(July 1, 2014 at 8:39 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 8:36 pm)Losty Wrote: Try googling "slippery slope"

The slippery slope argument won't work here. Abortion is one case, each case is a different case, like I said political convictions or gender are not equal to considering abortion murder. We are talking about the deepest principles some people have. You might think this argument would work and give origin to a huge amount of objections, but it wouldn't happen since the law doesn't allow a doctor to refuse treatment as a general rule, it is allowed if there are justifiable reasons to object treatment.

Again. Missing the point . . .

blackout Wrote:Again, what harm is there if a specialized clinic exists to avoid doctors in hospitals refusing? We are still protecting the rights of everyone. If a woman wants to abort, she is sent to those clinics.

Did you know that some women die whilst trying to jump through hoops to get an abortion in places where it is more difficult legally?
The harm is that if you allow a doctor to refuse treatment for religious reasons then you have to allow all doctors to refuse treatment for all religious reasons. Maybe the next doctor will refuse to perform an emergency c section because the mother isn't married and premarital sex is against his religion.

---

(July 1, 2014 at 8:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Abortion? Who said anything about abortion?

Quote:but it wouldn't happen since the law doesn't allow a doctor to refuse treatment as a general rule, it is allowed if there are justifiable reasons to object treatment.

Is the doctors 1st amendment right not a justifiable reason?

No.

(July 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm)Losty Wrote:

blackout Wrote:Again, what harm is there if a specialized clinic exists to avoid doctors in hospitals refusing? We are still protecting the rights of everyone. If a woman wants to abort, she is sent to those clinics.

Did you know that some women die whilst trying to jump through hoops to get an abortion in places where it is more difficult legally?
The harm is that if you allow a doctor to refuse treatment for religious reasons then you have to allow all doctors to refuse treatment for all religious reasons. Maybe the next doctor will refuse to perform an emergency c section because the mother isn't married and premarital sex is against his religion.

Or refuse to perform a blood transfusion on a dying child because he's a JW.

Or maybe I, a hardcore OT something or other believe that adulteresses should be stoned - that it is gods will that they die. Should I be forced to perform life saving surgery? I don;t want to stone the woman, I just dont want to stand between god and his will. I'll refer her to someone else, I'm not going to watch her bleed out, but she's gotta get the fuck outta my ER - or I'm gonna get the fuck out of my ER.

Respectfully.

(July 1, 2014 at 8:39 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 8:36 pm)Losty Wrote: Try googling "slippery slope"

The slippery slope argument won't work here. Abortion is one case, each case is a different case, like I said political convictions or gender are not equal to considering abortion murder. We are talking about the deepest principles some people have. You might think this argument would work and give origin to a huge amount of objections, but it wouldn't happen since the law doesn't allow a doctor to refuse treatment as a general rule, it is allowed if there are justifiable reasons to object treatment.

It does apply.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:17 pm)Losty Wrote: Wtf? No one should be voting on rights. They're called rights for a reason.

I like what George Carlin said about rights. "They're not rights if someone can take them away." Our "rights" are currently "permissions" and every time we turn around the government is taking more away.

I'd like to see an amendment to the constitution that would secure our rights through any- and everything up to the complete dissolution of our government.

Some of the rights I'd like to see thusly protected (off the top of my head):
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (duh!)

DUE PROCESS. Fuck the "PATRIOT Act!"

Strict limits on the investigative power of the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security and the rest of the alphabet soup organizations.

The right to a court appointed attorney in both criminal and civil cases. Many cases are brought before civil courts because the defendant has no right to a court appointed lawyer leaving them to pro se (advocating on one's own behalf before a court) defenses, finding a lawyer who will work pro bono.

Fair and equal access to all health care (including abortion and all contraceptives).

Fair and equal rights of marriage for any two (or more) consenting adults.

I'm sure there are more, but these seem to be the ones under the worst attack in recent history.

(July 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm)Losty Wrote:

blackout Wrote:Again, what harm is there if a specialized clinic exists to avoid doctors in hospitals refusing? We are still protecting the rights of everyone. If a woman wants to abort, she is sent to those clinics.

Did you know that some women die whilst trying to jump through hoops to get an abortion in places where it is more difficult legally?
The harm is that if you allow a doctor to refuse treatment for religious reasons then you have to allow all doctors to refuse treatment for all religious reasons. Maybe the next doctor will refuse to perform an emergency c section because the mother isn't married and premarital sex is against his religion.

---

(July 1, 2014 at 8:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Abortion? Who said anything about abortion?

Is the doctors 1st amendment right not a justifiable reason?

No.

Again completely wrong. I'm not talking about religious reasons only, but also morals and ethics. Let's put it simply and I won't repeat this, refusing anything that endangers life is not allowed, refusing an abortion doesn't kill the woman. The case you mentioned doesn't apply where I live, since clinics are in the same city.

You allow refusal if there is an alternative. In the case of abortion, there are clinics for it. If you refuse something that is the only mean of saving a life, then it's not legal.

And the case of premarital sex is different, a doctor has nothing to do with personal decisions regarding sexual behavior, the case of abortion is a doctor believing they are killing someone. Seriously why is this so hard to understand? We shouldn't force people to go against their convictions so strongly, sounds like a dictatorship that violates freedom of conscience and religion/morals/ethics

IOW, yes, a doctor forfeits his rights as soon as he decides to become a doctor. If offering treatment for something/to someone is against his firmly held religious beliefs..then his religious beliefs can take a hike.

(July 1, 2014 at 8:50 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 8:39 pm)blackout94 Wrote: The slippery slope argument won't work here. Abortion is one case, each case is a different case, like I said political convictions or gender are not equal to considering abortion murder. We are talking about the deepest principles some people have. You might think this argument would work and give origin to a huge amount of objections, but it wouldn't happen since the law doesn't allow a doctor to refuse treatment as a general rule, it is allowed if there are justifiable reasons to object treatment.

It does apply.

Using the slippery slope argument is just as valid as saying gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because polygamy, marrying animals and marrying children would come next. It is never a sufficient argument and is mostly used as a fallacy. Each case is a case and should be given appropriate treatment. Comparison alone isn't enough to prove anything. You still haven't justified why doctors should be forced to violate their principles by performing an abortion, you just made comparisons and conjectures, saying that other situations would be unbearably allowed. I'm still waiting for the answer. Isn't the most important principle in a doctor's ethic the right to live? If so, then what's more important, treating a mother to avoid an unwanted child, or avoid killing a fetus (if the doctor considers abortion killing)? You already know the answer.

What if the most important principles to said doctor are his religious principles? Whats more important then? His principles or the (potential) patients health?