If we are talking about US law (which we are) then yes. If we are talking about fetuses, then yes. The definition of a fetus is a developing human in the womb before birth. And fetuses are not citizens. They are not citizens but they are humans and thus are subject to the rights that are inherent to humans. As "all men are created equal and endowed with INALIENABLE RIGHTS".[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]so then Location is what determines who is and who is not human and thus who gets and doesn't get human rights? Thus in one case we can say that people in the U.S. are humans and people in Africa are not because they are located in different places?Engrish_Major
JoeRatz16's forum posts
[QUOTE="thepwninator"]You seem to be forgetting, once you obtain any job, your rights and freedoms are compromised and you're now a slave to the service! A minority-belief like "fetuses are hooman" should clearly not be respected, regardless of how much mental trauma one that is obligated to perform such a procedure may experience. I mean, a poor mother that most likely screwed up goes into a clinic in order to get help, and I'll be damned if a doctor's "rights" are going to compromise that young girl's life, even if the doctor himself must suffer! :roll: well then wouldn't causing the Doctor mental trauma harm his patients? would you want a Doctor with mental issues operating on you? Plus if the doctor feels seriously opposed to the procedure, then don't you think it would negatively effect his ability to perform the procedure? Plus if he's against the procedure then he probably hasn't practiced it much and would be inexperienced in the procedure?Unless the doctor is employed by the government, I object completely to this. Is a private lawyer obligated to accept every client that requests his services?
Setsa
[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]So then if a fetus is different from a human being, then what makes a human being a human being? The only difference between a fetus and a human being is age, thus one could say that people under 6 years old are not human beings. Anyway "a person is a person no matter how small"- Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who.Engrish_MajorIf the person under 6 years old is still in the womb, then it is a fetus. so then Location is what determines who is and who is not human and thus who gets and doesn't get human rights? Thus in one case we can say that people in the U.S. are humans and people in Africa are not because they are located in different places?
[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.longhorn7But when it comes to abortion, it is just not that simple. To some people, the taking of an innocent life is really that big of a moral dilemma (which it should be), whether or not you personally support abortion rights. There is no cut and dry answer to this.To some people's religios beliefs it is a moral dilemma. there are multitudes of religions in the country omst of which do not agree. there is also a separation of church and state in the country. abortion is a legal procedure. health care is the job of a health care provider. denying a medical procedure to a patron is not doing your job if you are a health care provider. cut and dry as it comes.1. Abortion is not a religious issue solely, there are Atheists that also oppose abortion (If I'm Correct I think Christopher Hitchens says that Science shows the fetus to be a human being). 2. So does that mean doctors should be forced to perform boob-jobs and nose-jobs if they disagree with it?
[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]neither are terrorists in Guatanamo bay that get waterboarded, but they are still Human beings and thus the Gov't is obligated to protect the Human Rights of people regardless of whether they are or are not citizens. Prisoners are human beings; fetuses are human fetuses. Different. Anyway, our laws protect our citizens only. Our laws do not apply to prisoners in Cuba. So then if a fetus is different from a human being, then what makes a human being a human being? The only difference between a fetus and a human being is age, thus one could say that people under 6 years old are not human beings. Anyway "a person is a person no matter how small"- Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Fetuses are not citizens.Engrish_Major
[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]what if the Doctor isn't trained to perform abortions? then shouldn't he be able to refuse? And if the Doctor performing the abortion is morally against it, doesn't that put him in a bad mindframe and make it more likely he could make a mistake? What if the Doctor feels the abortion is not in the best interest of the patient.Engrish_MajorWhere does it say that a doctor who is not trained in abortions must perform abortions? Well I Imagine that any doctor opposed to performing abortions would not have been trained in abortion anyway so thus, there is really no difference in the law either way: 1. If conscience is protected then doctors aren't forced to perform abortions if they oppose it. 2. If Obama get's his way, then the Doctors still can't be forced to perform abortions because those who oppose abortion are probably not trained in abortions.
[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] 2. I am not arguing for the Church running the State, I am just saying that the State is not above the divine law and if the State refuses to defend the rights of it's citizens, the State then is illegitimate because the very purpose of Gov't is to uphold the rights of it's citizens.Engrish_MajorFetuses are not citizens. neither are terrorists in Guatanamo bay that get waterboarded, but they are still Human beings and thus the Gov't is obligated to protect the Human Rights of people regardless of whether they are or are not citizens.
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I have no doubt that some doctors WILL take their oath to mean that. And I can also see how a doctor might struggle with the notion. However, the laws of the country/state that give them their certification to practice medicine have to apply to the doctors in question if they want to continue to have that right. What I would suggest, if I was in the shoes of the doctor in question, would be to recommend another doctor or ask the hospital administrator to swap me patients with someone else. But the lady in question shouldn't be turned away or be unable to get her medical need - which is completely and perfectly legal and has been for decades - because a doctor refuses treatment. Ultimately, it isn't the doctor's body. It is the woman's. And the laws of this country give the person whose body it is ultimate jurisdiction and final say on treatment performed. Lastly, doctors go through a LOT of schooling. They are fully aware of what the laws of treatment are when they take the oath. If they foresee themselves unable to perform this treatment, then they shouldn't take the oath. Returning to an earlier example, that's like someone joining the army but saying, "I'll fight anywhere you want me to and kill anyone from any country EXCEPT Canada. I got buddies and family in Canada and so wouldn't feel comfortable." It doesn't work that way.nocoolnamejim
Isn't referring the patient to someone else or swapping patients essentially the same thing? I mean, what's the difference between a doctor saying "I don't do abortions, sorry" and "I don't do abortions, sorry, but here's a referral to one who does"? Very little, since in BOTH cases the patient will find a doctor who does perform them. It's mincing words, really.
