Wow Missouri, how very Pro-Life of you

[Bromius Bacchus]

TheDarkEricDraven

washu_2004

I would not take anything the huffington post says seriously. It is plainly obvious from most of their articles that they are pushing a political agenda of their own.

Yeah, the correct agenda. The Right Wing is so stupid it's amazing they can put their shirts on the right way.

For all the GOP has to say against government interfering with peoples lives they sure wan't to interfere with mine.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

I agree with the representative that said to say the other official was comparing women to farm animals is disingenuous. It was clear to me that he was using that experience to reference the importance of all persons in a procedure being on the same page.

That being said, his bill, if it does not include a provision that would demand that someone always be available on staff who will assist and perform said surgeries, is bad legislation. Its not relevant if all persons in a procedure are on the same page in terms of religious affiliation or beliefs. What matters is that they all know their role in the operation and have the skills to perform it. I am fine with allowing medical professionals to object, but I am not fine with that when such laws work to effectively ban such procedures from happening.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Ghosty Pie

and this is why I use men

Because... your immature?

[Ratttking]

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

I'm not from the US, but here is a quote from a US law firm about the subject of refusing customers: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html
You cannot refuse a customers based on race, age, sex, religion, etc.
Shouldn't the medical profession be the same way? Refusing to perform an abortion on a patient is refusing them based on religion.
I am aware that medical professional does mean more than one thing, but I think only an idiot would visit a dermatologist for an abortion, the same way you wouldn't see a podiatrist about your skin, so I don't think that is the issue here. Referring an individual to a specialist or someone trained in that procedure is different than refusing to perform an abortion on a patient because of their personal religious beliefs.

You can't outright say that any of those are the reasons, but you can say the tables are reserved, they do not meet the dress code, the kitchen is closing early because the cook has the runs, etc. Minors can typically be turned away from places that serve alcohol unless they are with parents or guardians.

It's not even close to the same thing, because turning away someone because of your religion is not at all the same as turning them away because of theirs. The doctor and patient might even be the same religion.

In theory, all MDs should have the knowledge to perform the procedure, although not the equipment like the suction machine. Hehe, maybe the plastic surgeon does, I wonder if it's the same as what they use for liposuction.

Now, tell me why you feel that any doctor should be forced to perform elective surgery. We're not talking an emergency situation here.

However the law says that you can't turn away a customer based on those kinds of discrimination, whereas this law is saying it is acceptable to turn a patient away based on a certain kind of discrimination. Also minors are turned out from places that serve alchohol because they are not legally allowed to consume alchohol.

What I'm trying to say is due to personal beliefs, I don't think anyone should refuse service to a customer. In some other industry, say a Hindu individual may strongly believe in the caste system and does not want to serve someone because they believe them to be too low and not worth serving. We wouldn't allow that, even though it is their religious belief. Or if a Jewish waiter refuses to serve pig to a customer, because it is not kosher and directly conflicts with their religious beliefs, we wouldn't allow that either and say it's his job to serve the customer regardless of his personal beliefs.

Haha interesting thought, maybe it is the same machine :S

Well, then should any employee be forced to perform any elective service? No one has to purchase a TV at a particular store, but the employee is still required to serve them.

Note: I realize not all Hindus believe in the caste system, and not all Jewish people care about what food is kosher. I just made up a hypothetical situation.

So what you are saying is your personal beliefs conflict with those of the doctors and you feel that yours should prevail. That is not a very good reason. Can you come up with an unbiased reason?

If a store owner does not wish to sell to a person, he is not required to. Why should a doctor in private practice be held to a different standard? I'm sure that an anti-abortion doctor who refused to perform the procedure would not last long at Planned Parenthood.

Restaurants that serve alcohol in theory need never allow minors to darken their doorstep, but they often do, whether or not they are accompanied. It depends on the manager, unless it's a chain place and there is a company-wide policy.

Observant Jew or not, the server should not be touching the pork on the customer's plate, nor any food with his bare hands, thus it should not be a problem.

Is it not biased then to believe the opposite, that a doctor's beliefs are more important than the patient's?

I believe that a paying customer should have a right to a legal service, and that a provider of said service should have no right to refuse the customer. I do this all the time where I work, even when there are people I'd really rather not serve. It's my job to do so and I must.

It's not a perfect analogy, but if he was an observant Jew, he would disagree with the serving of pork, but it is legal and they are a paying customer and he must do it as part of his job. A doctor may not agree with abortion, but it is legal and there is a paying customer. I think personal beliefs should be left of the professional environment.

You are not answering the question.

You are not the owner, I take it?

How do you figure that a doctor who opposes abortion is a provider of that service?

