Obama seeks to take away religious rights of doctors and health care providers who refuse to perform abortions
March 3, 2009
Dear Eric,
According to several news agencies, President Barack Obama will rescind the "conscience rule" that protects health workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other medical procedures that go against their moral and religious beliefs. If the rule is rescinded, doctors, nurses and other health care workers could lose their jobs or be punished professionally for adhering to their sincerely held religious convictions. Obama's proposal would take away their religious freedom.
The current rule empowers federal health officials to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor's office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their right of conscience. It applies to more than 584,000 health care facilities.
The Obama administration is doing the bidding of pro-abortion advocacy groups who seek to penalize health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions.
According to The Washington Post, Obama administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment. That is why it is so very important for you to let the White House hear from you today.
Questions to Consider:
So, let me get this straight... the rights of some supersede the rights of others? Some have access to their rights but others do not? The responsible should be forced to cater to the whims of the irresponsible? Professionals with a conscience should be made to perform the unconscionable for those without conscience? Barack Obama does NOT support abortion, nor is he a murderer for doing so, but he has no problem with holding a proverbial gun to the heads of those who refuse to perform what THEY deem murder? Are we slaves? Does government have the right to tell ANYONE they must do what their conscience tells them is wrong? What happened to each American's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
What has happened to America?
Caveat-
ReplyDelete"Does government have the right to tell ANYONE they must do what their conscience tells them is wrong?"
If, for religious beliefs, a mother and father choose NOT give a lifesaving transfusion of blood to their dying child? Someone must step in a save that child from its parents foolishness. I can think of no legitimate biblical argument to support the parents decision.
Do you think that is true ("government [doesn't] have the right to tell ANYONE they must do what their conscience tells them is wrong?") for the American soldier who decides a specific war is unjust and against their conscience? I do.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, IF this problem is as described, I would be opposed to rescinding a medical specialist's right to make decisions on questionable treatment.
I wonder, though, if conservatives will be consistent on this point? Will they support the soldier's right to let their conscience decide? Will they support the parents' right to let their conscience decide on what is best for their family/child/fetus in cases of abortion?
I say, let the people make their own minds up, within reason.
"Will they support the soldier's right to let their conscience decide?"
ReplyDeleteDan (The Deceiver) Trabue
Dan, we all know that a soldier already has the right to refuse to go to war.
It's called a "volunteer force". If you don't wish to obety the command of your C-in-C, don't take the oath.
Command decisions are above your pay-grade, Danielsan. But, of course, you already knew that...and are just doing the "Dan thing".
Health-care workers sign-up to save lives, Dan. Didn't you know that? Abortionists are NOT "health-care workers" They are murderers.
I won't say your thinking is flawed, Dan...because I believe you know what you're saying is bogus.
You clearly seek the worst for America and its citizens. You seek the worst for those in need. Not because you believe what you preach is actually the way to peace...and prosperity...but because you know that what you preach, put into practice, will bring...check that...has already brought destruction to America's families.
You must be very proud.
Who says Obama doesn't support abortion? His voting record indicates he not only supports it, he wants to make it mandatory. This legislation will take that stance one step closer to fruition.
ReplyDeleteDan, your stupid questions have already been answered, but I will make this addendum:
During previous wars when military service was mandatory, conscientious objectors had the right to opt out of serving. But now that there is no draft, no one is being forced to serve in the military in any capacity.
I'll bet you are fine with that.
Obama wants to rescind the conscientious objector's right to opt out of killing innocent babies, regardless of their religious or moral objections.
I'll bet, despite your disengenous protestations, you are fine with that, also.
How do you explain this dichotomy?
I have to agree with D and Mark... an all volunteer force negates the conscientious objector argument. No soldier, especially since 9.11, can reasonably expect to NOT go to war. Even under president Obama.
ReplyDeleteIn time of war-- especially during actual combat --it is the soldiers duty to fight and kill the enemy. Doctors and healthcare providers are expected to save lives... not take them-- the Hippocratic Oath is intended to constrain them to "saving/healing" lives.
Umm, Mark, I have already stated that I am opposed to this decision, IF it the facts being presented are correct. That is, IF a doctor is opposed to performing abortions, I am opposed to gov't forcing him to do so.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I respect the right of the individual to obey his conscience over gov't's wishes.
I support the doctor's right to do so and I support the soldier's right to do so and I support the parent's right to do so. I am consistent on this point.
I hear you all saying that you are not consistent on this point, is that right? Just trying to be clear.
