Sully
-
Posts
173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sully
-
-
No, the price you pay does not take into consideration that it is a non-renewable resource.
Yes it does take into consideration that oil is a non-renewable resource. Oil is a commodity that is traded on markets and thats why you see oil prices fluctuate daily. All bits of information are inputted into making up the price with more immediate concerns being the cause of the current oil prices. ie. supply/demand and potential wars, etc..... As time goes on and supplies diminish, prices will shoot way up, when non-renewable becomes the buzz word.
As for people comparing gas prices to Europe and saying we have it so good, I would like us ot start comparing our gas prices to Venezuela, where they pay $0.14/gallon. I would say we have it really bad.
-
I think there's a bit more responsibility involved in operating a machine gun than just "point and click." I'm not sure what your point is, though. At 15 or 16, you couldn't join the military. You couldn't do that until you were 18. Why do you think that is? Also, as 15/16 you cannot engage in a legal binding contract. You cannot vote. You cannot drink a beer. You can't even get a tatoo without parental permission. You can't move out of your house without their permission, either. You'd end up in the court system. The reason for that is you are a minor. Society doesn't believe you are mature enough to take on those responsibilities.
Actually no there is no more responsibility in operating a machine gun than "point and click", have you ever shot a gun?? I have, I have done it many times, just for fun. The difference between me and the many, many, many gun toting adolescents I see on the TV is that I have the ideology in my head NOT to shoot at other humans. I mean why else would a little itty bitty kid be carrying a machine gun???? You think this kid built the gun from scratch in his sandbox and is playing a little more lethal version of cops and robbers with his friends, or do you think more along the lines of myself and realize that this kid has been trained to use the weapon.
As to my point and not fully sure how you could have missed this, was that in Oleg's previous post he says that at 15 years old he KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I say he knows more than enough and then I went onto the point of examining the simplicity of a gun design and how easily it can be used by children who are much younger than 15 years old and that there would have been training involved. I don't even think terrorists would stand in front a little guy holding an AK-47 without him having some prior training. MY POINT IS KIDS CAN USE GUNS AND USE THEM EFFECTIVELY.
I think its great that you keep applying Western standards (even tho these differ round the world) and think that somehow applies to the rest of the world. I would most certainly say that it does not apply to most parts in the world.
At 15 or 16 I cannot join the military, you are correct, but I can be terrorist starting a much younger age....
Entering legal contracts....whats your point????
I cannot vote but I can drive, I would saying driving is more of a responsibilty than voting. I know many people who vote for someone and they cannot explain why they do so and thats people well into their adult years....
Cannot drink beer, well that depends on where you live in the western world.....
etc......
But see American woman, some parts of the world could care less about Western Standards, so please tell me how our standards should apply to people who do not believe in them. Like I stated before kids in my opinion are far more capable then we expect.
How did you know those things? Because you were raised with those standards. You were taught them. And of course you didn't form relationships with terrorists because your parents didn't move you in with terrorists. On the one hand, you know this kid was brainwashed, yet you expect him, in spite of being brainwashed, to have known all the things you know. You say you will not excuse his behavior. What behavior specifically will you not "excuse," especially in light of your knowledge that he was brainwashed? Do you really think people are responsible for their actions when they've been brainwashed? How about understanding-- do you at least understand why he would be where he was?Absolutely, I knew my values from my family and the society around me and those are the values that I still hold onto, probably just like you. I think for me they are the correct values.
Of course young children and have to be indoctrinated into these beliefs and because he has been bred this way I EXPECT him to love his belief system just like I love mine. I do not EXPECT him to know or care for anything that I know. Just read what his parents think of Canada, in fact I EXPECT quite opposite, hence thats why he was captured in a foreign land.
I could careless about the "brainwashing" excuse, if you allow that, then it will apply to almost every bad deed done by man.
American woman, would you excuse Nazi's of the Holocaust, do you really think that hating Jews was not bred into these guys so they could commit such atrocities. I am pretty sure that most of the pre-Nazi's were not dreaming of creating concetration camps during their teen years???
Would you excuse a pedophile, because they were abused when they were younger???
Would you excuse a drug addict for killing a person during a robbery so they can afford their next fix???
