betsy

Can you please provide proof for that assertation?

Liberals have been calling phone shows on the radio, and on tv, impersonating ordinary citizens. This tactic especially appeal to the Liberals since they are such big liars to begin with. Conservatives are just taking a defensive stand. Please provide proof of your assertations betsy, Uh....I'd say my assertations equals that of what Jdobbin had made. There's also this tiny key-word that would make it hard for him and me to provide proof - I M P E R S O N A T I N G ordinary citizens. Unless some political party impersonating an ordinary citizen suddenly breaks down and confesses: it was me! Anyway, since you asked nicely, lo and behold I managed to come up with a proof after all. "Original Message Follows---- From: “Vellacott, Maurice - Assistant 1” Subject: Axworthy caught second time practicing black arts of politics Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:48:24 -0500 > Maurice Vellacott, MP > Saskatoon-Wanuskewin > > Axworthy caught second time > practicing black arts of politics > > For Immediate Release > January 19, 2006 > OTTAWA - Tuesday night on Shaw Cable, a caller phoned in falsely accusing front-runner Conservative incumbent MP Maurice Vellacott of sexually assaulting his church secretary at North Park Church. The technicians who have no 7 second delay cut the call off. Vellacott responded quickly by looking directly into the camera, stating to the technicians that he needed to get the name and phone number of that caller for defamation proceedings. After the cable show ended, Vellacott was handed the requested phone number by Shaw Cable producer Gracie Field. Upon arrival back at his campaign office he was told that a person had reported in and was 100% confident that it was the voice of George Laliberte. The caller maliciously and falsely accused Vellacott of being “removed from North Park Church because you were charged with sexual assault” on his church secretary. Laliberte is a friend of Chris Axworthy’s and apparently owes Axworthy some favours. When the 1-306-956-2570 number provided by the Shaw Cable staff member was dialed, it was found to be Chris Axworthy’s campaign office phone number. At that time Laliberte could not be reached at his home number of 1-306-683-3650. " http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index...o_call_in_show/

Wow, now there is a doosey, medicare had NOTHING to do with the social credit it was Tommy Douglas under the CCF/NDP who brought universal health care to Canadians. Well excuse me for that little boo-boo of giving the wrong name. So what? What did that change? If it is? Hah. Obviously you hadn't heard of the long wait times, the lack of doctors (some people do not even have family doctors), downsizing of numerous hospitals, etc.., So you blame it on Afghanistan? Of all the other fundings and waste of money, all you could think of was Afghanistan? What about the billion lost on the gun registry? The various women's programs? Numerous youth programs? Multi-cultural programs? Foreign Aid? Funding for AIDS in Africa? Funding for the useless CBC! Millions spent on Kyoto under Dion that did squat? Then let's move on to aids for hotels and golf courses courtesy of Chretien. Adscam! etc..,

Whatever... Hunch....BWA-HA-HA-HA

Call it a hunch. Was I right? Or do you think doctors should NOT be refusing the morning after pill? You accuse me of having double standards, based on a "hunch?" You are using a "hunch" as the major thrust in your argument?? Are you for real??? In a way, it is funny! Well I've got more than just a hunch, that you actually don't even understand that we are definitely not on the same page at all! And I definitely have no wish to waste my time arguing with someone whose opinions are based on a hunch! The least you could do to salvage your credibility is to admit that you made an honest mistake . That in your zeal to prove me wrong...you've recklessly jumped the gun and made careless assumptions....and labelled me based on a stupid hunch! I guess you're desperate. But that's no excuse!

And if that raped woman wants to set something right for everyone in this unpleasant scenario, instead of wasting her time barking at Gish, she should fight for a list of names of pro-choice doctors willing to murder...I mean to abort babies....or give morning pills, etc....be posted on every hospitals in the country. Unless this raped woman wants to use her plight as a tool for her agenda (if she is one of those pro-choice or feminist radicals), squaring off with this doctor in court over religious freedom and get this bloody thing legislated as well....I guess she was on the right track.

If Dr Gish is having some problems with his religious belief....the most practical, diplomatic AND TROUBLE-FREE solution would've been to answer the woman's request for a referral, "sorry....but I can't think of anyone right now who'd agree to that." Then I'd promptly point her towards the reception desk or a clerk who might give names of other doctors. Unless Dr Gish was only anxiously aching to go head-to-head and to take the fight of religious freedom wherever it may lead, and purposefully issued that response knowing fully well there's the high probability that it would get challenged, and he's only too willing to prove his point....then I guess he was on the right track. Playing God? Just for refusing to give a bloody morning pill? Did she drop dead???? Did her arm fall off???? Did her tummy suddenly swell up???? Well Kimmy, that woman still had the control of her life! At least she knows she'll never get the pill from Gish....and she can skeedaddle from his office in a huff and hie off to find the nearest yellow pages and start phoning! Let's not get too ridiculously melodramatic! As for the rest of your comment, I suggest you better go back and read carefully and comprehend what was exactly said, and explained.....all the way from the start so you don't miss out on anything. One of this days, if I have the time...I'll tell you an anecdote about the circling dog.

