Welcome to Dubya's emerging theocracy

[atlantabiolab]

Even as a Bush supporter, I am also quite concerned with his religious overzealousness.

Prime example is his appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager is a practicing Ob/Gyn who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." His record on women's health issues is appalling.
In short, Dubya's appointment of Hager shows that he will go to any and all lengths to promote and entrench his religious causes (anti-abortion in this particular case).

Why is it horrible that a physician is anti-abortion. Do you think that all scientists espouse the notion that abortion on demand is a "right"? Do you also believe that all anti-abortionists are basing their dissent on religious convictions?

 

[atlantabiolab]

I read about Hager's religious background yesterday. An appalling example of the way Dubya is using the state to advance religious agendas. Don't forget that Ashcroft, who leads prayer meetings in the White House, tried to suspend euthanasia laws in states that have legalized it.

Liberals are pathetic in their ability to think. Do you believe that one who is against euthanasia must be a religious zealot? Do you think that possibly there are more arguments, than religion, against euthanasia? If not then go back to playing with your crayons.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Liberals are pathetic in their ability to think. Do you believe that one who is against euthanasia must be a religious zealot? Do you think that possibly there are more arguments, than religion, against euthanasia? If not then go back to playing with your crayons.

Yay.....we have an eloquent conservative to do battle with the liberals.

I'm stuck in the middle, I just enjoy some good old fashioned mud slinging.

 

[musclebrains]

Liberals are pathetic in their ability to think. Do you believe that one who is against euthanasia must be a religious zealot? Do you think that possibly there are more arguments, than religion, against euthanasia? If not then go back to playing with your crayons.

Talk about lapses of logic. How do you get from my statement in this respect to the generalization that all people opposing euthanasia are zealots? (The reductive, totalizing thought of the dogmatist ascribed to the other?) Ashcroft has self-identified as an evangelical Christian and said that he opposes euthanasia,like abortion, on religious basis. He used a pathetic bureaucratic argument, well documented in the press, and when it collapsed, he resorted to a religious riff. The voters of ORegon themselves chose to legalize euthanasia, so I don't think your argument, which is about consensus, makes much difference here, anyway.

Is it really necessary for you to resort continually to personal insults? YOu are not the only person around here with an opinion worth hearing.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Talk about lapses of logic. How do you get from my statement in this respect to the generalization that all people opposing euthanasia are zealots? (The reductive, totalizing thought of the dogmatist ascribed to the other?) Ashcroft has self-identified as an evangelical Christian and said that he opposes euthanasia,like abortion, on religious basis. He used a pathetic bureaucratic argument, well documented in the press, and when it collapsed, he resorted to a religious riff. The voters of ORegon themselves chose to legalize euthanasia, so I don't think your argument, which is about consensus, makes much difference here, anyway.

Is it really necessary for you to resort continually to personal insults? YOu are not the only person around here with an opinion worth hearing.

Here is your original statemtent:

I read about Hager's religious background yesterday. An appalling example of the way Dubya is using the state to advance religious agendas. Don't forget that Ashcroft, who leads prayer meetings in the White House, tried to suspend euthanasia laws in states that have legalized it.

You referenced religion three times, making the insinuation that this theocracy is infringing on the "rights" of the people.

There is no "right" to euthanasia. If you wish to kill yourself then be a fucking individual and kill yourself, no one can stop you. Government mandating the killing of individuals is not an authority I wish to perpetuate. Norway is a great example of this problem. Gramps has cancer at the hospital and is terminal and a young person comes in for a heart bypass. Too bad old man, we need the bed and you are not productive anymore, while this guy still has 30 more years. Here's a nice little morphine nightcap for you.

As for the voters of Oregon, who cares what they think. If we asked them to vote for a bill that would give each Oregonian one million dollars from the national treasury, do you think it would pass? A majority does not make it right. But what would you know about principles and values, socialists are all for the tyranny of the majority.

It is amazing that the concept of euthanasia is so esteemed in the liberal mindset, yet the death penalty to convicted murderers is anathema. But then assbackwards logic is the status quo for liberals.

