the most infuriating shit I've read in some time......

[redsamurai]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/page/3/



A man that refuses to give the morning after pill to a woman sitting on a hospital bed in a hospital gown after just being brutally raped..........has no usefullness to this world and should leave, and be helped in that persuit if he won't leave voluntarily. My god I hate christians more and more each day.......yes, I hate all religions.......but boy do I really really really hate these fucking christians. I really hope they do get raptured someday.........right into a burning lake of dogshit where they and they're dogshit eating brethren belong! Fuck all of them..........they've lost their common human decency and compassion......blech! But read the article to finish........an interesting point is made at the end..........how they whine when anything chrisitian is discriminated against, yet they so easily discriminate based on their beleifs. The late fuckface Falwell could call for a boycott of department stores that said "happy holiday's" instead of happy christmas............doesn't it just make you ill? I've had enough of these fucking low life's!!@

 

[ortiz34]

that's awful

 

[redsamurai]

that's awful

and they're gonna get worse

 

[Lestat]

religious belief strikes again!

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

People's various religious/political beliefs will be the undoing of this world. If you really want to get spiritual about it, take the angle that man-made religion is the Devil's playground, and politics aren't that far behind it.

 

[Sub-Zero]

IMO its descrimination to refuse care to someone with different religious beliefs/pratices...

i say he should lose his liscence (in the rape scenario) but just be sued for some of the other ones mentioned in that article

 

[blueta2]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/page/3/



A man that refuses to give the morning after pill to a woman sitting on a hospital bed in a hospital gown after just being brutally raped..........has no usefullness to this world and should leave, and be helped in that persuit if he won't leave voluntarily. My god I hate christians more and more each day.......yes, I hate all religions.......but boy do I really really really hate these fucking christians. I really hope they do get raptured someday.........right into a burning lake of dogshit where they and they're dogshit eating brethren belong! Fuck all of them..........they've lost their common human decency and compassion......blech! But read the article to finish........an interesting point is made at the end..........how they whine when anything chrisitian is discriminated against, yet they so easily discriminate based on their beleifs. The late fuckface Falwell could call for a boycott of department stores that said "happy holiday's" instead of happy christmas............doesn't it just make you ill? I've had enough of these fucking low life's!!@

Come on, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel ;-)

Religion has bred the most evil hate and the most loving love in the world. Everything has its good and bad.
This idiot should have been fired and this girl should have walked to a pharmacy and got the pill

 

[-SD-]

Right up there with the Islamic terrorist cell that just had a "graduation" from its suicide bombers school. Actually bombers are worse.

 

[jh1]

Golden Delicious in 3...2....1...

 

[Phaded]

you hate christians based on what one person did.. i guess i should hate all germans cause of hitler..

 

[Phaded]

and you're pretty dumb if you think all christians act exactly the same..

 

[Sub-Zero]

you hate christians based on what one person did.. i guess i should hate all germans cause of hitler..

i hate all jews cause of hitler

 

[PICK3]

I thought this thread was about Paris Hilton's wrongful imprisonment.

 

[redsamurai]

you hate christians based on what one person did.. i guess i should hate all germans cause of hitler..

I see that you didn't read the article in full huh? If you had, you'd see how attorney's for religious groups, this one in particular was Robertsons organization.........are pushing into law that people be perfectly allowed to do this..........so it ain't "one guy" phaded.........not only is this not "looked down upon" within christian circles.......it's being "encouraged".......if you're a christian and don't agree with this, you'd better step up and speak your mind, because from where I stand.....it really looks like either people completely agree with this practice, or just don't want to be bothered with it....don't want to deal with it. Well........two in the same IMO....

 

[musclemom]

I have a pretty basic philosophy when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights, NOBODY has the right to tell her what to do, not even her s/o.

That being said, I would never infringe on another person's spiritual/ethical/philosophical beliefs. So yes, I do believe that the physicians have a right to choose not to perform services out of line with their beliefs.

IMO the answer to this problem is pretty easy, if a patient asks for a medication or procedure that you, as a physician, do not approve of/are not accepting of, then it is your moral and professional duty to recuse yourself from that patient's care and immediately hand them over to a colleague, short and sweet. It doesn't need to be made into a huge issue, it can be done in a respectful and professional fashion. It is horrendously insensitive to basically blow the patient's ethical beliefs off and continue to treat them in what YOU believe to be the appropriate fashion, however.

And for the record, a doctor who is morally opposed to abortion has NO business caring for a rape victim, period. That doctor automatically, through his philosophical beliefs, places the life of a fetus at least equal to, if not above, that of the woman who is carrying it. Very few women wish to carry a child to term that was conceived in hatred and anger (yes, there are some, I know, but at least an equal number find the concept alone repugnant).

 

[jestro]

I agree red, but damn, you need to calm down lately. You're going to have a fucking heart attack.

