ARTICLE: Thank God I'm Not a Woman!!!

[Agathon]

One, soldiers (even volunteers) may become conscientious objectors, and may not be forced to kill people.

Fair enough. No one has to stay a pharmacist.

Three, what about doctors who don't perform abortions? Should they change professions?

If such a sanction is required to make sure that all woman have access to legal procedures, then yes. If not, no.

[Agathon]

Remember, you need at least 21 orgasms a month for good prostate health.

Research no doubt funded by Larry Flynt.

Perhaps we should petition Markos to change the post submission screen to girly pics - "here is something to **** about while you wait".

It'd keep the dialup users mellow.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hopefully nothing.

But if there are women who can't get access to medical services they are entitled to by law, then it's licence yanking time. Doctors are there to provide a service to the community, not to indulge their own religious prejudices.

I think when a majority of a community refuses to go along with a government, there is probably something wrong with the government. Usually.

Again, where are there any doctors being called up for failing to perform abortions? Why are pharmasists different?

[Agathon]

I think when a majority of a community refuses to go along with a government, there is probably something wrong with the government. Usually.

Of course this requires an arbitrary definition of a "community".

Southern communities didn't want to go along with civil rights - I guess that their racist and moronic ideas were the government's fault. I'd have been happy if the Feds shot some of their asses.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
If such a sanction is required to make sure that all woman have access to legal procedures, then yes. If not, no.

Pish. You are saying that doctors in isolated communities should be forced to perform acts that they could not live with.

You may as well be advocating that everyone turn in escaped slaves, no matter how repulsive the concept of slavery was to them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


Of course this requires an arbitrary definition of a "community".

Southern communities didn't want to go along with civil rights - I guess that their racist and moronic ideas were the government's fault. I'd have been happy if the Feds shot some of their asses.

Actually, there was a community other than the white one. That was the point.

[Agathon]

Pish. You are saying that doctors in isolated communities should be forced to perform acts that they could not live with.

I care more about women's access to health care than I do about the opinions of doctors.

They already have to follow rules. If they don't like it, they can find some other job. It is just like pacifists joining the army.

You may as well be advocating that everyone turn in escaped slaves, no matter how repulsive the concept of slavery was to them.

Hardly, there is no moral equivalence. In the case of slavery human rights are being violated. That is not the case in requiring doctors to set aside their religious convictions in the face of the law.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


I care more about women's access to health care than I do about the opinions of doctors.

They already have to follow rules. If they don't like it, they can find some other job. It is just like pacifists joining the army.

Hardly, there is no moral equivalence. In the case of slavery human rights are being violated. That is not the case in requiring doctors to set aside their religious convictions in the face of the law.

So, when fascists take over, and they require only certain philosophy to be taught, you will say 'I quit'? What exactly would you be standing for if you ran so easily?

This takes on the tones of 'my country right or wrong'.

And you miss the real point. The people who object do so because they believe the life to be human, and they do so not necessarily for religious reasons.

[tinyp3nis]

Lots of crazy people believe crazy things. Everyone can have their own opinions, not their own facts.

[Agathon]

So, when fascists take over, and they require only certain philosophy to be taught, you will say 'I quit'? What exactly would you be standing for if you ran so easily?

Nope.

If someone sincerely wishes to appeal to liberal (Rawlsian) principles of justice to ground religious freedoms, they have by that very appeal admitted that liberal principles of justice have primacy over religious beliefs when conflicts occur.

The Liberal conception of justice simply does not permit slavery, so your earlier comparison misses its target.

The religious doctor who refuses to give a person medical treatment because of his or her beliefs acts unjustly because it is within the purvey of liberal principles of justice to require certain actions of people who enter certain professions as a means of ensuring that justice is done to others.

[Agathon]

Of course, I should also add, that it is unjust to force a doctor to act against their religious beliefs when the service can be provided by somebody else. It is only when it cannot be provided by somebody else that the state has the right to compel it.

[Pekka]

if I was woman, I'd be preggo all the time and aborting the mission just to piss of men, who steal the good jobs from me if I was a woman, and who make me sex objects of their desire, and then I also would say I go put something more comfortable on when in reality I would go pee just before kick off and make them go down on me..

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


Nope.

If someone sincerely wishes to appeal to liberal (Rawlsian) principles of justice to ground religious freedoms, they have by that very appeal admitted that liberal principles of justice have primacy over religious beliefs when conflicts occur.

The Liberal conception of justice simply does not permit slavery, so your earlier comparison misses its target.

The religious doctor who refuses to give a person medical treatment because of his or her beliefs acts unjustly because it is within the purvey of liberal principles of justice to require certain actions of people who enter certain professions as a means of ensuring that justice is done to others.

Originally posted by Agathon
Of course, I should also add, that it is unjust to force a doctor to act against their religious beliefs when the service can be provided by somebody else. It is only when it cannot be provided by somebody else that the state has the right to compel it.

What's really funny here is that you are combining arguing for 'liberalism' with overrunning matters of individual conscience. HARR HARR.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


And the state forces its ideology on medical practitioners all the time by preventing them from doing certain things and by making them do certain others.

If people have a problem with this, they shouldn't become doctors.

As I said, compelling people to perform abortions is a last resort, but it is a necessary last resort.

John Irving wrote a good novel about this, called The Cider House Rules.

Forcing doctors to perform abortions is NECESSARY?!!!! --- in order that doctors not force their ideology down on women?

WOW! WOW! WOW!

[Straybow]

Then no problem. But when someone goes to the only hospital in the area and needs an abortion to save their own life, they shouldn't die just because the religious fundamentalist is working that night.

Ectopic pregnancies are the only case that would qualify, and abortion is necessary because neither mother nor baby will survive if nothing is done.