The reasons for doing what people do, should never allow leniency for their actions. I am not saying kill Omar, but I am also not saying this kid is anywhere near a victim either.
I absolutely understand why Omar is the way he is and I also understand that he is far more capable of horrible things then you will ever believe.
Furthermore, we expect our troops to obey orders. We expect our troops to fight in a war whether they think that war is the right thing or not. We expect them to gun down innocent civilians if they have to, even if they don't believe it's right. If they refuse to serve/refuse to carry out orders, there are dire consequences to pay, and our societies as a whole would not support them, but would do quite the opposite. Yet you're expecting a 15 year old boy to make the decision not to do what was expected of him under the same circumstances. You think he should have done what he should have known was right in spite of what was expected of him.Bin Laden's son was in those training camps too. Why is he free to marry a Brit and apply for a visa to live there? Wouldn't any person who's spent time in these terrorist training camps potentially know the things you claim Omar Khadr might know? But do you really think they would give this information out, any valuable information out, to a child? Furthermore, do you think they aren't constantly changing the location of training grounds and/or other areas of interest? Bin Laden was supposidly constantly moving around.
Its funny you sit on your computer far far far removed anything even remotely dangerous and you have these expectations of how wars should be fought. Its just absolutely goofy. I do agree and hope that our soldiers could always conduct themselves in a manner that would make us all proud. I am just not gullible enough to have politicians or people without any real understanding of war lecture anyone about how it should play out. I would never condone our soldiers killing innocents and I hope that all soldiers would have the courage to reject any orders that would ask them to do so. As again I will say I never had any EXPECTATIONS of Omars actions to conform to WESTERN STANDARDS, in fact I am sure he does not share our version of "RIGHT". I do understand he is far more capable of harm and will not treat him like an infant, like some others on this board.
Bin Laden's son, who cares about him, is he THREAT?? Maybe he already gave up valuable information, maybe he hates his father, I don't know. Maybe for Britain its safer to keep your enemies closer. Maybe he is a nice guy. How many kids does Binny, have 50+. Don't know don't care, but if he is a threat I am glad knowing that people are doing things in the background to make us safer.
As I stated before I do not think this kid knows the truth about the Roswell Alien landing or who killed JFK. What I do know, since I think that he is not inferior to any other child his age on the planet, I do think he could know where training camps could be or have been located. That is synonmous to me at that age, directing my father to numerous locations around the province of BC, although he may possess better navigation skills. Secondly, people train these kids, people have names, or certain physical charateristics, some of the people he met could have been very high up on s^&tlist. Of course they are moving around, of course there are no road signs saying "Ahkbar Terrorist Camp 20KM ahead". But there are only so many locations that are untouched by human settlement and for price people talk. Haven't you watched CSI, one small clue or tip and the dominos can fall one after another.
As for being a "capable killer," what defines that? Wouldn't anyone with a gun in their hand be "capable" of killing?Come on are you serious. Its the ideology in the head of the person holding the gun.
But if we ever want things to change, we have to start with understanding why things are the way they are. Take this 15 year old boy. If we would have understood how/why he ended up where he was, we could have treated him in accordance. We could have treated his wounds they way they should have been treated, shown him we aren't the monsters we're made out to be, gained his trust. Then, if he did have any information, it would have been much more likely that he would have shared it with us. Instead, we did the opposite. Showed him what barbarians we can be; most likely reinforcing everything he'd been told about us throughout his life.Seriously, let's kill him with kindness and he can kill us with grenades.
I have never supported beating and torture, but this kid should not receive any more help then we would give a poor person walking our streets right now. I would rather rehabilitate those people than the enemy. This kid would have to ask for help before I would voluntarily give it to him.
The treatment at Gitmo is inexcusable. Going against the Geneva Convention and treating a 16 year old as an adult is inexcusable. Deeming someone guilty with nothing but circumstantial evidence is inexcusable. Offering a reward of several thousand dollars to poor, deperate people for naming 'suspected terrorists,' and then holding people at Gitmo based on nothing but these poor, desperate peoples' naming them as suspected terrorists (for which they collected thousands of dollars), is inexcusable.Not a soldier = No Geneva Convention protection
I have always hoped Canadian courts would treat minors as adults when warranted, I feel the same for Omar, he does not get a free pass from me.