As to the military issue, IF a soldier is not a pacifist (ie, he does not oppose all wars) and thus he joined the military as a public service AND IF that soldier then finds himself being ordered into a specific war to which he objects, he is not free to opt out. Most conservatives I have heard speak on this issue have all said that he does NOT have the right to follow their conscience.
I object to that sort of coercion against a person's values. It is a bit of a descent into godlessness (or at least, away from liberty) to do so.
I suppose those who agree with Obama on this point (assuming that the info provided here is correct) might say something similar to Mark's argument: IF you don't want to provide medical treatment, then don't become a doctor. BUT, once you become a doctor, you have an obligation to provide whatever medical treatment is requested.
I would disagree with that contention. One can be a doctor and choose not to perform specific treatments... One can be a soldier and choose not to participate in specific wars... IF those actions are contrary to your belief system, gov't ought not force you to take actions against your will.
Anyone wish to join me in being consistent on this point?
In time of war-- especially during actual combat --it is the soldiers duty to fight and kill the enemy.
ReplyDeleteAND IF the war is an unjust one, if the actions being demanded are contrary to our laws as the soldier understands them, THEN the soldier has a duty to NOT fight and kill people.
If Obama for no good reason got Congress to declare war and ordered soldiers to invade Nicaragua and overthrow their gov't, I'm sure you'd agree that our brave sons and daughters have an obligation to choose NOT to do so.
Again, I am consistently opposed to forcing citizens to take actions contrary to their conscience. I'm guessing you're all saying you're not thusly consistent on this point?
Tis a shame. You're right on the point of this post, but wrong to want to NOT allow our military sons and daughters the same freedoms that you want our doctors to have.
We've been down this road before Dan, and there's nothing new to see. You'll have to walk that dog by yourself.
ReplyDeleteGee, a fella can't even agree with you guys and get a decent response...
ReplyDeleteEric, thanks for being in the fight against the killing of unborn children. Because Obama can undo decades of pro-life effort after a mere election cycle is evidence we've not been building on a solid foundation, but on sand.
ReplyDeleteHave you considered the very brief, bulleted argument from American Right To Life against abortion regulations, and their promotion of the personhood strategy?
Their brief bullets are at:
americanrtl.org/news/oppose-regulations-because
Again, thanks for fighting!
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
Wow! Thanks for stopping by, Bob. No need to thank me; I'm thankful for the conviction God has placed in my heart.
ReplyDeleteAnyone interested can hear Bob's radio/webcasts here.
Dan... I'm not trying to shut you down, it's just as I said, we'ce covered this argument on more than one occasion at more than one forum; and neither of us convinced the other.
I understand your argument in regard to "illegal wars" and "conscientious objectors" I just don't want to have that argument again. Do you have any other points to make?
Just noting that I agree with you, IF your facts are correct.
ReplyDelete"I have already stated that I am opposed to this decision, IF it the facts being presented are correct. That is, IF a doctor is opposed to performing abortions, I am opposed to gov't forcing him to do so."
ReplyDeleteDan, you are a liar. You knew long before election day that Obama supports all abortion regardless of the circumstances, yet you supported him anyway. You knew long before election day that Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act 4 times, thus giving his approval to blatant infanticide, yet you still supported him.
Your act of support for a baby killing advocate gives tacit approval of his policies regardless of morality.
If you really believed in morality you would have never supported this phony for President.
The only "Fact" I presented was the fact that I did indeed receive an email from American Family Radio.
ReplyDeleteQuestions aren't facts, but it's good to know we agree on something.
Mark said:
ReplyDeleteDan, you are a liar.
That hurts so much, coming from a pervert.
Is this what your "american descent" is all about? Name-calling? So be it.
And yes, Eric, it is good to note when we have agreements.
ReplyDelete"IF you don't want to provide medical treatment, then don't become a doctor."
ReplyDeleteLet me repeat...abortion is not health-care, Dumbass.
It is murder, plain, simple.
"AND IF the war is an unjust one..."
ReplyDeleteWay above your paygrade, Pal.
There are also military codes of conduct and/or options for a soldier to legally disobey an order if he feels that acting on that order would be illegal. So between that, conscientious objections when a draft is in effect, as well as NOT volunteering to serve in the military provide ample opportunity for a soldier to protect his conscience. However, for a soldier to make judgements about the "justness" of a war goes beyond any of the above. It is an unreasonable position to support. It interferes with the order and discipline so necessary to a cohesive fighting unit. A soldier fights when told to fight. That is the essence of being a soldier. If one feels that there could be a possibility that one might be ordered to fight a war that one felt unjust, enlisting was a bad idea. It is not for the soldier to determine the justness of a war.