 

[thebabydoc]

Why is it horrible that a physician is anti-abortion. Do you think that all scientists espouse the notion that abortion on demand is a "right"? Do you also believe that all anti-abortionists are basing their dissent on religious convictions?

Let's try this again for the kids in the back of the bus.

This guy DOES NOT PRESCRIBE CONTRACEPTION TO HIS UNMARRIED PATIENTS.

HE WROTE A "MEDICAL" BOOK IN WHICH HE ESPOUSES READING THE BIBLE AND PRAYER TO RELIEVE PMS.

IN ANOTHER BOOK, HE SUPPORTS THE INCORRECT MEDICAL ASSERTION THAT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE AN ABORTIFACIENT (CAUSES ABORTION OF A CONCEPTUS OR FERTILIZED OVUM)

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, HIS MEDICAL JUDGEMENTS IN REGARDS TO REPRODUCTION ARE BASED ON RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS, NOT ON SCIENCE. LIKE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, MEDICINE AND RELIGION NEED TO BE SEPARATED.

This is not a simple matter of his being "anti-abortion," as a women's care provider, I can assure you that his positions are anti-women. Furthermore, all that nonsense Bigguns7 cut-and-pasted is utter bullshit. You clearly have no idea how "best docs in (fill in the blank)...." get 'chosen.' Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Infectious Diseases in Ob/Gyn is about a ten-page leaflet. Doesn't take much to be an "expert" and it definitely has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN"S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ISSUES. That would be like saying a world-renown maternal-fetal expert (also an Ob/Gyn) is in a position to comment on gynecologic oncology or pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Trust me on this one, children, I know from where I speak.

 

[musclebrains]

Here is your original statemtent:



You referenced religion three times, making the insinuation that this theocracy is infringing on the "rights" of the people.

There is no "right" to euthanasia. If you wish to kill yourself then be a fucking individual and kill yourself, no one can stop you. Government mandating the killing of individuals is not an authority I wish to perpetuate. Norway is a great example of this problem. Gramps has cancer at the hospital and is terminal and a young person comes in for a heart bypass. Too bad old man, we need the bed and you are not productive anymore, while this guy still has 30 more years. Here's a nice little morphine nightcap for you.

As for the voters of Oregon, who cares what they think. If we asked them to vote for a bill that would give each Oregonian one million dollars from the national treasury, do you think it would pass? A majority does not make it right. But what would you know about principles and values, socialists are all for the tyranny of the majority.

It is amazing that the concept of euthanasia is so esteemed in the liberal mindset, yet the death penalty to convicted murderers is anathema. But then assbackwards logic is the status quo for liberals.

I am well aware of the tyranny of the majority. It's one reason the Constitution has had to be amended so often. However, nobody is forced to kill themselves in euthanasia. The Oregon law protects people from prosecution in assisted death cases. It does not in any way mandate euthanasia.

I have to return the compliment. It is amazing the conclusions you jump to. You've got a "liberal profile" in your mind that is as dogmatic as a southern sheriff's racial profiling. Indeed, you even presume an Oregon law, simply because it authorizes euthanasia, must mandate it NOrway-like.

OH, and by the way, the typical conservative's favoring of the death penalty (despite the commandment without stipulation) but opposing abortion on (the religious) sanctity-of-life basis is an equally hilarioius breach of "logic."

And now I'm a socialist.

What about a terrorist sympathizer? Happy EID!

 

[atlantabiolab]

Let's try this again for the kids in the back of the bus.

This guy DOES NOT PRESCRIBE CONTRACEPTION TO HIS UNMARRIED PATIENTS.

Actually he statements were that he doesn't like to prescribe single women birth control, but will if they insist. But tell me when did people have a right to drugs? Will you prescribe me steroids if I ask? What if I insist? Is he doing anything illegal?

Is Hager the gatekeeper of all birth control? Hell women can buy birth control off of the internet now, how much power does this guy have?

HE WROTE A "MEDICAL" BOOK IN WHICH HE ESPOUSES READING THE BIBLE AND PRAYER TO RELIEVE PMS.

Can you quote these passages? Or is this just information that you received from voices that are against his appointment? Did he truly state that the Bible and prayer relieves ailments or did he just advocate religion in a holistic manner?

