the law.
Next, it is up to the insurance provider, if they will pay for it....if they won't back to step one wherein the patient will be responsible for payment of their own services.
FINALLY, it is up to the doctor and the hospital. If the doctor has the expertise in the field and the hospital has the facilities.

Adouglasmhor
25th February 12, 09:23 AM
How about if a hospital doesn't want to employ a birth control specialist at all, or only employ one who makes it quite explicit they don't offer certain forms of birth control ?


Why is it being funded with tax moneys from or insurance contributions then, they can fund it from their tithes and treat who they want to treat and how they want to treat using their own money.


Nobody is telling people they can't use medicaid money to procure an abortion, they're simply allowing doctors to practice whilst retaining the right not to accept public money to perform abortions.Which is allowing virtual monopolies subsidised by the public purse, if there is only one medicaid accepting hospital in the area, having restrictions on what it does is not a lot of use at all. Also morning after pill is not an abortion


Would you insist that a corner shop owned by an elderly Quaker stock alcohol before allowing people on the dole to spend their money in there?If I was subsidising it without being given the choice; why yes I would if it was the only corner shop in reasonable travelling distance

Do you have an answer to the issue of employers dictating how their employees personal medical insurance is used?

nihilist
25th February 12, 11:35 AM
Abortion technically isn't about saving lives...Of course it is. Abortion is about saving lives for later when you can afford them.

nihilist
25th February 12, 11:40 AM
Have you ever heard of a muslim doctor refusing on the grounds that the patient's stomach may contain pork ?

Even once ? Using your rationale, doctors should only pick and choose those procedures that they feel good about.

Perhaps you think police should only enforce laws that they themselves agree with.

Cullion
25th February 12, 12:52 PM
and again, I say:
nobody is forcing the doctor to do anything.
The doctor doesn't want this procedure being performed in "his" hospital because it offends him.

So it isn't performed, and he doesn't get paid for it.

Why shouldn't he get paid for the procedures he does perform ?

Because that's what's at stake here.

Do you support this statement:-

"In order to defend a woman's right to choose, religious doctors who refuse to perform abortions shouldn't get paid to perform the medical procedures they do perform"

Yes or no answer, thanks.

Cullion
25th February 12, 12:54 PM
Using your rationale, doctors should only pick and choose those procedures that they feel good about.

Yes, they should. In fact, most of the thread has been spent by people who don't understand the arguments claiming that's what already happens.



Perhaps you think police should only enforce laws that they themselves agree with.

And only get paid for the laws they are willing to enforce ?

nihilist
25th February 12, 12:58 PM
Medicine should be like Chtistianity, where the individual can pick and choose only those treatments that will bring the world closer to rapture.

Cullion
25th February 12, 12:59 PM
Why is it being funded with tax moneys from or insurance contributions then, they can fund it from their tithes and treat who they want to treat and how they want to treat using their own money.

They don't need to receive any public money for not performing abortions. They only need to be paid for the things they do.



Which is allowing virtual monopolies subsidised by the public purse, if there is only one medicaid accepting hospital in the area, having restrictions on what it does is not a lot of use at all. Also morning after pill is not an abortion

Why not force the other non-religious hospitals to use medicaid? Or note that there's a massive opportunity for a non-religious doctor to open a medicaid funded abortion clinic? Why does your solution to this problem involve threatening to close medicaid access to the one hospital currently serving the region's poor unless it's trustees and doctors give up on their religion ?

If I was subsidising it without being given the choice; why yes I would if it was the only corner shop in reasonable travelling distance

You aren't subsidising it. It refuses to accept benefit payments for alcohol because it does not serve alcohol. Once again: You are all complaining about payment not tendered for services not received as if that amounted to a subsidy. It's crazy.



Do you have an answer to the issue of employers dictating how their employees personal medical insurance is used?

It's a separate question that deserves it's own thread. We're talking about tax funded care here.

Spade: The Real Snake
25th February 12, 01:03 PM
So it isn't performed, and he doesn't get paid for it.

Why shouldn't he get paid for the procedures he does perform ?

Because that's what's at stake here.
They only get paid for procedures they have performed and have legally billed the payer. In this case, Medicare/Aid


Do you support this statement:-

"In order to defend a woman's right to choose, religious doctors who refuse to perform abortions shouldn't get paid to perform the medical procedures they do perform"

Yes or no answer, thanks.
You are structuring the question to make a false agreement.

Cullion
25th February 12, 01:05 PM
They only get paid for procedures they have performed and have legally billed the payer. In this case, Medicare/Aid

Nope, in this case they aren't allowed to bill medicaid for the procedures they do perform unless they also agree to perform abortions.


You are structuring the question to make a false agreement.

Nope, it's a straightforward question that accurately reflects what Damon unintentionally argued for in his article.

nihilist
25th February 12, 01:07 PM
Why not force the other non-religious hospitals to use medicaid? Or note that there's a massive opportunity for a non-religious doctor to open a medicaid funded abortion clinic?

Oh, I get it.
You want to make it easier for zealots to murder abortion doctors.

Carry on.

Spade: The Real Snake
25th February 12, 01:18 PM
Nope, in this case they aren't allowed to bill medicaid for the procedures they do perform unless they also agree to perform abortions.
No, unless -A- doctor in their facility performs abortions.




Nope, it's a straightforward question that accurately reflects what Damon unintentionally argued for in his article.
We can let Damon intentionally argue for his own sentiment.
This:
"In order to defend a woman's right to choose, religious doctors who refuse to perform abortions shouldn't get paid to perform the medical procedures they do perform"
Is a question on par with the old "are you still beating your wife" witicism.

Cullion
25th February 12, 01:20 PM
No, unless -A- doctor in their facility performs abortions.

Which reduces to the same thing unless you're arguing to take away doctor's freedom of association. Are you arguing to take away doctors' freedom of association ?


This:
"In order to defend a woman's right to choose, religious doctors who refuse to perform abortions shouldn't get paid to perform the medical procedures they do perform"
Is a question on par with the old "are you still beating your wife" witicism.

No it's not, it's an accurate description of the question at hand. Do you agree with the statement, yes or no ?

Spade: The Real Snake
25th February 12, 02:06 PM
Which reduces to the same thing unless you're arguing to take away doctor's freedom of association. Are you arguing to take away doctors' freedom of association ?
Are you taking away the patient's right to choose a lawful procedure which will be properly funded?
The answer to both of these questions is no.




No it's not, it's an accurate description of the question at hand. Do you agree with the statement, yes or no ?
Yes, it is, because of your disclaimer about a woman's right to choose being the tipping point.
The insertion of the doctor's right to choose is trumping the woman's right to choose. You are stripping rights from one or the other, regardless.

Cullion
25th February 12, 08:42 PM
Are you taking away the patient's right to choose a lawful procedure which will be properly funded?

No. I'm defending a doctor's right to refuse to perform it.



The answer to both of these questions is no.

If you aren't going to take away a doctor's freedom of association, then you have to treat an entire hospital of catholic doctors the same way you treat an individual catholic doctor.

You've just conceded that the whole hospital has the right to only offer some services to medicare patients, as long as they don't expect to get paid for services they didn't perform.



Yes, it is, because of your disclaimer about a woman's right to choose being the tipping point.
The insertion of the doctor's right to choose is trumping the woman's right to choose. You are stripping rights from one or the other, regardless.

No I'm not, because the woman never had a right to force any given doctor to perform these procedures for her in the first place. She's no more entitled to that than you're entitled to have a specific doctor provide you with treatment for a sports injury. If you needed it treating on medicare/medicaid it would be up to you to find a doctor willing to accept the federal payment to treat you.

The only way anybody's rights would be removed would be if the federal government forbid you to get the injury treated by any doctor, or if the federal government started either forbid or mandated that the doctor treat it.

