Abortion is morally wrong

[The Grand Nudger]

No. It's not a valid comparison. Owning another person is defined as illegal. It doesn't matter if someone wants (for some reason) to be a slave, it is still illegal to own another human, and they cannot be owned.

-That right simply cannot be waived, agreed

Abortion is not illegal. It is a legal, important, helpful (sometimes necessary) medical procedure.

Agreed

If someone wants to become a doctor, they need to hold the standards of practice that comes with the profession. If their religion doesn't like it, tough, they took an oath to serve their patient's wellbeing first.

-So that right can...and should, be waived. Agreed.......but......

Seeing as how we can't waive the first one (regardless of whether or not we should or would want to) - I'm faced with a problem regarding the broad application of what is or is not a right and how it may or might or could or should be waived. :gasps for air:

IOW, I can't hold my anti-slavery position as a sacred cow. I have to allow that perhaps a person can - and perhaps a person should be willing or able to sell themselves into slavery - I cannot force them to excercise that right, nor can I deny it to them.

Better?

[FatAndFaithless]

No. It's not a valid comparison. Owning another person is defined as illegal. It doesn't matter if someone wants (for some reason) to be a slave, it is still illegal to own another human, and they cannot be owned.

-That right simply cannot be waived, agreed

Abortion is not illegal. It is a legal, important, helpful (sometimes necessary) medical procedure.

Agreed

If someone wants to become a doctor, they need to hold the standards of practice that comes with the profession. If their religion doesn't like it, tough, they took an oath to serve their patient's wellbeing first.

-So that right can...and should, be waived. Agreed.......but......

Seeing as how we can't waive the first one (regardless of whether or not we should or would want to) - I'm faced with a problem regarding the broad application of what is or is not a right and how it may or might or could or should be waived. :gasps for air:

IOW, I can't hold my anti-slavery position as a sacred cow. I have to allow that perhaps a person can - and perhaps a person should be willing or able to sell themselves into slavery - I cannot force them to excercise that right, nor can I deny it to them.

Better?

I think that's more clear. I'm just saying that if someone is going to voluntarily enter an association of professionals (a damn important profession at that, which deserves both the highest respect and scrutiny), the standards of that association are what they must follow. Just like any other profession with any ethics code, they don't get to pick which bits they like and which bits they'd rather not follow, and still get the same accreditation as someone who does follow the standards.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Which is why I asked about a slavery association with a motto. Lets say it's a really good motto - their standard, their mantra...a magic spell....etc etc etc. How do we go about accrediting them, and what would accreditation confer over non accredited slaves?

:wink:

[FatAndFaithless]

-Which is why I asked about a slavery association with a motto. Lets say it's a really good motto - their standard, their mantra...a magic spell....etc etc etc

The code of ethics of the AMA isn't just a motto...it's a HUGE set of standards and practices, not just a nice-sounding mission statement...

(And, can we stop using the example of slavery if you don't hold that idea? I'm still just unclear as to what you agree/disagree with me on)

[The Grand Nudger]

It makes me uneasy too. I'm shittifying my day for the amusement of others. It's a point of pride.

We don't have to use slavery, of course. Imagine any objectionable group or proffession (warlords....pimps...whatever) -with a possible conflict of rights-and try to apply this waiving of rights based upon the strength of a set of standards - a mission statement...even if true, I can't budge here.

I agree with you that doctors waive that right (or ought to be in a position such as they do not have that right) - I don't agree with the manner in which you propose it be done.

I, for example, once waived many of my rights (in the absolute sense - they were gone until my contract expired - I couldn't pull takesy backsies). It's something I would not only consider - but something that I did. To serve. I'm just not comfortable with using the justification offered here because it has horrible effects on other rights/the very concept of a right. I'm not willing to chip away at the base so that the fascia looks cleaner.

[FatAndFaithless]

It makes me uneasy too. I'm shittifying my day for the amusement of others. It's a point of pride.

We don't have to use slavery, of course. Imagine any objectionable group or proffession (warlords....pimps...whatever) -with a possible conflict of rights-and try to apply this waiving of rights based upon the strength of a set of standards - a mission statement...even if true, I can't budge here.

I agree with you that doctors waive that right (or ought to be in a position such as they do not have that right) - I don't agree with the manner in which you propose it be done.

I, for example, once waived many of my rights (in the absolute sense - they were gone until my contract expired - I couldn't pull takesy backsies). It's something I would not only consider - but something that I did. To serve. I'm just not comfortable with using the justification offered here because it has horrible effects on other rights/the very concept of a right. I'm not willing to chip away at the base so that the fascia looks cleaner.

Just to be clear, what method am I proposing that you don't agree with, and what method would you agree with?

[The Grand Nudger]

-They can waive (and should waive) that right based upon the strength of the AMA's standards and their voluntary association with that group.

-"My torturers guild has high standards as well"-

That's the part I don't agree with, and why. If we're basing something on these standards - why are we considering the ama's standards and not some other objectionable groups as grounds for the ability to (and ethical responsibility to) waive a right?

[Cato]

I'd like to see a viable method to execute abortions retroactively.

First, you put them back in....

[FatAndFaithless]

-They can waive (and should waive) that right based upon the strength of the AMA's standards and their voluntary association with that group.

-"My torturers guild has high standards as well"-

That's the part I don't agree with, and why. If we're basing something on these standards - why are we considering the ama's standards and not some other objectionable groups as grounds for the ability to (and ethical responsibility to) waive a right?

The AMA specifically? Because it works with the government (federal and state sometimes) in constructing ethics codes, oversight committees, investigations, and standards. The AMA is bound by law and has an active role in discussing medical law, something I don't think you could attribute to your example of a slavery organization or torturers organization.

[The Grand Nudger]

The AMA specifically? Because it works with the government (federal and state sometimes) in constructing ethics codes, oversight committees, investigations, and standards. The AMA is bound by law and has an active role in discussing medical law, something I don't think you could attribute to your example of a slavery organization or torturers organization.

That's the position that they find themselves in because of their history, yes. But if we are allowing this sort of justification - is it not imaginable to you that other associations could have had a similar history? That the existence of the one (in this case) at least makes the existence of the other a possibility. Would a professional organization with the same status and historical heft of the ama - which centered around some otherwise objectionable profession- enjoy the same weight of persuasive power in this claim?