Jews don't care what Gentiles eat.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

washu_2004

I would not take anything the huffington post says seriously. It is plainly obvious from most of their articles that they are pushing a political agenda of their own.

Yes, because that is so beyond the pale for news these days to take a position. rolleyes

Look, you dont have to like the "position". You should however be centered enough to address the facts they assert in the piece, which is that the official is carrying a bill, and, in defending that bill, he used an analogy. Some people feel this was inappropriate, while others dont.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Ghosty Pie

Riviera de la Mancha

Ghosty Pie

and this is why I use men

Because... your immature?

why you mad?

I am not. I dont even know you, so how could I be mad at you?

I just think you are being immature if you let anything in that article influence anything you do. It would be like me reading a story about Lorena Bobbitt and using that as an excuse to use women.

[Vanilla-Parfait]

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

I'm not from the US, but here is a quote from a US law firm about the subject of refusing customers: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html
You cannot refuse a customers based on race, age, sex, religion, etc.
Shouldn't the medical profession be the same way? Refusing to perform an abortion on a patient is refusing them based on religion.
I am aware that medical professional does mean more than one thing, but I think only an idiot would visit a dermatologist for an abortion, the same way you wouldn't see a podiatrist about your skin, so I don't think that is the issue here. Referring an individual to a specialist or someone trained in that procedure is different than refusing to perform an abortion on a patient because of their personal religious beliefs.

You can't outright say that any of those are the reasons, but you can say the tables are reserved, they do not meet the dress code, the kitchen is closing early because the cook has the runs, etc. Minors can typically be turned away from places that serve alcohol unless they are with parents or guardians.

It's not even close to the same thing, because turning away someone because of your religion is not at all the same as turning them away because of theirs. The doctor and patient might even be the same religion.

In theory, all MDs should have the knowledge to perform the procedure, although not the equipment like the suction machine. Hehe, maybe the plastic surgeon does, I wonder if it's the same as what they use for liposuction.

Now, tell me why you feel that any doctor should be forced to perform elective surgery. We're not talking an emergency situation here.

However the law says that you can't turn away a customer based on those kinds of discrimination, whereas this law is saying it is acceptable to turn a patient away based on a certain kind of discrimination. Also minors are turned out from places that serve alchohol because they are not legally allowed to consume alchohol.

What I'm trying to say is due to personal beliefs, I don't think anyone should refuse service to a customer. In some other industry, say a Hindu individual may strongly believe in the caste system and does not want to serve someone because they believe them to be too low and not worth serving. We wouldn't allow that, even though it is their religious belief. Or if a Jewish waiter refuses to serve pig to a customer, because it is not kosher and directly conflicts with their religious beliefs, we wouldn't allow that either and say it's his job to serve the customer regardless of his personal beliefs.

Haha interesting thought, maybe it is the same machine :S

Well, then should any employee be forced to perform any elective service? No one has to purchase a TV at a particular store, but the employee is still required to serve them.

Note: I realize not all Hindus believe in the caste system, and not all Jewish people care about what food is kosher. I just made up a hypothetical situation.

So what you are saying is your personal beliefs conflict with those of the doctors and you feel that yours should prevail. That is not a very good reason. Can you come up with an unbiased reason?

If a store owner does not wish to sell to a person, he is not required to. Why should a doctor in private practice be held to a different standard? I'm sure that an anti-abortion doctor who refused to perform the procedure would not last long at Planned Parenthood.

Restaurants that serve alcohol in theory need never allow minors to darken their doorstep, but they often do, whether or not they are accompanied. It depends on the manager, unless it's a chain place and there is a company-wide policy.

Observant Jew or not, the server should not be touching the pork on the customer's plate, nor any food with his bare hands, thus it should not be a problem.

Is it not biased then to believe the opposite, that a doctor's beliefs are more important than the patient's?

I believe that a paying customer should have a right to a legal service, and that a provider of said service should have no right to refuse the customer. I do this all the time where I work, even when there are people I'd really rather not serve. It's my job to do so and I must.

It's not a perfect analogy, but if he was an observant Jew, he would disagree with the serving of pork, but it is legal and they are a paying customer and he must do it as part of his job. A doctor may not agree with abortion, but it is legal and there is a paying customer. I think personal beliefs should be left of the professional environment.

You are not answering the question.

You are not the owner, I take it?

How do you figure that a doctor who opposes abortion is a provider of that service?

Jews don't care what Gentiles eat.

