Obama to end health-care conscience rights- Doctor, Nurse, Cardinal criticize mo

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Soldiers are not violating fundamental and foundational moral principlesdanwallacefan

Soldiers obviously do not take "never ever kill anyone" as a foundational moral principle, so obviously they are not violating their own fundamental moral principles. But some people, like pacifists, to take this as a fundamental moral principle. That is why it is absolutely immoral to draft pacifists into combat duty (unless there is a grave security threat, but there isn't exactly a life/health risk to a mother who does not get an abortion). Likewise, it is absolutely immoral to force a doctor to violate his own fundamental and foundational moral principles.

You guys keep saying this. WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THIS CONTENTION? Not everyone agrees with your contention that the right of the patient to get an abortion supercedes the right of the doctor to not violate is foundational and moral principles. Are you not merely forcing your own morality upon Doctors? How is this not a fantastic display of your own hypocrisy?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The doctor acts as a servant to their patient,-Sun_Tzu-

prove it! I could simply invoke a version of the virtue of Selfishness (Ayn Rand) and Adam Smith's Invisible hand principle to justify my contention that the doctor is serving himself and not the patient.

giving the patient the ultimate authority to decide what medical procedure is or is not performed.-Sun_Tzu-

upon themselves sure, but the doctor would hotly contest your contention that an abortion involves only the patient.

And your point on cultural relativism is largely irrelevant. If a doctor decides to not perform abortions out of protest then so be it, no one is stopping them, but they have to accept the fact that there will be repercussions for their actions, regardless if you like it or not, there always is. -Sun_Tzu-

prove it! I could simply invoke a version of the virtue of Selfishness (Ayn Rand) and Adam Smith's Invisible hand principle to justify my contention that the doctor is serving himself and not the patient.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] no system? why not "you can do whatever the hell you want with your body so long as you prevent anyone else from doing the same"? Why not take that as a universally binding system of ethics? but I would also like for you, as a relativist, to account for the reformer's dilemma or problem of disagreements between varying cultures. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"] That's debatable, but let's not hijack the thread, fellas. Make a new one if you're going to have this discussion.SpaceMoose

Soldiers obviously do not take "never ever kill anyone" as a foundational moral principle, so obviously they are not violating their own fundamental moral principles. But some people, like pacifists, to take this as a fundamental moral principle. That is why it is absolutely immoral to draft pacifists into combat duty (unless there is a grave security threat, but there isn't exactly a life/health risk to a mother who does not get an abortion). Likewise, it is absolutely immoral to force a doctor to violate his own fundamental and foundational moral principles.

prove it! I could simply invoke a version of the virtue of Selfishness (Ayn Rand) and Adam Smith's Invisible hand principle to justify my contention that the doctor is serving himself and not the patient. danwallacefan

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Soldiers are not violating fundamental and foundational moral principlesdanwallacefan

Are you actually, honestly comparing abortion to torturing babies for sadistic pleasure?

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] I'm not talking about universally accepted moral principles (like its wrong to torture babies solely for sadisticpleasure). I'm talking about THEIR moral principles, the moral principles of the soldiers, and the moral principles of the pro-life doctors.

Soldiers obviously do not take "never ever kill anyone" as a foundational moral principle, so obviously they are not violating their own fundamental moral principles. But some people, like pacifists, to take this as a fundamental moral principle. That is why it is absolutely immoral to draft pacifists into combat duty (unless there is a grave security threat, but there isn't exactly a life/health risk to a mother who does not get an abortion). Likewise, it is absolutely immoral to force a doctor to violate his own fundamental and foundational moral principles.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] I'm not talking about universally accepted moral principles (like its wrong to torture babies solely for sadisticpleasure). I'm talking about THEIR moral principles, the moral principles of the soldiers, and the moral principles of the pro-life doctors.

Soldiers obviously do not take "never ever kill anyone" as a foundational moral principle, so obviously they are not violating their own fundamental moral principles. But some people, like pacifists, to take this as a fundamental moral principle. That is why it is absolutely immoral to draft pacifists into combat duty (unless there is a grave security threat, but there isn't exactly a life/health risk to a mother who does not get an abortion). Likewise, it is absolutely immoral to force a doctor to violate his own fundamental and foundational moral principles.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"] That's debatable, but let's not hijack the thread, fellas. Make a new one if you're going to have this discussion.chessmaster1989

Are you actually, honestly comparing abortion to torturing babies for sadistic pleasure?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] I'm not talking about universally accepted moral principles (like its wrong to torture babies solely for sadisticpleasure). I'm talking about THEIR moral principles, the moral principles of the soldiers, and the moral principles of the pro-life doctors.

danwallacefan

Are you actually, honestly comparing abortion to torturing babies for sadistic pleasure?

I was asking a question, ffs. I'm glad to see you're not stupid enough to make that comparison.

Seriously, some people... :roll:

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] I'm not talking about universally accepted moral principles (like its wrong to torture babies solely for sadisticpleasure). I'm talking about THEIR moral principles, the moral principles of the soldiers, and the moral principles of the pro-life doctors.

danwallacefan

Are you actually, honestly comparing abortion to torturing babies for sadistic pleasure?

I was asking a question, ffs. I'm glad to see you're not stupid enough to make that comparison.

Seriously, some people... :roll:

By the way, there's a difference between the draft and having doctors perform abortions. Doctors voluntarily become doctors. Drafted soldiers do not join voluntarily.

Chilidragon, somehow you dont understand how strong and important the protection of life is to pro-lifers like Your friend. Allowing some nurses to refuse to assist in performing abortions is VAAAASTLY more practical than having doctors change specialties.danwallacefan

I'm trying to remember if you were in the last abortion topic I posted in. (Quote shortened for space.)theone86

I think the old saying "The customer is always right" sums up the idea that the choice of the patient supersedes the beliefs of their doctor.-Sun_Tzu-

Abortion is a legal medical procedure, and to outright deny a patient the option of receiving said medical procedure is basically just the doctor forcing their beliefs on their patient. It should be the patient's decision whether or not they would want an abortion, not their doctor's.-Sun_Tzu-

If the patient wants an abortion then all they have to do is go to a clinic that offers one. This isn't complicated, people. Nobody is getting denied an abortion. Abortion rates wouldn't drop by a tenth of a percent if this measure was denied. All that's happening is the federal government is reaching into a private industry and forcing a select field in that industry to do something they find morally wrong. For me it raises massive ethical concerns and presents an enormous encroachment by the government into the freedoms of the American people. And it doesn't do a damn thing for the cause of abortion. Why in the world is anyone supporting this?

Another extremely flawed argument. How can a doctor deny a patient an abortion? You can easily get an abortion in any state in this country. If Dr. Jones doesn't perform abortions then he's not keeping a single person from getting one. His patients can walk right over to the clinic next door and get one. They can collectively drive him out of business too, if they want. Threatening a person with the loss of their livelihood and freedom if they don't perform an abortion is the use of force. Opening a clinic that doesn't offer the abortion procedure doesn't force a single person to do, or not, a darn thing.

If the patient wants an abortion then all they have to do is go to a clinic that offers one. This isn't complicated, people. Nobody is getting denied an abortion. Abortion rates wouldn't drop by a tenth of a percent if this measure was denied. All that's happening is the federal government is reaching into a private industry and forcing a select field in that industry to do something they find morally wrong. For me it raises massive ethical concerns and presents an enormous encroachment by the government into the freedoms of the American people. And it doesn't do a damn thing for the cause of abortion. Why in the world is anyone supporting this?

Archon_basic