Don't feel bad, not understanding the careful interleaving of negative rights necessary for a stable civilisation to exist and crashing through them with imaginary positive rights is an extremely common error in political philosophy and led to some of the bloodiest tyrannies of the 20th century.

nifoc
26th February 12, 10:19 AM
Interesting thread. Cullion is arguing that a police officer refusing to make an arrest despite a crime being commited should be held up as a symbol of resistance to state mandated terror. Even if the murderer is standing next to his victim holding a still smoking gun and laughing, it is up to the police officer to make a judgement if he should intervene, after all, he might object to the murder victim and therefore it is within his right to not make an arrest. If the entire police force feel the same way, they should be allowed to let the murderer go free as well. After all, that is what freedom is all about, the freedom to ignore the laws of your chosen country.

nihilist
26th February 12, 11:01 AM
These same doctors would have little problem performing a lethal injection on a potentially falsely accused black man.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th February 12, 11:14 AM
No. I'm defending a doctor's right to refuse to perform it.
Again, the doctor can fully refuse to perform it, provided the hospital, which is contractually obligated to perform all measures within said voluntarily entered contract, have staff on hand to perform it.




If you aren't going to take away a doctor's freedom of association, then you have to treat an entire hospital of catholic doctors the same way you treat an individual catholic doctor.
Freedom of association ends, to some degree, when the doctor requests hospital privileges.

In the States, not all doctors have all access to all hospitals. It is at the hospital's discretion to grant privileges.

The doctor *CHOOSES* to request access to that building, its staff and their amenities.



You've just conceded that the whole hospital has the right to only offer some services to medicare patients, as long as they don't expect to get paid for services they didn't perform.
Yes, by not having the facilities in which to perform said procedures.

Again, in the States, not all hospitals are equipped to offered transplant, chemo, cardiac services. Hence, they cannot offer services they are not equipped for. They can merely admit, stabilize and ship out to a proper facility.

Don't want to offer pregnancy termination, remove the OB/GYN Unit.





No I'm not, because the woman never had a right to force any given doctor to perform these procedures for her in the first place. She's no more entitled to that than you're entitled to have a specific doctor provide you with treatment for a sports injury. If you needed it treating on medicare/medicaid it would be up to you to find a doctor willing to accept the federal payment to treat you.
Again, you continually refuse to omit the concept of an individual physician. While *that* doctor can refuse, the Hospital will be Federally Mandated to have *A* physician on staff, or lose the contract.

Why do you have such a difficult time with this concept? Are you so mired in NHS that you cannot accept the US doesn't work that way?


The only way anybody's rights would be removed would be if the federal government forbid you to get the injury treated by any doctor, or if the federal government started either forbid or mandated that the doctor treat it.
No, the way rights are removed is to have the hospital not have medical personal on staff, despite them being contractually obligated.


Don't feel bad, not understanding the careful interleaving of negative rights necessary for a stable civilisation to exist and crashing through them with imaginary positive rights is an extremely common error in political philosophy and led to some of the bloodiest tyrannies of the 20th century.
Thanx, Papi.

Cullion
26th February 12, 01:22 PM
But that's what the contract says, take it or leave it.

This argument has been rebutted many times already, there's no point you making it over and over again.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th February 12, 02:31 PM
I keep making it because you refuse to accept that it is the central point


Sent by telekinesis via Cerebro

Cullion
26th February 12, 03:03 PM
Because it isn't. The central point is "why should the central government offer such contract terms in the first place".

nifoc
26th February 12, 03:13 PM
Because it isn't. The central point is "why should the central government offer such contract terms in the first place".
Because the government wants to ensure "basic medical care" for ALL its citizens, and if hospitals are allowed to refuse treatments included in this definition on religious grounds then citizens may be denied basic medical care. The government has decided what is included in "basic medical care" and therefore anyone who wants to be paid by the government must offer those services, again, to ensure that everyone has access to basic medical care.

Cullion
26th February 12, 03:17 PM
Because the government wants to ensure "basic medical care" for ALL its citizens, and if hospitals are allowed to refuse treatments included in this definition on religious grounds then citizens may be denied basic medical care. The government has decided what is included in "basic medical care" and therefore anyone who wants to be paid by the government must offer those services, again, to ensure that everyone has access to basic medical care.

Which constitutes an attack on doctors' religious freedom, exactly as I pointed out earlier. If the federal government believes that abortion services constitute 'basic medical care' they're more than welcome to fund planned parenthood's expansion when they have the democratic mandate to do so. That clearly isn't enough for them, so they have to try and prevent doctors from exorcising their religious freedom.

nifoc
26th February 12, 03:27 PM
Which constitutes an attack on doctors' religious freedom, exactly as I pointed out earlier. If the federal government believes that abortion services constitute 'basic medical care' they're more than welcome to fund planned parenthood's expansion when they have the democratic mandate to do so.
No it does not. Again, as many people on this thread has pointed out, HOSPITALS need to provide those services, individual doctors may refuse. But maybe you think that religious law trumps secular law?
If the hospital could refuse to perform abortions but was required to pay for the patients transportation to a clinic that did perform those services, would that satisfy your need to protect the doctors right to refuse service?

Cullion
26th February 12, 03:35 PM
No it does not. Again, as many people on this thread has pointed out, HOSPITALS need to provide those services, individual doctors may refuse. But maybe you think that religious law trumps secular law?

Many of the people on this thread keep repeating the same logical fallacy.

Look Nifoc, just for you I'm going to explain it again. That's okay, you can thank me later.

HOSPITALS are simply associations of DOCTORS. Unless you want to take away DOCTORS' freedom of assocation (i.e. a bunch of catholic doctors working together in, let's call it, a HOSPITAL), then you're attacking their individual freedom just as directly when you attack such associations.



If the hospital could refuse to perform abortions but was required to pay for the patients transportation to a clinic that did perform those services, would that satisfy your need to protect the doctors right to refuse service?

No, why should the hospital be forced to pay for that? It doesn't need to receive any money for the services it doesn't perform. Again, you're trying to assert a right to control doctor's behaviour on the grounds that they don't receive public money for services not rendered.

Think about it. You're claiming to be subsidising people (and hence having a right to dictate terms to them) on the grounds of money not paid for services not rendered.

nifoc
26th February 12, 03:44 PM
Many of the people on this thread keep repeating the same logical fallacy.

Look Nifoc, just for you I'm going to explain it again. That's okay, you can thank me later.

HOSPITALS are simply associations of DOCTORS. Unless you want to take away DOCTORS' freedom of assocation (i.e. a bunch of catholic doctors working together in, let's call it, a HOSPITAL), then you're attacking their individual freedom just as directly when you attack such associations.
So if a doctor, on religious ground, doesn't want to apply modern standards of hygiene, then that is ok, and he should be allowed to claim money from medicaid? That is essentially what you are arguing for.




No, why should the hospital be forced to pay for that? It doesn't need to receive any money for the services it doesn't perform. Again, you're trying to assert a right to control doctor's behaviour on the grounds that they don't receive public money for services not rendered.

Think about it. You're claiming to be subsidising people (and hence having a right to dictate terms to them) on the grounds of money not paid for services not rendered.
Since healthcare providers are required to care for their patients, yes, they should be required to ensure their patients access to services included in "basic medical care".

Your argument is that a scared teenage girl, who will be beaten and possibly killed by her family for getting herself pregnant and cannot afford travel to another hospital can just go fuck herself.

Cullion
26th February 12, 03:56 PM
So if a doctor, on religious ground, doesn't want to apply modern standards of hygiene, then that is ok, and he should be allowed to claim money from medicaid? That is essentially what you are arguing for.

No it isn't. I'm not arguing that a doctor should be allowed to perform a procedure in a dangerous manner. I'm arguing that a doctor should be allowed to say 'I don't perform procedure X for religious reasons, this is not the right clinic/hospital for you', but still be able to treat medicaid patients with the procedures they are happy to perform.



Since healthcare providers are required to care for their patients, yes, they should be required to ensure their patients access to services included in "basic medical care".

Your argument is that a scared teenage girl, who will be beaten and possibly killed by her family for getting herself pregnant and cannot afford travel to another hospital can just go fuck herself.

No, it is not. Your argument is that a Catholic doctor should be forced to perform that operation for her rather than simply funding wider provision of family planning clinics.

You argument amounts to; 'How dare perform knee surgery if you aren't also willing to perform abortions', and it's absurd. It's going to lead to hospital closures.

nifoc
26th February 12, 04:03 PM
No it isn't. I'm not arguing that a doctor should be allowed to perform a procedure in a dangerous manner. I'm arguing that a doctor should be allowed to say 'I don't perform procedure X for religious reasons, this is not the right clinic/hospital for you', but still be able to treat medicaid patients with the procedures they are happy to perform. So even if you are the only hospital in town, you need not provide basic medical care? Gotcha.




