another perspective
Posted By: adriana on 2009-02-28
In Reply to: Reality check............ sm - m
Um, do you guys realize that not all OB/GYN doctors perform abortions? Not that I'm an ob/gyn physician, but I believe you need training beyond residency to be certified in abortions. There are a many residencies that do not offer abortion training to its residents, for whatever reason. The point is, just because you're an ob/gyn doctor, does NOT mean that you perform abortions. Therefore, just because Bush's law is being repealed or whatever by Obama, doesn't mean that now every ob/gyn doctor out there is going to have to provide abortions or risk getting sued. Did that happen before Bush's law went into effect?
I think the concerning thing about Bush's law was that it permitted healthcare workers to refuse to even provide INFORMATION regarding abortions (like, who to refer someone to), based on their moral beliefs. Moral beliefs vary between people, and between providers, and are very subjective. What if a healthcare provider believed that ANY abortion, even in a case in which the mother's health was threatened, was immoral? He or she, under Bush's law (as I understand it), would be legally protected in not giving the woman information on who to go to to get an abortion. In a field where healthcare providers put patients first (and in the case of a mother's life or health being threatened, the mother always comes first for obvious reasons), it is unconscienceable, from a medical ethics standpoint, to refuse to offer that woman the resources she needs to protect her health and/or life.
That's an extreme example, and I truly hope no healthcare provider would make the decision to refuse information to a woman in that case, but under Bush's law, they would be protected. As far as I understand it.
Another MUCH more common example is prescribing emergency contraception, and even regular contraception. Under Bush's law, a pharmacist would have the right, legally, to refuse to fill a prescription for a woman seeking that if his or her beliefs indicated that such a thing (contraception - emergency or not) was immoral. This is especially relevant in rural areas, where women - often poor - do not have access to more than one pharmacist. Her right to contraception definitely trumps a pharmacist's beliefs - and I'll tell you why. Pharmacists don't (as far as I know) have access to doctor's notes explaining the reason for a prescription. They're smart and trained people who can look at your meds and deduct what medical problems you have, but how are they to know if you have antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and really, really shouldn't get pregnant? They don't. They might know if you're taking retin a orally and thus shouldn't get pregnant for that reason, but they don't know everything about your medical conditions. And even if they did, legally protecting these providers' decisions to refuse contraception CAN remove the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own health. In a free society that protects individual autonomy, such a law goes directly against what it is supposed to protect - autonomy. A subexample - what if the woman in question is a victim of rape or incest and can't remove herself from the situation, for reasons that you and I don't know? Why should a pharamcist's beliefs - again, which are hard to legally define - trump HER decision to not get pregnant with the result of a repeated act of rape or incest? Furthermore, you and I don't know that she's being raped. You and I also don't know the reason why she can't remove herself from the situation. So, why should you or I make a moral judgement and/or a decision that impacts her health? I don't believe that we can. I know that *I* can't, because I really don't know this woman's story. As a pharmacist, and even as her doctor, I likely wouldn't know.
Back to the subject of morality and the definition of morality. What if a healthcare provider believes that homosexuality is immoral, and allowing such a couple to have children is immoral? A case like that happened in California a few years ago, where the fertility clinic a lesbian couple went to basically either did not harvest the eggs, or did not give the proper treatments (I don't know the exact details), but executed acts that were based on a decision (a decision they admitted to) to not help these women conceive BECAUSE they believed homosexuality was immoral, and they allowed the women to keep coming to the clinic for months before it came out that they were not helping them because they were lesbian. Now, perhaps this was a Christian clinic, or perhaps everyone in the clinic WAS Christian. I don't know. I do know that the rights of these women to get fertility treatments was denied to them because a decision was made based on someone else's morals. Why should their health, and their control over their fertility, be impacted by someone they don't even know? We don't go into the healthcare business to make moral decisions for people. That's the job of our church, if we have one.