Offering money is the only way to get information out of locals, for fear of reprisal. Could they lie, sure, could they tell the truth, absolutely.
As far as I know according to Michael Moore's latest left leaning movie, people at GITMO receive better health care than the average American.
-
Tormenting Omar was as useful as pricking a baby with pins and demanding to know where Bin Ladin is hiding. The kid was 15 - at that age he knows absolutely nothing! To torture this child under the pretext that information gathered would "save American lives" is mindless. One thing that I can say after looking at this lawless behaviour by Americans is -and it's more of a question - What motivates the ones in charge of this prison - and what motivates the persons who give the OK to toy with human beings as if they were less than dogs? My conclution is simple as I think about it - It is a sickness based in jealousy and the feeling of male inferiourity on the part of modernist Americans.
They are extremely jealous of the primative maleness of the prisoners. It is sadism plain and simple. What else could it be? You have some oil merchants sitting in the Oval Office who imagine themselves as tough guys. Men who have never done without. Men who are delluded by what they percieve is power...aging spoiled rich kids - who seek to find man hood by kicking a whimpering dog bound with a bag on it's head. Makes you wonder if the guys in Washington abused the family pets as children when they were bored.
Who ever stated that Om's knows where Binny is hiding. I am pretty sure that Bin Laden did not confide in Omar and explain how he might evade capture over the next few years, I think no one here has ever pretended that he would know that information, so keep stretching.
As for kids being 15 and not knowing anything, well I am sorry you have a lack of confidence in kids that age, I know I don't. I know at age 15 I could give my parents driving directions to 100s of different locations. I know at age 15 years and 364 days I was unable to operate a vehicle and one day later I was permitted my driver's license. I am sure that if society believed I was capable of driving a car, I was more than able to operate a machine gun, hey just point and click. Also at that age I knew not to steal, kill or treat others badly. (Yea I know this kid was brainwashed but I will not excuse his behaviour, ever). At age 15 I knew how to speak and therefore could communicate and form relationships with others, in my case I did not form relationships with terrorists.
So to summarize for you:
1.) He may know directions to training grounds or other areas of interest
2.) He may know some of the people who need to be tracked down
3.) He is a capable killer
If you want to find your answer to how people can treat others less than dogs, why don't you start speaking to the Taliban or the women under their rule....
As for your Dr. Phill assessment of the situation in Gitmo, I have to give it to you, you are creative as hell, but I also have to admit it gives me the willies where this stuff comes from.
-
No - that was not my point. The greatness of a nation is judged by how well we care for our weakest members. You could argue that he is not a legal member. So this debate flows into the area of legalism and not moralism. The man is weak and sickly - You may ask yourself that question also. Would you refuse to give a buck to a beggar because he is not legal in the fact he does not pay taxes? We are dealing with this as a legal issue..which is fine - but our thinking is overpowered by the fog of racism - we just don't like him because he is a brown.
There is a certain amount of hypocracy here - we open our doors to all races - usually to the ones that will come and do the menial tasks of clean toilets...seeing he is not capable of cleaning a toilet we are tossing him out. It's up to you how you want to deal with this person - either show mercy or not.
If you must deport illegals who are infesting our medical system and not paying for the care..then we had better go to the west end of Toronto and do a search of all the hospitals where established immigrant have brought their illegal relatives for care - we could probably find at least a few hundred we could deport - now that would cost the liberals a lot of votes.
- and would cause great contempt for the federal government also - we bring in the young working children as immigrant - so we may just be stuck with their illegal aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters and cousins and so on. The immigration policy is what it is - so we are stuck with the side effects. What did the government expect - for immigrant families to abandon extended family. I am sure if you deport this guy - fear of more deportations will result - hence the protestors.
Canada is a country with finite resources, both financially and medically, read again Oleg, FINITE. As far as I can see Canada is not in the best position to free up any medical care for this gentlemen who is ILLEGALLY remaining in Canada. I am sure that even if his community pays for his medical treatment, it will NOT be a medical doctor or hospital bed from India that cares for him. IF this man has any medical issues, it will be Canadian doctors and Canadian hospital beds that will pulled from the system to tend to him, which is the exact opposite of what I want. Maybe Oleg if you do not mind your family waiting for treatment behind Laibar, thats something that you are ok with, I am not. Canadians and would be immigrants who are legal in Canada, should always be the sole focus of our medical system, period.
