Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/19/08 04:33 AM, fli wrote:

At 8/19/08 04:23 AM, Phobotech wrote: I agree, but at the same time there are doctors out there that have had decades of important experience in the field that hold strong belief that they are doing what is right for their patient. They're the doctors...so trust them.

It's one thing to trust them because they're decision is based on medical opinion. But it's another if it's based on their religious background.

Right = "You can't use birth control because it will give you a heart attack."
Wrong = "You can't use birth control because it prevents God's Will from happening."

Well that's just retarded. Okay, fine, yes. I now realize the main point of discussion with this topic is about something as idiotic as that, and I agree that there should be a "Separation of Church and Medical Care."

Like how Scientologists won't get medicine for their sick baby who could use that medicine to avoid a very easily avoidable death. Stupid. Just stupid.

At 8/19/08 02:30 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:29 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:23 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You just gotta find it, love it and protect it.

No point running a race you know you're going to lose.

Like you've got a choice.

Of course I have a choice.

There's no reason to search for something that you're not going to find.

At 8/19/08 05:03 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:30 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:29 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:23 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You just gotta find it, love it and protect it.

No point running a race you know you're going to lose.

Like you've got a choice.

Of course I have a choice.

There's no reason to search for something that you're not going to find.

"I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
~ Isaac Asimov

At 8/18/08 03:38 PM, fli wrote: Or providing birth control to very young women, the possibility of euthanasia, offering fertility services to the LGBT community, and all sorts of situations where their decision to refuse treatment will affect the health of the patient.

How does stopping gay people from reproducing qualify as effecting somebody's health?

At 8/18/08 08:13 PM, n64kid wrote: You don't remember what you wrote, do you?

No; you're equating what I wrote with what he wrote. I support his general arguement but I do not support the example of abortion as in cases where it is not medically relevant there are clinics in existance.

How incoherent can you be? You're all over the place with this while ignoring the focal point of the thread. (BTW, GPs? You're obviously not from the states.)

The focal point of the thread is that doctors willing to put their own morals before the wellbeing of their patients should not be doctors. Abortion was an example; albeit a flawed one in my opinion. It's possible to agree with an arguement but not the paticulars; if I meant abortion I'd have explicitly mentioned it.

Except they are.

Well that's very enlightening, pray continue.

Lol I think I struck a chord with you.

I dislike being called an idiot by someone who lacks basic reading comprehension; I would remind you who started resorting to ad hominems first.

EVERY ARGUMENT YOU WROTE GOES BOTH WAYS AND NULLS ITSELF.

You said :

That is not his stance at all as I've already demonstrated. It is not a doctor's perogative to choose whom they treat or what for; if one disagrees with birth control that IS their perogative but the moment that is allowed to interfere with one's work (especially work which directly impacts people's lives) one is in the wrong field.

Bad argument, no substance to it, and it's wrong. Doctors do choose their fields, but sometimes doctors of those fields perform abortions. So should all doctors in those fields be obligated to perform abortions? Hell no. It doesn't work like that for any other profession I can think of (law, accounting, transportation) So why should doctors be the only ones subjected to such a thing?

If those abortions are medically relevant, yes. I really can't see the flaw in the arguement that doctors are obliged to treat patients whether they have a moral issue with a treatment or otherwise. It implies that the doctor cares more about their beliefs than the wellbeing of those in their care which is the very antithesis of medicine.

Oh and in law people are called to defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent; if a lawyer is unwilling to do the best for their client whatever the circumstances they shouldn't be a lawyer. As for accountancy and transportation they are not even remotely analogous.

You said:

Why should the patient have to look around when it is the responsibility of any doctor to put their morals behind their proffesional duty?

Why should a doctor have to be forced to treat a patient when the patient bears responsibility of unplanned prevention and safe sex. Why should the doctor put aside their beliefs to kill a child because of someone elses irresponsibility?

Again: I do not believe medically irrelevent abortions are a fitting example for obvious reasons.

Frankly if one is not prepared to act impartially in an area where one help members of all creeds, races and beliefs and in all manner of situations then one is not prepared to accept the responsibility of being a physician.

That's not an obligation of doctors. If you added for a patients well being, then it is in most circumstances but what you wrote, along with everything else you wrote is weak, vague, and beating around the bush. If I ask my doctor for medical marijuana, he'll deny it to me because I don't need it. An abortion because it is wanted is the same way, if the abortion was needed to save a life, that would be different, but the argument at hand is forcing a doctor to perform an unnecessary operation against his/her own will.-Which is unlawful in the USA.