ReplyDeleteThis is entirely different to a doctor who has taken an oath against doing harm to anyone. The unborn are people even though abortion supporters are too selfish to give a flyin' rat's ass about that fact. Doctor's of character and conscience should not be forced to act against their sworn oath. People should not be treated like property or inanimate objects by people with no respect for human life.
Entirely different says you. It is a matter of conscience in the real world.
ReplyDeleteYou note, Marshall:
However, for a soldier to make judgements about the "justness" of a war goes beyond any of the above. It is an unreasonable position to support.
I don't think you believe this any more than I do. Germany had a military and I would assume you would not have a problem with that. That military was ordered to invade Poland with no adequate reason. They were told to wage war because their nation's leaders had said so.
And yet, I imagine that you and I both agree that the Good German Soldier would have rejected that war as a wrong war. And righteously so. Just because a president/chancellor decides a war is called for does not negate the individual citizen/soldier's right to decide for themselves what is and isn't right.
The point remains, you all are inconsistent on this point. IF it is the case that our gov't is considering forcing doctors to perform procedures with which they morally disagree, you and I both agree that is wrong.
However, you don't give that same respect or liberty to our soldiers or parents who are expecting children. That is a shame. I wish you all were consistently in favor of freedom of conscience.
This ruling isn't aimed at forcing regular general practitioner doctors to perform abortions. Its a direct response of a bunch of pharmacists saying they wouldn't sell the RU-486 pill. A pill that women can take the day after unprotected sex to stave off an unwanted pregnancy. If a woman goes to a physician and gets a prescription, the pharmacist should have no right to place his morality above that of the woman, or his medical opinion over that of a doctor.
ReplyDeleteI know of a least one instance where a rape victim was taken to a catholic hospital. She had to stay in the hospital for several days and despite repeated requests they wouldn't provide a day-after pill.
I've read other stories of stores who wouldn't sell prophylactics. These are the specific situations this ruling is targeted at.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteLeave it to you to once again pick out the worst example to which to compare our own. I have no doubt that you would have no problem with the anarchistic practice of soldiers objecting whenever they believed, or claimed to believe, that a war was "unjust". But once again, to enlist to become a soldier means to give one's self to the leadership of one's commanders. Aside from blatant criminality of an order, a soldier, by virtue of his being a soldier, is to obey. It is also doubtful that the average grunt would have all the details necessary to discern the "justness" of the war he is commanded to fight.
In addition, to object is to go against a soldier's purpose, which is to kill when so commanded. A doctor's purpose is to save lives. So there is no inconsistency when considering the nature of each career.
Bent,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't bet the farm against the possibility that a surgeon might be forced under the proposed law.
But the pharmacist has a conscience as well. People who pay attention know that RU-486, which is basically the run of the mill Pill times at least two, has the capability of causing an otherwise healthy embryo to be flushed. The same goes for the Pill itself. It isn't so much a contraceptive, though it can perform as such, as it is an abortofacient(sp). This is why there was so much objection to it's introduction to the American market place. Pharmacists who care should not be forced to provide that which they know is likely to kill.
The problem here, as always with this issue, is that too many in this country choose to ignore the humanity of the unborn, and like Nazis toward the Jew, or the Klan toward the black man, take it upon themselves to say "this one is not equal to me".
I repeat:
ReplyDelete"The point remains, you all are inconsistent on this point. IF it is the case that our gov't is considering forcing doctors to perform procedures with which they morally disagree, you and I both agree that is wrong.
However, you don't give that same respect or liberty to our soldiers or parents who are expecting children. That is a shame. I wish you all were consistently in favor of freedom of conscience."
And thanks for the info, Ben.
Dan sanctimoniously proclaims, "Mark said:
ReplyDeleteDan, you are a liar.
That hurts so much, coming from a pervert.
Is this what your "american descent" is all about? Name-calling? So be it."
Way to go, Dan. Avoid the question by trying to distract from the issue.
How do you justify your support for a politician who favors infanticide over a candidate who seeks to protect human life?
And yes, I'd say that your calling me a pervert is an example of American Descent. Or at least, Dan's moral descent.
Somehow calling you a liar and actually demonstrating that fact is name calling but you calling me a pervert without evidence is OK?