Of course as soon as the Legal approach does not work, people start to grasp at straws and then claim that racism comes into to play, awwww boo hoo. Well here is a little challenge to you Ole to do a little research, I did a little bit of research (this might surprise you) and found out that "White would be immigrants" have been removed from Canada under deportation orders before. Man those racists in the immigration system make ya sick eh, think of it, no one is safe anymore.
As for your beggar on the street, whats your point, we are talking solely of Laibar Singh right, was the beggar Laibar Singh, if he was please deport him. See the funny thing is, we would not have this conversation if Laibar Singh met Canadian requirements to stay in Canada.
-
At the end of the day, my problem with the whole Khadr thing is not that I like terrorists or that I want one living in my basement...it's that we are allowing our principled societies to become barbaric (read terrorist) by abandoning centuries-old concepts of justice and fairness and then justifying our behavior by claiming to be better than the real terrorists becuase we have pure motives.
It's bullshit.
If the US has such compelling fair and just cause to detain people in a military prison in Cuba, then why...please, one person possibly tell me why...would Bush implement a law that bars any such detainee from making any application to any court in any jurisdiction seeking habeas corpus??????????????????
For those that may not know, habeas corpus is a hundreds of years old principle that compels a captor to "produce the body" of his prisoner to a court of law and provide an explanation why they are justified in keeping the person captive.
If they are so justified, why not simply answer such an application? Really. Why? I challenge anyone to give me one good reason.
If Khadr did what so many seem to have already decided he did (never mind the lack of any hearing or tiral) then it should be the easiest application ever to answer. Instead, the superior democratic freedom-fry loving Americans, defenders of all that is good, committers of no wrong, have barred Khadr and all detainees from any opportunity to have a judicial review of the validity of their detention.
I'm sorry, if there is nothing to hide...then why hide?
FTA
I remember a quote from my business law professor (a very well respected lawyer here in BC) talking about our laws and its relation to an equitable outcome coming from the courts. "If you want justice try religion". Day in and day we see verdicts handed out in the courts here in Canada which have defied logic. Weak sentences for serious criminals. Focus on rehabilitation of perpetrators and not focus on the support of the victims or their families. That alone makes me feel that our "principled" has become unprincipled long ago.
As for the detention of a one Omar Khadr, we can all agree that he was in a foreign land that he should not have been and I am confident that he was NOT helping locals build irrigation networks. He was bred from a puppy to be a pitbull by his evil handlers amd I am positive he has more knowledge than you and I will ever know about. That knowledge may be more sensitive than anything we suspect. There are many things governments do not tell their citizens and for good reason, things that need to be kept in the dark.
1.) THE INFORMATION MAY COMPRISE CURRENT MILITARY OPERATIONS WHICH SUPERCEDES THE NEED TO HAVE ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. A COURT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPRESS THE INFORMATION LEAK AS EASILY AS THIS TYPE OF DETENTION.
Afterall if Omar is such a minimal threat as you may suspect, then why waste the money on detention of such a non-threat.
-
I don't think I missed the point. I'm simply wondering if being a traitor is committing a crime in Canada, since that's the post I was responding to: "should Omar first be found guilty of some sort of crime?" I thought fighting with the enemy, taking up arms against your side, would be all the proof that you would need that he was a traitor by definition. So I'm wondering if taking up arms against Canada is in itself considered a crime.
So I'm still wondering if being a traitor is a crime in Canada; if taking up arms against Canadians and/or Canada's allies in a war is considered traitorous.
As far as I know TREASON still has meaning in Canada, but with an impotent justice system that Canada employs, I hope that the US keeps him and keeps him locked up indefinitely.
