Pro-choicers Deny Doctors Right To Choose Life

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807857' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:15 PM']Sure, but I would like to know what you consider an accecptable range of behavior in this regard. Would you support a doctor not giving an emergency blood transfusion because it was contrary to his moral beliefs?

I don't care so much about that question as figuring out what the range is for you.[/quote]
Your question is an oxymoron.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807846' date='Mar 15 2009, 07:02 PM']With all due respect you and Madam V may wish to stop explaining my motives, beliefs, and tactics to other as neither of you are, let us say, very gifted at discerning them.[/quote]

Madame V is not participating in this thread so there is no reason for you to even mention her. Furthermore, I based my statement off of my observations. For someone who has run into your "tactics" on numerous occasions I can certainly tell you that they are straightforward. No "discerning" necessary.

If you were only curious about "Where do you [Catholics] think we should 'draw the line' when it comes to doctors and their personal moral beliefs" then you would have simply asked that question. No analogy needed. Frankly I believe that question is irrelevant anyway. The discussion here is about ONE moral belief. Doctors should NOT be forced to perform abortions. The article sums it up nicely:

[quote]Doctors who believe that the fetus is also a patient in their care knows that advances in understanding brain development and neo-natal science have shown that the unborn respond to pain by 16 weeks and perhaps as early as 11 or 13 weeks of gestation. [b]Such doctors would obviously be reluctant to refer their tiny patients for a procedure that would cause them indescribable pain[/b] and would rightly reject any policy that requires them to shut their eyes to such realities and write a referral that facilitates abortion.[/quote]

There are [b]two[/b] people here - the mother and the child.

By the way, your reaction to Winchester was completely inappropriate. This is not the Lame Board, this is a serious discussion on an important issue.

[goldenchild17]

I think Hassan's asking a reasonable question. No, the scale of gravity does not compare whatsoever (murder vs. blood transfusion) but if either of them violates ones moral principles then I think its a viable question. In America, whether I agree with it or not, freedom to practice one's religion uninhibited is "supposed" to be one's right, whether that's refusing to perform an abortion or refusing to give a blood transfusion. Typically I tend to think the right to freedom of religion extends as far as it needs to, until it begins to affect another person. In most cases, probably, someone who wants to procure an abortion or a blood transfusion will be able to go to another doctor if one refuses to do so. I'm not so sure how this applies in a smaller locale where only one doctor is available and he refuses to give the service. But in general, if it doesn't affect someone else, a person should be permitted to refuse something that goes against their beliefs.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1807903' date='Mar 15 2009, 07:38 PM']Your question is an oxymoron.[/quote]


How exactly?

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1807905' date='Mar 15 2009, 07:39 PM']Madame V is not participating in this thread so there is no reason for you to even mention her.[/quote]

You and her are "tight" and you both have an unfortunate habit of explaining to other my motivations, beliefs etc. I only say unfortunate because neither of you were at all good at it. If it were accurate I would not care but when you sound off about what you believe to be my point or motive and incorrectly explain it to someone else I have to go back and correct it. Or get stuck in another inane argument

[quote]Furthermore, I based my statement off of my observations.[/quote]

I have no doubt it was, unfortunatly your ability to shift through the data you observe and from that draw a correct conclusion, in this regard, is not of the highest caliber.

[quote]For someone who has run into your "tactics" on numerous occasions I can certainly tell you that they are straightforward. No "discerning" necessary.[/quote]


I also feel they are straight foreward, in fact I very straight forewardly explained my tactic on the other page. There should be no reason to have this absurd argument other than your somewhat arrogant, and quite unfounded, assertion that I am a liar whose true motives and tactics are contrary to what I have claimed, but which you are able to correctly discern.

[quote]If you were only curious about "Where do you [Catholics] think we should 'draw the line' when it comes to doctors and their personal moral beliefs" then you would have simply asked that question. No analogy needed.[/quote]

[i]Unless she just told me. But people (myself included) rarely give an truely accurate picture that way. [/i]

secondly, once again, it was not an analogy.