Basically, I'm writing here because I've gone through most of the comments, and people all seem to be under the misconception that doctors will have to perform abortions now if asked, and a) that's not the case, given that all doctors are not trained in abortions, and b) the main importance of the law (in my opinion) lies not in the actual procedure of abortion, but in the sharing of information to women about their LEGAL options. Which, in America and in many developed countries, includes abortion, like it or not.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
My perspective is not so
We could argue forever about whether the bible is historically accurate...
You're wrong; I see humans as more than animals, but what I said is that we are basically animals and therefore have the same basic instincts. As with animals, it is the quest for territory and power which have caused the rise and fall of powerful nations throughout history...not homosexuality. Also, you see Christians only as victims when, in fact, we've done our share of the murdering (the Crusades, the inquisition, the *discovery* of the Americas,the Holocaust, etc.) The old testament is just as violent. My point is this: we brutalize and kill each other for the same reason animals do - dominance over others...no matter the religion, no matter the country. That's where I think the NeoCons have pulled a fast one and many have fallen for it; under the guise of religion and being good American Christians, they've convinced many they are the ones to follow, when, in fact, their policies are in direct conflict with the interests and well-being of the average American i.e., healthcare, jobs, etc., and when in fact they are no more Christian than anyone else. It's all about POWER, as it has ALWAYS been....but make it sound like it's for God and suddenly you're drinking Kool-Aid.
Just a little perspective
I have seen portions of this video today, and let me tell you this is not mainstream Christianity. We are not worshipping images of George Bush nor are we working our children up into an emotional frenzy. I disdain what this so-called woman minister is doing to these children. My child would not come within 100 yards of her. It's not Biblical...it's almost cultish, but before you start parading this around as the Christian norm. It's not. This woman is developing a cult under the name Christian...she's got some deep seated theological issues.
Let's put this in perspective...
The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.
I don't think this in any way reflects how the bulk of the military will vote...there are several thousand more than are reflected here.
For a different perspective....(sm)
you might want to check out http://nooga.com/
Pretty much all of the other media around is now republican owned.
another perspective
Um, do you guys realize that not all OB/GYN doctors perform abortions? Not that I'm an ob/gyn physician, but I believe you need training beyond residency to be certified in abortions. There are a many residencies that do not offer abortion training to its residents, for whatever reason. The point is, just because you're an ob/gyn doctor, does NOT mean that you perform abortions. Therefore, just because Bush's law is being repealed or whatever by Obama, doesn't mean that now every ob/gyn doctor out there is going to have to provide abortions or risk getting sued. Did that happen before Bush's law went into effect?
I think the concerning thing about Bush's law was that it permitted healthcare workers to refuse to even provide INFORMATION regarding abortions (like, who to refer someone to), based on their moral beliefs. Moral beliefs vary between people, and between providers, and are very subjective. What if a healthcare provider believed that ANY abortion, even in a case in which the mother's health was threatened, was immoral? He or she, under Bush's law (as I understand it), would be legally protected in not giving the woman information on who to go to to get an abortion. In a field where healthcare providers put patients first (and in the case of a mother's life or health being threatened, the mother always comes first for obvious reasons), it is unconscienceable, from a medical ethics standpoint, to refuse to offer that woman the resources she needs to protect her health and/or life.
That's an extreme example, and I truly hope no healthcare provider would make the decision to refuse information to a woman in that case, but under Bush's law, they would be protected. As far as I understand it.
Another MUCH more common example is prescribing emergency contraception, and even regular contraception. Under Bush's law, a pharmacist would have the right, legally, to refuse to fill a prescription for a woman seeking that if his or her beliefs indicated that such a thing (contraception - emergency or not) was immoral. This is especially relevant in rural areas, where women - often poor - do not have access to more than one pharmacist. Her right to contraception definitely trumps a pharmacist's beliefs - and I'll tell you why. Pharmacists don't (as far as I know) have access to doctor's notes explaining the reason for a prescription. They're smart and trained people who can look at your meds and deduct what medical problems you have, but how are they to know if you have antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and really, really shouldn't get pregnant? They don't. They might know if you're taking retin a orally and thus shouldn't get pregnant for that reason, but they don't know everything about your medical conditions. And even if they did, legally protecting these providers' decisions to refuse contraception CAN remove the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own health. In a free society that protects individual autonomy, such a law goes directly against what it is supposed to protect - autonomy. A subexample - what if the woman in question is a victim of rape or incest and can't remove herself from the situation, for reasons that you and I don't know? Why should a pharamcist's beliefs - again, which are hard to legally define - trump HER decision to not get pregnant with the result of a repeated act of rape or incest? Furthermore, you and I don't know that she's being raped. You and I also don't know the reason why she can't remove herself from the situation. So, why should you or I make a moral judgement and/or a decision that impacts her health? I don't believe that we can. I know that *I* can't, because I really don't know this woman's story. As a pharmacist, and even as her doctor, I likely wouldn't know.