On our breakout topic:
ReplyDeleteSoldiers even though they place themselves under leadership when they enlist still are expected to retain their personal discretion and morality to judge all they orders they are given.
Under military law soldiers can't say "I was just following orders." If the orders they were following were criminal. Soldiers are expected to defer. This is very clearly spelled out in rules and laws relating to torture.
How this relates to lawful orders to combat I won't say, but clearly there is the expectation that individual grunts evaluate each order to make sure it is lawful.
I can't argue with that statement Ben. We agree.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteHowever, you don't give that same respect or liberty to our soldiers or parents who are expecting children. That is a shame. I wish you all were consistently in favor of freedom of conscience."
Again, two different topics with greatly different ramifications. We've covered the soldier bit, with the caveat that you haven't explained how a soldier can rightly argue against a war, as opposed to a single order. How would he possibly have all the details necessary to determine the justness of a war, and who is he to make such a determination in the first place? Someone at the very top of the chain of command might have those details, and he can then go public if it gets to that. But it is simply goofy to think that any soldier has the right to make that call.
As to parents' decision regarding abortion, if the mother's life is not endangered, then she would have to lack a conscience in order to prodeed with an abortion. It is not up to any of us to decide who is human enough to live. Abortionists and abortion supporters have the same mentality as do Nazis and Klan members.
with the caveat that you haven't explained how a soldier can rightly argue against a war, as opposed to a single order. How would he possibly have all the details necessary to determine the justness of a war, and who is he to make such a determination in the first place?
ReplyDeleteDo you think German soldiers had enough info on hand to know that the Polish invasion was wrong wrong wrong? I don't think it's that difficult. Clearly, to many many people, the Iraq invasion, the Poland invasion, these were WRONG, morally, nationally, globally wrong. Do you think our sons and daughters in the military lack the ability to make judgments of right and wrong when it comes to war? Seems to me you think pretty little of our soldiers, if so.
I trust them to make that judgment for themselves as to the moral righteousness or not of a given war.
As to parents' decision regarding abortion, if the mother's life is not endangered, then she would have to lack a conscience in order to proceed with an abortion. It is not up to any of us to decide who is human enough to live.
ReplyDeleteWho gets to make the call as to whether or not the mother's life is in danger? The parent or the gov't? Again, I support freedom of conscience of the individual over the gov't deciding for us. Who gets to decide if the fetus is fully human and God-breathed at one day old? At ten days old? At 4 weeks old? Who makes these decisions? Should I make them for you and your family? Should you make them for me and my family? Why?
Dan sanctimoniously declares, "I trust them to make that judgment for themselves as to the moral righteousness or not of a given war."
ReplyDeleteAnd so they do. That is why our soldiers who have joined up since 9/11 have joined. Because they understand the cause is righteous. If any of them thought the war was immoral or unjust, or illegal, they wouldn't have joined.
Like you, those would sit and whine instead of fight when they are under siege.
Dan asks the incredibly stupid question, "Who gets to make the call as to whether or not the mother's life is in danger?"
ReplyDeleteThe attending physician, Dan. Duh.
The Pervert said:
ReplyDeleteIf any of them thought the war was immoral or unjust, or illegal, they wouldn't have joined.
The Iraq Veterans against Iraq War think that this war is wrong. Do you support those veterans having the liberty to follow their conscience or would you deny them the liberty to follow their conscience?
Sometimes, you might think (especially if you're 18 and not as well informed) that an action is good and then, you learn more about it and you come to believe that this specific war is WRONG, and then you would like to the ability to follow your conscience. It's called "growing," and "learning" and "gaining wisdom." It happens with some adults.
So, perv, just to be clear: You would absolutely deny our soldiers that liberty?
Dan asks the incredibly astute (you misspelled that, Perv) question:
ReplyDelete"Who gets to make the call as to whether or not the mother's life is in danger?"
To which Perv responded:
The attending physician
So, if the family and the attending physician decide that a particular treatment - abortion, for instance - is the most appropriate step given that mother's specific situation, you support them following their conscience? Good. Me, too.
I don't think you do, though.
Again, tis a shame you all lack consistency on this point.
Dan, It has been made crystal clear that I am not the Perv here. Pervs are homosexuals. I am not a homosexual. Thus you are lying about me.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you call people who lie about others? Oh yeah, "Bearers of false witness".
I have not called you a perv. I called your aunt a perv, but that's because, being a homosexual, she fits the description. I have also called you a liar, but again, I proved that you are.
You have not proven me to be a pervert, so under your own rules, you need to stop.