No, it is not. Your argument is that a Catholic doctor should be forced to perform that operation for her rather than simply funding wider provision of family planning clinics.

You argument amounts to; 'How dare perform knee surgery if you aren't also willing to perform abortions', and it's absurd. It's going to lead to hospital closures.
No, my argument is that adult medical professionals should be more concerned with the well-being of their patients than with their own unease at working in the same building as a doctor that performs abortions.

nifoc
26th February 12, 04:07 PM
You also seem to be arguing that the government should have no say in where it spends its medicaid money. The US government has decided what should be included in its healthcare, and it then has the right to choose where to purchase those services, no?

Cullion
26th February 12, 04:20 PM
So even if you are the only hospital in town, you need not provide basic medical care? Gotcha.

Why should a doctor be obliged to do things against his religion ? Nobody is saying that the federal government shouldn't fund the expansion of planned parenthood into that town, simply that trying to force the religious doctors to do it is an unnecessary and draconian attack on their freedom of conscience.

The 'basic medical care' argument is bunkum anway, we aren't talking about basic medical care.



No, my argument is that adult medical professionals should be more concerned with the well-being of their patients than with their own unease at working in the same building as a doctor that performs abortions.

When did you get to decide what individual medical staff should or should not be comfortable doing ?

Cullion
26th February 12, 04:20 PM
You also seem to be arguing that the government should have no say in where it spends its medicaid money.

I am only arguing that in your imagination.

nifoc
26th February 12, 04:29 PM
Why should a doctor be obliged to do things against his religion ? Nobody is saying that the federal government shouldn't fund the expansion of planned parenthood into that town, simply that trying to force the religious doctors to do it is an unnecessary and draconian attack on their freedom of conscience. Nobody is forcing the doctor to do things against his conscience, nobody is forcing him to work as a doctor at all.


The 'basic medical care' argument is bunkum anway, we aren't talking about basic medical care. When did you get do decide what is and is not basic medical care?




When did you get to decide what individual medical staff should or should not be comfortable doing ? When their unease violates the hippocratic oath?

nifoc
26th February 12, 04:32 PM
I am only arguing that in your imagination. Ok, great. The government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that it is cheaper and easier, mostly easier, to provide medicaid cash only to those healthcare providers that provide what the government demands in its healthplan. See how easy that is?

Adouglasmhor
26th February 12, 04:37 PM
These same doctors would have little problem performing a lethal injection on a potentially falsely accused black man.


Doctors don't administer the lethal injections AFAIK, it's usually done by a half trained screw after his buddies have beaten up the victim and strapped him to a trolley. And it's really a series of infusions into a drip rather than a conventional injection.

Cullion
26th February 12, 04:39 PM
Nobody is forcing the doctor to do things against his conscience, nobody is forcing him to work as a doctor at all.

This is already well addressed. If you're going to be stupid about it; nobody is forcing the girl not to have the baby aborted either. She could just have the baby.



When did you get do decide what is and is not basic medical care?

I don't see why a contentious procedure which some doctors refuse to perform suddenly becomes 'basic medical care' just because Obama got elected.


When their unease violates the hippocratic oath?

You do understand that a) most doctors no longer take the hippocratic oath and b) the original hippocratic oath included a clause where the doctor swore not to perform abortions, right?

No, obviously you didn't.

Cullion
26th February 12, 04:40 PM
Ok, great. The government, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that it is cheaper and easier, mostly easier, to provide medicaid cash only to those healthcare providers that provide what the government demands in its healthplan. See how easy that is?

It's not going to be cheaper or 'easier' in any practical sense, because it's going to involve a lot of hospital closures and they don't yet have a plan to replace them. It's just secular bigotry.

nifoc
26th February 12, 04:47 PM
It's not going to be cheaper or 'easier' in any practical sense, because it's going to involve a lot of hospital closures and they don't yet have a plan to replace them. It's just secular bigotry.

I never claimed that it was, i just said that the government had come to that conclusion. It's secular bigotry to demand that hospitals provide all of the services demanded by the government mandate in order to get cash? The government has put up a contract containing a series of services that should be offered to ALL its citizens and then gone out and looked for people willing to sign that contract, that is all. Nobody is forcing anyone to sign it.

Adouglasmhor
26th February 12, 04:48 PM
It's not going to be cheaper or 'easier' in any practical sense, because it's going to involve a lot of hospital closures and they don't yet have a plan to replace them. It's just secular bigotry.

When the Religious hospitals get too far in the financial doldrums, a secular organisation can bid for them or the liquidators can run them as a going concern. the holy willies can then decide if looking for a job elsewhere suits them or work for the same employer on the terms offered.

Cullion
26th February 12, 04:49 PM
I never claimed that it was, i just said that the government had come to that conclusion. It's secular bigotry to demand that hospitals provide all of the services demanded by the government mandate in order to get cash?

Yes, because there isn't any sane reason to demand a hospital willing to accept federal payments for knee surgery or palliative care must also be willing to accept federal payments for abortions.



The government has put up a contract containing a series of services that should be offered to ALL its citizens and then gone out and looked for people willing to sign that contract, that is all. Nobody is forcing anyone to sign it.

This 'take it or leave it' argument has been dealt with earlier.

Cullion
26th February 12, 04:51 PM
When the Religious hospitals get too far in the financial doldrums, a secular organisation can bid for them or the liquidators can run them as a going concern. the holy willies can then decide if looking for a job elsewhere suits them or work for the same employer on the terms offered.

If it's the intention to do that, then the Federal government is indeed attempting to stamp out religious freedom in the medical profession. Appalling.

nifoc
26th February 12, 04:54 PM
This is already well addressed. If you're going to be stupid about it; nobody is forcing the girl not to have the baby aborted either. She could just have the baby.So you're saying that the US should overturn Roe v. Wade in order to protect doctors from the evil women?


I don't see why a contentious procedure which some doctors refuse to perform suddenly becomes 'basic medical care' just because Obama got elected. It didn't. AFAIK reproductive care was considered a basic right before Obama.

nifoc
26th February 12, 04:58 PM
Yes, because there isn't any sane reason to demand a hospital willing to accept federal payments for knee surgery or palliative care must also be willing to accept federal payments for abortions.
This 'take it or leave it' argument has been dealt with earlier.
You yourself admitted that it was up to the government to decide what it wanted to pay for and from whom. The government is not obliged to keep hospitals open if they don't want to accept the governments terms.

Cullion
26th February 12, 04:59 PM
So you're saying that the US should overturn Roe v. Wade in order to protect doctors from the evil women?

There's no need to overturn Roe vs. Wade they just don't need to try and force doctors who don't want to perform abortions to perform them.


It didn't. AFAIK reproductive care was considered a basic right before Obama.

There was no legal requirement to provide 'reproductive care' procedures such as abortion before Obama.

nifoc
26th February 12, 05:04 PM
If it's the intention to do that, then the Federal government is indeed attempting to stamp out religious freedom in the medical profession. Appalling. In Sweden (and i really hope this is true in the states as well), any medical professional is required by law to report suspicion of child abuse. You are claiming that a person belonging to a religion, like christianity according to the bible, that encourages corporal punishment as a part of child rearing, should not be required to protect a child that is being abused? Since most nations forbid parents from beating their children, perhaps you see this as an attack on religious freedom as well?

resolve
26th February 12, 05:06 PM
Did you just equate spanking a kid to abuse?

nifoc
26th February 12, 05:09 PM
There's no need to overturn Roe vs. Wade they just don't need to try and force doctors who don't want to perform abortions to perform them.
Noone is forcing doctors to perform abortions. The mandate merely requires hospitals to "provide" certain services. If the hospital arranges for such patients to recieve treatments at another clinic then that fulfills the terms of the contract, same if they employ a doctor willing to perform said services.



There was no legal requirement to provide 'reproductive care' procedures such as abortion before Obama.There was also no federally mandated healthplan AFAIK.

Cullion
26th February 12, 05:10 PM
Did you just equate spanking a kid to abuse?

Yes. He's from a country where professional boxing is illegal too.

nifoc
26th February 12, 05:11 PM
Did you just equate spanking a kid to abuse? The bible encourages parents to stone their children for speaking up against their parents. So no.

I am aware that most modern christians consider this to be wrong, but according to Cullion it would be an attack on their religious freedoms to forbid it.

