Update on Bush Admin. Regulation--Ladies, read this

[ACooper]

I <3 George Carlin. RIP.

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. I used to work at a boarding resort. I had to deal with people who felt that Beneful was the bestest food ever, that their 42 lb Beagle really did need to eat 6 cups of food a day, that Ceasar Milan was the god of dog training and they had no problem whomping on their dog with the leash after jerking them around by a prong collar. Now, my personal morals screamed bloody murder quite often there, especially when it came to overfeeding dogs that were so obese they resembled coffee tables. Yet, I had to follow the owners directions. That's what I was getting paid for, to take care of their dog like they would when they couldn't be there. There was no wiggle room for my personal morals, despite the fact that it physically pained me to do my job. I did all I could to offer alternate suggestions, recommended books, websites, different techniques, etc. But that was all I could do. I could not refuse to perform a service that I felt was detrimental to a dog's well-being. I finally got fed up with being part of the slow death of too many dogs and quit.

Granted, there is a world of difference between being a doctor and a dog worker in terms of ease of finding a job, but the basic principle is the same.

Not exactly the same thing.........but I see where you are trying to go with it.

Now, if you had applied for the job and they would have laid it out for you........People do X Y Z with their dogs and you are expected to do X Y Z as well would you have still taken the job?

Honestly, if I were a doctor/nurse and I was told what my duties would be BEFORE I accepted, I wouldn't have a problem saying "I don't really agree with X Y Z" right up front as I am sure most of them do.

I am not going to work at PP if I don't agree with what they do...........that includes even answering their phones, period.

 

[Miakoda]

Lil, and that's exactly why I despise legislation that lumps so many things into a package deal.

No matter my stance on abortion, I would refuse/will refuse to support such a measure because of all the other issues tacked onto it.

 

[Miakoda]

The point I am making is in direct reference to the quote. You're implying that euthanizing an independent individual due to a minor inconvenience is on the same ground as an elective procedure in the womb.

In other news, I sure did jump right into the snakepit on this one, didn't I? Obviously I know how to make first impressions here. Grawr! :rofl1:

Hmm. So euthanizing an independent individual (however last time I checked 6-year-old kids and pets alike depended on their parents/gaurdians/owners) due to a minor inconvenience is bad.......euthanizing a dependent individual due to it being an invoenvenience is good.

 

[Dawni]

Miakoda, I do understand that you and I aren't going to agree on the core basis of the argument at hand here. No minds will be changed despite the profundity of our dog-forum medium. With me, it just goes back to what Lil was mentioning regarding bundled legislation, with which you also seem to agree. This legislation is poople.

 

[sparks19]

The point I am making is in direct reference to the quote. You're implying that euthanizing an independent individual due to a minor inconvenience is on the same ground as an elective procedure in the womb.

:

sounds the same to me.

both are terminating a life due to inconvenience.

I'm not saying abortion should be illegal. I don't believe that at all. But I do think a Dr or nurse should have the right to not perform a procedure if it goes against their moral code(unless it is an EMERGENCY like the mothers life is in danger)

Lilavati... Now the whole thing about not being able to deny a job to an applicant because she won't do procedures is ridiculous. that is completely out of line and IMO is right up there with having to hire someone because of ethnicity over someone who might be more qualified. Does that mean that if someone applies and says she won't perform abortions they hav to hire her even if there are more qualified applicants also trying to get the job?

 

[ACooper]

The point I am making is in direct reference to the quote. You're implying that euthanizing an independent individual due to a minor inconvenience is on the same ground as an elective procedure in the womb.

In other news, I sure did jump right into the snakepit on this one, didn't I? Obviously I know how to make first impressions here. Grawr! :rofl1:

And Mia's point is that they are BOTH a moral issue to the individual performing either one.

If I were a vet I would take great issue with putting down a healthy animal just to make it convenient to the owner.

Likewise, if I were a doctor I wouldn't want to perform an unnecessary abortion.

BOTH moral issues IMO and since morals are a very personal thing, it should be a personal choice.

 

[sparks19]

Coop... do you realize that this is TWO controversial threads that you have participated in where you kept coming back to argue your point :O what's gotten into you

hehe just teasing.

 

[Lilavati]

sounds the same to me.

both are terminating a life due to inconvenience.

I'm not saying abortion should be illegal. I don't believe that at all. But I do think a Dr or nurse should have the right to not perform a procedure if it goes against their moral code(unless it is an EMERGENCY like the mothers life is in danger)

Lilavati... Now the whole thing about not being able to deny a job to an applicant because she won't do procedures is ridiculous. that is completely out of line and IMO is right up there with having to hire someone because of ethnicity over someone who might be more qualified. Does that mean that if someone applies and says she won't perform abortions they hav to hire her even if there are more qualified applicants also trying to get the job?

Not technically. It just can't be the reason you don't hire them, so, legally you can hire someone more qulaified. However, as we know from non-discrimination laws, you'd best be careful about not hiring someone who fits in the protected catagory, even if other people are equally or more qualified, and even if you have good reasons for not hiring them (like they are an annoying person). They will sue you. This happens a lot. Its a consequence, probably one we have to live with, of non-discrimination laws. Fortunately, most of those laws have been moderated so you have to have some proof . . . But people can just say "He didn't hire me because I'm black" and at least get to the judge. They'll probably be dimissed, but its a major nuisence. This doesn't seem to have those safeties, and I am CERTAIN that you will have pro-life nurses and doctors showing up at federally funded institutions to take advantage of this, for the exact reason that it will make it harder for people to have abortions.