If you continue to insult me, you will suddenly find blank spaces where your comments used to be.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDan, further clouds the issue by saying, "So, if the family and the attending physician decide that a particular treatment - abortion, for instance - is the most appropriate step given that mother's specific situation, you support them following their conscience? Good. Me, too."
ReplyDeleteBut that was not the question I answered. The question I answered was simply "Who gets to make the call as to whether or not the mother's life is in danger?"
The answer to that question is: "The attending physician". I never added anything about the family or the treatment prescribed.
You did that. See? Proof that you only want to argue.
So now I can assume that you will join with me in agreeing that the attending physician is the only one who has a right to determine if the mother's life is in imminent danger.
Dan asked,
ReplyDelete"Who gets to decide if the fetus is fully human and God-breathed at one day old?"
Science has already settled that question. Obviously the charge leveled at conservative Christians about being anti0-science is subjective if libs are going to pretend the fetus, even at the moment of conception, isn't a distinct human being.
Also, regarding vets against the war, let them prove it. Let them prove that the war is wrong. If they can, they may be excused. If a soldier claims an order is illegal, he must show proof. He simply can't just say it. Likewise, some smart ass who thinks he knows more about the reasons for going to war than the CIC and his staff, who have all the details regarding the motivation for going at all. To say the Iraq war is wrong is opinion. Opinion isn't the luxury of a soldier who is part of a cohesive and disciplined chain of command.
Your argument is lame.
Furthermore, the mere composing of a graphic description of a sexual act is not proof of perversion. You are merely using that to engage in the very activity you claim to abhor regarding name calling, slander and bearing of false witness. Shame on you.
Yes, I am doing what you all are doing. Shame on me. And you. And Mark.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, though: Do you REALLY think that my behaving like you all behave is a bad thing? If so, is it also bad that you behave thusly?
ReplyDeleteOr would that be yet another instance of my expecting too much consistency?
Marshall said:
ReplyDeletethe mere composing of a graphic description of a sexual act is not proof of perversion.
You would not think it perverse if I were to describe in graphic detail the sexual shenanigans I imagine you might take part in? That is, if I suggested that you and your wife, girlfriend and/or paramours ALL used gerbils during sex (and go on to describe HOW you use gerbils...), do you not think that making that suggestion is perverse?
I do. I just wonder what passes for perversity amongst your type.
Of course, I know the answer to that: Merely being homosexual is what it takes to be perverse, or at least that appears to be the working definition used by some around here. Fortunately for me, I have a dictionary and understand how to use it.
Looking back over the discussion I see that Dan was addressing someone who might object against the Iraq war. In this Dan I'm sorry you are wrong, at least legally.
ReplyDeleteOn March 8, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Gillette v. United States: The ruling stated, "The exemption for those who oppose "participation in war in any form" applies to those who oppose participating in all war and not to those who object to participation in a particular war only."
I'm not sure I understand, Ben. My point was that you can't be recognized as a pacifist merely for objecting to one specific war. A soldier who (perhaps after he enlists) comes to believe that some specific wars are wrong can't opt out.
ReplyDeleteIf that soldier begins reading the Bible (or Koran or Gandhi, etc) after enlisting and comes to believe that ALL wars are wrong, then they can apply for CO status and be discharged (it's not an easy process, from what I'm told by those who've gone through it, but it can be done IF you're willing to put up with a lot of grief), but not if they are only objecting to one specific action/war. Isn't that the same thing that you're saying?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe scenario you present would result in tons of problems for the military. How could the military confirm that the complainer is truly against a specific war, and not just trying to remove himself from harm's way? Every time a war breaks out, do you really expect the military to waste time, money and man-hours reviewing the complaints of every slob who thinks they know enough to condemn a given war? It's ridiculous to the extreme! It's a cheap ploy that can be used by anyone who wants to evade combat.
MA said:
ReplyDeleteThe scenario you present would result in tons of problems for the military... It's a cheap ploy that can be used by anyone who wants to evade combat.
1. I thought the question we're talking about is what is RIGHT, not what is expedient. Is it RIGHT or not to allow soldiers (or doctors or parents) to have the freedom to follow their conscience? I say it is wrong to prevent soldiers from having one of the freedoms that they are fighting for. I say it's akin to drafting slaves to fight in the Civil War - why would the fight for a liberty they can't enjoy themselves?
Ought we allow soldiers (doctors, parents, etc) the right to follow their conscience. Eric and others are right, I say, to say doctors have the freedom to follow their conscience. Eric and the rest of you all are wrong to say that soldiers DON'T have that same liberty.