 

[Sub-Zero]

I have a pretty basic philosophy when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights, NOBODY has the right to tell her what to do, not even her s/o.

That being said, I would never infringe on another person's spiritual/ethical/philosophical beliefs. So yes, I do believe that the physicians have a right to choose not to perform services out of line with their beliefs.

IMO the answer to this problem is pretty easy, if a patient asks for a medication or procedure that you, as a physician, do not approve of/are not accepting of, then it is your moral and professional duty to recuse yourself from that patient's care and immediately hand them over to a colleague, short and sweet. It doesn't need to be made into a huge issue, it can be done in a respectful and professional fashion. It is horrendously insensitive to basically blow the patient's ethical beliefs off and continue to treat them in what YOU believe to be the appropriate fashion, however.

And for the record, a doctor who is morally opposed to abortion has NO business caring for a rape victim, period. That doctor automatically, through his philosophical beliefs, places the life of a fetus at least equal to, if not above, that of the woman who is carrying it. Very few women wish to carry a child to term that was conceived in hatred and anger (yes, there are some, I know, but at least an equal number find the concept alone repugnant).

you dont think a man should have at least some say in what happens to his seedlings?

 

[musclemom]

you dont think a man should have at least some say in what happens to his seedlings?

No. This is MY spiritual belief, and it ties into some pagan philosophy, actually. Remember, as goddess centered the female is the supreme creative force. Literally, you don't screw with mother nature. Women, as the physical embodiment of the goddess here on earth, have the sole right to decide what life should or should not come into being.

Without the woman the man's seed is nothing. He casts that seed out, it's she who takes it into her body and nurtures it into life. If she doesn't want to nurture that life, or it's not the right time to bring it into being, she's the one who is in the better position to make that decision.

Finally, many pagans believe in reincarnation (I'm one of them). Paternalistic religions believe a soul is generated with each conception, reincarnationists believe an eternal, indestructible soul enters the body. You can't kill a soul, so that person will be born, one way or another, if not in one body, then some other.

 

[Phaded]

I see that you didn't read the article in full huh? If you had, you'd see how attorney's for religious groups, this one in particular was Robertsons organization.........are pushing into law that people be perfectly allowed to do this..........so it ain't "one guy" phaded.........not only is this not "looked down upon" within christian circles.......it's being "encouraged".......if you're a christian and don't agree with this, you'd better step up and speak your mind, because from where I stand.....it really looks like either people completely agree with this practice, or just don't want to be bothered with it....don't want to deal with it. Well........two in the same IMO....

man give me a break there are diff types of christians.. i guarantee if i told anyone in my family or any single member of my dads entire church about that they'd be appalled..

 

[Sub-Zero]

No. This is MY spiritual belief, and it ties into some pagan philosophy, actually. Remember, as goddess centered the female is the supreme creative force. Literally, you don't screw with mother nature. Women, as the physical embodiment of the goddess here on earth, have the sole right to decide what life should or should not come into being.

Without the woman the man's seed is nothing. He casts that seed out, it's she who takes it into her body and nurtures it into life. If she doesn't want to nurture that life, or it's not the right time to bring it into being, she's the one who is in the better position to make that decision.

Finally, many pagans believe in reincarnation (I'm one of them). Paternalistic religions believe a soul is generated with each conception, reincarnationists believe an eternal, indestructible soul enters the body. You can't kill a soul, so that person will be born, one way or another, if not in one body, then some other.

fair enough, but men are created stronger, and used to oppress women and beat them and they were treated almost as his property, and without a man's seed, a woman's ability to create/nurture life is useless.

but those thoughts and sentiments are out dated, and a man cannot, in this day and age, dominate women as he once used to. women are equal and have equal say and treatment...so along with that equality and compromise i feel a woman must also compromise with men, and treat them equally as well...

i do respect your beliefs though

 

[musclemom]

fair enough, but men are created stronger, and used to oppress women and beat them and they were treated almost as his property, and without a man's seed, a woman's ability to create/nurture life is useless.

Well, actually that philosophy came about after the rise of the paternalistic father religion. There is more than one kind of strength, and there was a time that female strength/magic was respected. Suppression of women came about as a direct result of the suppression of mother goddess worship, suppression of natural magic, suppression of earth based spirituality.

Read "The Great Cosmic Mother" fascinating exploration of how our culture, today, developed the way it did.

 

[Sub-Zero]

Well, actually that philosophy came about after the rise of the paternalistic father religion. There is more than one kind of strength, and there was a time that female strength/magic was respected. Suppression of women came about as a direct result of the suppression of mother goddess worship, suppression of natural magic, suppression of earth based spirituality.