My point isn't vague in the slightest; what on earth is vague about doctors, by merit of their proffession, being obligated to treat their patient whatever their beliefs? You see, it IS an obligation; that's the very point of the Hippocratic oath (both ancient and modern varieties). You keep positing very inept anologies (if I have to explain why medical marijuana is irrelevent you are beyond hope) and then saying how silly the arguement is. I'll repeat once more for your benefit: reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, either address my actual arguement honestly or don't bother at all.

I'd argue that you're so very obsessed with abortion because otherwise there is no reasonable arguement for your side. That or you have difficult grasping large concepts.

im a hardcore christen and totally agenst wat u say. the bible donsnt say not to give some one birth control, or even talk them out of it. only be a good example maby say something like "i was a virgin until i was married" or "you know this dosnt protect from aids right" if they act negatively dont push it, just use good behavior, and hope the holly spirit makes he/she feel guilty, and stop.

At 8/19/08 05:03 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:30 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:29 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:23 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You just gotta find it, love it and protect it.

No point running a race you know you're going to lose.

Like you've got a choice.

Of course I have a choice.

Then don't get too upset when others try to make real their dreams.

There's no reason to search for something that you're not going to find.

There's no reason to be overly pessimistic and defeatist.

At 8/19/08 06:26 AM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: How does stopping gay people from reproducing qualify as effecting somebody's health?

Granted, but the fact is, it's within their right to do so. That's what the government holds up and, unless it's a private practice, it's not the doctor's decision to make. If he doesn't like it, he can set up his own practice where he gets to choose the procedures he will do and which he don't.

He's not paid to legislate or to be the sole determinate of his clinic or hospital's policy.

At 8/19/08 03:35 AM, fli wrote: No, several circumstances happened in California about teenage girls trying to get the morning after pill (they had the children, and one girl's parents are trying to sue the few pharmacies...) And there's a case where a 26 year old woman who'se doctor just would not give her the pill because he believed the pill disrupted God's plan.

Then there's yesterday's news where two lesbians got rejected from a fertility clinic for insemination (the doctor didn't believe that gays couldn't raise children or something like that), and the Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

.... so that's enough instances for you to call for every doctor in the nation who has religious convictions (as cited by a previous poster, well over 75% of them) to step down from their posts?

Over-react much?

At 8/19/08 04:18 AM, fli wrote: But why do people even need to do that?

Because our medical industry is not government run as it is in countries where socialized health care is the norm, so you have the ability to go to whichever doctor you so wish to see. Besides, driving another mile down the road to see another doctor and spreading the word that he/she doesn't support your lifestyle is FAR cheaper than taking the fucker to court.

At 8/19/08 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote: .... so that's enough instances for you to call for every doctor in the nation who has religious convictions (as cited by a previous poster, well over 75% of them) to step down from their posts?

Over-react much?

The thread title is misleading and exaggerates the point. He's just saying that doctors should have a higher obligation to their job than to their beliefs because, by holding their beliefs above their jobs, they're forcing those beliefs on everyone, sometimes to the detriment of their civil rights and their health. It's not that Christians shouldn't be doctors; it's that they should be doctors first and Christians second.

One reason: It's a private practice.

As a result, they should be given the same ability to deny service to anyone based on circumstance, just like every other fast food joint.

"We reserve the right to refuse service ect.."

Besides, by refusing to do so, they are keeping the Constitution in mind. Because abortion is neither legal nor illegal by the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court on Roe V. Wade, did not act by the Constitution by legalizing abortion across every state.

You can not claim that someone is "unconstitutional" or "illegal by the Constitution" when the Constitution does not legalize or illegalize it. Which is why there are rules set in place in the Constitution that allows the people to propose amendments, which require 3/4 of the states to ratify, for it to become law.

In other words: The liberals cheated by using the Supreme Court in an unconstitutional manner to subvert the very constitution they claim to hold so dear, especially in these times.

Also, I do find it rather humorous that the same group of people who call 'homosexuality natural', are the same group of people who also say that 'pregnancy is an illness'. Those two may be spun by them so they do not contradict, but I bet they wouldn't take too kindly to my saying "homosexuality is an illness".

At 8/19/08 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote: One reason: It's a private practice.

Again, that's the only place this is acceptable. I've been over this twice.