2. As to the pragmatic side of things, I tend to have more respect for our military, in that regards. Sure, there would be some who, for reasons of cowardice or convenience, would choose to opt out of a specific war. I don't think that represents anything like a majority of our brave sons and daughters.
Is it your opinion that most or even a goodly number of our soldiers would choose cowardice and convenience over duty? If so, perhaps we can begin to see who it is who truly respects and honors our military and who doesn't.
Now, to my earlier question, Marshall (or anyone else): Is it the case that you don't like me behaving like y'all behave (name-calling, mocking, etc)? If so, why do you think it's wrong for me to behave thusly but okay for you?
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy, perhaps?
LOL! I am picturing a soldier pinned down in a foxhole with bullets whizzing overhead, and grenades exploding all around him, discovering he only has one clip of ammunition left, and surrounded by hostile enemy...
ReplyDeleteSuddenly he jumps up and yells,
"I HAVE DECIDED THIS IS AN UNJUST WAR! I QUIT!"
And the entire war has to be suspended to allow this soldier to leave unmolested, and then restarted.
Yeah, that makes sense.
So, P, does that mean you are a believer in efficacy over morality? That if it's difficult to do the right thing in the real world (allow soldiers the chance to follow their conscience, for instance), then it's okay to chuck morality?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I already knew that.
Who's P? Or is that ghetto slang?
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dan is referring to Mark for comments made and for which Mark has indeed apolgized. It is short for "pervert" which is wholly unjustified despite Mark's graphic depiction of a sex act regarding someone Dan knows. Somehow, that description is more perverted than the act itself, according to Dan. Long story short, I guess it would depend on whether the lesbian has a platonic relationship or a physical one. The latter would be the perverted one.
If I'm wrong in any of this, that is, why Dan uses the letter "P" to respond to Mark, perhaps Dan'l clear the air.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThere's no inconsistency in our position. It would be immoral for a soldier to ignore the order to fight just because he decides a specific war is immoral. It isn't his call to make due to his inability to see the whole picture. He doesn't have access to intel that his superiors do, without which a true judgement can't be made. What's more, one's experience in combat I have no doubt can change many a mind as to what passes for morality. Some, like yourself, simply aren't capable of making a proper moral judgement in wartime.
Now, if you're only speaking hypothetically and philosophically, then I would agree that a soldier has a right to opt out. But the real world doesn't allow for all that would be necessary for a true judgement from the average soldier.
Not so with the abortion argument. There's no doubt that a person is being put to death in an abortion and there are very few cases of where that was the best medical decision. More often than not, the decision was based on non-life threatening reasons, reasons that could never be applied to a "born" person, but since birth has yet to occur, selfish and morally bankrupt people think there's reasons enough.
So doctors and pharmacists have the right to deny killing innocent persons without a doubt. And gov't has the right, nay, the duty, to prevent that innocents aren't put to death without good cause.
MA said:
ReplyDeleteIt isn't his call to make due to his inability to see the whole picture.
Says who? Is that YOUR moral position? What YOUR conscience dictates to you?
You know what? Fine, you are at liberty to hold that opinion.
But GI Joe Smith might have a different opinion. His conscience might tell him that, quite clearly, War X is morally wrong. And therefore, he ought to have the liberty to follow his conscience.
You never answered, I believe, whether or not you thought German soldiers should have refused to participate in the war against Poland when their leaders made that decision? Was such a moral call above their pay grade? Did they not have the intel necessary to make that call?
You are treating our military as if they are not capable of basic moral reasoning. What a slap in the face.
MA said:
ReplyDeleteSomehow, that description is more perverted than the act itself
Yes, "P" is short for "Pervert," which Mark has demonstrated himself to be by his actions. I suppose I could also call him "H" for "hypocrite," but that doesn't have the same ring.
And yes, Marshall, somebody presuming to describe what you do in your bedroom (and doing so in a public forum such as this) is perverted, while the acts that happen in the bedroom may or may not be (IF, indeed, any acts are happening in the bedroom at all).
What is difficult to comprehend about this? Mark is a dirty-minded little pervert.
You're not of the strain that believes sex to be "dirty," are you?
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDelete"It isn't his call to make due to his inability to see the whole picture.
Says who? Is that YOUR moral position? What YOUR conscience dictates to you?"