Cullion
26th February 12, 05:11 PM
Noone is forcing doctors to perform abortions. The mandate merely requires hospitals to "provide" certain services. If the hospital arranges for such patients to recieve treatments at another clinic then that fulfills the terms of the contract, same if they employ a doctor willing to perform said services.

Why should the onus be on the religious hospital to do that administrative work? Why would you insist the trustees of a religious hospital recommend a service which is fundamentally opposed to their ethical beliefs ?



There was also no federally mandated healthplan AFAIK.

Quite.

nifoc
26th February 12, 05:15 PM
Yes. He's from a country where professional boxing is illegal too.
Not anymore, and you are just being silly now.

Cullion
26th February 12, 05:17 PM
The bible encourages parents to stone their children for speaking up against their parents. So no.

I am aware that most modern christians consider this to be wrong, but according to Cullion it would be an attack on their religious freedoms to forbid it.

Are you really incapable of distinguishing a right not to perform a medical procedure you find morally objectionable, and an injunction to actively attempt to injure a child ?

Adouglasmhor
26th February 12, 05:17 PM
If it's the intention to do that, then the Federal government is indeed attempting to stamp out religious freedom in the medical profession. Appalling.

No it's removing its sponsorship of religious lifestyle choices.
No one is stopping them from making their religious choices, just they will have to weigh them up against the harsh realities of life. They will be free to practice those choices elsewhere at their customers expense. They may find their faith is not worth the cost having to decide to buy the generic brand, drive a compact car, in which case was their faith sure anyway?


Of course they could always pray.

Cullion
26th February 12, 05:18 PM
Not anymore, and you are just being silly now.

You were the guy who just equated 'spanking' with 'child abuse'.

nifoc
26th February 12, 05:18 PM
Why should the onus be on the religious hospital to do that administrative work? Why would you insist the trustees of a religious hospital recommend a service which is fundamentally opposed to their ethical beliefs ? For the same reasons I insist on them following modern treatment methods and hygiene plans.

Well, I have to sleep, I have patients to see tomorrow. No, I don't perform abortions, but not for religious reasons, we don't allow physiotherapists to perform them in Sweden is all.

Cullion
26th February 12, 05:19 PM
No it's removing its sponsorship of religious lifestyle choices.

There is no sponsorship of a religious lifestyle choice occuring. They don't need to get paid for the things they don't do.



No one is stopping them from making their religious choices, just they will have to weigh them up against the harsh realities of life.

They're only having to make that choice because intolerant secular bigots working for the Federal government are using large amounts of other people's money to force the issue.

The 'Take it or leave it' argument was dealt with some pages ago.

nifoc
26th February 12, 05:19 PM
You were the guy who just equated 'spanking' with 'child abuse'.Nope, I've already answered that, I'd at least expect you to be honest in a discussion.

Cullion
26th February 12, 05:20 PM
For the same reasons I insist on them following modern treatment methods and hygiene plans.

You think they're harming people by not performing a procedure ?

Wow. In that case you're harming people by not training to be a doctor. You're harming me by not paying my taxes for me.

Cullion
26th February 12, 05:22 PM
Nope, I've already answered that

I can see that you don't understand the difference between corporal and capital punishment.

Adouglasmhor
26th February 12, 05:28 PM
There is no sponsorship of a religious lifestyle choice occuring. They don't need to get paid for the things they don't do.



Yes there is, as they are being paid for supplying an incomplete spectrum of service as part of the administrative on cost; or is active refusal not an action?

Cullion
26th February 12, 05:43 PM
Yes there is, as they are being paid for supplying an incomplete spectrum of service as part of the administrative on cost

Lots of medical facilities will supply an incomplete spectrum of service, for reasons of equipment availability or expertise and the system will clearly be able to cope with that. This doesn't constitute an ethically sound reason to discriminate against the religious hospital.

At least we're all on the same page that this is about secular bigotry now and the militant secularists are just trying to defend it rather than pretending it isn't happening.

Which of you want to deny funds to hospitals that perform religious male circumcisions btw ?

Adouglasmhor
26th February 12, 06:09 PM
Lots of medical facilities will supply an incomplete spectrum of service, for reasons of equipment availability or expertise and the system will clearly be able to cope with that. This doesn't constitute an ethically sound reason to discriminate against the religious hospital.

At least we're all on the same page that this is about secular bigotry now and the militant secularists are just trying to defend it rather than pretending it isn't happening.



Which of you want to deny funds to hospitals that perform religious male circumcisions btw ?

Circumcisions may or may not have health benefits, whether done for religious reasons or not. They are probably not detrimental to the health or well being of the child. So I have no sound moral argument to deny funds to a provider of those services.
Denying the option of the morning after pill, or termination may well have profound detrimental effects on the patient both long and short term.
Would you support the funding of a hospital carrying out FGM for religious or cultural reasons?

Cullion
26th February 12, 06:27 PM
Denying the option of the morning after pill, or termination may well have profound detrimental effects on the patient both long and short term.

So rather than provide that service by just funding a separate family planning clinic in the area, you'd rather instead try and force somebody whose faith prevents them from providing it, at risk of losing all the other services they offer? That doesn't sound very humane or liberal.



Would you support the funding of a hospital carrying out FGM for religious or cultural reasons?

No because female genital mutilation isn't a refusal to terminate a foetus, it's a vicious assault on the woman's genitals. It isn't reasonable to compare what a doctor may refuse to do which you think they ought, with something that they don't need to do and which is directly and demonstrably harmful to a 'patient'.

You're trying to compare payment not made for services not rendered to 'do you want to subsidise cutting off a woman's clitoris and then stitching up what's left of her vulva so that her future husband can enjoy the pleasure of tearing her open again on his wedding night?'.

Adouglasmhor
26th February 12, 06:39 PM
So rather than provide that service by just funding a separate family planning clinic in the area, you'd rather instead try and force somebody whose faith prevents them from providing it, at risk of losing all the other services they offer? That doesn't sound very humane or liberal.
So the "religious" can picket it and prevent people from using the service? That doesn't sound very humane or liberal or like any sort of freedom.




No because female genital mutilation isn't a refusal to terminate a foetus, it's a vicious assault on the woman's genitals. It isn't reasonable to compare what a doctor may refuse to do which you think they ought, with something that they don't need to do and which is directly and demonstrably harmful to a 'patient'.
So it doesn't matter about religious choices in that case then, I see; so you can actually see that religious arguments do not trump clinical ones.




You're trying to compare payment not made for services not rendered to 'do you want to subsidise cutting off a woman's clitoris and then stitching up what's left of her vulva so that her future husband can enjoy the pleasure of tearing her open again on his wedding night?'.

I am comparing letting medical and clinical decisions being made on religious grounds to medical and clinical decisions being made on religious grounds. I am glad you can see that in one case it is wrong, where does the line get drawn?
Though actually i asked you a question giving you the opportunity to compare them.

Cullion
26th February 12, 06:53 PM
So the "religious" can picket it and prevent people from using the service? That doesn't sound very humane or liberal or like any sort of freedom.

Are you, in complete seriousness, arguing that it's necessary to force religious doctors to perform abortions so that the tiny minority of violent pro-life activists won't be angry ?



So it doesn't matter about religious choices in that case then, I see; so you can actually see that religious arguments do not trump clinical ones.

The decision to perform an abortion is rarely a clinical decision, that's only the case in a tiny minority of abortions performed to save the mother's life. Whether or not the patient may or may not have a happy future with the foetus if it is allowed to be born is not a question for medical science. It's an ethical question which individual doctors should be allowed to answer for themselves.

Whether or not it's okay to butcher a woman's genitals like that is a question in a completely different category.



I am comparing letting medical and clinical decisions being made on religious grounds to medical and clinical decisions being made on religious grounds.

No you aren't, see above.



I am glad you can see that in one case it is wrong, where does the line get drawn?
Though actually i asked you a question giving you the opportunity to compare them.

You've just asked me if I'm able to make an ethical distinction between 'do you want to subsidise the mutilation of women's genitals' and 'do you want the government to try and force religious doctors and institutions to perform abortions when the option of simply funding other doctors and institutions is available', and the answer is 'yes, I am'. And I think you are too.

