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

[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.