Back to the subject of morality and the definition of morality. What if a healthcare provider believes that homosexuality is immoral, and allowing such a couple to have children is immoral? A case like that happened in California a few years ago, where the fertility clinic a lesbian couple went to basically either did not harvest the eggs, or did not give the proper treatments (I don't know the exact details), but executed acts that were based on a decision (a decision they admitted to) to not help these women conceive BECAUSE they believed homosexuality was immoral, and they allowed the women to keep coming to the clinic for months before it came out that they were not helping them because they were lesbian. Now, perhaps this was a Christian clinic, or perhaps everyone in the clinic WAS Christian. I don't know. I do know that the rights of these women to get fertility treatments was denied to them because a decision was made based on someone else's morals. Why should their health, and their control over their fertility, be impacted by someone they don't even know? We don't go into the healthcare business to make moral decisions for people. That's the job of our church, if we have one.
Basically, I'm writing here because I've gone through most of the comments, and people all seem to be under the misconception that doctors will have to perform abortions now if asked, and a) that's not the case, given that all doctors are not trained in abortions, and b) the main importance of the law (in my opinion) lies not in the actual procedure of abortion, but in the sharing of information to women about their LEGAL options. Which, in America and in many developed countries, includes abortion, like it or not.
Historical Perspective
I heard many calls today on talk radio from these naturalized US citizens who said to just take a look at what happened to these nations.
Think what y'all want, but I'll never forget what they've done to take the $ I make and hand it over to some jerk who pays nothing in taxes. Yeah, that's really fair.
One clip was played where a lady said she's so happy that she'll never have to pay a mortage, car payment, and even gas for her car! So this is okay? Next time I need gas $ or something, I'll just put my hand out and y'all can just empty your wallets. So if someone owns 2 acres and I own only 1/2, you have to pony up to even out the difference. Enjoy it and don't bitch about it if you voted for this naked socialist.
Good luck to charitable organizations. It should be interesting to see how many people continue to give once they've been completely raped for all they've earned.
Jon always has the perfect perspective . . .
Hey Fox!! Paranoia will destroy 'ya!! TEE HEE!! 
Perspective. That is nothing compared to what we
nm
I guess it depends on your perspective...
if you are as far left as Obama, I guess CNN WOULD look conservative...lol. I guess it is in perspective. The point I was trying to make but obviously failed is that no one is going to learn anything if they only listen to one side...and people who automatically yell yeah you got that from Fox or Rush Limbaugh are exactly the kind of people I am talking about. You give an opinion, and if it differs from theirs it automatically came from Fox or Rush Limbaugh and that makes it wrong. I just wish people would not listen to the party line on either side and would use due diligence and research for themselves. The Obama website is not where to go to learn about Obama. The McCain website is not where to go to learn about McCain. Voting the party line is just too Pied Piperish for me. Although I am not and never was a Democrat, I have to applaud that PUMA bunch for having the gall to buck the system and fight for what they think is right. I am not crazy about their candidate either, but I admire their guts, and that is what America is about, by golly. Hil has every right to put her name in nomination at the convention and people who support her have their say. That being said, I noticed Obama caved on that and came out with that placating and to MY thinking condescending thing of "letting women and Clinton supporters feel vindicated." Yeah right...lol. He wants their votes. Period. Go PUMA!
She only hates FOX because they give perspective
nm
Let me try this from a different perspective (long post!)