IN ANOTHER BOOK, HE SUPPORTS THE INCORRECT MEDICAL ASSERTION THAT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE AN ABORTIFACIENT (CAUSES ABORTION OF A CONCEPTUS OR FERTILIZED OVUM)

He may have. This shocks me no more than the pro-abortion irrationality that a fetus does not meet the definition of a life or that it meets the criteria for a parasite. Nothing more that species arguments.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, HIS MEDICAL JUDGEMENTS IN REGARDS TO REPRODUCTION ARE BASED ON RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS, NOT ON SCIENCE. LIKE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, MEDICINE AND RELIGION NEED TO BE SEPARATED.

The man simply believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, there is no objective basis that science can disprove this since it is a subjective/religious concept. You might be surprised that our grandparents' culture had this crazy notion too.

This is not a simple matter of his being "anti-abortion," as a women's care provider, I can assure you that his positions are anti-women. Furthermore, all that nonsense Bigguns7 cut-and-pasted is utter bullshit. You clearly have no idea how "best docs in (fill in the blank)...." get 'chosen.' Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Infectious Diseases in Ob/Gyn is about a ten-page leaflet. Doesn't take much to be an "expert" and it definitely has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN"S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ISSUES. That would be like saying a world-renown maternal-fetal expert (also an Ob/Gyn) is in a position to comment on gynecologic oncology or pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Trust me on this one, children, I know from where I speak.

Of course he is "anti-women", everyone knows that the only criteria needed is to be anti-abortion. He probably sterilizes all women who come in to his office and probably clitorectomies, too. Please.

Please counter the credentials of this man, that bigguns presented. Your arguments are weak. Most Dr.'s are a combination of crash courses in fields of medicine. I have laughed at the pharmacology knowledge of most of the physicians I have met. The position this man is being appointed to seems to be more related to statistical sciences and research validation, not hands on science such as reconstructive surgery. Please tell us what type of physician would be most appropriate to this position, in terms of medical background, barring moral principles.

I often agree with your posts, but your arguments seem subjective on this matter.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I am well aware of the tyranny of the majority. It's one reason the Constitution has had to be amended so often. However, nobody is forced to kill themselves in euthanasia. The Oregon law protects people from prosecution in assisted death cases. It does not in any way mandate euthanasia.

The Constitution was designed as a foundation to be built upon, but the Framers were not for the creation of laws that contradicted the established principles that it stated. Hamilton stated that any law that violated the Constitution was invalid. The 16th Amendment is a great example of this fiasco, not to mention the 17th.

Where the hell did I say that euthanasia FORCES someone to kill someone. But as you state the law protects from prosecution one who assists in euthanasia. So if a physician deems grandma terminal and euthanizes her, with her consent, the state can do nothing about it.

Being a mental health worker, do you think that all decisions during times of severe stress are the choices that one would make if given time to consider the situation? And even if that is your final decision, then you have the onus placed upon yourself to complete the task, do not burden others with this action.

I have to return the compliment. It is amazing the conclusions you jump to. You've got a "liberal profile" in your mind that is as dogmatic as a southern sheriff's racial profiling. Indeed, you even presume an Oregon law, simply because it authorizes euthanasia, must mandate it NOrway-like.

I used Norway as an example of how this type of law has gone from the right to die to the "duty" to die. Actions have consequences. Morality slips into complacency and apathy.

OH, and by the way, the typical conservative's favoring of the death penalty (despite the commandment without stipulation) but opposing abortion on (the religious) sanctity-of-life basis is an equally hilarioius breach of "logic."

I know being a moral subjectivist and only seeing grey, this may be a hard thing to do, but try and differentiate between a murderer and an infant/fetus/baby, whatever you wish to call it. This is why many liberals can't differentiate between people, cows, and trees; they are moral relativists.

Which commandment are you refering too, surely not the Bible's commandment, which you cannot use to support your argument?

And now I'm a socialist.

I did not know that you didn't know that you were. I am sorry to have to have been the one to break it to you.

What about a terrorist sympathizer? Happy EID!

 

[bigguns7]

Atlantabiolab for mod!

He knows shit.