If it's not THEIR clinic or hospital, they don't get to make the call. That's the job of the board of directors or the president or whoever is in charge. If they're not the sole decision maker, then they do the job they signed up to do.

Bottom line.

Also, I do find it rather humorous that the same group of people who call 'homosexuality natural', are the same group of people who also say that 'pregnancy is an illness'. Those two may be spun by them so they do not contradict, but I bet they wouldn't take too kindly to my saying "homosexuality is an illness".

What? I've never heard anyone describe pregnancy as an illness.

At 8/19/08 06:26 AM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: How does stopping gay people from reproducing qualify as effecting somebody's health?

I'm talking about the whole issues...
For example, some years ago, either the 80s or early 90s, some doctors pushed some effort to stop gays from getting anti-viral medications for their HIV and AIDS because... apparently... they didn't want to intervene the Will of God, or because they felt they didn't want to aid the LGBT because they don't agree with it, etc...

And what is more, this case isn't only about health... but CAPACITY for living. In that case where those Lesbians won, well duh... when the doctor imposed his views on them, he also tried to hinder their capacity to live.

Point is-- if I go to you as my doctor, then you treat me as your patient. And if can't treat me, provide me a service, or whatever... the reason for that should strictly be medical in nature.

At 8/19/08 02:01 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

By saving their life the doc is giving him a chance at redemption. Or to repeat offend.

Ok so doctors should DEFINITELY never save someone who's saved and about to die.That person might damn himself later on, so the last thing you want to do is save them.

So christian doctors should basically only treat non-christians.

Think of it like a club.

Yes I know christians are mostly stupid sheep who don't really care or believe any of the bullshit they pretend to believe in, who don't read their bible and who only put in the minimal amount of work and compliance as they feel is necessary to be a "good christian". Christians are probably the shittiest religious people on the planet.
Muslims are way more commited and so are Jews. Mormons too, and they're way better people overall.
Christians really suck when it comes to their faith. This thread is just one more example. Any christian who actually understands and believes his religion would never become a doctor.

At 8/19/08 02:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Because heaven isn't suffering.
I know this no differently than I know pillows are soft and vaginas feel good.

Wow I didn't know you didn't sleep on a pillow.
Might want to try it, you seem tired and have difficulty to concentrate.

At 8/19/08 03:43 AM, homor wrote:

honestly, i don't know how to reply to tha
but it IS an idiotic statment, but you know what? i'll leave it at that.

homor, you're a little shit that no one on here takes seriously.
I wonder if you'll stay the 10 years it would require your brain to become smart to the point where it's actually worth trying to have a conversation with you.

Until then, go back to the Troll island with your pall Shaggy.

At 8/19/08 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote:

As a result, they should be given the same ability to deny service to anyone based on circumstance, just like every other fast food joint.

That's true.
I support white-only doctors. Good argument.

Like if there was a dude who was brought to my hospital and he was mexican and about to die, I'd be like "fuck you, whites only" and I'll be damned if any old law is going to prevent me from doing so!

Also, I do find it rather humorous that the same group of people who call 'homosexuality natural', are the same group of people who also say that 'pregnancy is an illness'.

Who the fuck says "pregnancy is an illness"??
Do you own like, every Chick Tract ever printed?

At 8/19/08 09:09 AM, Pontificate wrote:

No; you're equating what I wrote with what he wrote. I support his general arguement but I do not support the example of abortion as in cases where it is not medically relevant there are clinics in existance.

You never said otherwise.

The focal point of the thread is that doctors willing to put their own morals before the wellbeing of their patients should not be doctors. Abortion was an example; albeit a flawed one in my opinion. It's possible to agree with an arguement but not the paticulars; if I meant abortion I'd have explicitly mentioned it.

That was not what I was talking about, why don't you take my advice and reread what you wrote.

I dislike being called an idiot by someone who lacks basic reading comprehension; I would remind you who started resorting to ad hominems first.

Cute, how short sided can you be...... you fail to prove how I lack basic reading comprehension when I made a direct analogy to what Fli said, which is totally correct, but atleast you reminded me that you, were in fact, the first person to start with the ad hominems. So allow me to atleast acknowledge you for being honest. Kudos.

If those abortions are medically relevant, yes. I really can't see the flaw in the arguement that doctors are obliged to treat patients whether they have a moral issue with a treatment or otherwise. It implies that the doctor cares more about their beliefs than the wellbeing of those in their care which is the very antithesis of medicine.

