You can view the page at http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/content.php/68
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Article: New Article
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
I agree. If some Muslim doctor said that he or she would not help my child because they were the wrong
gender or something, I'd say that they should not be practicing medicine in an emergency room. Emergency medicine is special because you don't have the time to shop around for someone with
compatible superstitious beliefs.
So we should force Catholic hospitals to start doing abortions?
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,134
- Likes
- 181
Don't go to a catholic hospital if you're not catholic. Hospitals are private businesses. Choose one that suits your needs. No politician has the right to enter any bill or law into consideration that limits freedom of choice based on their chosen mythology's dogma. How is imposing one's religious beliefs on the populous through law any different than the religious-based governments/clerics/terrorists we've been fighting overseas?
Last edited:
You're making my point. Martha wants to force Catholic hospitals to do abortions.
Should government coerce you to provide product or service? If you can answer that basic question, I can tell you who you won't be voting for next Tuesday.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
The really bizzare thing is that Coakley tried to defend her insanity (letting the government force Catholic doctors to perform procedures that they have religious objections to) by saying that it was a "separation of church and state" issue. It seems that with Coakley up is really down. It's amazing how far out of touch with reality she is. (Of course we've known that here for a long time.)
(From http://www.kenpittman.com/articles/186/1/Martha-Coakley-on-the-Ken-Pittman-Show/Page1.html)
Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
(From http://www.kenpittman.com/articles/186/1/Martha-Coakley-on-the-Ken-Pittman-Show/Page1.html)
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,134
- Likes
- 181
She was straight-up wrong but so is (repeating myself) entering any bill or law into consideration that limits freedom of choice based on their chosen mythology's dogma. Wouldn't it be nice to have a truly altruistic politician with no agenda instead of the scum that makes up our government!?
Reset
I love Pittman's response: "Wow..."
Yeah. Wow.
I think you may be seeing this a bit backwards......... Who cares about the religious aspect. The Bill has nothing to do with "religion" Instead protect people who believe differently. ( you dont have to believe in god to disagree with abortion or contraception )
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,134
- Likes
- 181
No you don't have to believe in god to disagree with abortion but it is a HUGE part of being catholic and the "morals" that are invoked in proposing these laws are judeo-christian in nature. Protecting people who think differently would mean respecting everyone's right to choose what do with their bodies. If you don't believe in abortions, don't get one. If you need one, get one. Oops, we're not supposed to talk about abortion, are we?
yup, I agree all the way. you just missed the last part...... If I dont belive in abortion DONT MAKE ME PERFORM ONE......... pretty simple really. I respect your right to do as you may with your body, you respect my right to do as I may or may not with mine. why is that so hard?
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,134
- Likes
- 181
I agree and I don't even know how forcing someone in a privatized business to do something against their will could be suggested by any politician outside of a dictatorship.
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 85
- Likes
- 2
Wolfhook, our whole form of government and laws are based upon Godly men that wanted equal rights for all. They based our laws on what IS wrong and what IS right. With that said, I am a born again Christian that agrees not pushing religious beliefs on any one. Presenting properly, yes, pushing. no.
She's a goof and people are starting to see her true colors shine though.
Let's continue her theory: If you are a devout LIBTARD you probably shouldn't work in the senate![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
.
.YES. And I am a "Catholic". If you want to call your establishment a hospital then you have to follow every other rule about patient informatoin, procedures, etc then you need to provide all forms of available medicine. If you don't want to - which is fine - then don't be a hospital. Or at least don't be a hospital with an emergency room. Be a private clinic where you can take or deny any appointment you want. I'm sure there's some alternative to "hospital".
By your argument a christian scientist can open a hospital and what, provide no medicine because it's their religious belief?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,134
- Likes
- 181
They were religious men as were the Native Americans who preceded them here. I don't agree with your implication that was IS right and IS wrong was written BECAUSE they were "godly". If I remember my schooling correctly the Constitution had five major influences: Athenian /Greek democracy (pagans), Magna Carta (Brits demanding rights from their monarch), the philosophy of John Locke, the Mayflower Compact (Brits seeking freedom of religion) and the English bill of rights (people demanding more freedom from the monarchy.
Wrong, it is a private business and it is not life saving care we are talking about. In the provisons of the amendment that brown was supporting it required the catholic hospital provide another hospital that would preform the procedure needed. An hoiur delay in the procedure in question is hardly going to make much difference.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
What about the rights of the doctor to say "I'm sorry but I can't in good conscious perform procedure X?"
In this particular case the procedure in question happened to be administration of a "morning after" pill, which is a form of contraception. Many Catholics have a moral objection to the use of contraceptives. The bill that Scott Brown supported (which was not signed into law) would simply have allowed a doctor in a Catholic hospital to refer a patient to a non-Catholic facility for the morning after pill if that doctor had a moral objection to providing contraception.
That's it... They would still treat injuries, collect evidence, provide counseling, etc. Victims who wanted to take the morning after pill would have been referred to a facility where it was available. (It's available without prescription at most pharmacies.) To me this seems reasonable. While I fully support the rights of women to make their own reproductive choices, I don't like the idea of my government telling me what services I must provide and under what circumstances. It seems to me that this is a treacherous slope to tread on.
In any case, Coakley's attack ads state that Brown would (I quote) "deny rape victims care." Not only is this a gross oversimplification, it's also quite ironic given Coakley's own record as Massachusetts AG. (Two words: Keith Winfield.) The fact that she then took it a step further and suggested that Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms just goes to show how completely out of touch she really is.
They can indeed, and they can run it however they'd like. I wouldn't go there though, and I doubt many others would either. Doesn't seem like it would be a very successful venture.
knucklehead
NES Member
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
A doctor can deny a procedure if there is a science based medical reason why it is not in the best interest of the patient, but not because they have an OPINION that it shouldnt be done based on scripture. I agree that nobody should be forced to perform these acts if they dont want to, but lets be reasonable, if you open a facility with a giant sign that says Emergency Room, and then you start pick and choosing what care you'll give based on your religous beliefs, thats not good for anyone. In some situations it may even be you forcing your views on other people, what if there are no other hospitals for 100 miles and the person cant afford to go shop around for a contraceptive friendly hospital after being violently raped? They took a hipocratic oath to do whats in the best interest of the patient, no matter what their beliefs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
That's just silly. Show me a Catholic hospital in Massachusetts that's more than a block away from a CVS or a Walgreens or some other pharmacy. Your "what if" scenario is absurd.
exactly. or they aren't able to go elsewhere (time critical, etc)
and this argument started with her saying "[they]...shouldn't work in an EMERGENCY ROOM". Not private doctor's offices for non-urgent care. I'd be fine with that Dr. referring the patient to someone else that felt fine with that prescription but and Emergency rooms must provide all available medicine. period. If you want to hire multiple doctor's from every religion to cover all bases, then do that. Otherwise the DA's office should shut them down for false advertising after all the lawsuits were settled.
Same with a teacher that believes only in creation-ism. Tough sh#t. you wanted to be a teacher, teach. You wanted to be a doctor, then practice medicine. If you don't want to prescribe certain medication, then don't put yourself in a position where you'd be expected to. patients don't always have that choice
and someone commented on denying treatment due to opinion. dr.'s don't deny treatment when there is hard facts that support the results. only when they vary or are disputed (yeah like religion isn't disputed, yet he can be so right to deny treatment? don't be ridiculous.
Ultimately, yes. They should be able to. I would expect them to be upfront about it, and I would consider it a huge breach of medical ethics if they didn't offer referrals for patients who don't share their beliefs, but doctors shouldn't be forced to do something they regard as unethical.