First off, thank you for your post. Thanks for not bashing.
Second, I HATE IT when you've typed a huge long thing and it gets erased! !!!!
Anyways, I want to come at this from a different angle. From one of very few conservative college students left.
As the campaign and election unfolded, the things I witnessed in this college town and across the nation did not remind me of the last presidential elections.
I watched as signs and Facebook statuses said "Barack the vote!" or "The White House is going to be painted BLACK B*T*HS!" or "My president is BLACK!!"
Very mature.
I watched as shirts were being sold that had a giant "O" on them resembling the "S" for Superman.
I watched as bars promoted "FREE SHOTS FOR EVERY STATE THAT GOES BLUE!" like they do for everytime UGA scores a touchdown.
I watched people who in 40 or 50 years have never once voted, but now go and register to vote for O. And I am not denying the historical significance of him running or being elected. But the simple fact is that there were quite a few black people who went out and registered to vote for him, not caring about what he stood for. There were also white people who went out and registered to vote so they could vote against him, but I do not believe the numbers were equal.
I decided to pull a Howard Stern yesterday in talking to one of my friends. I said "I'm so glad Obama is a Pro-lifer!" Her answer? "I know, isn't he great?!" ......?!?!?
This is my problem. Obama has been presented as a ROCK STAR, not a presidential candidate. Girls are swooning over his good looks. He threw a 2 million (probably more than that by now) Obamapalooza Tuesday night. The reaction to him is like one you might see if a college found out Green Day or 50 cent was going to come perform for them.
Everyone is so excited that the 18-24 year olds are finally getting out and voting and that we had record turnouts. Nevermind they don't have a clue what for. Nevermind that they probably voted Obama and then just randomly picked all the other names on the ballot. Nevermind that they didn't research the issues, or think past their four years in college.
If someone voted for Obama with understanding of what he was for and what his plans were, that is fine. I have no beef with that. That is what makes our nation so great. My problem is that the majority of NEW voters don't seem to have a clue. I watch on Facebook as classmates plaster pictures of Obama looking hot on the cover of Ebony. Or write I heart Obama! All over their cars.
This election just did not seem dignified to me. I really don't care that Mccain lost. He wasn't my No. 1 choice. What I do care about is that the majority of people voted on a Rock Star, not a President.
I know that we can't have quizzes or what not before voting because it would be similar to the Jim Crow laws, but their needs to be something. People shouldn't just be allowed to blindly vote for the highest office in our country.
Again, I'm not saying that everyone did. If you knew what Obama/Biden stood for when you cast your vote for him, that's fine, unless you just say "he stands for change!".
Look, I hope I have to eat crow for the next four years. I hope he turns out to be the greatest bipartisan president I have ever seen and he just makes this country into an amazing place. But it's going to take an act of God for that to happen I believe. There will be a great uniting of liberals and left leaners, I am sure. But I feel like us conservatives who hold to tradition and God are going to become few and far between. There is already a shortage of true Christians in this nation. THAT'S what I fear. I fear the fact that talking against a group or religion is a hate crime, unless it's against Christianity. I fear the fact that I'm going to try to be forced to accept what is against my beliefs. I fear that in an effort to "unite" this country, we are going to be expected to compromise on our beliefs.
Like I said, I hope I am wrong. I hope that Obama turns out to be an amazing guy and puts this country on the right track. But there is a reason for a left and a right. We who lean right shouldn't be expected to go left, and vice versa. But as the president, he is representing ALL PEOPLE, and therefore needs to stay right in the middle.
I would like to see him elect some strong conservatives to his cabinet to balance out some of the strong liberals. I would like to see him elect supreme court justices that balance each other. These actions would cause me to give him some trust.
I will say this. This young conservative will be keeping a watch. And she will be writing him and anyone else she needs to when she feels that things are going to far to one side. Right or left.
From this point forward starts a blank page. Like I said before, He has a 0 with me right now. With the pick of Emanuel, he's leaning to the negative, but if he balances it out with a conservative pick, we'll be good.
Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
|
