President Trump & the USA

[the fox]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The bill would protect those who have "moral objections to performing abortions or treating transgender patients".

 

That sounds like it could be extended to treatment of a life-saving condition if the patient is trans, as well as refusing abortions even if the life of the mother is threatened to me.

 

It's a broad envelope of protection which IMO deliberately makes room for the above ideas - and please don't say that it would never happen, we both know there are folks in the US that think like that, even if such would be a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

there could be this crazy scenario where there is another doctor who's ok with doing an abortion.

 

are we gonna hold it against people who actually feel guilty about taking another humans life away from him? i can imagine what kind of nightmares those people will have

 

Edited 19 January 2018 by the fox

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The bill would protect those who have "moral objections to performing abortions or treating transgender patients".

 

That sounds like it could be extended to treatment of a life-saving condition if the patient is trans, as well as refusing abortions even if the life of the mother is threatened to me.

 

It's a broad envelope of protection which IMO deliberately makes room for the above ideas - and please don't say that it would never happen, we both know there are folks in the US that think like that, even if such would be a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

You should judge things on what is rather than what could be. If people want these treatments they can find someone who is willing to do them. Nobody should be forced into doing something they fundamentally disagree with the threat of the sack.

[Mike Oxlong]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You should judge things on what is rather than what could be. If people want these treatments they can find someone who is willing to do them. Nobody should be forced into doing something they fundamentally disagree with the threat of the sack.

 

I bet poor Melania frequently has to do something she fundamentally disagrees with whilst handling  the threat of two sacs. 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, the fox said:

there could be this crazy scenario where there is another doctor who's ok with doing an abortion.

 

are we gonna hold it against people who actually feel guilty about taking another humans life away from him? i can imagine what kind of nightmares those people will have

 

And when that doctor is the only one available, or is the only one the insurance will cover, or any one of a myriad different reasons that a trans patient or expectant mother might not be able to seek out another option? What then?

 

Yes, these are all hypotheticals but they're hardly implausible given the size, social makeup and attitudes in various areas of the US.

 

If someone feels guilty about "taking another humans life", then they should have joined the clergy rather than join a profession where their job is to help everyone.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You should judge things on what is rather than what could be. If people want these treatments they can find someone who is willing to do them. Nobody should be forced into doing something they fundamentally disagree with the threat of the sack.

As above.

 

And I see nothing wrong with having careful consideration of the consequences of legislation before it is passed, rather than simply letting the dice fall where they may.

[Buce]

24 minutes ago, the fox said:

you have to wonder who made those countries the way they are!

drained africa of its resources and enslaved black people.

many people didn't hear of King Leopold II of Belgium. but i guess it doesn't fit the narative. 

 

At the risk of offending you, foxy (which would never be my intention), Arab enslavement of black Africans pre-dates European enslavement of blacks Africans by at least a thousand years. And enslavement of 'white' Mediterranean peoples by North Africans pre-dates Christ. It doesn't suit your narrative but believe it or not 'white' people didn't invent slavery.

 

14 minutes ago, the fox said:

there could be this crazy scenario where there is another doctor who's ok with doing an abortion.

 

are we gonna hold it against people who actually feel guilty about taking another humans life away from him? i can imagine what kind of nightmares those people will have

 

 

Maybe those people shouldn't work in a position where that might be required of them?

[the fox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

And when that doctor is the only one available, or is the only one the insurance will cover, or any one of a myriad different reasons that a trans patient or expectant mother might not be able to seek out another option? What then?

 

Yes, these are all hypotheticals but they're hardly implausible given the size, social makeup and attitudes in various areas of the US.

 

If someone feels guilty about "taking another humans life", then they should have joined the clergy rather than join a profession where their job is to help everyone.

 

you got it all wrong, leics, i'm talking about healthy mothers that want an abortion. if your job is to save lives than do it as a doctor. 