Thank you.

Oh and in law people are called to defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent; if a lawyer is unwilling to do the best for their client whatever the circumstances they shouldn't be a lawyer. As for accountancy and transportation they are not even remotely analogous.

-sigh- here we go again. In law, a lawyer can refuse his legal services to anyone. Someone wrongfully hurt? The personal injury attorney can turn them down. Someone simply being rude? Denying service is ok. And what is this claim that if a lawyer is unwilling to do the best then they shouldn't be a lawyer? You obviously don't know much about the legal system. If they're unwilling, they wouldn't have taken the case from the start. And don't get me started on what public attorneys can do. Accountants and transportation were just examples of service refusal based on morals, beliefs, and sets of privately held rules, if you can't see how it's analogous, your inference sucks.

My point isn't vague in the slightest; what on earth is vague about doctors, by merit of their proffession, being obligated to treat their patient whatever their beliefs? You see, it IS an obligation; that's the very point of the Hippocratic oath (both ancient and modern varieties).

The topic was about doctors using their beliefs to deny care to patients, and not one circumstance had the patients health or well being at risk. How does the modern Hippocratic oath obligate doctors to go against their judgments, religion, or beliefs to treat patients that do not require medical attention. Please inform yourself on what the Hippocratic oath states before claiming an obligation.

You keep positing very inept anologies (if I have to explain why medical marijuana is irrelevent you are beyond hope) and then saying how silly the arguement is.

Again with the bluntness... what's required to stabilize health and what's wanted are two different things, and you haven't shown me you can distinguish between wants and needs, which is relevant to the topic.

I'll repeat once more for your benefit: reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, either address my actual arguement honestly or don't bother at all.

Lololololololollersk8s
You're a joke. A reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy but a strong argument and I addressed what little argument you had and showed doctors are not and should not be obligated to go against their will in performing non critical operations. Stop trying to go over my head with false claims, it's getting very annoying.

I'd argue that you're so very obsessed with abortion because otherwise there is no reasonable arguement for your side. That or you have difficult grasping large concepts.

LOL, you're more pathetic than I thought. The claims of the doctors right to refuse attention work with everything listed by the OP. And I see you have no difficulty grasping large concepts (seriously though, get your hand out of there).

At 8/19/08 03:12 PM, fli wrote:

At 8/19/08 06:26 AM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: How does stopping gay people from reproducing qualify as effecting somebody's health?

I'm talking about the whole issues...
For example, some years ago, either the 80s or early 90s, some doctors pushed some effort to stop gays from getting anti-viral medications for their HIV and AIDS because... apparently... they didn't want to intervene the Will of God, or because they felt they didn't want to aid the LGBT because they don't agree with it, etc...

This is a different situation from not performing abortions or supplying birth control. Failing to supply AIDS patients with medication is tantamount to condemning them to suffering and an early death. Birth control and abortions (with rare exceptions) won't save your life, but if you have AIDS antiretrovirals will for the time being.

At 8/19/08 04:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:01 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

By saving their life the doc is giving him a chance at redemption. Or to repeat offend.

Ok so doctors should DEFINITELY never save someone who's saved and about to die.That person might damn himself later on, so the last thing you want to do is save them.

Nah, they should save the good guys too in order to facilitate the continuation of their good works.

So christian doctors should basically only treat non-christians.

Quit telling people who they should treat for what; it's up to them to decide.

Think of it like a club.

Yes I know christians are mostly stupid sheep

Just think of it like a club.

Muslims are way more commited and so are Jews. Mormons too, and they're way better people overall.

Yeah, that's correct. Mormons pawn the shit out of atheists.

Christians really suck when it comes to their faith. This thread is just one more example. Any christian who actually understands and believes his religion would never become a doctor.

Glad to know you're the authority on religious belief systems and their impact on a free society.

Oh wait.

At 8/19/08 02:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Because heaven isn't suffering.
I know this no differently than I know pillows are soft and vaginas feel good.

Wow I didn't know you didn't sleep on a pillow.

I sleep on your mother.

Might want to try it, you seem tired and have difficulty to concentrate.

It's not too hard to figure out, give it another shot. Maybe if I add science in there somewhere you'll get it to click? Maybe.

Science defines agony and pain and suffering under a nice little blanket of synonyms.

Heaven isn't a synonym for any of those.