 

[ACooper]

Coop... do you realize that this is TWO controversial threads that you have participated in where you kept coming back to argue your point :O what's gotten into you

hehe just teasing.

I am trying to quit smoking! :yikes: :rofl1:

 

[Lilavati]

And Mia's point is that they are BOTH a moral issue to the individual performing either one.

If I were a vet I would take great issue with putting down a healthy animal just to make it convenient to the owner.

Likewise, if I were a doctor I wouldn't want to perform an unnecessary abortion.

BOTH moral issues IMO and since morals are a very personal thing, it should be a personal choice.

And very likely no one woudl make you. Just don't take a job somewhere that does abortions. Or become a cardilogist. Or a podatrist. Or a optomitrist. Or work in those departments. Its not like most doctors do abortions: most don't, are never asked to, and couldn't do one if they were asked to because they don't know how.

 

[Dawni]

And Mia's point is that they are BOTH a moral issue to the individual performing either one.

If I were a vet I would take great issue with putting down a healthy animal just to make it convenient to the owner.

Likewise, if I were a doctor I wouldn't want to perform an unnecessary abortion.

BOTH moral issues IMO and since morals are a very personal thing, it should be a personal choice.

Right, and therein lies the rub. A 6 year-old child is not biologically dependent on his mother. Technically, anyone willing to pony up the responsability will do. I just don't see many people lining up to carry all those fertilized eggs out there to term.

Like I said, I accept that we won't agree. It's still interesting to hear differing opinions on controversial issues though. I find it...healthy.

 

[Miakoda]

And very likely no one woudl make you. Just don't take a job somewhere that does abortions.

And I agree. My uncle would never take a job at an abortion clinic. But just because he did become an OB/GYN doesn't mean he should be forced to perform voluntary abortions.

 

[Miakoda]

Right, and therein lies the rub. A 6 year-old child is not biologically dependent on his mother. Technically, anyone willing to pony up the responsability will do. I just don't see many people lining up to carry all those fertilized eggs out there to term.

Like I said, I accept that we won't agree. It's still interesting to hear differing opinions on controversial issues though. I find it...healthy.

But you are saying that an OB/GYN should be mandated to perform voluntary abortions regardless of his moral beliefs on the issue.

That's my issue. If you don't want one person's moral beliefs to negatively affect you, why is it right for your moral beliefs to negatively affect others?

 

[ACooper]

But you are saying that an OB/GYN should be mandated to perform voluntary abortions regardless of his moral beliefs on the issue.

That's my issue. If you don't want one person's moral beliefs to negatively affect you, why is it right for your moral beliefs to negatively affect others?

:hail:
And THAT sentence sums up the WHOLE of it IMO...........

I don't need to post anymore 'cause there is nothing more to that I can add

*goes to smoke* :rofl1:

 

[M&M's Mommy]

But you are saying that an OB/GYN should be mandated to perform voluntary abortions regardless of his moral beliefs on the issue.

That's my issue. If you don't want one person's moral beliefs to negatively affect you, why is it right for your moral beliefs to negatively affect others?

:hail:
And THAT sentence sums up the WHOLE of it IMO...........

I don't need to post anymore 'cause there is nothing more to that I can add

Amen.

 

[Lilavati]

But you are saying that an OB/GYN should be mandated to perform voluntary abortions regardless of his moral beliefs on the issue.

That's my issue. If you don't want one person's moral beliefs to negatively affect you, why is it right for your moral beliefs to negatively affect others?

Ummm . . . I think more correctly, an OB/GYN who doesn't want to perform abortions should not take a job somewhere where they would be expected to. Which is different from forcing them to do so. Because there are plenty of jobs that DON'T require performing abortions, even for OB/GYNs.

 

[Dawni]

But you are saying that an OB/GYN should be mandated to perform voluntary abortions regardless of his moral beliefs on the issue.

That's my issue. If you don't want one person's moral beliefs to negatively affect you, why is it right for your moral beliefs to negatively affect others?

Actually, in a perfect world I would agree with your point. Assuming that the OB/GYN has no alternative agenda in mind, he or she should absolutely have the right to only perform medically necessary abortions. "Medically necessary" could easily become a relative term, though.

I just don't believe that most humans are that honest or altruistic, despite the letters that come after their names.

 

[Zoom]

As has been stated, it's a whole big mess.

 

[MelissaCato]

It's a big sad mess. Irresponsibility at it's finest. And to think these people wanna breed animals. Paaaaleaaaase.

 

[sparks19]

Not technically. It just can't be the reason you don't hire them, so, legally you can hire someone more qulaified. However, as we know from non-discrimination laws, you'd best be careful about not hiring someone who fits in the protected catagory, even if other people are equally or more qualified, and even if you have good reasons for not hiring them (like they are an annoying person). They will sue you. This happens a lot. Its a consequence, probably one we have to live with, of non-discrimination laws. Fortunately, most of those laws have been moderated so you have to have some proof . . . But people can just say "He didn't hire me because I'm black" and at least get to the judge. They'll probably be dimissed, but its a major nuisence. This doesn't seem to have those safeties, and I am CERTAIN that you will have pro-life nurses and doctors showing up at federally funded institutions to take advantage of this, for the exact reason that it will make it harder for people to have abortions.

Well I find that part of it completely ridiculous.

Is it just me or does any find these "non discrimination laws" discriminating?