Read "The Great Cosmic Mother" fascinating exploration of how our culture, today, developed the way it did.

i dont like to read much, but ill keep that book in mind...sounds interesting.

a man can still beat in a womans stomach more easily than she can defend her body and the life inside...and many animals "rape" eachother and dominate eachother and strongest rules, etc... thats gotta count for something in devine plan and creation.

but im watching the fifth element and shes the devine one

 

[redsamurai]

man give me a break there are diff types of christians.. i guarantee if i told anyone in my family or any single member of my dads entire church about that they'd be appalled..

than where is the outrage my friend? where is the indignation reining down from the supreme pontiff or any of the other leaders of the the other christian sects? I can assure you it's not there. The vatican this week decided it was "high time" to put out a 10 commandments for "driving"......as if the original 10 somehow didn't cover what one did in a vehicle........but they won't touch this one will they? No they won't......and there's a very good reason for it......because they AGREE!!.....but they won't actually outright acknowledge they agree because they know how appalling it looks.......but they don't care because that's what's in their doctrine, which brings me back to my earlier point that christian are stuck in their dogma and have abandoned their common human decency. I agree with Musclemom...........however, in the case of rape i really don't care what your religion is.......shut the fuck up and take care of the woman who's just been traumatised beyond the average feckless males perception. I think it would be appropriate to assrape the aforementioned emergency room doctor to the point where he has to go have his asshole sown back up..........and then have another doctor tell him it's against his religion to minister to sodomites!!..........fuck!

 

[redsamurai]

a man can still beat in a womans stomach more easily than she can defend her body and the life inside...and many animals "rape" eachother and dominate eachother and strongest rules, etc... thats gotta count for something in devine plan and creation.

so because animals.......and I do respect animals.....but they are "animals".........anyway, so because animals do certain things in nature, we're automatically to adhere? Yes, I do believe we are animals to a certain extent......but we're also evolved far beyond the serengeti. What animals do in the animal kingdom is not a guide for us.......it just shows us where we came from.

 

[Spartacus]

you hate christians based on what one person did.. i guess i should hate all germans cause of hitler..

hitler was austrian

 

[5150guy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/page/3/



A man that refuses to give the morning after pill to a woman sitting on a hospital bed in a hospital gown after just being brutally raped..........has no usefullness to this world and should leave, and be helped in that persuit if he won't leave voluntarily. My god I hate christians more and more each day.......yes, I hate all religions.......but boy do I really really really hate these fucking christians. I really hope they do get raptured someday.........right into a burning lake of dogshit where they and they're dogshit eating brethren belong! Fuck all of them..........they've lost their common human decency and compassion......blech! But read the article to finish........an interesting point is made at the end..........how they whine when anything chrisitian is discriminated against, yet they so easily discriminate based on their beleifs. The late fuckface Falwell could call for a boycott of department stores that said "happy holiday's" instead of happy christmas............doesn't it just make you ill? I've had enough of these fucking low life's!!@

First off, how do you know that the attending physican in the rape case, Dr Gish MD was Christian? Big assumption on your part. He could be Hindu or even Muslim for all you know.

Second, this story is based upon the woman's report of the account. I would rather hear his side of the story before I made up my mind about him. The old addage of there being no pancake so thin as to only have one side is still very valid.

Third, the constitution and the ammendmends clearly state that the Government should not prohibit the free excersise one's religion what ever it may be ......"nor prohibit the free excersise thereof".

So long as the attending physican politely stated that his personal beliefs do not allow him to Rx the abortion pill and then he notifies her that he is going to bring in a different doc or make a referral I dont have a problem with this Doc's conduct and choice.


I think this statement towards the end of the article is worth mentioning again:

"In the end, the women in all of the incidents above were able to get the treatment they wanted, even if they had to go elsewhere. So one could see doctor refusals as a mere inconvenience. "In 99.9 percent of these cases, the patients walk away with what they came for, and everyone's satisfied,"

 

[AAP]

Really now, what do you expect? You have to already have a narrow mind BEFORE even falling into that conservative christian outlook and mentality. It only makes stupid people, more stupid.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

Golden Delicious in 3...2....1...

no need, musclemom said it

if you dont want to do a job, in this case dispense a pill that contradicts your belief system, then thats cool. give the patient a list of options (which obviously include finding a pharmacist that IS willing to dispense, make sure you are sensitive to the patients feelings (ie be tactful) and thats that.

...although when the day comes when a corporation hires an athiest over you because the athiest is willing to do a wider range of work, you shouldnt call discrimination because your beliefs are an obvious hinderence to your ability to work, end of story.

im all for free choice. do what you want, when you want

...but pay the price of doing so

 

[binö]

First off, how do you know that the attending physican in the rape case, Dr Gish MD was Christian? Big assumption on your part. He could be Hindu or even Muslim for all you know.