It's funny that if this kid were a white or black kid and went on a mall shooting spree, a lot people would be asking "Where were the parents in all this" and try to determine the WHY???. Yet we know exactly how the parents feel and their values and thats why I can alleviate my conscience and be rest assured that this young POS (piece of s&%t) would grow into an old POS and I appreciate that he is spending his days behind bars. And for all those who feel he is denied due process, if he ever sees daylight then invite him to stay at your place cause I do not want a POS like that in my neighbourhood. I hope none of you live close to South Vancouver.
Lastly I pray that people like this can be stripped of their Citizenship and deported.
-
Yes because Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia and Scotland are known for their incredibly long tropical summers...
Also you forgot to include the immense sizes of the countries as well, think of the vast distances that these people must travel, since all of these countries combined could fit into Quebec with 3.5 times Quebec's population.
-
but Sully, if the Indians and the Chinese don't agree to stop consuming so much, how can we possibly agree to consume less. We better consume more, just to be on the safe side.
Well the way to make China and India stop comsuming as much as they do is to curb the West's consumption, their industries will not belch out as much pollution if there was no demand for it. Right now China's and India's economies are booming because of the cheap cost of labour within the manufacturing industries. Try find something nowadays that is not stamped "Made in China" or clothes that are not made in India.
I would never agree to consuming less when others around me consume more, its human nature and the really great thing about it, is that it will eventually lead to conflict. YAY we never learn from our history...
-
I can confirm that they pay more. It is around $2.00 per litre. You seem to tacitly agree with that. I could also confirm thy have less cars per capita than north americans, ( 764 vehicles per 1000 USA vs less than 500 per 1000) travel farther by rail, use more urban transpotation and generally drive smaller cars......
None of this can be said to absolutely prove because of high fuel prices Europeans are more economical with their fuel....but then again.....
I absolutely agree Europeans pay more for gas than Canadians and then again I hope thats always the case. But like almost all fuel prices worldwide, a large portion of the price is due to government taxes. Taxes that are collected to be used in whatever way the government would like and I for one want as little money going to the government as possible. The only real way for a country to be green is for the population to believe in acting in a responsible way. Everyone has to do their part, that means drive alot less, consume a lot less etc.....and not have the government mandate a bunch of phony promises to get elected.
As for your car per capita breakdown, what is your source of that information and please have a quote from some unbiased source (ie something other than a pro-green site).
As for Euros travelling more by rail, I can believe it because they have the population density to support a rail system (more frequent stops = more frequent travellers). Europeans could very well take more urban transport and buy smaller cars due to the fact that they have much older cities which are more tightly packed and that leads to smaller cars and more city transport due to convenience and not out of a green conscience.
-
why isn't Canada using our own product of oil. Is it lack of refineries to change oil to gas?? I would think prices would go down if we did. Anyone??
Well truthfully I believe Canada or North America in general would prefer to use the oil of the Middle East and other areas before we use our own. I believe its a smart move politically and ecomonically for a few future reasons.
1.) The current oil companies are already making huge profits on foreign oil and are not even close to producing the maximum domestic output of oil. With China and India coming online, I would make the assumption that the Middle East has maybe another 50-70 years of dominance in the oil industry before the wells dry up on this finite natural resource. This will really benefit the domestic oil boys at that time as the world supply of oil will drop and their hands will be forced to invest domestically. Now the companies can live longer and justify much higher prices for producing the oil for their domestic markets and also these companies will be able to export for outrageous prices as well. These companies will be "JUSTIFIED" to charge higher prices since there is less of a world supply and also these companies will now need to build domestic refineries and do the research for new locations using North American talent. Just remember that North Americans earn much much much more than their Middle East counterparts. For the North American consumer at that time it will be win and lose, it will be a win since they have access to oil and a loss because they will pay alot for it.
2.) As bad as this may sound, a Middle East without oil is a best case scenario for the Western world as we can now build a wall around it (not something I promote) and let them do whatever they want to each other. Once the wall is built all we need to do is keep a watchful eye on any nuclear activity. Isolating the Middle East will save alot of money for the West on security (military especially) and intelligence gathering in that area. The only "gem" in the Middle East will still be Israel, since there is a powerful Jewish lobby in the US. Unless these countries diversify and expand into other long lasting industries, they will starve even more once the oil money dries up. Middle East(w/o oil) = Africa, no one really cares.