Says anybody with a shred of common sense. No, I do NOT think that any soldier is capable of making the call for the reasons I've already stated. Any judgement made would be made with incomplete information. It's just not possible, nor is it likely, that the average soldier could ever possibly be aware of all the data that led to the involvement of his country in a given war. How could he? I don't think it's routine for the high ranks to explain themselves to the lower ranks. Therefor, the soldier, and even some officers, would be guessing as to why their country is involved.
In addition, as I also stated before, it is immoral for a given soldier to mess with the cohesiveness and discipline of his unit over some personal idea of the morality of a given war. It's not a matter of pragmatism, but morality based on the sworn duty of the soldier.
As to Nazi soldiers, who the hell cares? They are not US soldiers and they were less likely to know what led to their involvement. We know they were lied to. And we know they'd likely have been shot if any of them took a Dan Trabue position about why they did what they did.
"Now, to my earlier question, Marshall (or anyone else): Is it the case that you don't like me behaving like y'all behave (name-calling, mocking, etc)? If so, why do you think it's wrong for me to behave thusly but okay for you?
Hypocrisy, perhaps?"
I have stated repeatedly that I don't mind some playful snark and trash talking. If you can back up your reason for calling someone a nasty name, which you haven't with Mark, especially since he backed off and apologized, then go for it. But where you, Dan Trabue, are concerned, Mr. Sanctimonious and oh-so Pious, it is indeed hypocrisy since you often whine about the tone of debates, particularly when you're losing, and you can't have it both ways. You've put yourself there, pal. Don't go making new accusations because you now want to join the fun.
Dan said:
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Marshall, somebody presuming to describe what you do in your bedroom (and doing so in a public forum such as this) is perverted, while the acts that happen in the bedroom may or may not be (IF, indeed, any acts are happening in the bedroom at all).
To help you understand: If YOUR grandmother came up in conversation and Mark - without knowing the first thing about your grandmother other than that she was a heterosexual - proceeded to describe in great graphic detail some sexual activities he presumed your granny was taking part in, you DO understand, don't you, that Mark's doing so would be perverted?
MA said:
ReplyDeleteSays anybody with a shred of common sense.
Well, I know a good number of people with great common sense and they all disagree with your position, rejecting it as immoral and illogical. In fact, I would guess (my hunch) that MOST people would reject your hunch as immoral and illogical.
Now what?
AND!.....
ReplyDelete...Yet again we have allowed the opposition to frame the discussion AWAY from the topic. Whether Dan does this on purpose I can't say, but it is a favorite ploy of the Left.
The point of the post has nothing to do whatsoever with conscientious objection to WAR but, rather, to performing "medical" procedures that violate one's own personal moral standards.
This discussion is NOT about soldiers trying to get out of having to fight for their country, it's about Obama wanting to force health practitioners to perform morally repugnant procedures against their will, at the threat of their jobs.
Bravo, Dan. Intentional or not, you are so very good at what you do. I admire your tenacity. Honest.
Hey, I AGREED WITH your point. I stated that. I then proceeded to examine how far you all believe your own point (turns out, not very far).
ReplyDeleteIt's the SAME point (Do we or do we not have freedom of conscience and ought we legally be able to follow our conscience). It's just the case that you all cut off who you would and wouldn't allow the freedom to follow their conscience and I don't.
I don't really think it's changing the topic. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE is the topic. We are all discussing freedom of conscience. No harm, no foul.
I don't have the facts to back this up at hand, but I'd be willing to bet the Nazi soldiers had to fight regardless of how they felt about the morals of fighting the war. I'm fairly sure they were drafted.
ReplyDeletePossibly some did have moral objections to invading Poland, but they most likely would have been summarily executed if they had refused to enlist anyway.
Here again, there is a definite distinction between being drafted unwillingly to fight versus volunteering to serve one's country.
The comparison between a free Constitutional Republic and it's all volunteer army with Nazism, and it's conscription of unwilling participants in the armed forces doesn't fit the argument, Dan.
As far as what's perverted:
The act defines the label, Dan. If your "lesbian aunt" never engages in lesbian sex, she isn't a lesbian. She's only a woman in comfortable shoes.
So, if your aunt isn't having homosexual sex, then she isn't lesbian, and I was wrong for describing what she does behind closed doors. Perhaps she just reads books.
Lesbians and homosexuals are perverted. Not heterosexuals. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "perversion" sometime.... Here, I'll do it for you:
per⋅ver⋅sion
[per-vur-zhuhn, -shuhn] –noun
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
Homosexual sex is abnormal, thus, it's a perversion. If you think it isn't, then you must be abnormal cause you've stated on many occasions you are heterosexual.