[quote]Frankly I believe that question is irrelevant anyway. The discussion here is about ONE moral belief.[/quote]

Why do you feel able to dictate what the appropiate range of relevancy of a given topic is?


[quote]Doctors should NOT be forced to perform abortions. The article sums it up nicely:



There are [b]two[/b] people here - the mother and the child.[/quote]

So you believe.

[quote]By the way, your reaction to Winchester was completely inappropriate. This is not the Lame Board, this is a serious discussion on an important issue.[/quote]

And some people can discuss a serious topic while at the same time trying to throw in a bit of fun or light humor. Otherwise unfortunate thing like, I ono, tedious and inane arguments over some absurd side issue ight pop up. You are not a mod, Church Militant etc. There are individuals who are posting on this thread. If any of them feel like I am inappropiate I will imediatly stop.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Hassan

[Nihil Obstat]

Sometimes I hate living in Canada.

[Hassan]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1807907' date='Mar 15 2009, 07:40 PM']In most cases, probably, someone who wants to procure an abortion or a blood transfusion will be able to go to another doctor if one refuses to do so. I'm not so sure how this applies in a smaller locale where only one doctor is available and he refuses to give the service. But in general, if it doesn't affect someone else, a person should be permitted to refuse something that goes against their beliefs.[/quote]


I would generally agree with this. If a doctor does not wish to perform an abortion and there are willing doctors around to do it I would hope that doctor would never be forced to violate their beliefs. If a Muslim or Jewish doctor doe not want to be involved in an operation where pig organs are used I feel this is reasonable. But what an individual would die without such an operation and the only qualified doctor avaliable is a Muslim or Jew? Or if a young, raped Brazilian girl is about to go into labour which will probably kill her and the avaliable doctor is Catholic?

Where is the balance between a doctors right to hold practice their beliefs and a patients right to receive medical care? The Muslim, Jew and Catholic were not just random individuals forced into the situation. They invested a great deal of time and money to become doctors in a country where practices they consider immoral are allowed in the medical field. I do that there is some responsibility on their part here.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807956' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:02 PM']I also feel they are straight foreward, in fact I very straight forewardly explained my tactic on the other page. There should be no reason to have this absurd argument other than your somewhat arrogant, and quite unfounded, assertion that I am a liar whose true motives and tactics are contrary to what I have claimed, but which you are able to correctly discern.[/quote]

Oh, this would be another typical "tactic" of yours: Sugar-coating a personal attack, putting words in my mouth, [i]and[/i] pouting like the victim (which you always are, of course).

And by the way, a "bit of fun" or "light humor" is a witty phrase tacked onto the end of a serious point, not a post dedicated to random exaggerations, kittens, or "Sultan Hassan."

To those interested, I thought that the end of the article really drove the point home:

[quote]This has now led us to doctors being forced to subjugate what is best for women's health to women's rights. It's abortion on demand-- but is it really what we want?[/quote]

It makes me think. Pro-choicers claim that the right to "choose" IS in the women's best interests, but are they ACTUALLY [b]more[/b] concerned with their agenda?

[rose wrought of iron]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1808031' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:42 PM']It makes me think. Pro-choicers claim that the right to "choose" IS in the women's best interests, but are they ACTUALLY [b]more[/b] concerned with their agenda?[/quote]
Well obviously they are more concerned with their agenda. There are a lot of women who don't understand the risks of getting an abortion, or the mental side-effects that come with it. If they aren't willing to accept the fact that abortion is murder, they need to at least understand what they are doing to themselves - and most abortion clinics don't really explain the dangers involved.

Edited March 16, 2009 by rose wrought of iron

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1808031' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:42 PM']Oh, this would be another typical "tactic" of yours: Sugar-coating a personal attack, putting words in my mouth, [i]and[/i] pouting like the victim (which you always are, of course).[/quote]

There was no sugar coating, word putting in mouthing, or pouting.

