rhys 0 #126 July 23, 2008 good answer. I would have a child now if it wasn't for an abortion. to be perfectly honest, i don't have any regrets with the decision that was made by my partner at the time and also myself. our situation at the time was less than sufficient for our own well being let alone that of a child. Every case is different though. Thanks for the clarity."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #127 July 23, 2008 QuoteI know. Perhaps you should check out that mirror you mentioned previously? Nah, you need it way to much since you are judging who you think has has a "holier than thou attitude".Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #128 July 23, 2008 QuoteYou'll notice who keeps making it about her when attempts are made to bring it back on topic? (Hint: it isn't me.) The original topic was about how Bush was going to single handedly save everyone from evil by eliminating the Pill. Not was the article was about Nor is it likely ever going to happen. EVER. If for no other reason than the $$$ in the pharmaceutical business. Remember... republicans like money. They're going to keep it. I did use myself as examples, because working in this field, I have DIRECT exposure to what was being cried about. I tried to clarify (although sometimes with GREAT difficulty) what the issues with abortion are. But... that did open myself and my practice up to criticism. But... honestly, as long as I am comfortable with my decisions and my patients are safe, the opinion of someone on the internet isn't as valuable. This thread has become quite a mess... talking not only about government money and religious discrimation, but also types and indications for abortions, and extenuating circumstances.... All that aside though... Time for me to go to bed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #129 July 23, 2008 Quote I'm always amazed at the human capacity for denial, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Oh, the irony! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #130 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteI know. Perhaps you should check out that mirror you mentioned previously? Nah, you need it way to much since you are judging who you think has has a "holier than thou attitude". Almost as ironic as RL's post.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #131 July 23, 2008 QuoteAlmost as ironic as RL's post. ROTFLMAO, sometimes you just don't have popcorn when you really need it.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #132 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuote Totally agree with you, it would be like a fireman refusing to put a fire out because the house on fire belonged to an unmarried couple and he believed living together unmarried was a sin. With certain jobs comes responsibility over and above ones beliefs. This bush administration change of policy allows right wing Christians to get away with not fulfilling those responsibilities. Nope. Still wrong. In that analogy, the house is on fire. That is an EMERGENCY. I have already stated that if the patient had a medical condition (and even gave examples) that I would agree that the procedure would NEED to be done and would even do it. but... as an elective termination is NOT an emergency, she can go some where else. I don't impose my beliefs on her. My patients NEVER have to do what I tell them. So why should HER beliefs be imposed on me? And don't say "cuz you're a doctor" because, for the reasons outlined above, I don't HAVE to do what the patient tells me to. There are others out there willing to do abortions. She should go to them. the proposed rules will allow an ER doctor to refuse emergency contraception after rape, that is an emergency and in that situation the victim would have little choice over the doctor they get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #133 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteWho benefits from this rule, only the religious right-wingers. So you have no problem with discrimination, as long as it's "those" people? Nice.... No other group is allow to discriminate against women, why should right wing religious folks be allowed to? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #134 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt is not my argument, read the text of the proposed bush administration redefinition. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is redefining abortion to mean anything that prevents the fertilized egg implanting itself in the uterus. I am upset that they are redefining it this way. As shown in the thread, birth control pills fool the body into believing it is pregnant, so no more eggs are released. No egg, no conception. Can you provide the status of this supposed bill, or a link to it? It doesn't seem to exist on the Library of Congress' search page. Also, wouldn't said bill (assuming it even exists) be written and voted in by a PELOSI CONGRESS before being signed by a BUSH ADMINISTRATION? And you have demonstrated yet again you don't know what you are talking about, read what out resident OBGYN said about this. The pill ALSO stops a fertilized egg attaching to the uterus. And it is not a bill, you are wrong again (this is getting to be a habit) read the original link, this is rule in the department of health and human services, it does not require congress to enact and guess who runs the department of health and human services, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, do you get it now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #135 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteWho benefits from this rule, only the religious right-wingers. So you have no problem with discrimination, as long as it's "those" people? Nice.... It's the religious right-wingers that are doing the discriminating by trying to impose their views on everyone else. So you have no problem with discrimination, as long as it's "those" people? Nice.... As far as the employment rights issue goes, it's really quite simple. If your morals conflict with your job, either get another job or renegotiate your contract. But if you are contracted to do something as part