You're citing the wrong post, qc. That response you cited was done after you accused me of having double standards...after you jumped the gun with your assumptions....after you tried to put words in my mouth .....after grabbing and using another thread to try to fit it into this discussion. Again, for the sake of clarity: So pin-point exactly where I've made a definite stance on the issue prior to your post with your sudden accusations of me having this so-called double standard! Before your post #31! I'm giving you a chance to justify your accusation........or to show that accusing me outright was just an honest and careless mistake on your part, and that you were wrong. Betsy, The post I quoted is from post #20 in this thread (#20 comes BEFORE #31). Now, do you care to answer my questions, or are you going to keep trolling? I know that that's post #20! Here is actually the complete post of it: And that was in answer to your general comment about doctors needing to provide medical support! And I was responding in the same conext....giving a general comment regarding doctors' judgement or diagnosis- take note of the plural sense in "doctors"....on BOTH lines! If you hadn't noticed, I was not asking questions regarding hospital procedures regarding rape cases in my other post ...nor did I dig up the two versions of the OATH (with specific statement "for the sake of discussion") for no reasons at all. I purposefully did not give a direct answer to the topic....for I fully want to understand the details! Unfortunately for you, you jumped the gun and made assumptions and proceeded to put words in my mouth! Again, let me repeat....show me a post where-in I gave my exact position regarding this particular doctor refusing to give morning pills to this raped woman. BEFORE POST #31

Well, actually, I already pointed it out to you. I'm not sure if you are just trolling here, or whether you actually forgot already, but I'll point it out again: "And if the doctors' judgement does not agree with the patient's...well, there's always the option of going to another doctor!". So if you don't agree with a cab driver's requirement to not carry alcohol in the cab, then you can go to another cab driver, right? Is that what you said in the other thread? Or do you want to answer the question here and now? You're citing the wrong post, qc. That response you cited was done after you accused me of having double standards...after you jumped the gun with your assumptions....after you tried to put words in my mouth .....after grabbing and using another thread to try to fit it into this discussion. Again, for the sake of clarity: So pin-point exactly where I've made a definite stance on the issue prior to your post with your sudden accusations of me having this so-called double standard! Before your post #31! I'm giving you a chance to justify your accusation........or to show that accusing me outright was just an honest and careless mistake on your part, and that you were wrong.

People should not impose their religious beliefs on others, and if peoples religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job then they should find a different job, unless Betsy agrees with the religious beliefs in question. See, GC? It's not a double standard at all! -k BUT why did I mention taxi driver's "oath", Kimmy? It's because of this: Why, can you cite any taxi drivers' oath that should be upheld? And why did I refer to the Hippocrates Oath? It's because of this: So, what's all this talk about Hippocratic Oath, Kimmy? Why bring it up at all if you couldn't even care less about the significance of an oath....much more quite easily dismiss it and regard it as nothing more than the equivalence of a taxi driver's petty "petulant belief meter" (whom I presume did not do any oath-ing at all). That may not fall under the definition of a so-called double standard. BUT it does smells like an outright hypocrisy to me . Convenient hypocrisy.

It would be one very dumb person...or someone without any creativity anyway....to walk away from a lucrative and prestigious job, especially if one had invested quite some time and money, and most likely being in debt with student loans just to attain it....just because somebody says "to hell with your morals and your oath." I'd surely find ways to work around it before I throw in the towel! Are we prevented from leaving Canada to work in other places where being a doctor will be more than welcome? That is, if we are not allowed any options at all, not even putting up any signs in our clinic's door that say: "Sorry, I don't butcher babies." "Morning Pills? In your dreams, babe!" "I'm Catholic. Get the drift?"

Yeah, so next time talk about the specific situation....don't give general comments about doctors and their responsibilities. See, how easily we got side-tracked??? You're right, morning pill is the topic.

Well qc, you are not recognizing one important fact: Can you point the post before your post #31 where I made a stance about this particular morning pill issue? Like I said, all I've posted were some questions, general comments and copies of the ancient/modern Hippocrates Oath (for the sake of discussion).