[Detroit Blues]

It's a symbolic move to appeal to the republican evangelical base. There's no way this will hold up in court, but it does show that Trump is trying to deliver on his pro-life campaign promises. Everyday, more and more moderate republicans are falling out with the current regime. The only way to maintain any semblance of  popular support is by throwing a bone to the evangelicals. 

 

It is the same reason why Trump picked Mike Pence to be his running mate. He needed to lock up a key demographic of the Republican Party. By passing this law it puts evangelical Christians in a moral quandary. No matter what Trump does, if you really believe he stands for pro-life and the only alternative (democratic candidates) support abortion, wouldn't you have to support Trump? Is he an acceptable means to an end?

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And when that doctor is the only one available, or is the only one the insurance will cover, or any one of a myriad different reasons that a trans patient or expectant mother might not be able to seek out another option? What then?

 

Yes, these are all hypotheticals but they're hardly implausible given the size, social makeup and attitudes in various areas of the US.

 

If someone feels guilty about "taking another humans life", then they should have joined the clergy rather than join a profession where their job is to help everyone.

 

 

As above.

 

And I see nothing wrong with having careful consideration of the consequences of legislation before it is passed, rather than simply letting the dice fall where they may.

Any legislation "could" become something else. Sex change operations and abortions are not emergency treatments. If we go down your road you'd only be allowed to become a doctor or nurse if you had the correct opinions, which is totalitarian in my opinion.

[the fox]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

At the risk of offending you, foxy (which would never be my intention), Arab enslavement of black Africans pre-dates European enslavement of blacks Africans by at least a thousand years. And enslavement of 'white' Mediterranean peoples by North Africans pre-dates Christ. It doesn't suit your narrative but believe it or not 'white' people didn't invent slavery.

and the romans and egyptians enslaved jews. slavery had started for a long, long time before white people. arabs enslaved arabs and whites iirc and black people enslaved other black people. 

 

buce, you know i hate the "white devil" talks. i already had a rant about blaming eveything on the "white man" not too long ago. everyone has their crazy people. arabs, jews, blacks and whites! you name the race, you will find those kind of people

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, the fox said:

you got it all wrong, leics, i'm talking about healthy mothers that want an abortion. if your job is to save lives than do it as a doctor. 

Fair enough - FWIW I hope (and think) that most fundie folks in the US won't take things as far as I've described, but the idea that they could if they wanted to and would be able to do so with impunity is enough to worry me.

 

8 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

It's a symbolic move to appeal to the republican evangelical base. There's no way this will hold up in court, but it does show that Trump is trying to deliver on his pro-life campaign promises. Everyday, more and more moderate republicans are falling out with the current regime. The only way to maintain any semblance of  popular support is by throwing a bone to the evangelicals. 

 

It is the same reason why Trump picked Mike Pence to be his running mate. He needed to lock up a key demographic of the Republican Party. By passing this law it puts evangelical Christians in a moral quandary. No matter what Trump does, if you really believe he stands for pro-life and the only alternative (democratic candidates) support abortion, wouldn't you have to support Trump? Is he an acceptable means to an end?

Yeah, this.

 

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Any legislation "could" become something else. Sex change operations and abortions are not emergency treatments. If we go down your road you'd only be allowed to become a doctor or nurse if you had the correct opinions, which is totalitarian in my opinion.

Aside from abortions very much being emergency life-saving treatment in at least a few cases (life of the mother threatened, for instance) and transfolk taking the Leelah Alcorn route out because they can't get the help they need, I know this all sounds like slippery slope fallacy, but AFAIC when you're in the business of making people healthy again, your personal reservations about the person you're healing, whatever they are, need to be left at the door.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

If we go down your road you'd only be allowed to become a doctor or nurse if you had the correct opinions, which is totalitarian in my opinion.

What was it you said, "judge things on what is rather than what could be"? Very profound, but you're not really practicing what you preach here, are you?

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

What was it you said, "judge things on what is rather than what could be"? Very profound, but you're not really practicing what you preach here, are you?

If you're allowed to sack people because they don't want to do certain actions, that is what is.

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you're allowed to sack people because they don't want to do certain actions, that is what is.