Second, this story is based upon the woman's report of the account. I would rather hear his side of the story before I made up my mind about him. The old addage of there being no pancake so thin as to only have one side is still very valid.

Third, the constitution and the ammendmends clearly state that the Government should not prohibit the free excersise one's religion what ever it may be ......"nor prohibit the free excersise thereof".

So long as the attending physican politely stated that his personal beliefs do not allow him to Rx the abortion pill and then he notifies her that he is going to bring in a different doc or make a referral I dont have a problem with this Doc's conduct and choice.


I think this statement towards the end of the article is worth mentioning again:

"In the end, the women in all of the incidents above were able to get the treatment they wanted, even if they had to go elsewhere. So one could see doctor refusals as a mere inconvenience. "In 99.9 percent of these cases, the patients walk away with what they came for, and everyone's satisfied,"

good post, mods lock'er up

 

[redsamurai]

First off, how do you know that the attending physican in the rape case, Dr Gish MD was Christian? Big assumption on your part. He could be Hindu or even Muslim for all you know.

The good samaritan hospital in question is indeed a christian facility......look it up.

Second, this story is based upon the woman's report of the account. I would rather hear his side of the story before I made up my mind about him. The old addage of there being no pancake so thin as to only have one side is still very valid.

which story, there was a few of em............and more than one complaint filed against one specific doctor...............hmmmmmmm??........

Third, the constitution and the ammendmends clearly state that the Government should not prohibit the free excersise one's religion what ever it may be ......"nor prohibit the free excersise thereof".

As a healthcare physician who is readily accepts government funds in any way shape or form..............is legally, morally and ethically required to fullfill certain basic needs of people who come to him in certain situations. I think the rape case is simply self explanatory..........if you need further clarification on why a woman deserves to be given anything she wishes after SHE"S JUST BEEN RAPED............than I've got nothing for you, we are clearly two very different people.

So long as the attending physican politely stated that his personal beliefs do not allow him to Rx the abortion pill and then he notifies her that he is going to bring in a different doc or make a referral I dont have a problem with this Doc's conduct and choice.

If this indeed happened, fine. But again, in the case of rape........shut your fucking pie hole and give the woman what she wants. Like I said, if you're not willing to fullfill certain minimum requirements of basic healthcare..........you chose the wrong proffession and should excuse yourself from practicing it. There are sects of christianity that still disbeleive in penicillin or antibiotics.............I'm sured you'd be thrilled to hear that from your doctor as you're going there to get a tetanus shot after being bit by a rabid animal. Think about that for a moment and then please try to extend your umbrella of empathy to other situations..................like.................maybe rape?? If you went to your doctor with a torn open asshole you got from being gang raped.............you wouldn't be in the mood for a lecture on the immorals of man on man action would you?.......

I think this statement towards the end of the article is worth mentioning again:

"In the end, the women in all of the incidents above were able to get the treatment they wanted, even if they had to go elsewhere. So one could see doctor refusals as a mere inconvenience. "In 99.9 percent of these cases, the patients walk away with what they came for, and everyone's satisfied,"

Hey, right now it seems to be working out for the "majority" of people. The point the article was making is that these secular doctors are becoming more and more emboldened to making some sort of religious statement in their treatments. Please understand that this is a VERY VERY slippery slope.

 

[ukkared]

there went that hypocratic oath right out the door

 

[redsamurai]

there went that hypocratic oath right out the door

that's a very good point.........thank you for bringing that up.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/page/3/



A man that refuses to give the morning after pill to a woman sitting on a hospital bed in a hospital gown after just being brutally raped..........has no usefullness to this world and should leave, and be helped in that persuit if he won't leave voluntarily. My god I hate christians more and more each day.......yes, I hate all religions.......but boy do I really really really hate these fucking christians. I really hope they do get raptured someday.........right into a burning lake of dogshit where they and they're dogshit eating brethren belong! Fuck all of them..........they've lost their common human decency and compassion......blech! But read the article to finish........an interesting point is made at the end..........how they whine when anything chrisitian is discriminated against, yet they so easily discriminate based on their beleifs. The late fuckface Falwell could call for a boycott of department stores that said "happy holiday's" instead of happy christmas............doesn't it just make you ill? I've had enough of these fucking low life's!!@

Oh, but her rapist was still one of God's children....and should be forgiven.



Shit, I felt sick typing that even just as pure sarcasm. While they're painfully executing the rapist, they should throw in the brainwashed pawn who refused to give her the pill for good measure.

 

[mountain muscle]

I can provide the dogshit. My boys poop a lot.

 

[Stefka]

Oh, but her rapist was still one of God's children....and should be forgiven.



Shit, I felt sick typing that even just as pure sarcasm. While they're painfully executing the rapist, they should throw in the brainwashed pawn who refused to give her the pill for good measure.

I too find it strange that so many christians are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Dial_tone]

There are a lot of potentially sticky situations like that and there isn't one answer for everything.