Can you please write your name in cursive on the top of paper now? rabblerabblerabbleatheistismisSOc00L&hip LOLrofl

At 8/19/08 04:45 PM, n64kid wrote: You never said otherwise.

I would have hoped not mentioning abortion and speaking in generalities would be enough. I admit I may have been remiss in not making that more explicit however.

That was not what I was talking about, why don't you take my advice and reread what you wrote.

I know what I wrote; apparently you do not.

Cute, how short sided can you be...... you fail to prove how I lack basic reading comprehension when I made a direct analogy to what Fli said, which is totally correct, but atleast you reminded me that you, were in fact, the first person to start with the ad hominems. So allow me to atleast acknowledge you for being honest. Kudos.

The first to start? Kindly point out who was rude to whom first.

Thank you.

This is where reading comprehension comes in: I'm disagreeing with you.

-sigh- here we go again. In law, a lawyer can refuse his legal services to anyone. Someone wrongfully hurt? The personal injury attorney can turn them down. Someone simply being rude? Denying service is ok. And what is this claim that if a lawyer is unwilling to do the best then they shouldn't be a lawyer? You obviously don't know much about the legal system. If they're unwilling, they wouldn't have taken the case from the start. And don't get me started on what public attorneys can do. Accountants and transportation were just examples of service refusal based on morals, beliefs, and sets of privately held rules, if you can't see how it's analogous, your inference sucks.

The analogies are flawed because their natures are very different; denying service is one thing but does denying someone your service as an accountant or a pilot/driver/whatever impact someone in as powerful and personal a manner? No. There is a reason the Hippocratic oath exists in the first place: doctors have a great responsibility to their patients.

The topic was about doctors using their beliefs to deny care to patients, and not one circumstance had the patients health or well being at risk. How does the modern Hippocratic oath obligate doctors to go against their judgments, religion, or beliefs to treat patients that do not require medical attention. Please inform yourself on what the Hippocratic oath states before claiming an obligation.

Well for one thing the fact the Hippocratic oath exists implies a powerful obligation. For another try: 'I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required', or 'But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.' or '
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.' or even 'I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

Again with the bluntness... what's required to stabilize health and what's wanted are two different things, and you haven't shown me you can distinguish between wants and needs, which is relevant to the topic.

Prevention is better than a cure; I dare you to defy otherwise. I understand the difference but you seem to focus on the one aspect of abortion as if I had mentioned it.

Lololololololollersk8s
You're a joke. A reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy but a strong argument and I addressed what little argument you had and showed doctors are not and should not be obligated to go against their will in performing non critical operations. Stop trying to go over my head with false claims, it's getting very annoying.

A joke than only you seem to find funny; I believe there is a term for one who laughs for no particular reason. Oh yes, a fool. Still, there is none wiser than a fool, right? Reductio ad absurdum is only a strong arguement when used properly: your conclusions are based on false premises. Ergo you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Ya digg?

I'm not attempting to get over your head; the obvious joke would be that I do not need to 'attempt' anything however I shall just say that those who attempt to appeal to a phantom higher intelligence are almost as annoying as those who claim others are to soothe their temper.

LOL, you're more pathetic than I thought. The claims of the doctors right to refuse attention work with everything listed by the OP. And I see you have no difficulty grasping large concepts (seriously though, get your hand out of there).

Your arguement with Fli is your own; don't equate the particulars of mine with his.

At 8/19/08 10:34 AM, kokoromon wrote: im a hardcore christen and totally agenst wat u say. the bible donsnt say not to give some one birth control, or even talk them out of it.

If you can't point out verses that support it, don't bother saying anything about what The Bible says.

only be a good example maby say something like "i was a virgin until i was married" or "you know this dosnt protect from aids right" if they act negatively dont push it, just use good behavior,

I disagree. Why should people wait until marriage if they truly love each other. You don't need your love to be "official" in the eyes of the Church.

and hope the holly spirit makes he/she feel guilty, and stop.

The guilt never stops in religion. What a shame. Guilt, guilt, and more guilt. And we wonder why people put bullets in their brains and the like.

At 8/19/08 04:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

That's true.
I support white-only doctors. Good argument.

Like if there was a dude who was brought to my hospital and he was mexican and about to die, I'd be like "fuck you, whites only" and I'll be damned if any old law is going to prevent me from doing so!

They don't say "no" because they are women.
They don't say "no" because they are black.
They don't say "no" because of economic status.