Which question do you mean? No, I'm not, but maybe it's just in Canada, we wouldn't allow anyone to be refused of a service because their beliefs conflict with ours. It is generally a gynecologist who performs the service, so it's irrelevant what other doctors think (as I said, a dermatologist wouldn't ever perform an abortion anyway, so it doesn't matter what they think about it). In this case, even if it conflicts with a gynecologist's personal beliefs, I think they should still provide the service.
Then why do Christians care what others do with their bodies?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Ghosty Pie

Riviera de la Mancha

Ghosty Pie

Riviera de la Mancha

Ghosty Pie

and this is why I use men

Because... your immature?

why you mad?

I am not. I dont even know you, so how could I be mad at you?

I just think you are being immature if you let anything in that article influence anything you do. It would be like me reading a story about Lorena Bobbitt and using that as an excuse to use women.

why u mad

I guess if I am mad at anything, it would be a general annoyance at people who have stupid justifications for their actions.

[Ratttking]

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

However the law says that you can't turn away a customer based on those kinds of discrimination, whereas this law is saying it is acceptable to turn a patient away based on a certain kind of discrimination. Also minors are turned out from places that serve alchohol because they are not legally allowed to consume alchohol.

What I'm trying to say is due to personal beliefs, I don't think anyone should refuse service to a customer. In some other industry, say a Hindu individual may strongly believe in the caste system and does not want to serve someone because they believe them to be too low and not worth serving. We wouldn't allow that, even though it is their religious belief. Or if a Jewish waiter refuses to serve pig to a customer, because it is not kosher and directly conflicts with their religious beliefs, we wouldn't allow that either and say it's his job to serve the customer regardless of his personal beliefs.

Haha interesting thought, maybe it is the same machine :S

Well, then should any employee be forced to perform any elective service? No one has to purchase a TV at a particular store, but the employee is still required to serve them.

Note: I realize not all Hindus believe in the caste system, and not all Jewish people care about what food is kosher. I just made up a hypothetical situation.

So what you are saying is your personal beliefs conflict with those of the doctors and you feel that yours should prevail. That is not a very good reason. Can you come up with an unbiased reason?

If a store owner does not wish to sell to a person, he is not required to. Why should a doctor in private practice be held to a different standard? I'm sure that an anti-abortion doctor who refused to perform the procedure would not last long at Planned Parenthood.

Restaurants that serve alcohol in theory need never allow minors to darken their doorstep, but they often do, whether or not they are accompanied. It depends on the manager, unless it's a chain place and there is a company-wide policy.

Observant Jew or not, the server should not be touching the pork on the customer's plate, nor any food with his bare hands, thus it should not be a problem.

Is it not biased then to believe the opposite, that a doctor's beliefs are more important than the patient's?

I believe that a paying customer should have a right to a legal service, and that a provider of said service should have no right to refuse the customer. I do this all the time where I work, even when there are people I'd really rather not serve. It's my job to do so and I must.

It's not a perfect analogy, but if he was an observant Jew, he would disagree with the serving of pork, but it is legal and they are a paying customer and he must do it as part of his job. A doctor may not agree with abortion, but it is legal and there is a paying customer. I think personal beliefs should be left of the professional environment.

You are not answering the question.

You are not the owner, I take it?

How do you figure that a doctor who opposes abortion is a provider of that service?

Jews don't care what Gentiles eat.

Which question do you mean? No, I'm not, but maybe it's just in Canada, we wouldn't allow anyone to be refused of a service because their beliefs conflict with ours. It is generally a gynecologist who performs the service, so it's irrelevant what other doctors think (as I said, a dermatologist wouldn't ever perform an abortion anyway, so it doesn't matter what they think about it). In this case, even if it conflicts with a gynecologist's personal beliefs, I think they should still provide the service.
Then why do Christians care what others do with their bodies?

The question is why do your beliefs trump theirs?

Here it is generally done at a clinic that specializes in nothing but abortions. IDK if they are OB/GYN, GPs, or what. As I pointed out, med students learn to do abortions during their OB/GYN rotation, so there is no reason a dermatologist would not have the knowledge and skills, just not the equipment.

No idea. I'm a pro-abortion Christian (not pro-choice, they are different.) You can currently do what you want with your body, just don't make me pay for the consequences.

I read that Canada offers abortions at any time during gestation. Are they only for Canadians? Can a 9-months-pregnant American come to Canada and get one before it's too late? (I have heard the services provided are not at all in a timely manner.)

[Vanilla-Parfait]

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

However the law says that you can't turn away a customer based on those kinds of discrimination, whereas this law is saying it is acceptable to turn a patient away based on a certain kind of discrimination. Also minors are turned out from places that serve alchohol because they are not legally allowed to consume alchohol.