Suppose:

1. The guy that raped that woman went to a hospital for treatment of woulds. He tells doc his injuries are from just raping a woman. Should the doc be allowed to say I won't treat you...find another doctor?

2. Suppose felon serving time is next on the organ donor list, ahead of a 20-year old honor student that is REALLY short on time. Should the doc be allowed to say I don't want you to have this organ? It wouldn't work like that but just suppose...

 

[Spartacus]

First off, how do you know that the attending physican in the rape case, Dr Gish MD was Christian? Big assumption on your part. He could be Hindu or even Muslim for all you know.

Second, this story is based upon the woman's report of the account. I would rather hear his side of the story before I made up my mind about him. The old addage of there being no pancake so thin as to only have one side is still very valid.




[/B]

I like that pancake reference

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

i hate all jews cause of hitler

They'd been perpetuating their suffering and victimization long before Hitler got to them. Then after the war ended, they decided they could use the Holocaust as the ultimate chance to put the period at the end of the sentence. A diplomatic immunity, if you will. And amazingly, it's still working-

http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/wra.pdf

History's other side of the coin-
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/wolzek/HistoryofOurWorld2.html

 

[Spartacus]

there went that hypocratic oath right out the door

hypocratic oath my ass
MDs go through years of grueling schooling followed by 80+ hour work weeks during residency

and some typical american schmuck that hasn't busted ass for anything will scream and yell "I have the right to medical care"

my wife was waiting in pain in the emergency room behind some of these losers once
I had to listen to some nig bitch giving the staff hell
and they took it with style and composure

I eventually told her to stfu
bunch more yelling


MDs and nursing staff don't owe anyone imo

 

[redsamurai]

1. The guy that raped that woman went to a hospital for treatment of woulds. He tells doc his injuries are from just raping a woman. Should the doc be allowed to say I won't treat you...find another doctor?

I don't care if he treats him.........just as long as the cops were called and arrest the rapist after his "treatments".


If the rapist say's you can't call the cops but still expects treatment........than yeah, the doctor should say go take a hike, and then promptly call the police. Not a very good example there guy.

 

[javaguru]

you hate christians based on what one person did.. i guess i should hate all germans cause of hitler..

Hitler is dead and the Nazi party is outlawed in Germany.....Christianity is thriving...

 

[GoldenDelicious]

there went that hypocratic oath right out the door

incorrect

according to that doctors belief system, the harm to the foetus (if there was one, and to his mind, there was) outweighed that of the mothers psychological trauma. hence he kept to his oath.

i think a lot of people need to shut the fuck up. at the end of the day, step back and look at the big picture - its the fucking morning after pill. there is a window of opportunity a couple of days wide in which to use it. there are dozens of pharmacies in any direction where she could obtain it.

is it inconvenient? yeah. is it controversial? yeah. is it likely to inflame a few people? yeah.

but for fucks sake, stop talking about it as if there were no other reasonable, workable alternatives for this woman. bunch of entitlement mentality having twits

 

[redsamurai]

when we're talking about a rape victim? Ok, a normal woman who just had sex the night before and forgot to use a condom, fine......she can hunt around. But not a rape victim in an emergency room.........and that is the "big picture".

Besides, I beleive the point of the article was dealing with the "slippery slope" principle. There are places already where a woman has to drive to the other side of her state to get an abortion or other services. If you let one doctor get away with this............there will be more that decide they're qualified to make moral calls on people. As I said, someone who has benefited from government funds should shut the fuck up and do their job the way it was meant to be done. If you have such strong moral beleifs, fine........you picked the wrong proffession. Also, hospitals should openly advertise their bullshit if they're going to keep that up. But they don't because they know that people will stop coming to them. What a piss poor country we would live in if a woman who's just been raped has to consult some "consumer report" to see if her local hospital will adequately take care of her. And when I say "adequately"........I mean whatever the fuck she wants...........period!

incorrect

according to that doctors belief system, the harm to the foetus (if there was one, and to his mind, there was) outweighed that of the mothers psychological trauma. hence he kept to his oath.

i think a lot of people need to shut the fuck up. at the end of the day, step back and look at the big picture - its the fucking morning after pill. there is a window of opportunity a couple of days wide in which to use it. there are dozens of pharmacies in any direction where she could obtain it.

is it inconvenient? yeah. is it controversial? yeah. is it likely to inflame a few people? yeah.

but for fucks sake, stop talking about it as if there were no other reasonable, workable alternatives for this woman. bunch of entitlement mentality having twits

 

[heatherrae]

That is terrible, but don't judge all Christians based on one man.

 

[PICK3]

That is terrible, but don't judge all Christians based on one man.

Agreed! And don't judge all Mo's by the actions of Java

 

[velvett]

you hate christians based on what one person did.. i guess i should hate all germans cause of hitler..