I find it amusing to hear people complain about the high price of our low cost fuel. Perhaps they should pay a visit to Europe and see what a litre costs there. At the same time look at the kinds of cars and their fuel efficeincy that high prices have led them to...I find it amusing that people would like to justify Canadian prices or price increases based on some other location (i.e. Europe), who cares what Europeans pay for gas. I just care for what I, a Canadian, pays for gas. This kind of thinking gives governments the "justification" to hit us with more increases in taxes and fees. In Vancouver they increase parking fees downtown because Vancouver is still cheaper then parking in Denver, or Zurich or Hong Kong. So M. Dancer I challenge you to write a letter to the government and allow them to charge you the extra gas tax that will help prevent you from unecessary driving. I am sure the government will send you a letter back assuring that all these additional taxes will go directly to green initiatives.
Oh BTW M. Dancer can you confirm with me that since Europeans are paying substantially more for gas, are those 600 million+ Europeans driving alot less as a result?
-
I used to play baseball at a high level, was actually lucky enough to be drafted by the LA Dodgers. Even back in the late 90s guys my age (17-18-19) were into steriods (I never tried them, never wanted to). Hey if you want to make it, you will do it. Some guys had more natural talent than some others, therefore some needed to level the playing field in the only way they knew how to. Steriod abuse is rampant in all sports and even sports like golf, will be touched by steriods. A guy does not have to have a bodybuilder look to be on steriods (those guys are on the extreme end of abuse). But when you are paid upon performance and paid very kindly, you would be tempted to do what you need to do to make the millions while you can. Your career can end with one hit, one break and another guy thats better than you. So a guy needs to make what he can when he can.
But the biggest reason steriod abuse will continue in sports will be THE FANS. We all want to see a 500ft homerun, a crushing blow, a guy that runs like the wind and a 100+ mph slapshot. We support it and we like it.
-
WELL I THINK IT IS RUDE AND MAKES YOU SEEM LIKE A HOLLERING JERK BUT WHATEVER
Haha well actually I capitalized it to make sure you did not miss the main point of my post, I guess it did not work. But in any case, excellent comeback !!
Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time of intercourse. It was most certainly a time-critical issue.It has to be life or death (sorry, that's LIFE OR DEATH) to be an emergency? Really? So, for instance, a guy who injures himself with a power-tool and could lose the use of his fingers if he doesn't get surgery immediately, that's not an emergency because he's not going to die?
I think most people would recognize that a rape victim is an emergency because it is time-critical for two reasons:
-obtain forensic evidence required to convict her attacker.
-prevention of pregnancy.
In regards to this finger issue of course he should get immediate attention if available. This actually did happen to my uncle who cut off of his fingers with the fanbelt on one of his pieces of machinery. He picked them up and carried them to the emergency room and was fixed in about 8 hours, of course they were placed on ice, while he waited. Of course if someone came in with a worse emergency he would have to wait, all things are relative depending on the injury.
I am not saying she should not get immediate attention, its just she needs to get it from another doctor thats all. I agree if I was her I would want it done immediately, I am not faulting her for that.
You're aware that there were two patients, right?One of them, Tara Harnish, saw Dr Gish after being raped, and didn't even learn that emergency contraception existed until her sister suggested it the next day. Tara went back to Dr Gish to ask for the treatment and he refused, so she drove an hour to another city to a see a doctor who would.
He didn't just refused to provide the drug, or to refer her to someone who would provide it for her, he didn't even tell her that the option existed HE DIDN'T EVEN TELL HER THAT THE OPTION EXISTED
Two patients and he still kept to his moral convictions, he is not compromising them for you, me or anyone, very different from most people. I do not believe he has to tell her or aid her in anyway in regards to this manner. By not aiding her he is not preventing. If he says no pill exists or causes cancer and makes false statements to deliberately confuse the girl, that is UNACCEPTABLE and he should be punished.
A patient has a right to expect her doctor to provide adequate information to make informed choices about her treatment.I think your real point here is that you want to have a doctor believe in exactly what you want and do what you want, otherwise its unacceptable to you.
"Last time you were in here, I could have reattached those, if I had bothered to mentioned it. But it's too late now. You can still get a nifty prosthetic, though.""Last time you were in here, I could have arranged for an outpatient surgery to have that removed. But it's too late now. You can still get chemotherapy, though."