I told you exactly how I felt about the topic, I don't se any words I put in your mouth, and I certianly don't consider myself victimized by your somewhat sad attempt to divine a secret motive behind my very straight foreward description of what I was trying to acom.plish

[quote]And by the way, a "bit of fun" or "light humor" is a witty phrase tacked onto the end of a serious point, not a post dedicated to random exaggerations, kittens, or "Sultan Hassan."[/quote]

Well thank you mod Erin.

As I said, if a mod, or anyone trusted with enforcing the forum rules considers it inappropiate I will drop it.



[quote]To those interested, I thought that the end of the article really drove the point home:



It makes me think. Pro-choicers claim that the right to "choose" IS in the women's best interests, but are they ACTUALLY [b]more[/b] concerned with their agenda?[/quote]


Considering over one hundred and fifty million Americans are, to some degree, pro choic, I'd think it a bit silly to try and assign all of them some uniform motive.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='rose wrought of iron' post='1808047' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:52 PM']Well obviously they are more concerned with their agenda. There are a lot of women who don't understand the risks of getting an abortion, or the mental side-effects that come with it. If they aren't willing to accept the fact that abortion is murder, they need to at least understand what they are doing to themselves - [b]and most abortion clinics don't really explain the dangers involved.[/b][/quote]

And this is [b]one[/b] of the reasons why FOCA is so disturbing, by the way.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1808052' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:56 PM']There was no sugar coating, word putting in mouthing, or pouting.

I told you exactly how I felt about the topic, [b]I don't se any words I put in your mouth[/b], and I certianly don't consider myself victimized by your somewhat sad attempt to divine a secret motive behind my very straight foreward description of what I was trying to acom.plish

Well thank you mod Erin. [/quote]

Look harder, William.

[quote]As I said, if a mod, or anyone trusted with enforcing the forum rules considers it inappropiate I will drop it.[/quote]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=91646"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=91646[/url]

[MissyP89]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1808031' date='Mar 15 2009, 08:42 PM']It makes me think. Pro-choicers claim that the right to "choose" IS in the women's best interests, but are they ACTUALLY [b]more[/b] concerned with their agenda?[/quote]

From the executive director of an abortion clinic:

"We in the movement, those of us in the clinics at the beginning, were so caught up in the early euphoria about winning a right to an abortion, we weren't listening to what the patients were saying. They weren't talking about abortion in the same way we were. They weren't talking about the constitution or women's rights. And many of them weren't talking about a bunch of cells, either. They might call it 'my baby,' even though they were firm about going through with the procedure. Many of them expressed relief, but many also talked about sadness and loss. And we weren't paying attention."

I think you have your answer, Erin.

More here: [url="http://post-gazette.com/pg/04020/263254.stm"]http://post-gazette.com/pg/04020/263254.stm[/url]

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807815' date='Mar 15 2009, 06:02 PM']How would you feel about a Jehova's Whitness doctor being allowed to refuse to give you an emergency blood transfusion because it violated his or her moral principals?[/quote]

Not hardly the same thing. The overwhelming majority of abortions are not life-saving, as a blood transfusion is. And even those abortions that are "life-saving" do not have to be performed by a doctor with a conscience clause against performing them. Abortions have to be scheduled, regardless of what they are for. No one gets rushed to the ER to have an abortion. A woman wanting an abortion for a so-called life-saving reason can schedule with a doctor willing to perform abortions. There are plenty of them. Forcing doctors to do them who don't want to do them is disgusting and fascist.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807820' date='Mar 15 2009, 06:09 PM']ok, a doctor who, for whatever reason, believes blood transfusions are gravely immoral.[/quote]


Good luck finding such a doctor to support your nonsensical argument which you are creating for no other reason than...to argue. Your devil's advocate tactics are tired and played out, really. Especially when you have to invent near-impossible scenarios to support your argument.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1807824' date='Mar 15 2009, 06:14 PM']I wasn't trying to craft an analogy.[/quote]


Of course you were. Next time just try crafting one that would actually work in the real world, not in a fantasy world.