of your work and you refuse, then you should expect to be fired for breach of that contract. Now when the government steps in and tells employers they can't fire people who refuse to do what they are contracted to do, then that is positive discrimination in favour of the moral axe-grinder and it is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #136 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhich (to me) implies that 1) OB/Gyn clinics do not typically perform elective abortions as part of their normal practice or 2) the vast majority of OB/Gyns object to elective abortions for moral reasons. Number two seems highly unlikely, so I'll go with number one. all of the ob/gyns i've talked about this with object to elective abortions for moral reasons, but they also all respect the woman's right to choose. some of them have even gone as far as telling them how to get in touch with dr. tiller. number one is correct because of number two. Interesting. Thanks for letting us know how the vast majority of OB/Gyns feel after you spoke to all of them. could you point to where i said "vast majority"? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #137 July 23, 2008 Quote . . . each specific pharmacist should have the right to not dispense it... but if that one doesn't, then there has to be someone available that will or they have to transfer that script to a pharmacy in that patients health plan in a reasonable area (not 20+ miles away). But, as a right of religious freedom, that pharmacist has shouldn't be fired.... that would be discrimination. Another point is that most pharmacies are privately owned and managed. NOT government run. Although they do have to follow certain government regulations, they are personal establishments. They can refuse to provide service to anyone (but then they could also find themselves in a court house for discrimation themselves) An employer should definitely be allowed to fire a person who refuses to do all parts of their job. Cherry picking amongst tasks based on a personal perspective on a highly subjective "moral" principle is absolute BS. If allowed to happen, there would be no end to the abuse of such a subjective right. If the owner does it, or lets employees get away with it, then they should be prosecuted for discrimination. Reminds me of the Muslim taxi drivers at our airport who refuse to take a fare because they have booze with them or a dog. Thankfully, the Airport Commission informed them they would need to seek employment elsewhere if they refuse to do their job for certain customers based on religious objections. Worse yet, the Muslim checkout person that holds up the entire line because some non-Muslim employee has to be found and take over the register because somebody has a pound of bacon in their cart. Why can't we handle this like we do Santa Claus and once kids get old enough to have gained enough common sense to know something is amiss just fess up, let them know it is a cherished tradition, but that it is time to move on to adulthood. p.s. - Most pharmacies are privately owned? Maybe a regional difference, but my observations indicate AT LEAST 80% of them here are either part of a hospital or clinic, or are one of the 2 very big chains." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #138 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo... but some people seem to think that they are ENTITLED to whatever the hell they want even if it imposes their beliefs on others. ELECTIVE PROCEDURES ARE ELECTIVE. It's a CHOICE not a need. I fail to see that as having the slightest relevance to the issue at hand. What confuses you about it? (Honestly... am I not communicating well, or are you just being stubborn?) It is an ELECTIVE procedure. Not a medical necessity. I don't HAVE to do those procedures. My patients don't HAVE to stay with me if I don't, but they can't force me to do a surgery or procedure that I feel is not medically indicated. If a woman walked into a plastic surgery office with a 38H and said she wanted enlargement... they didn't HAVE to do that. Yes, they would be leaving money on the table... but sometimes it's not about just making money. Or how about someone with a good knee that goes into the ortho and wants a total knee? He might even have a good reason. But with any surgery comes risks... I have to weigh in my mind if that surgery is worth the risk for me to do. It's not just about the patient... If my patient dies on the table... I have to live with my part in taking her there. Now if it was medically indicated and I refused... that would be a breach of the standard of care. Whether the customer elects something or requires something has no relevance to the employee who refuses to serve the customer for personal reasons. If a product or service is legal, putting your personal preferences first is unprofessional.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #139 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Whether the customer elects something or requires something has no relevance to the employee who refuses to serve the customer for personal reasons. If a product or service is legal, putting your personal preferences first is unprofessional. No it's not, in fact to me it shows a higher level of professionalism and integrity. It in no way is unprofessional. People make choices all the time in their professional world, lawyers refuse clients, accountants selectivity choose clients, and Doctors can professionally do the same. You make some pretty broad strokes with your personal biased brushes for an educated man Mr KallendYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #140 July 23, 2008 Quote Quote You're in big trouble now, Mike. Story of my life Rhonda, but be prepared to wait as it is a long line. No problem. I'll bring popcorn. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #141 July 23, 2008 Quotethe proposed rules will allow an ER doctor to refuse emergency contraception after rape, that is an emergency and in that situation the victim would have little choice over the doctor they get. As far as I know, an ER doctor can do that regardless of the proposed rules. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #142 July 23, 2008 Thanks for the reply, it's nice to know there might be at least one [accidental?] positive outcome if this proposal goes anywhere. It raises a couple more questions though... A couple times now you challenged another poster to try and schedule an abortion at a local OB/Gyn to make it a point that most don't perform the service on an elective basis, and that one would have to go to a planned parenthood clinic to have the procedure done. You then stated you agreed if a nurse worked at a planned parenthood clinic but was morally opposed to abortions that it would probably be in his/her best interests to find another job that didn't ask that of them (even if you wouldn't necessarily fire the person.) From the sounds of your challenge above, this would not pose a significant hardship. So my questions are, even if we agree on employee rights, do we really need this law? Most of the discussion I'm hearing suggests that aspect isn't even a real issue, that there isn't a pandemic of people having surgical implements forced into their hands, and that the hospital policy part is what will actually have the greatest affect on people. And if one of the desired outcomes of that half of the proposal is the more widespread use of medication to terminate pregnancies, aren't there a vast number of better laws that could be written to achieve that more directly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MikeForsythe 0 #143 July 23, 2008 QuoteThe right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion. I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave. Okay, to get back on the subject here. The "idiots" that you refer to are people like you and me that were elected by their peers (again, people like you and me). If you don’t like how they are doing the job that they were elected to then vote for someone else the next time. It is not saying that you cannot have a procedure done, it just says that you can’t force me to do it. Have you ever wondered why so many businesses have the signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!”? The world is not here to serve your every beck and call that you think you are entitled to. Also the statements that have been made in other post about the whole job thing that if you don’t do what you were hired for then you should be fired may not be fair and a driving force behind this bill. What if I was hired 15 years ago and this was not the policy nor was I not told that I would ever have to do this and now it is being forced on me? The only thing that is being forced on you is your own perceptions. Abortion is an age old battle that the country is divided over. Our system is simple, the majority rules if there is a conflict. So if you want to change the way things are or may be then get the majority of the votes on your side. Then all of those terrible “ultra-right wing religious” people that are probably your neighbors since they are people like you too and not some knuckle dragging trolls that you are trying to make them out as will have their views suppressed instead of yours because in the end it is all about you and your views that are all that matters.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #144 July 23, 2008 Quote What if I was hired 15 years ago and this was not the policy nor was I not told that I would ever have to do this and now it is being forced on me? If the policy was in your contract when you first started with the company, then you have already agreed to do it and you would be in breach of that contract if you now refuse. If they're trying to change your contract and you don't like the new policy, don't sign until you negotiate an acceptable one. That's what contracts are for and they are there to protect both parties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfc 1 #145 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion. I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave. Okay, to get back on the subject here. The "idiots" that you refer to are people like you and me that were elected by their peers (again, people like you and me). If you don’t like how they are doing the job that they were elected to then vote for someone else the next time. It is not saying that you cannot have a procedure done, it just says that you can’t force me to do it. Have you ever wondered why so many businesses have the signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!”? The world is not here to serve your every beck and call that you think you are entitled to. Also the statements that have been made in other post about the whole job thing that if you don’t do what you were hired for then you should be fired may not be fair and a driving force behind this bill. What if I was hired 15 years ago and this was not the policy nor was I not told that I would ever have to do this and now it is being forced on me? The only thing that is being forced on you is your own perceptions. Abortion is an age old battle that the country is divided over. Our system is simple, the majority rules if there is a conflict. So if you want to change the way things are or may be then get the majority of the votes on your side. Then all of those terrible “ultra-right wing religious” people that are probably your neighbors since they are people like you too and not some knuckle dragging trolls that you are trying to make them out as will have their views suppressed instead of yours because in the end it is all about you and your views that are all that matters. I don't have a problem with a business refusing service to a customer on a whim, I do have a problem with the feds tell a hospital that they cannot fire someone for doing a job just for one particular reason or loose funding. What about all the other reasons people don't want to do thing at work that lead to getting fired. What is a Jehovah Witness doctor refused to give blood transfusions, should be be protected too? The singling out of one particular group for special protection is one problem. The other is expanding the term abortion to cover the use of the pill, it then allow those specially protected types to impose their morals more on others. It is almost impossible to get an abortion in some states even though it is legal, the pressure put on doctors to opt out is huge and it works, adding the pill will make contraception even harder to get for some women in some parts of the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MikeForsythe 0 #146 July 23, 2008 I could care less about what you have a problem with, or what your political, religious or social views are. You gave an opinion and that is all that it is, an opinion, and I gave you a way to change it so quit whining. If you don't try and change it and just keep complaining you are just part of the problem and not the solution.