"Last time you were in here, I could have given you a pill that would have prevented you from being pregnant with your rapist's baby. But it's too late now. You can still get a surgical abortion if you want, though."
You are right these examples have finally made me see the light !!!
Could he lie to a patient? "You might have heard about this emergency contraceptive called Plan B. Some people think it's an option for rape victims, but they are lying. This drug causes cancer. If you use it, you will die. Trust me." Is that allowed? What's one little lie if it saves a life?Lying is wrong and should not be condoned, actively giving misleading information is wrong. I would not agree to any of that either.
Oh, come on. What's one little lie if it saves a life?
Breaking one moral to keep another does not make sense to me, do you conduct yourself this way?
Relax, Sully, we're just exploring the room. I think it's reasonable to ask, if Dr Gish is convinced that it's murder to provide this contraceptive pill, then how far is he justified in going to prevent that murder?Ya but you are now trying to bring up potential scenarios, lets focus on what happened, what needs to change and why it happened.
I don't think people actually want a doctor to have the right to exercise his religious beliefs. I think they only want doctors to have the right to exercise religious beliefs that they're comfortable with.It's easy to come up with examples where you don't want your doctor to exercise his religious beliefs YOU DON'T WANT YOUR DOCTOR TO EXERCISE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
Like JW doctor who won't perform an emergency blood transfusion.
How about a Jewish heart surgeon who could save a patient with an emergency transplant of a pig heart, but refuses to do so because he believes it's an abomination.
How about a Muslim doctor who refuses to treat a dying woman because it is forbidden for him to touch a woman to whom he isn't married?
Are these acceptible exercises of religious freedom if each tick off the clock reduces the chance of success? If the time it takes to find another doctor who is willing to do what is required places the patient's care in jeopardy? Still happy with the religious freedom being exercised?
And I know what you're going to say:
"But that's different!
She wasn't going to die, she was just going to get pregnant."
No big deal, right?
Not to you, anyway.
Well I would do everything I could to get these guys fired, but I do not believe they are wrong for following through with their beliefs, but lets face it show me example of where a JW would not perform transfusion, or Jewish/Muslim exercising those particular beliefs you postulated? It may come up one day, but then again doctors like that would more than likely do their own private services and using select clients. Just because they have their beliefs does not mean they try to make others see their way.
There will be religious doctors for and against abortion
There will be non religious doctors for and against abortion
The world is complex and its the best we can do, we will deal with things when they come. As I have stated always I am for the abortion and giving the pill, but I do understand Gish's beliefs and why he will not aid her.
-
The thing you seem to fail to realise is that the religious morals or rules themselves came from existing primarily secular perceptions of what is right or wrong, or in some cases even just what is productive and acceptable in a human society.
Ok that being said, please provide me with an example of the particular socities, cultures or famous historical figures that developed such notions, I would appreciate that.
Also, I would like to believe that there is something innate in all humans that makes us act good independent of everything else.
Contrary to your statements about modern morality coming from the period when the Church was dominant in European (or as you put it, "world") politics, most of our concepts of morality (such as prohibitions against murder, theft, etc) come from long before that period. In fact, codes of law (incorporating prohibitions or punishments against what we today would consider immoral acts) have existed for thousands of years before the development of the modern monotheist religions.I should have been clearer about stating the "world". But I what I really meant to say is that all cultures in this world developed their own religions and their morals which for the most part, were based on those religions. As for morals existing before monotheistic religions, you are right, all you have to do is open up a history book to see that. Of the world's first major montheistic religion, Judaism has been around since 1400 BC.
Considered by most historians to be the worlds oldest civilizations, the Egyptians, Sumerians and Indus Valley were polytheistic and henotheistic. I do not see how you can draw the conclusion that ancient world was somehow more secular than today. Look at the temples, pyramids, cultures that flourished based on their religions. Hinduism the oldest of the world's religion (roots back to 1600 BC), with their adherents practicing dharma. Look at Egyptian gods representing good and evil, look at the way those people viewed droughts. After experiencing a drought they definitely began to live their lives in such a way to get back into the gods good graces. Again please provide me with examples of where these codes developed completely independent of religion.