So if a bricklayer said to her boss she has a religious issue with laying bricks you'd support her right to keep hold of her job?

 

Judge things on what is, not on what could be.

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

So if a bricklayer said to her boss she has a religious issue with laying bricks you'd support her right to keep hold of her job?

 

Judge things on what is, not on what could be.

A female bricklayer? How PC of you. Bricklayers lay bricks in the main, Doctors and nurses do more than sex change ops and abortions.

[Strokes]

21 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

So if a bricklayer said to her boss she has a religious issue with laying bricks you'd support her right to keep hold of her job?

 

Judge things on what is, not on what could be.

I’d have expected that to have become clear in the probation period tbqh.

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

A female bricklayer? How PC of you. Bricklayers lay bricks in the main, Doctors and nurses do more than sex change ops and abortions.

Female bricklayers do exist. Not in huge numbers, but they do exist.

 

So it's ok for some people to refuse to do certain tasks based on their beliefs but not others? 

[Rogstanley]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’d have expected that to have become clear in the probation period tbqh.

Same could be said of the very lengthy period of training doctors undergo.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Female bricklayers do exist. Not in huge numbers, but they do exist.

 

So it's ok for some people to refuse to do certain tasks based on their beliefs but not others? 

It's quite obvious to see why you would object to abortion, there is no reason to object to laying bricks. It's a very poor comparison.

 

If you object to laying bricks you don't become a bricklayer.If you wish to become a nurse but ask not to be involved in abortions there are plenty of other things you can do.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

You should judge things on what is rather than what could be. If people want these treatments they can find someone who is willing to do them. Nobody should be forced into doing something they fundamentally disagree with the threat of the sack.

A doctor absolutely should be forced to treat whoever walks through the door. It's precisely what they're paid for. Find a different  profession if you don't like what your current profession requires.

 

You're never on the side of humanity are you?

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

A doctor absolutely should be forced to treat whoever walks through the door. It's precisely what they're paid for. Find a different  profession if you don't like what your current profession requires.

 

You're never on the side of humanity are you?

What about the humanity of the unborn baby? What about the humanity of the doctor/nurse who have strong beliefs they don't want to break?

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

What about the humanity of the unborn baby?

Wow so you're a pro-lifer?

It isn't a baby at the point of a legal abortion - it's a fetus. It doesn't, to my knowledge, have any awareness whatsoever. 

It's irrelevant anyway. It's a legal activity carried out by medical professionals. If you choose to apply for a job somewhere where you could be called into action, do your job.

 

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's quite obvious to see why you would object to abortion, there is no reason to object to laying bricks. It's a very poor comparison.

 

If you object to laying bricks you don't become a bricklayer.If you wish to become a nurse but ask not to be involved in abortions there are plenty of other things you can do.

Maybe they find the embodied carbon of bricks an affront to the environment. It’s not up to you to decide what people can and can’t object to, is it!

 

What about a Muslim chef refusing to cook bacon?

Edited 19 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Wow so you're a pro-lifer?

It isn't a baby at the point of a legal abortion - it's a fetus. It doesn't, to my knowledge, have any awareness whatsoever. 

It's irrelevant anyway. It's a legal activity carried out by medical professionals. If you choose to apply for a job somewhere where you could be called into action, do your job.

 

I'm not totally against abortion. Up to a certain point, say 20 weeks I don't have a problem. I do believe in freedom of conscience though.

 

If someone is pro life it's not likely that they'd apply for a job in an abortion clinic so it's hardly likely to be a large amount of people.It's the "I don't care what you believe, do this or you're sacked" I object to. 

[Strokes]

20 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Same could be said of the very lengthy period of training doctors undergo.

Sure ok.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Maybe they find the embodied carbon of bricks an affront to the environment. It’s not up to you to decide what people can and can’t object to, is it!

 

What about a Muslim chef refusing to cook bacon?

My wife used to work on the Deli counter at ASDA, some of the Indian women on there refused to touch the sliced meat because they were vegetarian. None of them got sacked.