And with the oath, you are looking at if from a standpoint of it being in absolute certainty that the oath means "save lives at all costs" in reference to the mother and not the unborn. Your analogy of military service is also disingenuous, because I think a good many people would go AWOL if they had to attack a country where their family and friends were. It's not something they were taking into account when they signed up.
And lastly, define who you are "treating" when you perform an abortion. That statement can go either way.
I posited a possible workaround for the doctor's moral objections. I'm not insensitive to the doctor's predicament and that is why I said "if I was in the doctor's shoes I would do (fill in the blank)". If that isn't an option - say there is no other qualified doctor available to provide the abortion which is absolutely the case in some parts of the country/world - then the laws of the society he practices in have to prevail. He's still free to refuse to do the operation after all. He's just not free from the consequences of his refusal, which is that he'd probably have his license to practice medicine in the jurisdiction he practices in revoked. Similarly in the case of the soldier analogy, once again, the soldier is free to refuse, but it just means that he/she will have to suffer the consequences of his refusal. This is the very essence of non-violent protest. Throughout history, lots of people have objected to a whole host of things that they disagree with and laws they find unjust. But there are two parts to breaking the law in protest. The first is the breaking of the law, but the second is to submitting to the punishment for doing so. And the laws governing medical ethics are quite explicit. That is why there are years of required medical school. It isn't just teaching them medicine. The classes also teach the prospective doctors about these things. Anyone who is trying to become a doctor and doesn't follow or research the law on abortion if they anticipate that it might become a problem isn't really being very smart. Heck, I'm posting on a Gamespot messageboard and thanks to Joe's helpful link that started off the discussion I know what the new law is. Abortion has been legal in this country for decades. I think anyone smart enough to be a doctor should know that.what if the Doctor isn't trained to perform abortions? then shouldn't he be able to refuse? And if the Doctor performing the abortion is morally against it, doesn't that put him in a bad mindframe and make it more likely he could make a mistake? What if the Doctor feels the abortion is not in the best interest of the patient.
Not quite sure: Maybe Bush or Maybe McCain. Maybe since Roe v. Wade the Whole U.S. gov't is illegitimate and thus there hasn't been a legitimate President since then, in which case Francis Cardinal George is President of The USCCB and may then be considered the real president.So 3 people who are not elected into office are more the president than the person that was elected as the president? do you even use logic? How about a history lesson since you obviously think that the church directly having involvement in government proceedings is such a great idea? Prior to the protestant reformation, the catholic church controlled most of the european governments in one way or another.the resulting corruption, in combination with the sale of indulgences, and the concept of appointing family members and friends to high church and political positions created a great schism within the church you so obviously love, and caused the splintering of denominations within the christian belief system. It caused many wars for which the church until this day is still doing it's best to apologize for, and is widely viewed as an abomination withing the catholic church itself. if you want to live in a church state, move to vatican city. america will not be turned into a corrupt church state as long as there are intelligent people within the hierarchy of the church, and intelligent people as it's citizens. pope john paul II would be rolling in his grave if he could hear people like yourself.1. what do you mean "3 people who are not elected": Bush was elected President, McCain was elected Senator, and Cardinal George was elected president of the USCCB. 2. I am not arguing for the Church running the State, I am just saying that the State is not above the divine law and if the State refuses to defend the rights of it's citizens, the State then is illegitimate because the very purpose of Gov't is to uphold the rights of it's citizens.[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]
[QUOTE="longhorn7"]so because a non catholic president does not follow the guidelines of the catechism of the catholic church means that he is an illegitimate leader? separation of church and state buddy. may want to read the constitution. religion =/= politics in this country, and as the bush administration has proved, that separation is a good thing. Thanks for making all of us catholics seem ignorant though i really appreciate it... and all of this aside it still doesnt explain how he is the "president" to you and not the president. if he is just the "president" who in your eyes is the president?
longhorn7
The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]
[QUOTE="longhorn7"]all things aside i find it interesting that you put president in quotations. seems like a troll move to me....longhorn7
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
Thus Morgoth (ie. Obama) is an illegitimate leader.
so because a non catholic president does not follow the guidelines of the catechism of the catholic church means that he is an illegitimate leader? separation of church and state buddy. may want to read the constitution. religion =/= politics in this country, and as the bush administration has proved, that separation is a good thing. Thanks for making all of us catholics seem ignorant though i really appreciate it... and all of this aside it still doesnt explain how he is the "president" to you and not the president. if he is just the "president" who in your eyes is the president? Not quite sure: Maybe Bush or Maybe McCain. Maybe since Roe v. Wade the Whole U.S. gov't is illegitimate and thus there hasn't been a legitimate President since then, in which case Francis Cardinal George is President of The USCCB and may then be considered the real president.
Log in to comment