At least you have something right. I am smart enough to know a double standard when I see one. Apparently you're not. A double standard is applying different stardards to different subjects for the same behaviour. I'm applying different standards to different subjects for different behaviour. I know that's a tough one to muddle through, but give it your best shot. Yes you could, and probably will but I still hope you'd be at least smart enough to notice what nonsense you're talking. The practice of medicine, at least in our culture, is anything but ritualistic, unless of course you're talking about our daily sacrifice of thousands of children before their birth. The petulance of a group a radical Muslims about an imagined offence against their religion is ritualistic. The religious requirement of Muslims not to possess alcohol is a requirement of Muslims, not of passengers in their cabs. And its similar in essence to the requirement of Catholics to cross themselves in church. not required by Christianity and harmless in itself at least until Catholics demand that athiests and others cross themselves near a Catholic church. The requirement of doctors to not perform abortions is a requirement of doctors according to their oath, not some arbitrary ritual devised by those who want control over their subjects. In fact, it is abortionists that should be required to forfeit their right to practice medicine, not the doctors who refuse to do it. It is abortionists that are offending their oath. And who really cares about Muslim taxi drivers. Not me, until they try telling me what to do and where to do it. As for your allowing me an opportunity to "admit my mistake", give it a rest. Such pretentious arrogance is laughable. Remember, I just read your post.

deleted.

Well, there's this for one: "Taxi cab drivers have no such rights to enforce their religion on the public" ...and yet you have no problem with doctors enforcing their religion on the public? or this "If you do not wish to transport anyone with alcohol in their possession, then the logical thing to do is what Drea had said: don't be a taxi cab driver!" Applying that same standard, if you do not wish to prescribe emergency contraceptives, the logical thing to do is don't be a doctor! Agreed? or how about this: "If one doesn't trust or doesn't have confidence to what a doctor diagnosed or prescribed, then seek a second opinion" Again, applying the same standard, I guess that means if you don't have confidence in a cab driver, you should simply seek another cab. Right? Again, I don't see any double standard in my case. Actually, I haven't even said where exactly I stand in this one particular issue...other than to ask a few questions and make general statements, AND post BOTH versions of the Hippocrates Oath (which I specified 'for the sake of discussion'). You are jumping the gun and making assumptions. I might have missed it...so if you can please point out where I gave my stance on this said issue. As for this statement you made: No! Not agreed! I'm not applying the same standard to a taxi driver who is deciding not to carry a passenger because he has a bottle of whiskey in his pocket to a doctor who is making health and welfare decisions for his patient, and life and death decisions for her child. The taxi driver is attempting to impose his ritualistic religious behaviour on our society...the doctor is making decisions based on his moral standards. Both Hippocrates Oaths (the ancient and modern versions) were specific: The ancient specifically forbade abortion. The modern, specifically warned about "playing God." If the doctor believes that the fetus is a living human being, then he has to take that into consideration. I don't know any taxi drivers' oath. Perhaps you can cite it for me. Perhaps it says, "thou shalt not carry alcohol." But I doubt it exists. A Muslim's aversion to alcohol is scarcely a moral issue anymore than the devil's aversion to holy water. Certainly not in our society.

No, I have this problem about being a sheep. Seems you don't mind. Being right isn't being a sheep. Sometimes other people are right too. Of course you have to be able to recognize when they are. Then you can baaaa at will. I hope this doesn't get your goat....or your sheep....or your bunny wabbit.

I said medical providers need to provide medical care for their patients. Prescribing cocaine to someone in pain is not only NOT providing medical care, but it's also illegal. This doctor did not refuse emergency contraceptives because he thought that was the best care he could provide to his patient, he refused because it was against his religion, period. I know what you said! Here it is! Yes doctors need to provide medical support....but it is up to the doctors' judgment how to go about it. Some patient cannot just go to a doctor and demand, "I'm in pain. Prescribe me cocaine!" And if the doctors' judgement does not agree with the patient's...well, there's always the option of going to another doctor! You were not only talking about this one particular case. You were speaking generally. And I was answering in that context! My point is stilll the same. It's up to the doctors. If one doesn't trust or doesn't have confidence to what a doctor diagnosed or prescribed, then seek a second opinion. Can you explain. I went in there and failed to see your point. What is the double standard?

Most girls learn in health class that washing the "icky stuff" out after intercourse is not an effective or reliable means of preventing pregnancy. (did you honestly not know that?!) I am asking about a procedure that's done in the hospital for rape cases ....not a simple "washing" or is it "douche-ing" at home, right after intercourse. Yes doctors need to provide medical support....but it is up to the doctors' judgment how to go about it. Some patient cannot just go to a doctor and demand, "I'm in pain. Prescribe me cocaine!" The rape victims in the article were not asking for cocaine, they were asking for emergency contraception. -k I know that. But obviously gc was not talking about just that one particular case! Before you correct someone else, better get your facts straight. Read what they've said. It seems to me a lot of girls get pregnant these days without getting raped. Anyway, while it is the obligation of the doctor to give competent medical advice to his patient, that advice certainly wouldn't be the same advice you'd give. Let's hope not. Or we'll be back to the knitting needles era!