It just seems like you really don't like the idea that some religious doctors and institutions find most abortions morally repellent and you'd like to force them to either give up their beliefs or get out of medicine. Okay, you're entitled to that view, but let's call a spade a spade. It is an extremely authoritarian and intolerant form of secularism.

Adouglasmhor
26th February 12, 07:11 PM
Are you, in complete seriousness, arguing that it's necessary to force religious doctors to perform abortions so that the tiny minority of violent pro-life activists won't be angry ?

Where did I say that, I have addressed that already.



The decision to perform an abortion is rarely a clinical decision, that's only the case in a tiny minority of abortions performed to save the mother's life. Whether or not the patient may or may not have a happy future with the foetus if it is allowed to be born is not a question for medical science. It's an ethical question which individual doctors should be allowed to answer for themselves.
What about when the embryo is not even a foetus, their religious intolerance applies to stopping the morning after pill being given being given and describing prevention of implantation of the embryo in the womb as abortion too?


Whether or not it's okay to butcher a woman's genitals like that is a question in a completely different category.

Is it, both are motivated by the practitioners interpretation of their belief.




No you aren't, see above.



I am actually


You've just asked me if I'm able to make an ethical distinction between 'do you want to subsidise the mutilation of women's genitals' and 'do you want the government to try and force religious doctors and institutions to perform abortions when the option of simply funding other doctors and institutions is available',
But sometimes it isn't, it's not a limitless pot and the answer is 'yes, I am'. And I think you are too.

It just seems like you really don't like the idea that some religious doctors and institutions find most abortions morally repellent and you'd like to force them to either give up their beliefs or get out of medicine. Okay, you're entitled to that view, but let's call a spade a spade. It is an extremely authoritarian and intolerant form of secularism.

No but the religious have always tried to dictate the moral code of society. Time they had some of that of that power removed from them.

How do you feel living in a country with an established church which is represented in government and is given a role in secular life by the state?

resolve
26th February 12, 09:13 PM
Is this relevant? Talks about government spending on abortion.

9Ua-4lNBG9Q

nihilist
26th February 12, 11:47 PM
Are you, in complete seriousness, arguing that it's necessary to force religious doctors to perform abortions so that the tiny minority of violent pro-life activists won't be angry ?



Religious doctors should not be forced to perform abortions. They should instead be freed from their secular strictures to start their own jesusclinic in the building that you want to build a bomb target in.

resolve
27th February 12, 01:33 AM
Circumcisions may or may not have health benefits, whether done for religious reasons or not. They are probably not detrimental to the health or well being of the child.

Oh but abortions aren't?

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 01:56 AM
Oh but abortions aren't?

What child, especially as amongst abortions, many God botherers include the morning after pill, which others do not count as an abortion?
Also quoted out of context with what was around it, how does that fit around the 9th commandment?

Cullion
27th February 12, 06:10 AM
No but the religious have always tried to dictate the moral code of society. Time they had some of that of that power removed from them.

Now we are talking in honest real terms. This is a governmental campaign to stamp out religious belief in the medical profession, and many people here support it. There's no need to beat around the bush.



How do you feel living in a country with an established church which is represented in government and is given a role in secular life by the state?

It very rarely impinges on my life. I've never been to the US, but I honestly get the impression that religion is less likely to be forced upon me here than it would be there because having a 'state religion' makes us kind of ignore it.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 10:10 AM
Hospitals are not a collective of doctors.

Hospitals are a place where doctors can perform procedures without investing necessary time or capital for availibility, facilities, insurance, staffing and equipment, while still turning a large profit.

Many procedures done in a hospital are not performed by doctors and the largest percentage of staffing are not physicians.

Cullion
27th February 12, 10:17 AM
Hospitals are not a collective of doctors.

Yes they are.



Hospitals are a place where doctors can perform procedures without investing necessary time or capital for availibility, facilities, insurance, staffing and equipment, while still turning a large profit.

Many procedures done in a hospital are not performed by doctors and the largest percentage of staffing are not physicians.

It doesn't matter. 'Doctors' being used as shorthand for 'medical personnel' for the purposes of this discussion. You're still trying to coerce people into betraying their religion for no good practical reason, however way you slice it. This is clearly ideological.

resolve
27th February 12, 10:43 AM
Don't you dare mince words on this issue ADouglas...

Abortion = ending a human life, for whatever reason. It's ending a life. Period.

You are equating ending a human life with practices that are done towards the end of making a human life healthier; ie, saving human lives.

Most doctors don't sign up to end human lives I would think, regardless of their beliefs.


What child...?

And there's the problem.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 12, 10:59 AM
resolve are you against all abortion?

Would you make it illegal for any abortions to be carried out?

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 11:19 AM
Yes they are.
You cannot first claim "hospitals are a collection of doctors" then claim "religious hospitals should be free to set their own terms"
If hospitals truly are a collection of doctors, it takes only *ONE* doctor wishing to perform an abortion to topple your entire argument.




It doesn't matter. 'Doctors' being used as shorthand for 'medical personnel' for the purposes of this discussion.
Then I am a doctor.
Address me as DR. SNAKE.


You're still trying to coerce people into betraying their religion for no good practical reason, however way you slice it. This is clearly ideological.
not if one doctor wishes to perform an abortion at a religious hospital.
then YOU are taking away THAT DOCTOR'S freedom of choice.

"BUT....BUT....BUT....it's a religious hospital. They can set their own terms!"

Not if a hospital is a 'collection of doctors'....then you are taking away that doctor's freedom of association to perform that legally acceptable procedure at the facility of his choice.

Cullion
27th February 12, 11:43 AM
You cannot first claim "hospitals are a collection of doctors" then claim "religious hospitals should be free to set their own terms"
If hospitals truly are a collection of doctors, it takes only *ONE* doctor wishing to perform an abortion to topple your entire argument.

Nope. Doctors with freedom of association to all work for a religious hospital topple your argument.



Then I am a doctor.
Address me as DR. SNAKE.

Sure.



not if one doctor wishes to perform an abortion at a religious hospital.
then YOU are taking away THAT DOCTOR'S freedom of choice.

Nope. The hospital is a non-profit, not a public institution. If you aren't going to take away doctor's freedom of association to form institutions with shared religious values, then it doesn't make sense to deny them medicaid billing without performing abortions unless it's your specific intent to attack those religious beliefs.

Just state openly; is it your intent to attack the religious beliefs that prevent Catholic doctors from performing abortions and prescribing the morning after pill, or not ?

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 11:48 AM
Nope. Doctors with freedom of association to all work for a religious hospital topple your argument.
Again, the mere fact that no specific doctor is being forced to perform any procedure while any specific doctor is being prohibited from performing a procedure, in a religious hospital, topples the argument which toppled the argument.




Sure.
Sure......DR. Snake?



Nope. The hospital is a non-profit, not a public institution. If you aren't going to take away doctor's freedom of association to form institutions with shared religious values, then it doesn't make sense to deny them medicaid billing without performing abortions unless it's your specific intent to attack those religious beliefs.
They treat patients other than Catholic.
They don't limit care to strictly Catholic patients, they cannot impose their religious beliefs upon their patients.


Just state openly; is it your intent to attack the religious beliefs that prevent Catholic doctors from performing abortions and prescribing the morning after pill, or not ?
No, it is not.
My intent is merely to discuss this with you.

Cullion
27th February 12, 11:52 AM
Again, the mere fact that no specific doctor is being forced to perform any procedure while any specific doctor is being prohibited from performing a procedure, in a religious hospital, topples the argument which toppled the argument.

No it does not, because religious hospitals are private associations, not public bodies. Your argument is akin to claiming that people are being discriminated against by the Catholic church because they can't partake in all the sacraments without converting to Catholicism.



They treat patients other than Catholic.
They don't limit care to strictly Catholic patients, they cannot impose their religious beliefs upon their patients.

They aren't imposing their religious beliefs on their patients by refusing to perform abortions any more than they're imposing their beliefs by refusing to perform stripteases for them. They're merely retaining their freedom not to do things they find immoral.



No, it is not.
My intent is merely to discuss this with you.

Well, sooner or later you're going to have to face the fact that there isn't any real practical need to write the contract this way and then question what the federal government's real intention is.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 12:03 PM
No it does not, because religious hospitals are private associations, not public bodies. Your argument is akin to claiming that people are being discriminated against by the Catholic church because they can't partake in all the sacraments without converting to Catholicism.
They are a private tax-exempt institution whom is choose to request public funding to expand their marketshare and generate greater revenue for the church.