A lot of people do.

I'm German and Iranian - let me tell you growing up was a real trip.

 

[velvett]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/page/3/



A man that refuses to give the morning after pill to a woman sitting on a hospital bed in a hospital gown after just being brutally raped..........But read the article to finish........an interesting point is made at the end..........how they whine when anything chrisitian is discriminated against, yet they so easily discriminate based on their beleifs.

I totally feel you - it's extremely frustrating, regardless of what religion.

 

[velvett]

That is terrible, but don't judge all Christians based on one man.

People judge all Muslims by the actions of the crazy radicals.
No different that the crazy radical Christian pro lifers. (no offence to the non radical pro-lifers)


I think it's just local to NY but it's not uncommon to hear "Get yourself a good Jewish lawyer".

While it's not right - people pass judgements all the time - it's our individual decision to hold that judgement against another.

 

[javaguru]

Agreed! And don't judge all Mo's by the actions of Java

True, you are the poster boy of geigh.....

 

[heatherrae]

incorrect

according to that doctors belief system, the harm to the foetus (if there was one, and to his mind, there was) outweighed that of the mothers psychological trauma. hence he kept to his oath.

i think a lot of people need to shut the fuck up. at the end of the day, step back and look at the big picture - its the fucking morning after pill. there is a window of opportunity a couple of days wide in which to use it. there are dozens of pharmacies in any direction where she could obtain it.

is it inconvenient? yeah. is it controversial? yeah. is it likely to inflame a few people? yeah.

but for fucks sake, stop talking about it as if there were no other reasonable, workable alternatives for this woman. bunch of entitlement mentality having twits

I see this point, too. To the doctor, giving the morning after pill was harming a fetus, and in opposition to his hypocratic oath, as he interpreted it. Another doctor on staff could just give her the pill, right? I'm sure that is what happened. One doctor didn't want to be the one to give it, and so the other one did?

I'm pretty much pro-choice. I'm just trying to be fair in looking at the situation.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

A lot of people do.

I'm German and Iranian - let me tell you growing up was a real trip.

We all know Jews are the only ones we're not allowed to hate.

 

[velvett]

incorrect

according to that doctors belief system, the harm to the foetus (if there was one, and to his mind, there was) outweighed that of the mothers psychological trauma. hence he kept to his oath.

i think a lot of people need to shut the fuck up. at the end of the day, step back and look at the big picture - its the fucking morning after pill. there is a window of opportunity a couple of days wide in which to use it. there are dozens of pharmacies in any direction where she could obtain it.

is it inconvenient? yeah. is it controversial? yeah. is it likely to inflame a few people? yeah.

but for fucks sake, stop talking about it as if there were no other reasonable, workable alternatives for this woman. bunch of entitlement mentality having twits

PEOPLE

Seriously now.

This drives me.

The morning after pill is not the same as the RU486 pill.

One is to prevent the pregnancy the other is to abort it.

There is no real moral issue for a fetus by any doctor because there is no fetus within the first 72 hours.

 

[jnevin]

there went that hypocratic oath right out the door

Not really. She wasn't refused care, just that pill. She could find a different doctor.

 

[roadwarrior]

no need, musclemom said it
QUOTE]

Well said by both MM and you. Individuals and goverments should mind their own business when it comes to individual choices that do not hurt anyone else. As well as goverment not subsidizing, supporting or promoting one set of religious beliefs over another which includes atheist even if the country was founded on basic judeo-chistian beliefs.

S

 

[redsamurai]

She wasn't refused care, just that pill. She could find a different doctor.

let's say there was a pill that could negate an HIV infection within 72 hours............now say you got taken by a gang of shady mo's like pick3 in a bathhouse. What if, when you went to the hospital to have your asshole sewn back together..........you asked the doctor for that pill and he said it was against his beleifs to minister to homo's. Sure, you could walk your blown out anus across the city to another hospital that would give you that pill..............but wouldn't you just think the doctor a gigantic penis for telling you this as you're sitting there bleeding out everywhere with semen caked all over yourself...........I mean wouldn't you think him a dick 'just a little"??? Wouldn't you just want them to treat you, give you the damn pill so you wouldn't contract a terminal illness...........and then just go home and "try" to regain some sense of yourself?

 

[jnevin]

let's say there was a pill that could negate an HIV infection within 72 hours............now say you got taken by a gang of shady mo's like pick3 in a bathhouse. What if, when you went to the hospital to have your asshole sewn back together..........you asked the doctor for that pill and he said it was against his beleifs to minister to homo's. Sure, you could walk your blown out anus across the city to another hospital that would give you that pill..............but wouldn't you just think the doctor a gigantic penis for telling you this as you're sitting there bleeding out everywhere with semen caked all over yourself...........I mean wouldn't you think him a dick 'just a little"??? Wouldn't you just want them to treat you, give you the damn pill so you wouldn't contract a terminal illness...........and then just go home and "try" to regain some sense of yourself?