What I'm trying to say is due to personal beliefs, I don't think anyone should refuse service to a customer. In some other industry, say a Hindu individual may strongly believe in the caste system and does not want to serve someone because they believe them to be too low and not worth serving. We wouldn't allow that, even though it is their religious belief. Or if a Jewish waiter refuses to serve pig to a customer, because it is not kosher and directly conflicts with their religious beliefs, we wouldn't allow that either and say it's his job to serve the customer regardless of his personal beliefs.

Haha interesting thought, maybe it is the same machine :S

Well, then should any employee be forced to perform any elective service? No one has to purchase a TV at a particular store, but the employee is still required to serve them.

Note: I realize not all Hindus believe in the caste system, and not all Jewish people care about what food is kosher. I just made up a hypothetical situation.

So what you are saying is your personal beliefs conflict with those of the doctors and you feel that yours should prevail. That is not a very good reason. Can you come up with an unbiased reason?

If a store owner does not wish to sell to a person, he is not required to. Why should a doctor in private practice be held to a different standard? I'm sure that an anti-abortion doctor who refused to perform the procedure would not last long at Planned Parenthood.

Restaurants that serve alcohol in theory need never allow minors to darken their doorstep, but they often do, whether or not they are accompanied. It depends on the manager, unless it's a chain place and there is a company-wide policy.

Observant Jew or not, the server should not be touching the pork on the customer's plate, nor any food with his bare hands, thus it should not be a problem.

Is it not biased then to believe the opposite, that a doctor's beliefs are more important than the patient's?

I believe that a paying customer should have a right to a legal service, and that a provider of said service should have no right to refuse the customer. I do this all the time where I work, even when there are people I'd really rather not serve. It's my job to do so and I must.

It's not a perfect analogy, but if he was an observant Jew, he would disagree with the serving of pork, but it is legal and they are a paying customer and he must do it as part of his job. A doctor may not agree with abortion, but it is legal and there is a paying customer. I think personal beliefs should be left of the professional environment.

You are not answering the question.

You are not the owner, I take it?

How do you figure that a doctor who opposes abortion is a provider of that service?

Jews don't care what Gentiles eat.

Which question do you mean? No, I'm not, but maybe it's just in Canada, we wouldn't allow anyone to be refused of a service because their beliefs conflict with ours. It is generally a gynecologist who performs the service, so it's irrelevant what other doctors think (as I said, a dermatologist wouldn't ever perform an abortion anyway, so it doesn't matter what they think about it). In this case, even if it conflicts with a gynecologist's personal beliefs, I think they should still provide the service.
Then why do Christians care what others do with their bodies?

The question is why do your beliefs trump theirs?

Here it is generally done at a clinic that specializes in nothing but abortions. IDK if they are OB/GYN, GPs, or what. As I pointed out, med students learn to do abortions during their OB/GYN rotation, so there is no reason a dermatologist would not have the knowledge and skills, just not the equipment.

No idea. I'm a pro-abortion Christian (not pro-choice, they are different.) You can currently do what you want with your body, just don't make me pay for the consequences.

I read that Canada offers abortions at any time during gestation. Are they only for Canadians? Can a 9-months-pregnant American come to Canada and get one before it's too late? (I have heard the services provided are not at all in a timely manner.)

I mean the beliefs of the patients, and the fact that it is a legal procedure.

That's a fair opinion, but a different debate I don't want to get into.

It is only allowed past 20 weeks if there are health risks involved, so while it's legal in that scenario, at 9 months "I don't want it anymore" isn't a valid reason. In answer to that specific question, no an American wouldn't be able to do that.

I've never had any serious procedures done like that, so I don't know how long the waiting time for something like that would be, but for regular situations and emergency situations, I've always had my problems dealt with in a timely manner.

[Ratttking]

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Is it not biased then to believe the opposite, that a doctor's beliefs are more important than the patient's?

I believe that a paying customer should have a right to a legal service, and that a provider of said service should have no right to refuse the customer. I do this all the time where I work, even when there are people I'd really rather not serve. It's my job to do so and I must.

It's not a perfect analogy, but if he was an observant Jew, he would disagree with the serving of pork, but it is legal and they are a paying customer and he must do it as part of his job. A doctor may not agree with abortion, but it is legal and there is a paying customer. I think personal beliefs should be left of the professional environment.

You are not answering the question.

You are not the owner, I take it?

How do you figure that a doctor who opposes abortion is a provider of that service?

Jews don't care what Gentiles eat.