Receiving of the sacrament isn't a medical procedure but a ceremonial rite which holds no value, with exception for members of the church.




They aren't imposing their religious beliefs on their patients by refusing to perform abortions any more than they're imposing their beliefs by refusing to perform stripteases for them. They're merely retaining their freedom not to do things they find immoral.
Again, a "striptease" likely will not potentially save anyone's life. This and your sacrament are not analogous arguments.
They are retaining one by withholding the same. Their request for Federal monies, as opposed to operating purely on family-requested patients or church funding negates their prerogatives.





Well, sooner or later you're going to have to face the fact that there isn't any real practical need to write the contract this way and then question what the federal government's real intention is.
Yes there is. It is more cost-effective, feasible, streamlined and fair to have the same contract for all medical facilities to choose or refuse to enter.

However, you very well may be correct with the current administration.

nihilist
27th February 12, 12:04 PM
Abortion = ending a human life, for whatever reason. It's ending a life. Period.
Is it the concept that man has a soul that makes Human life sacred?

Commodore Pipes
27th February 12, 12:07 PM
Well, sooner or later you're going to have to face the fact that there isn't any real practical need to write the contract this way and then question what the federal government's real intention is.

This is obvious and has never been hidden. The Feds withhold money to cripple states' rights and force compliance with socially-unpopular legislation.

What's the national drinking age again?

Exactly.

Cullion
27th February 12, 12:14 PM
They are a private tax-exempt institution whom is choose to request public funding to expand their marketshare and generate greater revenue for the church.

The public funding is merely to pay for the treatments they currently perform.



Again, a "striptease" likely will not potentially save anyone's life. This and your sacrament are not analogous arguments.

Neither will an abortion or the morning after pill.


They are retaining one by withholding the same. Their request for Federal monies, as opposed to operating purely on family-requested patients or church funding negates their prerogatives.

No it doesn't because they aren't requesting federal money for the things they refuse to do.



Yes there is. It is more cost-effective, feasible, streamlined and fair to have the same contract for all medical facilities to choose or refuse to enter.

You missed the point: 'the same contract' can simply contain simple billing terms whereby the hospital just bills for the procedures they perform. Much as many secular hospitals will only bill for the procedures they perform. The efficiency argument you're trying to make is an illusion.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 12:28 PM
The public funding is merely to pay for the treatments they currently perform.
No, they are expected to offer, if they have the appropriate facilities.




Neither will an abortion or the morning after pill.
Morning After Pill? Correct, it will not.
Abortion? Potentially yes, it could offer lifesaving applications.
However, neither are purely for titillation, such as a striptease.




No it doesn't because they aren't requesting federal money for the things they refuse to do.
Correct, they are requesting Federal Money AND THEN refusing to do things.



You missed the point: 'the same contract' can simply contain simple billing terms whereby the hospital just bills for the procedures they perform. Much as many secular hospitals will only bill for the procedures they perform. The efficiency argument you're trying to make is an illusion.
Because the government doesn't work for the church, however the church requests to work for the government.

The employee doesn't run the show.

Cullion
27th February 12, 12:55 PM
No, they are expected to offer, if they have the appropriate facilities.

No reason why that should be the case unless you're making a direct attack on their religious beliefs.



Abortion? Potentially yes, it could offer lifesaving applications.

Vanishingly rare. Rarer than cases where secular hospitals simply lack the equipment for certain lifesaving procedures. Yet the bill does not mandate that they all be so equipped. It's clearly an attack on religion.



Because the government doesn't work for the church, however the church requests to work for the government.

The employee doesn't run the show.

The hospital isn't offering itself as an employee, it's simply offering the continuation of the services it's always performed.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 12, 01:12 PM
The hospital isn't offering itself as an employee, it's simply offering the continuation of the services it's always performed.

They are asking the state for money. That money comes with a caveat...

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 12, 01:13 PM
Vanishingly rare.

Can you back that up?

Cullion
27th February 12, 01:37 PM
Can you back that up?

Yes. Can you refute it ?

Cullion
27th February 12, 01:38 PM
They are asking the state for money. That money comes with a caveat...

Yeah, and it's an ideologically motivated caveat.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 12, 01:38 PM
Yes. Can you refute it ?

You're the one making the claim not me. I dont know if its true or not.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 12, 01:39 PM
Yeah, and it's an ideologically motivated caveat.

Well yes, have you only just realised?

Cullion
27th February 12, 01:40 PM
Well yes, have you only just realised?

No, I'm pointing out that it's ideologically motivated. Snake and a few others seem to be wavering between claiming that's not the case and then agreeing with the ideological motive. I just want us all on the same page. If they agree with the ideological motive, acknowledge it as such and lets carry on from there.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 02:47 PM
No reason why that should be the case unless you're making a direct attack on their religious beliefs.
unless that religious belief is an attack upon the freedom of choice for others.




Vanishingly rare. Rarer than cases where secular hospitals simply lack the equipment for certain lifesaving procedures. Yet the bill does not mandate that they all be so equipped. It's clearly an attack on religion.
Again, as I stated numerous times:
not all hospitals are equipped for all procedures

However the OB/GYN can easily provide the abortion services, so they are equipped. If they don't offer OB/GYN services, they are not equipped and the discussion is done.




The hospital isn't offering itself as an employee, it's simply offering the continuation of the services it's always performed.
Continuation of *some* services.
New parameters are in place.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 02:50 PM
No, I'm pointing out that it's ideologically motivated. Snake and a few others seem to be wavering between claiming that's not the case and then agreeing with the ideological motive. I just want us all on the same page. If they agree with the ideological motive, acknowledge it as such and lets carry on from there.
I haven't disagreed that the current administration's insertion of the "abortion clause" is not ideologically motivated.

However I cannot state with any certainty if it is purely anti-Catholic, as you assert, moreso than it is "pro-party".

But no, I agree the addition of this is politically motivated, it is just affecting religious hospitals more than secular ones.

Cullion
27th February 12, 02:51 PM
unless that religious belief is an attack upon the freedom of choice for others.

It isn't.



Again, as I stated numerous times:
not all hospitals are equipped for all procedures

However the OB/GYN can easily provide the abortion services, so they are equipped. If they don't offer OB/GYN services, they are not equipped and the discussion is done.


You keep missing the point: It doesn't matter why the hospital doesn't perform the abortion, the fact remains that the billing system is clearly capable of accommodating hospitals that are able to offer a varying catalogue of procedures. This means that your attempt at claiming 'practicality of billing' was the motivating factor is disproved.

Will you now concede that these contract terms are ideologically motivated ?

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 02:57 PM
It isn't.
It is.
That taxpayer deserves to have equal access to all the covered services, under that contract, despite the faith of the doctor.




You keep missing the point: It doesn't matter why the hospital doesn't perform the abortion, the fact remains that the billing system is clearly capable of accommodating hospitals that are able to offer a varying catalogue of procedures. This means that your attempt at claiming 'practicality of billing' was the motivating factor is disproved.
No, I am not missing the point, I am not factoring it into the equation because it isn't relevant.
One contract to rule them all.


Will you now concede that these contract terms are ideologically motivated ?
I never disputed it wasn't.
It was done to further the agenda of the Democratic party. Seriously, this isn't a big secret.

You seem insistent on making it an anti-Church conspiracy, which in reality is likely just a beneficial side-effect for the administration.

Feryk
27th February 12, 03:00 PM
uhhh...'one contract to rule them all' doesn't really help your arguement, Snake.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 03:25 PM
uhhh...'one contract to rule them all' doesn't really help your arguement, Snake.
That's just the way it is.
And the hospitals and doctors know this and, usually, like it as it streamlines their billing and collection process.
Government Contracts are a cashcow that keep on giving to these doctors, it's just, unfortunately, this time a toe is being trod upon.

Cullion
27th February 12, 03:48 PM
Snake, you do realise that a single contract could allow the religious hospitals to carry on practising as they do now, right?

I think the discussion has moved on and most right-thinking people in this thread can now see that this is an ideological assault on religion. Some of them agree with that, as they are entitled to.

What surprises me is your lack of curiosity about this attack. Who initiated it? why? etc..

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 12, 04:07 PM
Communists!