Are we turning this into a fantasy thread now?

 

[Spartacus]

Hitler is dead

too bad
the older I get the more sense his ideas make

in a nutshell
the weak don't reproduce and are removed from the gene pool

 

[redsamurai]

Are we turning this into a fantasy thread now?

I give, you caught me........


but seriously, think about it...........I'm not giving the example to be "pick3". It's just that it's the only comparable situation I can think of that involves a man.............no, I don't tend to contemplate gay rape much..........but you have to admit, it's a good comparison in this case. A guy just get's raped, and he's denied this "hypothetical" HIV vaccine because the doctor thinks he's a closet homo........??/

 

[GoldenDelicious]

when we're talking about a rape victim? Ok, a normal woman who just had sex the night before and forgot to use a condom, fine......she can hunt around. But not a rape victim in an emergency room.........and that is the "big picture".

Besides, I beleive the point of the article was dealing with the "slippery slope" principle. There are places already where a woman has to drive to the other side of her state to get an abortion or other services. If you let one doctor get away with this............there will be more that decide they're qualified to make moral calls on people.
As I said, someone who has benefited from government funds should shut the fuck up and do their job the way it was meant to be done. If you have such strong moral beleifs, fine........you picked the wrong proffession. Also, hospitals should openly advertise their bullshit if they're going to keep that up. But they don't because they know that people will stop coming to them. What a piss poor country we would live in if a woman who's just been raped has to consult some "consumer report" to see if her local hospital will adequately take care of her. And when I say "adequately"........I mean whatever the fuck she wants...........period!

oh what a load of crap. who are you, or a government official, to decide how a medical officer must act? does the medical officer lose their right of choice as soon as they don their uniform?

why should i even respond to you after your opening statement -

Ok, a normal woman who just had sex the night before and forgot to use a condom, fine......she can hunt around.

where did this distinction come from? that a woman tardy with her contraceptive choices somehow has fewer rights than a rape victim? because "redsamurai" decided? pft. and you talk about "slippery slope" LOL

also, whats this about "benefitting from government funds" and the idea that should you accept government enticements, you forfeit free choice? doctors are paid. theyre not property of the state. if theyre so dependent on government funds, surely it would be more logical for the government to represent the rights of women by changing its funding policy, rather than demanding that doctors, who are citizens, forfeit their rights as people? what kind of slipperly slope is THAT? today the doctors...which profession next? people need food...should we then command our farmers, who also accept government monies, to stay in their fields 24/7 upon proclamation by some government official or other because of some "need"?

america. the land of the free. LOL

i think the solution to this isnt to take peoples rights away. its to provide people with more options. establish a means by which women in rural areas or who have poor access to desired services (ie doctors who are willing to prescribe this drug) can obtain these drugs, perhaps via telephone consultations and express delivery, or whatever.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

PEOPLE

Seriously now.

This drives me.

The morning after pill is not the same as the RU486 pill.

One is to prevent the pregnancy the other is to abort it.

There is no real moral issue for a fetus by any doctor because there is no fetus within the first 72 hours.

oh. yeah. LOL oops

you listen to me though, velv - my sperms swim fast. FAST. they are to the vaginal canal what ian thorpe is to an olympic pool. 72 hours? pft. my sperms come out her nose before the orgasm tremors subside. hmpf

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

too bad
the older I get the more sense his ideas make

in a nutshell
the weak don't reproduce and are removed from the gene pool

Better hope the adl doesn't see this post lol.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Bottom line is, if you have to pay for the pill, you should be able to get the fucker any goddamn place that has them, regardless of one doc or another's "beliefs".

 

[velvett]

the weak don't reproduce and are removed from the gene pool

Nature used to have that job but now we have artifical everything and some faux morality toward life.

 

[redsamurai]

oh what a load of crap. who are you, or a government official, to decide how a medical officer must act? does the medical officer lose their right of choice as soon as they don their uniform?


<they are bound to a certain minimum standard.......so...........yeah.>

why should i even respond to you after your opening statement - where did this distinction come from? that a woman tardy with her contraceptive choices somehow has fewer rights than a rape victim? because "redsamurai" decided? pft. and you talk about "slippery slope" LOL


<I was actually conceding to a point you made earlier.......that a woman who was "tardy", as you put it, with her contraception.........I could see some reticence on the part of a doctor being exceptable. My point is that with a rape victim........no reticence is acceptable WHATSOEVER. Full care, full treatment.........NOW. Which means the pill.>


also, whats this about "benefitting from government funds" and the idea that should you accept government enticements, you forfeit free choice? doctors are paid. theyre not property of the state.