Which question do you mean? No, I'm not, but maybe it's just in Canada, we wouldn't allow anyone to be refused of a service because their beliefs conflict with ours. It is generally a gynecologist who performs the service, so it's irrelevant what other doctors think (as I said, a dermatologist wouldn't ever perform an abortion anyway, so it doesn't matter what they think about it). In this case, even if it conflicts with a gynecologist's personal beliefs, I think they should still provide the service.
Then why do Christians care what others do with their bodies?

The question is why do your beliefs trump theirs?

Here it is generally done at a clinic that specializes in nothing but abortions. IDK if they are OB/GYN, GPs, or what. As I pointed out, med students learn to do abortions during their OB/GYN rotation, so there is no reason a dermatologist would not have the knowledge and skills, just not the equipment.

No idea. I'm a pro-abortion Christian (not pro-choice, they are different.) You can currently do what you want with your body, just don't make me pay for the consequences.

I read that Canada offers abortions at any time during gestation. Are they only for Canadians? Can a 9-months-pregnant American come to Canada and get one before it's too late? (I have heard the services provided are not at all in a timely manner.)

I mean the beliefs of the patients, and the fact that it is a legal procedure.

That's a fair opinion, but a different debate I don't want to get into.

It is only allowed past 20 weeks if there are health risks involved, so while it's legal in that scenario, at 9 months "I don't want it anymore" isn't a valid reason. In answer to that specific question, no an American wouldn't be able to do that.

I've never had any serious procedures done like that, so I don't know how long the waiting time for something like that would be, but for regular situations and emergency situations, I've always had my problems dealt with in a timely manner.

neutral I am disappoint. I thought Canada was more progressive than the US in all aspects of abortion. "I do not want it" is the only reason there needs to be.

Just because something may be legally done does not mean that it must be done. It is legal in many states for parents to serve their minor children alcohol in their own homes, but that does not imply that parents in those states must give their kids booze.

[Vanilla-Parfait]

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Ratttking

Vanilla-Parfait

Is it not biased then to believe the opposite, that a doctor's beliefs are more important than the patient's?

I believe that a paying customer should have a right to a legal service, and that a provider of said service should have no right to refuse the customer. I do this all the time where I work, even when there are people I'd really rather not serve. It's my job to do so and I must.

It's not a perfect analogy, but if he was an observant Jew, he would disagree with the serving of pork, but it is legal and they are a paying customer and he must do it as part of his job. A doctor may not agree with abortion, but it is legal and there is a paying customer. I think personal beliefs should be left of the professional environment.

You are not answering the question.

You are not the owner, I take it?

How do you figure that a doctor who opposes abortion is a provider of that service?

Jews don't care what Gentiles eat.

Which question do you mean? No, I'm not, but maybe it's just in Canada, we wouldn't allow anyone to be refused of a service because their beliefs conflict with ours. It is generally a gynecologist who performs the service, so it's irrelevant what other doctors think (as I said, a dermatologist wouldn't ever perform an abortion anyway, so it doesn't matter what they think about it). In this case, even if it conflicts with a gynecologist's personal beliefs, I think they should still provide the service.
Then why do Christians care what others do with their bodies?

The question is why do your beliefs trump theirs?

Here it is generally done at a clinic that specializes in nothing but abortions. IDK if they are OB/GYN, GPs, or what. As I pointed out, med students learn to do abortions during their OB/GYN rotation, so there is no reason a dermatologist would not have the knowledge and skills, just not the equipment.

No idea. I'm a pro-abortion Christian (not pro-choice, they are different.) You can currently do what you want with your body, just don't make me pay for the consequences.

I read that Canada offers abortions at any time during gestation. Are they only for Canadians? Can a 9-months-pregnant American come to Canada and get one before it's too late? (I have heard the services provided are not at all in a timely manner.)

I mean the beliefs of the patients, and the fact that it is a legal procedure.

That's a fair opinion, but a different debate I don't want to get into.

It is only allowed past 20 weeks if there are health risks involved, so while it's legal in that scenario, at 9 months "I don't want it anymore" isn't a valid reason. In answer to that specific question, no an American wouldn't be able to do that.

I've never had any serious procedures done like that, so I don't know how long the waiting time for something like that would be, but for regular situations and emergency situations, I've always had my problems dealt with in a timely manner.

neutral I am disappoint. I thought Canada was more progressive than the US in all aspects of abortion. "I do not want it" is the only reason there needs to be.

Just because something may be legally done does not mean that it must be done. It is legal in many states for parents to serve their minor children alcohol in their own homes, but that does not imply that parents in those states must give their kids booze.

I think it is for the most part, but that's how it is for late-term anyway.

I still think it's different when it comes to a work environment, and I see what you're saying, but like anything it's impossible to conclude really.

Anyway you've made some good points, but I think like we'll just have to agree to disagree sweatdrop