Cullion
27th February 12, 04:12 PM
no, not communists, although some of the same forces that funded the development of communism.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 12, 04:24 PM
Bankers!

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 04:31 PM
Snake, you do realise that a single contract could allow the religious hospitals to carry on practising as they do now, right?
Please describe how this would be written and framed


I think the discussion has moved on and most right-thinking people in this thread can now see that this is an ideological assault on religion. Some of them agree with that, as they are entitled to.
Am I a right-thinking person or a loon?


What surprises me is your lack of curiosity about this attack. Who initiated it? why? etc..
I have no curiosity about this attack because it is quite transparent (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120227/POLITICS01/202270351/Planned-Parenthood-touts-Obama?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7C s).

Feryk
27th February 12, 04:35 PM
Look harder, Snake. You are too smart to fall for that.

Cullion
27th February 12, 04:39 PM
Please describe how this would be written and framed

Simply take the terms which apply to facilities which aren't equipped or staffed to offer morning after and abortion services, and apply those terms to facilities which don't want to offer morning after and abortion services.



Am I a right-thinking person or a loon?

You have finally joined the side of rightness by clearly stating that it is an ideological attack.



I have no curiosity about this attack because it is quite transparent (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120227/POLITICS01/202270351/Planned-Parenthood-touts-Obama?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7C s).

You think that the story stops at planned parenthood ? Really ?

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 04:45 PM
Simply take the terms which apply to facilities which aren't equipped or staffed to offer morning after and abortion services, and apply those terms to facilities which don't want to offer morning after and abortion services.
I think you will then open the rules of interpretation to include the doctor whom doesn't want to treat the homosexual patient because he isn't equipped to do it. The infectious disease patient. The foreigner or undocumented.

I really, really hate the concept of the "slippery slope" argument, because it is too easy to excuse poor behaviour in light of potentially worse behaviour, however this is a case for that.




You have finally joined the side of rightness by clearly stating that it is an ideological attack.
Jackets in the back?



You think that the story stops at planned parenthood ? Really ?
Oh, no. Not in the least.
I just recalled hearing that story on the news and, since it was today, it conveniently conveyed a point.

Cullion
27th February 12, 05:00 PM
I think you will then open the rules of interpretation to include the doctor whom doesn't want to treat the homosexual patient because he isn't equipped to do it.

What kind of special equipment is needed to treat homosexual patients ?


The infectious disease patient.

That can already happen under current plans.


The foreigner or undocumented.

That would be covered by separate discrimination law.



I really, really hate the concept of the "slippery slope" argument, because it is too easy to excuse poor behaviour in light of potentially worse behaviour, however this is a case for that.

The slippery slope you are worried about here has a very clear and solid break in it. There's a very good distinction between not wanting to perform a particular procedure, and not wanting to treat a particular type of patient.

Back to the original point; don't you think this almost visceral dislike of religious mores regarding reproduction becoming so deeply embedded in such a segment of the population so quickly is a sign of exactly what I was talking about ?

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 05:03 PM
Now we are talking in honest real terms. This is a governmental campaign to stamp out religious belief in the medical profession, and many people here support it. There's no need to beat around the bush.
Not belief just interference, if they don't want to have a conflict of belief, maybe someone clever enough to get through medical school should have been clever enough to think "maybe not gynaecology" if they had profound beliefs, plenty of other worthwhile specialisations available


It very rarely impinges on my life. I've never been to the US, but I honestly get the impression that religion is less likely to be forced upon me here than it would be there because having a 'state religion' makes us kind of ignore it.

So the Archbishop of Canterbury leading the anti social security reforms group in the lords in his unelected post (in which traditionally Lords Spiritual do not use their vote) does not affect you?
We don't have an established church anywhere else in the UK, it's only England, trying to do it to Scotland started the Civil war cycle and Wales did away with if in the 1920s.

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 05:06 PM
Don't you dare mince words on this issue ADouglas...Why are you going to picket my house or plant a bomb under my car?

Abortion = ending a human life, for whatever reason. It's ending a life. Period.

You are equating ending a human life with practices that are done towards the end of making a human life healthier; ie, saving human lives.

Most doctors don't sign up to end human lives I would think, regardless of their beliefs.



And there's the problem.

Abortion is not illegal, so the vigilantism of your co religionists is self appointed.
Morning after pill is not even that.
And it's not a child if it spontaneously aborts so why is it in an elective one?

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 05:13 PM
What kind of special equipment is needed to treat homosexual patients ?
about the same as would be required to treat a pregnant girl.




That can already happen under current plans.
For the most part, not so much. Universal Precautions essentially calls for health care professionals to treat each patient as an infectious case, however most don't.

There are certain diseases which are Federally Mandated reportable to the State's individual Health Departments in order to inform the CDC. Things like hemorrhagic fevers of varying etiology, CJ, hantavirus, etc. They cannot refuse treatment, they are required to quarantine, however.



That would be covered by separate discrimination law.
At this juncture, they are required to get emergency care through an ER, but certain individuals don't agree, on moral grounds, with the required notification of LEO/ICE. The willfully violate the law under moral prerogatives.




The slippery slope you are worried about here has a very clear and solid break in it. There's a very good distinction between not wanting to perform a particular procedure, and not wanting to treat a particular type of patient.
Mainlining an IV into a homosexual AIDS patient, for example?


Back to the original point; don't you think this almost visceral dislike of religious mores regarding reproduction becoming so deeply embedded in such a segment of the population so quickly is a sign of exactly what I was talking about ?
Yes. I do.

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 05:15 PM
Bankers!

Communism, Zionism and Freemasonry.

Spade: The Real Snake
27th February 12, 05:16 PM
Communism, Zionism and Freemasonry.
LaRoucheists

Cullion
27th February 12, 05:19 PM
So the Archbishop of Canterbury leading the anti social security reforms group in the lords in his unelected post (in which traditionally Lords Spiritual do not use their vote) does not affect you?

Not much. If it wasn't him, it would be a Labour or Lib Dem life appointee. I don't think removing the bishops from the Lords would make much difference to laws I live under day to day now, and it would make no difference at all to things like Foreign policy, or tax rates.



We don't have an established church anywhere else in the UK, it's only England, trying to do it to Scotland started the Civil war cycle and Wales did away with if in the 1920s.

Well, I've lived all my life in England and I'm posting from England.

Cullion
27th February 12, 05:20 PM
Communism, Zionism and Freemasonry.

I don't think any of the Rockefellers have been Communists or Zionists.

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 05:23 PM
Well, I've lived all my life in England and I'm posting from England.

I am not sure if having a state church is better or worse than having Wee Eck and Hollyrood.

You get extra representation in the Lords and We get another layer of bureaucracy.

Cullion
27th February 12, 05:24 PM
I've always got the impression that religion was taken a bit more seriously in Scotland than it is in England.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th February 12, 05:25 PM
I don't think any of the Rockefellers have been Communists or Zionists.

They would say that!

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 05:31 PM
I've always got the impression that religion was taken a bit more seriously in Scotland than it is in England.

Yes, including humanism, atheism, socialism(57 varieties), sportism* and nationalism amongst religions.
*I made that one up but it's pretty obvious what it means. It gets a bit wearing.

Cullion
27th February 12, 05:36 PM
They would say that!

I don't think the Rockefellers have done what they've done because of some secret mystical beliefs. I think they're successful businessmen who've funded social movements that have sold themselves as liberating but which have rendered more of the population both more dependent on and malleable to corporate interests as employees and consumers.

resolve
27th February 12, 07:11 PM
Why are you going to picket my house or plant a bomb under my car?

Anti abortionists don't ask, require, or tell whackjobs to blow up abortion clinics. They've done that on their own and were largely denounced by pretty much everyone else campaigning against abortion.


Abortion is not illegal, so the vigilantism of your co religionists is self appointed.

DUH. Just because something is not illegal, doesn't make it right.


Morning after pill is not even that.

We're not talking about the morning after pill here (which is its own conversation).


And it's not a child if it spontaneously aborts so why is it in an elective one?

Wtf? Did you just say that a stillborn baby was never a human being?

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 07:54 PM
Wtf? Did you just say that a stillborn baby was never a human being?

Yes, though it could have possibly been an evangelical Christian.

