Welcome to Gaia! ::

Their imperfections? Unless, as Kate said, you are referring to their morality, I don't get your meaning. I already said that yes, they should be regulated to make sure that our doctors are the best. But that does not mean regulating out their morality. That's bullshit and if you really think that we should just have the greatest medical minds put together an emotionless chart that says "If patient is showing these symptoms, do this" so that all doctors are doing the same thing for the same patients, then we shouldn't bother with college for most lower level doctors anyways! Who needs to train them when they don't have to think to do their job? They just have to do what the Government says they should do.

Who gets to define what is an imperfection, and what is a thoughtful approach to things? In the science community, we can see that Young Earth Creationists are forcing their "imperfections" upon their theories, by the fact that all of them are Christians or at least otherwise monotheistic, and that everybody else says that their theories are bullshit. Same in the medical community, in most cases. You can say with pretty fair certainty that "faith healers" aren't really doctors; They have no medical training and base their theories on religion rather than fact.

And if birth control were a matter of life and death, or health, then I would agree that they shouldn't let their religious convictions get in the way of helping people. But it's not. The right to birth control is not a constitutional right.

To Prop 8: Yeah, in that case, it was an imperfection! They let their idea of what their morality was get in the way of people's rights. This is a different case. It would be like saying that... Oh, actually, this is a great point, I'm glad you brought up Prop 8: This would be like exactly what the people who voted for it were afraid of. That the government would force all religions to offer gay marriages. Which would, in fact, be a bad thing; The government restricting rights, rather than what it actually was, the government giving rights, and allowing religions to offer gay marriage if they so choose.

Just like in abortion; Making abortion legal and allowing people to offer it is one thing. I still disagree with it, but it's okay that Pro-Choicers do. Forcing all doctors to offer abortions is entirely another. Where one is removing restrictions, the other is putting them on again, just on different people. And Pro-Choicers should be as outraged at the idea as Pro-Lifers are.

And if you want to quit, quit! It's your choice, I'm not going to stop arguing because you say "I quit." So if you're going to quit, stop saying you're going to quit and quit. If you're not, that's fine too, but then don't claim you are.

And I never said it should be.

All I implied was that it can be abused and perverted past its beauty. It must be kept in check. We cannot be "charmed" so to say by people and their "sacred pursuits" all the time. Sometimes we must think critically.

If you're going to use your morality to harm others, then yes, it should be checked. kp's argument against prop 8 is the same idea as preventing honor killings.

Ah, if you read what I had said, you would see where I agreed that the people voting for Prop 8 were improperly allowing their personal morals to get in the way of other people's rights.

Also, it is not at all the same idea as preventing honor killings. XD On one hand, you've got people being murdered. On the other hand, you've got people not being able to marry. Slightly different issues. While not being able to get married may hurt your feelings, it doesn't physically hurt you, sorry.

But let me say it again to make it clear: The argument isn't about Prop 8, and I was absolutely against Prop 8. I'm very Pro-Gay Rights.

That's how it started, with the hyde amendment being repealed. Then it went to doctors having to do abortions, and then you were talking about how doctors should have to put their morality aside to do something they so deeply opposed because morality is bad and creates subprime healthcare. You brought in a rather poor example, comparing the vote of a mass of people who mostly aren't affected at all by something to the direct action of a doctor who needs to suffer with the consequences of doing something he considers terrible for the rest of his life, and compared the suffering of gay people who can't get married, who have their rights as couples suppressed, to girls who can just go get a second opinion from a doctor who will prescribe them the pills with no problem and will cut into them and kill their children with no problems.

I saw it. I chose to accept it, and figured that was that. But then you kept arguing and I kept disagreeing and I responded. I didn't realize that you didn't want me to discuss anything in this topic anymore because you've dismissed me and now when I disagree with what you say to someone else, I can't comment on it. Now that I understand that I'm not allowed to voice an opinion on anything you say unless you say it directly to me, I'll accept it and be quiet unless you preface something with, "Lymelady (or Kate), this is aimed at you and you alone because now you're allowed to speak."

Then what are you arguing against? Because that's what we were talking about when this whole thing started; "The hospital thing I'm eh about. I must admit, I think the argument that medical practitioners should be indiscriminate, in all respects, is a strong one." While you said you're "eh" on it, you should have been fully against it, and you've basically said this whole time that, while you may disagree with abortion, while it's legal it makes sense to force it upon Christian hospitals who consider it murder.

Okay, how on earth are you using the term logistics?

And as I said early on, this is the perfect reason why you should understand that your "principles" in this are wrong. If your principles require someone to perform something they consider murder, they are bad principles.