(July 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Are there? Such as?

We have very different notions of what "rights" are, if one's rights are allowed to override those of another.

[emphasis is mine]

The right to free speech comes secondary to the right to safety. That's why it's not ok to start screaming "FIRE!" in a theater when there is no fire.

While I agree that rights are not something that anyone can, or should be able to, take away, some are subordinate to others. Whether or not the right to religious freedom should be subordinate to the right to heath care is a matter of debate and honestly I am divided on the matter. I would not want to force someone to do something they are morally/ethically against, much as I would not wish to be made to do something I am morally/ethically against. On the other hand, if I don't want to do something I am morally/ethically against, I won't seek a position where it may be part of my duties and/or obligations.

Many in the religious right wants it both ways. They don't want to do something they are morally/ethically against, but they want unfettered freedom to seek any position regardless of duties and/or obligations and then want to complain that they're being oppressed.

It isn't secondary, and certainly not for that reason. You -do- have the right to yell fire in a theater. Go ahead, watch, nobody will stop you. If people get trampled - it was their rights which were infringed upon - no matter if you yelled or texted it...or just stared at someone until you telepathically implanted the notion. Your right to free speech isn't impeded - your responsibility for the consequences of violating the rights of others....is what 'yelling fire in a theater" is all about. It has nothing to do with free speech. Yell fire all you like in a theater, an empty one.

-for losty

Quote:What about a law that says, if a doctor chooses to take a patient that doctor is then required to treat said patient in whatever way necessary to save his/her life. To me, that negates and issues with slavery and such. And I'm still not sure what right doctors would have to waive to abide by this law.

i-mine
-If- I sign an agreement of slavery, then I can no longer claim proprietary rights over my person at some future time. Sounds legit :wink:

(July 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Many in the religious right wants it both ways. They don't want to do something they are morally/ethically against, but they want unfettered freedom to seek any position regardless of duties and/or obligations and then want to complain that they're being oppressed.

I would agree - except that isn't what is happening here as far as I can see.

(July 4, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -for losty

Quote:What about a law that says, if a doctor chooses to take a patient that doctor is then required to treat said patient in whatever way necessary to save his/her life. To me, that negates and issues with slavery and such. And I'm still not sure what right doctors would have to waive to abide by this law.

i-mine
-If- I sign an agreement of slavery, then I can no longer claim proprietary rights over my person at some future time. Sounds legit :wink:

(July 4, 2014 at 4:13 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Many in the religious right wants it both ways. They don't want to do something they are morally/ethically against, but they want unfettered freedom to seek any position regardless of duties and/or obligations and then want to complain that they're being oppressed.

I would agree - except that isn't what is happening here as far as I can see.

Point taken, but I can easily see a good little christer wanting to become an OB/GYN to help bring more babies into the world for jeebus while completely ignoring the possibility that one of their patients may ask for an abortion.

Like I said, I'm divided on the issue. Therefore I'll pass on condemning either side for their views.

(July 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 4:13 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I would agree - except that isn't what is happening here as far as I can see.

Point taken, but I can easily see a good little christer wanting to become an OB/GYN to help bring more babies into the world for jeebus while completely ignoring the possibility that one of their patients may ask for an abortion.

... and as I've said, there's nothing in the AMA's code of ethics that requires an OB/GYN to provide abortions. Now, if one signed on with an employer with the understanding that they would provide certain services, and they later refused, but that's a whole different kettle of fish completely separate from questions of medical ethics.

(July 4, 2014 at 6:31 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: ... and as I've said, there's nothing in the AMA's code of ethics that requires an OB/GYN to provide abortions. Now, if one signed on with an employer with the understanding that they would provide certain services, and they later refused, but that's a whole different kettle of fish completely separate from questions of medical ethics.

[emphasis is mine]

I missed that and I stand corrected.

(July 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 3, 2014 at 10:32 pm)Irrational Wrote: The difference is that physicians aren't being put at risk of dying in the scenario being debated.

I don't disagree. The illustration was an imperfect one, to be sure - that's why I asked the reader to imagine scenarios where that might *be* the case, and why that mad compelling physicians to act untenable.

I'll note that we have been discussing two different scenarios a) being compelling doctors to perform abortions, a b) compelling doctors to save lives.

In the case of a) what is being asked of them is to do is something that they believe to be tantamount to murder, that will put their immortal soul at risk of damnation. Who am I, who are WE, to compel someone to perform such an act? In the case of b) what is being asked is that they, amongst other things, put themselves at risk of personal liability.

(July 3, 2014 at 10:32 pm)Irrational Wrote: There are certain rights that are far more important than religious rights that, if necessary, should override these religious rights.

Are there? Such as?

We have very different notions of what "rights" are, if one's rights are allowed to override those of another.

Right to medical service, free education, safety, be in control of one's body ...

I say most rights that are reasonably important should override religious rights when necessary. I don't have sympathy/empathy whatsoever for people having to forgo their religious right in certain scenarios if necessary.

(July 4, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Irrational Wrote: Right to medical service, free education, safety, be in control of one's body ...

I would submit that the right to believe what one wishes to (e.g. be in control of one's mind), and act according to one's conscience is equal to being in control of one's body.

More debating guys lol. I can't pick a side.