Saying "no" because someone isn't 'white' is discriminatory, and being a woman and/or black is not under a person's control.

Therefore, their saying "no" to an abortion, is not based on a discriminatory mindset (the likes of which you're attempting to put forth).

Also, pregnancy is perfectly natural human quality. It's not an illness.

And considering how divided people are on abortion measures, I'd hardly call condemnation towards an individual for not wishing to participate in abortions, especially when it's only legal across every state due to an Unconstitutional decision in 1973.

Who the fuck says "pregnancy is an illness"??
Do you own like, every Chick Tract ever printed?

Doctors treat what? Illnesses.

Women come in for an abortion because why?

It's certainly not unnatural. It's certainly not a disease. It's procreation; which, last I checked, kept the species going.

And in most cases, it will not cause death and it was typically brought about by her own actions.

Therefore, abortion (most abortions) do not fit the criteria for any illness or handicap for which to obtain an abortion.

Yet, women are allowed to have them under any circumstance or reason they desire; even teenagers whose parents do not have to be notified.

As a result, the very act of most abortions can only be justified by the comparison of pregnancy (fetus being a parasite, disease, totally dependant upon the mother) to an illness.

At 8/19/08 02:10 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

What? I've never heard anyone describe pregnancy as an illness.

If pregnancy isn't an illness, then why is it treated even if the mother's life is not threatend?

At 8/19/08 07:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:10 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

What? I've never heard anyone describe pregnancy as an illness.

If pregnancy isn't an illness, then why is it treated even if the mother's life is not threatend?

I wouldn't consider a broken arm an illness but it's treated. Maybe you want to rephrase that question to Gunter?

At 8/19/08 06:34 PM, Pontificate wrote:

I would have hoped not mentioning abortion and speaking in generalities would be enough. I admit I may have been remiss in not making that more explicit however.

Enough with abortion, it's denying a request to someone who is not ill because it conflicts with the doctors morals. Abortion is just an easier example because LGBT operations are a far more touchy subject.

I know what I wrote; apparently you do not.

Blah blah blah.

The first to start? Kindly point out who was rude to whom first.

You called into question my analogies which were perfectly fine with what I was dealt with and then. Then you called me dim after I told you that your practically nonexistent arguments suck. You attacked my post first then went after me personally first.

This is where reading comprehension comes in: I'm disagreeing with you.

I'm calling into question your reading comprehension because obviously you have room to improve. I know what you wrote and that's where we DO agree............. If it's medically relevant, then people should put value and morals aside and treat the patient. For the reasons listed by the OP, they are not medical and only personal requests. Do you know the difference yet?

The analogies are flawed because their natures are very different; denying service is one thing but does denying someone your service as an accountant or a pilot/driver/whatever impact someone in as powerful and personal a manner? No. There is a reason the Hippocratic oath exists in the first place: doctors have a great responsibility to their patients.

You put a doctor ahead of every profession with disregard to similar practices of other industries? Lawyers have to pass the Bar, and have to abide by the rules and regulation of their association. Lawyers have control of helping to protect the innocent and can deny service for almost any reason. Accountants have the Uniform Certified Public Accountant Examination to become CPAs, and can refuse to represent clients during an audit, refuse tax service, refuse financial advisory, all which affect quality of life and well being.

You continue to write posts with little substance. Saying the hippocratic oath exists because doctors have a great responsibility to their patients is analogous to lawyers having bar associations. Both patients and clients depend on professional help, both doctors and lawyers have control over more than their personal life, yet for some weird reason you cannot see this. It's true, deal with it. The analogy is not flawed just because you don't know that doctors perform a service as well and other professions have similar codes of ethics.

Well for one thing the fact the Hippocratic oath exists implies a powerful obligation. For another try: 'I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required', or 'But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.' or '
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.' or even 'I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

So how does the hippocratic oath come into question at times when the patient isn't sick. How could you justify purposely taking a life during an abortion while still being true to the oath?

Prevention is better than a cure; I dare you to defy otherwise. I understand the difference but you seem to focus on the one aspect of abortion as if I had mentioned it.

Prevention is better than cure does not contradict anything I have said. Why the hell did you write it? I haven't the slightest clue why you've decided to waste my time by saying this. Please prove to me you understand medical operations because they are wanted versus necessary medical operations, then categorize the OPs claims under each, then use the hippocratic oath to justify why a doctor should be forced to go against his/her will.

Go on.