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 07:55 PM
Anti abortionists don't ask, require, or tell whackjobs to blow up abortion clinics. They've done that on their own and were largely denounced by pretty much everyone else campaigning against abortion.


So you admit you are going to picket my house then? I suppose if rational argument does not work you are left with intimidation.

Adouglasmhor
27th February 12, 07:57 PM
We're not talking about the morning after pill here (which is its own conversation).



I was - no one has said I can't till now, and anti choicers do tend to call it abortion.

resolve
27th February 12, 11:10 PM
So you admit you are going to picket my house then?

What would picketing one person's house change? RIght. Nothing. Except maybe make them more bitter.

nihilist
27th February 12, 11:25 PM
Wtf? Did you just say that a stillborn baby was never a human being?

This is a baby?
http://i.imgur.com/ayKPK.jpg

Adouglasmhor
28th February 12, 02:10 AM
What would picketing one person's house change? RIght. Nothing. Except maybe make them more bitter.

Who says they are bitter, we all see where the bitterness lies. But no denial of the anti choice lobby's support for intimidation as a tool.

nihilist
28th February 12, 02:50 AM
A new provision on page six of H.R.358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care when necessary to save a woman’s life.

Religion is a disease that destroys all rational thought.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 05:31 AM
I don't think the Rockefellers have done what they've done because of some secret mystical beliefs. I think they're successful businessmen who've funded social movements that have sold themselves as liberating but which have rendered more of the population both more dependent on and malleable to corporate interests as employees and consumers.

I knew it....BASTARDS!!!

Cullion
28th February 12, 05:37 AM
A new provision on page six of H.R.358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care when necessary to save a woman’s life.

You do not read these bills before you get excited about them, do you ?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 05:48 AM
resolve, Cullion would you care to comment on this (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?59575-The-Excommunication-of-Sister-Margaret-McBride)?

Cullion
28th February 12, 05:52 AM
already have. Yes, it was right to perform the abortion. No, I don't consider such a case sufficient reason to write a clause into law insisting that religious hospitals be mandated to perform abotions. Most abortions aren't performed to save the mother's life.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 05:53 AM
Yet if the RCC had its way this kind of thing would be enshrined in the law of the land.

Cullion
28th February 12, 05:55 AM
Yet if the RCC had its way this kind of thing would be enshrined in the law of the land.

Making laws as a revenge for things that you imagine the other party would do isn't a sound basis for the protection of a liberal society.

Anti-abortion laws exist in the Irish Republic. They don't have any higher maternal mortality rate than the UK.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 06:05 AM
Making laws as a revenge for things that you imagine the other party would do isn't a sound basis for the protection of a liberal society.

Revenge laws wtf? The history of the One and Only Truly Original Church in such matters has given enough evidence of its need to control the moral choices of everybody. So the liberal state curtails the church's power to do so...GOOD!


Anti-abortion laws exist in the Irish Republic. They don't have any higher maternal mortality rate than the UK.

LOL thanks to the NHS in the UK Irish women can get free abortions over here that's why!

I can feel the indignation rising in you again, it really does put you off your game

Cullion
28th February 12, 06:18 AM
Revenge laws wtf? The history of the One and Only Truly Original Church in such matters has given enough evidence of its need to control the moral choices of everybody. So the liberal state curtails the church's power to do so...GOOD!

Are you suggesting that the only way to make abortion legal is to force religious doctors to perform it ? Really ?



LOL thanks to the NHS in the UK Irish women can get free abortions over here that's why!

No, that's not why.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 06:20 AM
Are you suggesting that the only way to make abortion legal is to force religious doctors to perform it ? Really ?


Nope, do you think its OK for a doctor to allow a woman to die because of religious convictions?

Cullion
28th February 12, 06:30 AM
Nope, do you think its OK for a doctor to allow a woman to die because of religious convictions?

No. I'm not sure why you're confused about this.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 06:52 AM
Because on one hand you dont like the idea of somebodies religious convictions dictating thier actions, yet on the other you dont think its an issue.

Do you thnk it is OK for the state to be prescriptive about what a doctor can and cant do?

Cullion
28th February 12, 06:55 AM
Because on one hand you dont like the idea of somebodies religious convictions dictating thier actions, yet on the other you dont think its an issue.

I think abortion should be legal in certain circumstances, and I don't think a doctor should be compelled to perform them except in the extremely rare circumstance where the mother & the baby will both die unless the baby is aborted and there is no other doctor available. That circumstance is not what the bill discussed was about.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 07:17 AM
OK that's clear now.

AAAAAA
28th February 12, 07:35 AM
By leaving total freedom of conscience you can get in a situation where some hospitals have all of the gynecologists refusing to perform non-therapeutic abortions, because that slowly becomes the only way to go forward in your career: kissing the right bishop's shoe, religious hospital or not.

You can sue, but in the meantime you've been denied a service you're entitled to by law.

Cullion
28th February 12, 07:49 AM
By leaving total freedom of conscience you can get in a situation where some hospitals have all of the gynecologists refusing to perform non-therapeutic abortions, because that slowly becomes the only way to go forward in your career: kissing the right bishop's shoe, religious hospital or not.

You can sue, but in the meantime you've been denied a service you're entitled to by law.

I am entirely comfortable with the idea of entire hospitals not offering non-therapeutic abortions.

AAAAAA
28th February 12, 08:04 AM
I am entirely comfortable with the idea of entire hospitals not offering non-therapeutic abortions.

what if that hospital happens to be the biggest and most important healthcare facility for a big area?
What about the rights of the users, that is, citizens, who fund that hospital with their taxes?

I now expect Cullion's version of Snake argument "nobody forces them to accept the contract"... something like "they can go somewhere else" right?

Cullion
28th February 12, 08:06 AM
Those citizens don't need to pay the hospital to do the things it doesn't do. Those public funds can be used to open a family planning clinic instead. They are allowed to vote for one, right?

Spade: The Real Snake
28th February 12, 08:14 AM
Those citizens don't need to pay the hospital to do the things it doesn't do. Those public funds can be used to open a family planning clinic instead. They are allowed to vote for one, right?
In a roundabout way, yes. They would vote for their Senators and Representatives whom would vote for a Congressional bill, be it State or Federal monies/Congress. I don't ever see something like this making it's way to an open ballot, unless it would be funded by bond sales or reassignment of sales tax or lottery monies.

Cullion
28th February 12, 08:21 AM
in which case there isn't much democratic mandate for insisting that religious hospitals be forced to perform abortions and then claiming 'tis the will of the people!'

Spade: The Real Snake
28th February 12, 08:34 AM
except the people elect Congress

Cullion
28th February 12, 08:41 AM
Sort of.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 08:51 AM
I though we'd decided that the Rockefellas elected the Senate?

Cullion
28th February 12, 08:53 AM
No.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 09:00 AM
You're one of them arent you!

Cullion
28th February 12, 09:15 AM
Don't be ridiculous.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 09:29 AM
That's exactly the kind of thing they would say!

Spade: The Real Snake
28th February 12, 10:19 AM
Careful, Cullion.
AdaftreodeVer is watching.

nihilist
28th February 12, 11:15 AM
I am entirely comfortable with the idea of entire hospitals not offering non-therapeutic abortions. Religious moderates help propagate religious tyranny.
Congratulations, you are responsible for the AIDS epidemic.

Cullion
28th February 12, 11:18 AM
Religious moderates help propagate religious tyranny.
Congratulations, you are responsible for the AIDS epidemic.

AIDS transmission rates are lower in Catholic African countries as I demonstrated in debate with HOG over a year ago on this board. Congratulations, you're a knee-jerk humanist.

nihilist
28th February 12, 11:20 AM
I am entirely comfortable with the idea of entire hospitals denying health care.


I am entirely comfortable with the idea of entire hospitals selectively enforcing their particular brand of morality.

Phrost
28th February 12, 11:21 AM
Regardless, it's still repugnant to tell people in overpopulated, AIDS-ridden countries not to use condoms or birth control.

nihilist
28th February 12, 11:24 AM
AIDS transmission rates are lower in Catholic African countries as I demonstrated in debate with HOG over a year ago on this board. Congratulations, you're a knee-jerk humanist. In what part of your brain does the act of telling people not to use something that could save one's life make any lick of sense whatsoever?

Congratulations you are an idiot.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th February 12, 11:25 AM
I'm gonna be an idiot when I grow up