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #147 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Whether the customer elects something or requires something has no relevance to the employee who refuses to serve the customer for personal reasons. If a product or service is legal, putting your personal preferences first is unprofessional. No it's not, in fact to me it shows a higher level of professionalism and integrity. It in no way is unprofessional. People make choices all the time in their professional world, lawyers refuse clients, accountants selectivity choose clients, and Doctors can professionally do the same. You make some pretty broad strokes with your personal biased brushes for an educated man Mr Kallend The discussion, I believe, involves EMPLOYEES refusing to do the legal business of their employer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites millertime24 8 #148 July 23, 2008 QuoteWhat is a Jehovah Witness doctor refused to give blood transfusions, should be be protected too? He doesnt have to as long as its either A) non life threatening or B) There is another doctor there who will do it.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #149 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho benefits from this rule, only the religious right-wingers. So you have no problem with discrimination, as long as it's "those" people? Nice.... No other group is allow to discriminate against women, why should right wing religious folks be allowed to? Weak. How is saying "I'm sorry, I don't do that procedure/prescribe that medication, but here's a referral to Dr. X, who does" is discriminatory.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #150 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt is not my argument, read the text of the proposed bush administration redefinition. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is redefining abortion to mean anything that prevents the fertilized egg implanting itself in the uterus. I am upset that they are redefining it this way. As shown in the thread, birth control pills fool the body into believing it is pregnant, so no more eggs are released. No egg, no conception. Can you provide the status of this supposed bill, or a link to it? It doesn't seem to exist on the Library of Congress' search page. Also, wouldn't said bill (assuming it even exists) be written and voted in by a PELOSI CONGRESS before being signed by a BUSH ADMINISTRATION? And you have demonstrated yet again you don't know what you are talking about, read what out resident OBGYN said about this. The pill ALSO stops a fertilized egg attaching to the uterus. I evidently know more about it than you do - in "normal" usage, the pill prevents ovulation. In 'morning after' use (as [again] shown by posts up-thread), it prevents implantation. QuoteAnd it is not a bill, you are wrong again (this is getting to be a habit) read the original link, this is rule in the department of health and human services, it does not require congress to enact and guess who runs the department of health and human services, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, do you get it now? The change in rules and procedures doesn't require Congress? Hmmm.... ever hear of something called HIPAA? How about so I guess Congress has all these bills about abortion in the Congressional Record just because they wanted to chat about it, then? Ever hear of something called HIPAA? You have your panties wrapped firmly around your neck SOLELY over a newspaper article that SAYS "Bush is going to do such and such..." with no other proof....no memo from the Oval Office, no phone recording, nothing. Chicken Little, much?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 6 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
RhondaLea 4 #140 July 23, 2008 Quote Quote You're in big trouble now, Mike. Story of my life Rhonda, but be prepared to wait as it is a long line. No problem. I'll bring popcorn. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #141 July 23, 2008 Quotethe proposed rules will allow an ER doctor to refuse emergency contraception after rape, that is an emergency and in that situation the victim would have little choice over the doctor they get. As far as I know, an ER doctor can do that regardless of the proposed rules. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #142 July 23, 2008 Thanks for the reply, it's nice to know there might be at least one [accidental?] positive outcome if this proposal goes anywhere. It raises a couple more questions though... A couple times now you challenged another poster to try and schedule an abortion at a local OB/Gyn to make it a point that most don't perform the service on an elective basis, and that one would have to go to a planned parenthood clinic to have the procedure done. You then stated you agreed if a nurse worked at a planned parenthood clinic but was morally opposed to abortions that it would probably be in his/her best interests to find another job that didn't ask that of them (even if you wouldn't necessarily fire the person.) From the sounds of your challenge above, this would not pose a significant hardship. So my questions are, even if we agree on employee rights, do we really need this law? Most of the discussion I'm hearing suggests that aspect isn't even a real issue, that there isn't a pandemic of people having surgical implements forced into their hands, and that the hospital policy part is what will actually have the greatest affect on people. And if one of the desired outcomes of that half of the proposal is the more widespread use of medication to terminate pregnancies, aren't there a vast number of better laws that could be written to achieve that more directly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #143 July 23, 2008 QuoteThe right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion. I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave. Okay, to get back on the subject here. The "idiots" that you refer to are people like you and me that were elected by their peers (again, people like you and me). If you don’t like how they are doing the job that they were elected to then vote for someone else the next time. It is not saying that you cannot have a procedure done, it just says that you can’t force me to do it. Have you ever wondered why so many businesses have the signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!”