A joke than only you seem to find funny;

Yes, I think you're very funny.

I believe there is a term for one who laughs for no particular reason. Oh yes, a fool.

Good thing I have a solid reason.

Reductio ad absurdum is only a strong arguement when used properly: your conclusions are based on false premises. Ergo you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Ya digg?

My conclusions that abortions that are not required for emergency purposes aren't needed but wanted are based on false premises? Premises that you have failed to either address or prove wrong? I think you're engaging in idiocracy. Ya digg?

and now this is getting even more better

Hippocratic oath does not force doctors to treat patients that don't have health sensitive issues.

Prove otherwise.

I'm not attempting to get over your head; the obvious joke would be that I do not need to 'attempt' anything however I shall just say that those who attempt to appeal to a phantom higher intelligence are almost as annoying as those who claim others are to soothe their temper.

So this has something to do with the topic..... how?

Your arguement with Fli is your own; don't equate the particulars of mine with his.

I still don't get if you're trying to troll me or if you think you've presented your own argument. So far you've just called into question the legitimacy of my analogies without providing any substance nor prove them wrong, you just fail to see a connection. Then you keep telling me that my conclusion is off and go on some wild tangent that doesn't prove anything you've said. You're repeatedly ignored my requests of how the hippocratic oath applies to cases where the patient isn't sick or in need of medical attention, and you show no promise in doing so.

At 8/19/08 07:30 PM, Memorize wrote:

Therefore, their saying "no" to an abortion, is not based on a discriminatory mindset (the likes of which you're attempting to put forth).

Dude your argument is still retarded.
Hey "no jews".
"no accountants".
"no immigrants"

Plus now you're setting yourself up to have to try and figure out when something is someone's fault and when it's not.
Hmmmm this kid is jewish..but he's a kid.. hmmm should I treat him?
Hmmm this woman was raped... but it's an abortion... but she'll die...

That's just nonsense. Doctors aren't there to pass stupid moral judgments on people, they're there to treat as many people as possible. That's what you sign up for when you're a doctor, there's laws, there's regulations and no, you can't do whatever the fuck you want.

Doctors treat what? Illnesses.

Haha welcome to the black and white world of memorize.
Plus this has nothing to do with abortion and I don't want to get into that.

My points were about how the bible doesn't paint a picture that tells people to be doctors at all, unless you do like every christian and just read 1-2 lines and pretend like you really know your shit.

At 8/19/08 07:47 PM, poxpower wrote: That's just nonsense. Doctors aren't there to pass stupid moral judgments on people, they're there to treat as many people as possible. That's what you sign up for when you're a doctor, there's laws, there's regulations and no, you can't do whatever the fuck you want.

Beautifully put, took the words right out of my mouth.

i most heartily agree dobry den Tovarishen

Legally speaking, doctors do have the right, not the privilege, of whether or not they themselves will execute an abortion.

The SCOTUS wrote that it's up to the major disciplines of science, philosophy and theology to try to determine when life begins. Since the Hippocratic oath binds doctors to perform their duties to the best of their abilities, it's NOT required that they violate their interpretation of what constitutes "life".

Cue poxpower to go all askew on how he could interpret the Hippocratic oath to kill black people because they just harm everybody else anyways.

Man those kinds of posts are just stellar.

At 8/19/08 10:03 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Cue poxpower to go all askew on how he could interpret the Hippocratic oath to kill black people because they just harm everybody else anyways.

You're the idiot who somehow turned this entire thing about simply abortion when the topic isn't about that at all.

God why do I bother with you, you're no smarter than shaggy anyways.

At 8/19/08 10:47 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Then don't get too upset when others try to make real their dreams.

What? Make real their dreams? That doesn't make sense.

There's no reason to search for something that you're not going to find.

There's no reason to be overly pessimistic and defeatist.

It's not overly pessimism it's a logical guess.

At 8/19/08 07:41 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 8/19/08 07:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/19/08 02:10 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

What? I've never heard anyone describe pregnancy as an illness.

If pregnancy isn't an illness, then why is it treated even if the mother's life is not threatend?

I wouldn't consider a broken arm an illness but it's treated. Maybe you want to rephrase that question to Gunter?

Well I think that sums it up neatly.

Not all procedures treat illnesses. There are all kinds of optional surgeries that doctors perform all the time in hospitals. You can guarantee that refusing to perform those procedures only because they "don't believe in them" isn't a good enough justification.