<If you accept government funds, you're accepting american tax payer money. So that person who comes in for treatment, has footed your salary in some way. So treat them the way THEY wish to be treated........they are "your" customer. If you wish to mediate your treatments based on some religious or other moral beleifs that are not shared by everyone who comes in........simply remain a private enterprise, easy huh?>


if theyre so dependent on government funds, surely it would be more logical for the government to represent the rights of women by changing its funding policy.

<how would you go about doing this? Arent you leading back to my point that the government should then not fund these secular institutions if they're not willing to provide the minimum standard of treatment.......especially in cases of rape?>



i think the solution to this isnt to take peoples rights away. its to provide people with more options. establish a means by which women in rural areas or who have poor access to desired services (ie doctors who are willing to prescribe this drug) can obtain these drugs, perhaps via telephone consultations and express delivery, or whatever.


< If your wife was raped, you would accept waiting for the UPS or the FED EX guy to show up at your door with this drug? And again, I don't think requiring doctors, who accept tax payer money, to provide a minimum standard is unfair or "taking away their rights". Your job is to treat people. A woman who has become impregnated through rape has every god given right in this realm of reality to terminate said pregnancy. If they don't want to do it, fine, that's on them. But to allow doctors to start making their own moral calls IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE bro..........?

 

[milo hobgoblin]

I have a pretty basic philosophy when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights, NOBODY has the right to tell her what to do, not even her s/o.

That being said, I would never infringe on another person's spiritual/ethical/philosophical beliefs. So yes, I do believe that the physicians have a right to choose not to perform services out of line with their beliefs.

IMO the answer to this problem is pretty easy, if a patient asks for a medication or procedure that you, as a physician, do not approve of/are not accepting of, then it is your moral and professional duty to recuse yourself from that patient's care and immediately hand them over to a colleague, short and sweet. It doesn't need to be made into a huge issue, it can be done in a respectful and professional fashion. It is horrendously insensitive to basically blow the patient's ethical beliefs off and continue to treat them in what YOU believe to be the appropriate fashion, however.

And for the record, a doctor who is morally opposed to abortion has NO business caring for a rape victim, period. That doctor automatically, through his philosophical beliefs, places the life of a fetus at least equal to, if not above, that of the woman who is carrying it. Very few women wish to carry a child to term that was conceived in hatred and anger (yes, there are some, I know, but at least an equal number find the concept alone repugnant).

So... that being said.. Im guessing you also agree that a man has the right to give up parental responsibility when a woman gets pregnant and HE doesnt want to keep the child.. forgoing any financial responsibility/visitation???

 

[redsamurai]

So... that being said.. Im guessing you also agree that a man has the right to give up parental responsibility when a woman gets pregnant and HE doesnt want to keep the child.. forgoing any financial responsibility/visitation???

now that's an interesting point.........??? Definitely one to think through huh? Life is sweet like that ain't it? always another side/angle to look from..........

 

[Bikini Mod]

So... that being said.. Im guessing you also agree that a man has the right to give up parental responsibility when a woman gets pregnant and HE doesnt want to keep the child.. forgoing any financial responsibility/visitation???

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY

Women have the power to create life, with this power comes responsibility. If she decides to keep a baby that her partner does not want then SHE ALONE should bear the burden or SHE ALONE should be allowed to decide to terminate the pregancy regardless of what her partner wanted.

I am fair in my beliefs like that.

 

[Kano]

agreed

 

[musclemom]

So... that being said.. Im guessing you also agree that a man has the right to give up parental responsibility when a woman gets pregnant and HE doesnt want to keep the child.. forgoing any financial responsibility/visitation???

Yep.

I raised a teenage child without child support. He wasn't THAT much more expensive than just me alone. Clothes were the biggest expenses, really, so I cut back on shit for myself.

I realize there are plenty of fathers who shirk their responsibilities, but there are AT LEAST the same, if not more fathers, who are being abused by the support system and women who know how to "work" that system.

IMO, if a single woman wants a baby, that's her business, but NOTHING says she has the right to rope some poor unsuspecting SOB she picked as a sperm donor into 18 years of indentured servitude to finance that desire.

I'm not good at black and white, to me everything is a lot of grays, some darker, some lighter, but life is not cut and dried. The law, by it's nature, has to be cut and dried, one rule to be fair. But that does not necessarily make that rule RIGHT.

There are plenty of children who grow up wanting a relationship with their "sperm donor" and not understanding why that man doesn't want any part of them, he's their father, right? He keeps sending that monthly support check, right? Frankly, sometimes it might be kinder to these kids if they could look at some signed piece of paper that says, "I _____ (the father) do not want to be a part of this child's life and abdicate all rights and responsibility to this child for the rest of my natural life."

 

[milo hobgoblin]

you women give me hope. Thanks.