I don't know why you continue to argue with me, Dan. As I've said, I'm smarter than you. Give it up.
BTW, on the subject of Hitler invading Poland:
ReplyDeleteHe only invaded the low countries because it was downhill all the way, which was easier than going uphill.
After he got there, he blew them all to blitz.
The act defines the label, Dan. If your "lesbian aunt" never engages in lesbian sex, she isn't a lesbian.
ReplyDeleteStrike another blow for ignorance from the Pervert.
And with that, I now apologize for acting in the same manner as many here do. I shall strive now to return to behaving myself and not engaging in name-calling and whatnot and leaving you be to do your ranting.
ReplyDeleteAnd he's off!
ReplyDeleteI've been across the web today and a funny thing I noticed. Wherever this topic was discussed-- Barack seeking to force the morally repugnant upon "conscientious" physicians --are seeing liberal commenters use the very same argument Dan has used here... soldiers objecting to "illegal" wars.
Dan says he disagrees with the policy shift, assuming the facts are correct, and I'll give him that. But as I stated earlier, this is a ploy of the Left to change the subject, turn the argument around, divert criticism from Obama and place it upon the ones who object to his policy change. It is Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals #12 which states: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." And that is exactly what Dan has done with this argument. It is what Liberals across the Blogosphere are doing with this debate. They are diverting the focus of the debate to an issue they prefer; one they feel demonstrates a dichotomy in Conservative thought-- better to expose conservative hypocrisy rather than their own. They are, of course wrong, for reasons I will explain shortly.
These people (not Dan) insist that doctors and other health practitioners perform certain procedures against their personal consciences, but argue out the other side of their mouths that soldiers who object to combat should be allowed to object "conscientiously". What hypocrisy! On the one hand they demand that doctors perform what they consider morally objectionable procedures yet insist soldiers be allowed to opt out because they morally object to the war? What NERVE these hypocrites possess!
But here's the argument they either don't know about, or don't want to have: this policy change can happen WITHOUT congressional approval... not a single vote is required to put this policy in place. And here's the problem with forcing doctors and health practitioners to choose between their morals and their jobs.
Many hospitals across this country are run by the Catholic church; the church being MORALLY opposed to the procedure liberals are most concerned about; namely, abortion. So, when a doctor refuses to perform such procedures, or prescribe or dispense certain drugs, while staffed at, say, a hospital called St. Mary's which just happens to be Catholic run, the government can punish that hospital by denying Medicare and Medicaid funding. These hospitals then have to either treat the elderly for free or send them to other hospitals. Who suffers? The patients.
But do Liberals care? Of course not. All they care about is free and open access to abortion anytime, anywhere, at anyone's moral expense, and the hospital and the elderly be damned.
Oh, to be Liberal and selfish, with hands washed in blood and the temerity to demand the rest of us take part in their moral repugnance.
Well, not me. Not while I draw breath.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Well, I know a good number of people with great common sense and they all disagree with your position, rejecting it as immoral and illogical."
Your first mistake is assuming I'd give credibility to your belief you'd know people with great common sense. You show little of it here, why should I suspect you'd know it in your own community if you saw it? You second mistake is using the term "a good number" as if I'm supposed to believe that's more than the frog in your pocket and a selection of imaginary friends.
As I said, hypothetically your position has merit. It's in the real world where it fails miserably. The distraction such a claim would cause, when the focus needs to be on winning the war, in trying to ascertain the validity of the whiner's claim, makes his actions immoral. You, and those imaginary friends, as well as the frog in your pocket, are foolish and as I said, have a difficult time with judging morality in the real world.
"To help you understand: If YOUR grandmother came up in conversation and Mark...etc"
No. It would only be inappropriate and a possible demand for a beating. If I found that Mark loves to engage in such discussions on a regular basis, then I'd begin to have my suspicions. But as he was trying to make a point about the perversion of same sex practices, it was only a one time over-the-top graphic description. As such, he is undeserving of the label, "pervert". I don't believe that distinction is difficult for YOU to comprehend, but I do believe that you think it puts you on a higher moral ground. I don't blame you. Support for immoral sexual behavior and state sanctioning of it must compel you to find ways of doing so.
"You're not of the strain that believes sex to be "dirty," are you?"
No. But I do believe and am supported by Scripture, that sex outside of that which occurs between a man and his wife is sinful. Said another way, sex outside of the parameters of a traditional marriage is sinful and as such is never blessed by God.