I'm not sure why you're repeating everything I said, just in a less articulate way, but that's cool. Okay. I know. When I illustrate something - even something imprecise - I usually illustrate it precisely, even when its your point, not mine. But you should be more precise if you are serious about your point. In fact, faith is something that is not based on reasoning. Your 'rational faith', as you describe it, and as I amply illustrated, is in truth not faith, but a conclusion based on reason. That's why I pointed out that we sometimes say things in everyday conversation that aren't precisely what we mean. To use your original example, you actually reasoned the sun would rise based on your knowledge and experience, not on faith. The reasoning went on in the recesses of your mind, granted, but it went on none the less. But then, you tricky devil, you labelled it 'rational faith' and tried to pass it off as, "see, faith can be rationalised..." But that little piece of skull-duggery wasn't good enough, was it!! You had to go further. You had to try to eliminate 'faith' that you don't want rationalised by qualifying the skull-duggery with "...under certain conditions." Needless to say, in your theory, 'religious faith' (i.e. Belief in God) won't fall under those 'certain conditions'. Very Klever!! Now you hit the wall. There is no rational basis for religion itself, qua religion. What wall? It seems to me the discussion is just beginning. Declaring 'There is no rational basis for religion itself' is not a particularly convincing argument. Further, are we talking about religion as a ritualized behaviour or are we talking about Belief in God or are we talking about something else; that is, what is your 'qua religion'? Whether there is a rational basis for 'religion itself' and, if its basis is not purely metaphysical, what is it's source are interesting philosophical questions that have been debated for centuries by great minds, and others too, without definitive results. But they're not our topic, which is "How can you believe in religion?" But let me digress for a moment. I am concerned whether I am understanding FascistLibertarian's question the way he meant it. I hope he'll respond through this post. [if you don't, FascistLibertarian, I'll address you directly.] Does he mean 'How can you believe...' in the sense of 'What do I have to do to believe...' or does he mean it in the sense of 'Why would you believe...', like 'How could anyone be dumb enough to believe...' And NO, I'm not implying FacsistLibertarian is being rude or disrespectful and he made it clear himself that he was not. I'm just trying to show that his question could be understood from at least two different perspectives. Anyway, obviously, I've decided to approach the topic from the first perspective. FascistLibertarian described himself as an agnostic - someone who believes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists- and asks, I think reasonably, "How can you believe in religion?" From an agnostic's point of view, if my description is reasonably accurate for FascistLibertarian purposes here, it seems to me that the choices are few. 1. You believe solely by faith - faith defined basically as belief without a rational basis - so that reasoning and knowledge aren't required to support your belief (you would still perhaps be agnostic but you would also belive in God), 2. You accept the Scriptures as the factual Word of God and historically reliable and pursue a study of the evidence, scientific as well as historical, to convince yourself one way or the other - like most scholars are now seeing Homeric writings as a reliable source of historical fact (You may convince yourself that human Knowledge of God is possible, in which case you would no longer be agnostic), 3. You don't believe in God and you remain agnostic.

What if the teacher was teaching evolution but explained to his students that it is a flawed 150 year old theory that no longer is credible? He'd be right but would still run into problems with the authorities. What if the doctor described the procedure to his patient in all its graphic glory and advised her not to get the abortion for her own medical and mental security? He'd be right based on modern medical research but would still run into problems with the medical authorities. The teacher and the doctor are each giving their best advice and care to their 'charges', but that's not the concern of the authorities. The problem is NOT that the authorities are penalizing professions' behaviour on religious grounds but that they are doing it on the basis of furthering their own left-wing radical secular anti-Christian agenda. Evolution is promoted by the authorities not because it is a viable theory - even Darwin would agree it's not -but because the authorities fear the replacement for the theory of evolution would be the theory of Intelligent Design (scientists, the gods of secular authorities, are turning to it in droves!), the authorities are shaking in their collective secular boots. Abortion is promoted by the authorities, not because it's a safe and healthy procedure for the patient - even the most pro-abortion doctor would agree that it's not - but because the authorities see anti-abortion laws as the removal of women's rights rather than the protection of the life of a child. The authorities know that the truth won't carry the day. They also know that in an increasingly amoral society, blaming religion (they say religion but they mean Christianity) will.

Yes doctors need to provide medical support....but it is up to the doctors' judgment how to go about it. Some patient cannot just go to a doctor and demand, "I'm in pain. Prescribe me cocaine!" And if the doctors' judgement does not agree with the patient's...well, there's always the option of going to another doctor!

If we're now talking about regular pregnancy (not this particular rape case), nowhere in the modern version of Hippocratic Oath does it say that the doctor has to comply to the demand of the patient. We're not talking about a matter of life and death here.

In rape cases, don't they "clean" you out in the hospital (to prevent any STD or possible pregnancy) after you've been treated and evidence of rape is medically documented? If you've been cleaned out, why would you still need a pill? Anybody knows the normal procedures in hospitals regarding rape?

deleted. irrelevant response.