gc1765

I have no problem with that. Because that's just plain common sense to me, don't you think so? Nice try Betsy, but that's not the questions I asked. Here are the questions again. Either answer them, or stop trolling: 1. "I don't think taxi drivers should be refusing passengers who carry alcohol and I do not think doctors should be refusing morning after pills. If that conflicts with their religion they can choose another profession. Do you agree? Or is it only Muslims who should choose another profession?" 2. "If you think we should all be boycotting taxis who refuse to carry alcohol, should all of us also boycott pharmacies that refuse to sell morning after pills?"

Kind of like how Coulter tends to attack people rather than debate the issue...

Online study? What exactly does that mean? Also, their opening paragraph: "ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today" ...and the body: "The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally" ...are different. I'd like to know exactly what question they asked (I wish more polls would do this). There is a difference between saying that rises in temperature can occur naturally and saying that rises in temperature are only natural. Which one did they ask in this online poll?

I thought this part was interesting: "The poll, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, also suggested that NASCAR fans tend to be rural males at a time when the Tories are thought to be wooing urban women in pursuit of an elusive majority government." They pretty much have most of the rural ridings already. If they want to get a majority, they are going to need to win over urban voters. As I mentioned before, this won't help them in urban ridings on the environment issue.

Intelligent design belongs in science class as much as evolution belongs in church.

Betsy, Why don't you answer the questions I asked you in my previous post? Why are you avoiding the question by pretending you've already answered it? Even if you have already answered them, please humour me and answer them again. I don't know what's so hard to understand. I'm not saying it's as simple as telling someone "get another ride" or "get another doctor" as you are trying to imply. I am saying it is wrong to refuse a ride or morning after pills, and that they (both taxi drivers and doctors) should not be doing this. However, I have no authority to go to a taxi driver and force them to give someone a ride or force a doctor to give morning after pills, so I can only do the next best thing and boycott them both. Is that more clear?

Boycotting taxi drivers and boycotting pharmacies is the only way I can think of for ordinary citizens like you and me to bring about change. I'm not trying to say to the passenger with alcohol to "get another ride" or the woman who was raped to "see another doctor", I'm saying WE should find another ride or see another doctor so that the woman who was raped doesn't have to. As for your accusation that I have a double standard, let me be perfectly clear...I don't think taxi drivers should be refusing passengers who carry alcohol and I do not think doctors should be refusing morning after pills. If that conflicts with their religion they can choose another profession. Do you agree? Or is it only Muslims who should choose another profession? Anyways, since it was you who brought up the idea of boycotting taxi drivers who refuse to carry alcohol...If you think we should all be boycotting taxis who refuse to carry alcohol, should all of us also boycott pharmacies that refuse to sell morning after pills?

Humanity started with no cars & no computers either. Does that mean it's not appropriate to drive a car or use a computer? I don't think I understand your argument here...

So is posting messages on an internet board. So, what's your point?

Yeah, no double standard there

Who is refusing to accept the will of parliament?

that's a good one!

Sounds like I was right after all...

Call it a hunch. Was I right? Or do you think doctors should NOT be refusing the morning after pill?

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?

Yes, assuming that the doctor is qualified to perform an abortion. I don't know much about the process, but I assume it takes a certain amount of skill and training to do so, and I imagine not all doctors perform abortions.

All I said was that it's a doctor's job to provide the best possible medical care for their patients. I don't think all doctors should be required to perform abortions, just as I don't think all doctors should be required to perform heart surgery.

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? But perhaps I'm wrong...perhaps you DON'T think doctors should be refusing morning after pills. If that's the case, why don't you just come out and say it? Prove to me that you don't have a double standard, and I will take back what I said.

I'm a little disappointed in you Betsy. I know you have a double standard, and you know you have a double standard, but you can't admit it. Oh well, I guess I just put too much faith in you. The least you could do, though, is not confuse abortion with emergency contraceptives, which IS the topic of this thread.

Betsy, I think you are smart enough to realize that you did apply a double standard, which I pointed out to you in my previous post. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong, and I have tremendous respect for people who are able to do so. I'd like to give you the opportunity now to admit you made a mistake by applying a double standard, including this statement here: "The taxi driver is attempting to impose his ritualistic religious behaviour on our society...the doctor is making decisions based on his moral standards" I could just as easily say that the doctor is attempting to impose his ritualistic religious behaviour on our society...the taxi driver is making decisions based on his moral standards. Again, I think you are smart enough to realize that this is a double standard, so again, if you want to admit you made a mistake, I'm sure you will gain a lot of respect from a lot of people on this board. That is precisely the problem, the doctor is NOT making health and welfare decisions for his patient, he is making decisions for his own personal benefit, with respect to his religion. He did NOT make this decision because it was in the best interest of the patient. Again, I think you are smart enough to realize this.

The thing is, each of those voters also pays taxes. If 1 million Muslims all pay taxes, and then vote for a Muslim party in order to get their $1.75, all they are doing is getting their own money back. It is not you or I that would be funding these parties, it would be the people who vote for them.

I don't think they have defined themselves on a racial basis. They have defined themselves as a party of immigrants, which is no different than other single issue parties like the marijuana party or the bloc quebecois. I'd like to see their platform, but I doubt they are advocating for any racist policies.

Yes, generally speaking doctors need to provide the best possible medical care for their patients, regardless of their religion. That also happens to apply to this case. It is up to doctors to decide what is the best treatment for their patients. In this case, it is pretty clear that (ignoring religion for a second) providing emergency contraceptives to a victim of rape was the best treatment option. It was because of religion, and religion only, that this doctor refused to prescribe emergency contraceptives not because he thought it was the best treatment for the patient. 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?

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. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by you betsy, considering your posts in This Thread . I think this is a clear case of having a double standard.

What exactly do you take issue with, the "weekly" part or the "alternative" part??