? The world is not here to serve your every beck and call that you think you are entitled to. Also the statements that have been made in other post about the whole job thing that if you don’t do what you were hired for then you should be fired may not be fair and a driving force behind this bill. What if I was hired 15 years ago and this was not the policy nor was I not told that I would ever have to do this and now it is being forced on me? The only thing that is being forced on you is your own perceptions. Abortion is an age old battle that the country is divided over. Our system is simple, the majority rules if there is a conflict. So if you want to change the way things are or may be then get the majority of the votes on your side. Then all of those terrible “ultra-right wing religious” people that are probably your neighbors since they are people like you too and not some knuckle dragging trolls that you are trying to make them out as will have their views suppressed instead of yours because in the end it is all about you and your views that are all that matters.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #144 July 23, 2008 Quote What if I was hired 15 years ago and this was not the policy nor was I not told that I would ever have to do this and now it is being forced on me? If the policy was in your contract when you first started with the company, then you have already agreed to do it and you would be in breach of that contract if you now refuse. If they're trying to change your contract and you don't like the new policy, don't sign until you negotiate an acceptable one. That's what contracts are for and they are there to protect both parties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #145 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe right wing executive idiots are trying to define the pill and some other birth control as abortion. I guess any shame they had has gone now and they try to force their ultra-right wing religious views on the country before they leave. Okay, to get back on the subject here. The "idiots" that you refer to are people like you and me that were elected by their peers (again, people like you and me). If you don’t like how they are doing the job that they were elected to then vote for someone else the next time. It is not saying that you cannot have a procedure done, it just says that you can’t force me to do it. Have you ever wondered why so many businesses have the signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!”? The world is not here to serve your every beck and call that you think you are entitled to. Also the statements that have been made in other post about the whole job thing that if you don’t do what you were hired for then you should be fired may not be fair and a driving force behind this bill. What if I was hired 15 years ago and this was not the policy nor was I not told that I would ever have to do this and now it is being forced on me? The only thing that is being forced on you is your own perceptions. Abortion is an age old battle that the country is divided over. Our system is simple, the majority rules if there is a conflict. So if you want to change the way things are or may be then get the majority of the votes on your side. Then all of those terrible “ultra-right wing religious” people that are probably your neighbors since they are people like you too and not some knuckle dragging trolls that you are trying to make them out as will have their views suppressed instead of yours because in the end it is all about you and your views that are all that matters. I don't have a problem with a business refusing service to a customer on a whim, I do have a problem with the feds tell a hospital that they cannot fire someone for doing a job just for one particular reason or loose funding. What about all the other reasons people don't want to do thing at work that lead to getting fired. What is a Jehovah Witness doctor refused to give blood transfusions, should be be protected too? The singling out of one particular group for special protection is one problem. The other is expanding the term abortion to cover the use of the pill, it then allow those specially protected types to impose their morals more on others. It is almost impossible to get an abortion in some states even though it is legal, the pressure put on doctors to opt out is huge and it works, adding the pill will make contraception even harder to get for some women in some parts of the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #146 July 23, 2008 I could care less about what you have a problem with, or what your political, religious or social views are. You gave an opinion and that is all that it is, an opinion, and I gave you a way to change it so quit whining. If you don't try and change it and just keep complaining you are just part of the problem and not the solution.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #147 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Whether the customer elects something or requires something has no relevance to the employee who refuses to serve the customer for personal reasons. If a product or service is legal, putting your personal preferences first is unprofessional. No it's not, in fact to me it shows a higher level of professionalism and integrity. It in no way is unprofessional. People make choices all the time in their professional world, lawyers refuse clients, accountants selectivity choose clients, and Doctors can professionally do the same. You make some pretty broad strokes with your personal biased brushes for an educated man Mr Kallend The discussion, I believe, involves EMPLOYEES refusing to do the legal business of their employer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites millertime24 8 #148 July 23, 2008 QuoteWhat is a Jehovah Witness doctor refused to give blood transfusions, should be be protected too? He doesnt have to as long as its either A) non life threatening or B) There is another doctor there who will do it.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #149 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho benefits from this rule, only the religious right-wingers. So you have no problem with discrimination, as long as it's "those" people? Nice.... No other group is allow to discriminate against women, why should right wing religious folks be allowed to? Weak. How is saying "I'm sorry, I don't do that procedure/prescribe that medication, but here's a referral to Dr. X, who does" is discriminatory.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #150 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt is not my argument, read the text of the proposed bush administration redefinition. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is redefining abortion to mean anything that prevents the fertilized egg implanting itself in the uterus. I am upset that they are redefining it this way. As shown in the thread, birth control pills fool the body into believing it is pregnant, so no more eggs are released. No egg, no conception. Can you provide the status of this supposed bill, or a link to it? It doesn't seem to exist on the Library of Congress' search page. Also, wouldn't said bill (assuming it even exists) be written and voted in by a PELOSI CONGRESS before being signed by a BUSH ADMINISTRATION? And you have demonstrated yet again you don't know what you are talking about, read what out resident OBGYN said about this. The pill ALSO stops a fertilized egg attaching to the uterus. I evidently know more about it than you do - in "normal" usage, the pill prevents ovulation. In 'morning after' use (as [again] shown by posts up-thread), it prevents implantation. QuoteAnd it is not a bill, you are wrong again (this is getting to be a habit) read the original link, this is rule in the department of health and human services, it does not require congress to enact and guess who runs the department of health and human services, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, do you get it now? The change in rules and procedures doesn't require Congress? Hmmm.... ever hear of something called HIPAA? How about so I guess Congress has all these bills about abortion in the Congressional Record just because they wanted to chat about it, then? Ever hear of something called HIPAA? You have your panties wrapped firmly around your neck SOLELY over a newspaper article that SAYS "Bush is going to do such and such..." with no other proof....no memo from the Oval Office, no phone recording, nothing. Chicken Little, much?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 6 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
millertime24 8 #148 July 23, 2008 QuoteWhat is a Jehovah Witness doctor refused to give blood transfusions, should be be protected too? He doesnt have to as long as its either A) non life threatening or B) There is another doctor there who will do it.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #149 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWho benefits from this rule, only the religious right-wingers. So you have no problem with discrimination, as long as it's "those" people? Nice.... No other group is allow to discriminate against women, why should right wing religious folks be allowed to? Weak. How is saying "I'm sorry, I don't do that procedure/prescribe that medication, but here's a referral to Dr. X, who does" is discriminatory.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #150 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt is not my argument, read the text of the proposed bush administration redefinition. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is redefining abortion to mean anything that prevents the fertilized egg implanting itself in the uterus. I am upset that they are redefining it this way. As shown in the thread, birth control pills fool the body into believing it is pregnant, so no more eggs are released. No egg, no conception. Can you provide the status of this supposed bill, or a link to it? It doesn't seem to exist on the Library of Congress' search page. Also, wouldn't said bill (assuming it even exists) be written and voted in by a PELOSI CONGRESS before being signed by a BUSH ADMINISTRATION? And you have demonstrated yet again you don't know what you are talking about, read what out resident OBGYN said about this. The pill ALSO stops a fertilized egg attaching to the uterus. I evidently know more about it than you do - in "normal" usage, the pill prevents ovulation. In 'morning after' use (as [again] shown by posts up-thread), it prevents implantation. QuoteAnd it is not a bill, you are wrong again (this is getting to be a habit) read the original link, this is rule in the department of health and human services, it does not require congress to enact and guess who runs the department of health and human services, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, do you get it now? The change in rules and procedures doesn't require Congress? Hmmm.... ever hear of something called HIPAA? How about so I guess Congress has all these bills about abortion in the Congressional Record just because they wanted to chat about it, then? Ever hear of something called HIPAA? You have your panties wrapped firmly around your neck SOLELY over a newspaper article that SAYS "Bush is going to do such and such..." with no other proof....no memo from the Oval Office, no phone recording, nothing. Chicken Little, much?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