Fringe religious beliefs are indeed in question here. In my opinion, the belief that a "morning after pill" should not be prescribed since that would "murder" the pre-embryonic "human" is right out there on the fringe.Wow if thats a fringe belief I am afraid to find what else you consider to be fringe, scary just scary....Ever watch the movie Apocalypto (Great Movie), in that movie you will find some fringe religious beliefs, we probably both can agree to.
My point is simple. If a person's morals are based only on religion, then there is something wrong. Leaving behind religious beliefs, a member of modern society should still have other secular notions that would impel them not to commit acts of murder, theft, etc. If they lack these secular notions, and do not commit the above acts solely based on their beliefs in God, then, like I said, there is something wrong.Well actually there is nothing wrong with believing your morals come from religion. Lets just say if that doctor said he could not do it because he believed life starts at the point of conception, with no religious basis, is that OK with you?? He believes that we all started at that point in order to be here writing on our computers, is that a fringe belief to you??
If someone bases all their morals on secular morals, again that ok with you?
Do you believe that because people have these religious morals, that if they believed there was no god, that they would begin to rape, kill and steal? Would that be akin to believing that if there were no laws secular people would begin to rape, kill and steal??
See what you have to realize is that for most part that these values are the same and in each instance of going against those morals, you will either to have answer to your fellow man, or god or both for your actions. Whether you receive these morals from society or a religious upbringing they have been given to you and they generally re-enforce one another because they are not so different.
Having religious beliefs that are also in line with the secular principles of our society is fine. However, like I said, those religious beliefs should not be the sole basis of those morals in a member of our current society. However, for the majority of modern institutionalized religions, including most forms of Christianity, there are also beliefs that come in direct conflict with those of our current society, with the knowledge provided to us by scientific investigation, or with principles/values of the western world. Devout followers of these religions will therefore also be in conflict with those beliefs as well.So as long as people believe what you believe you are tolerant of them, I am sorry but I am far more tolerant of others it appears. And please do not provide some crazy example, were not talking of exceptions to the rule. I do not want to move to a society where one train of thought is all we know, I do not want to live in a world where we cannot have different views and beliefs. I respect your opinion and its fine with me, I do not need you to share my beliefs to make my world a better place, I am just glad we can discuss differences. Of course you must realize that all religions do not speak for all people, some people do not move with the times and some people expect religions to drop their beliefs because its not "in".
A person that picks and chooses only the beliefs of "not murdering, not lying, not stealing, and not cheating" (and other values that complement our society) out of a religion, and ignores all the rest that doesn't fit in with the accepted notions of our modern society is not a religious person, they are an atheist that doesn't want to admit it to themselves. I have no problem with such people. It is only those that accept all the precepts of their religion, without question, that are frightening.Ya but remember somebody can look right back at you and see you as a follower of a something like a religion, just that you adhere "Secularism" and that you follow it so blindly and that is frightening.
-
One of the problems with this situation was that this was an emergency room. People don't shop around or ask which doctors might be on duty when they're choosing an emergency room. They go where they can get treated quickest, because emergency situations tend to be, you know, emergencies.
Someone who arrives at a hospital emergency room has an expectation that they'll be cared for.
Well Kimmy because one walks into an emergency, does not necessarily qualify it as an emergency. An emergency to most would indicate an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the well being of the patient, you know a LIFE OR DEATH situation. No one is trying to take away the seriousness of how horrible this situation was. This poor girl been put through a traumatic experience but her experience does not override his beliefs. In no way shape or form from what I have read was she in an "emergency" situation, traumatic YES, emergency NO.
According to this logic if she walked into a clinic it would not be an classified an emergency.
If I walk into a Catholic Church does that make me Catholic.
If I were her bf I would have taken her to a the emergency room or clinic to have her checked out too, its a natural assumption. I would have been super pissed at that doctor, but then again when he was of no help I would have walked around him and asked around til I got some help from someone else able to do it.
If he tells the woman "Oh no you can go see Dr. So and So, and he will prescribe the drug". He may feel like he is contributing to that action, almost like an accessory to murder.And this is where we disagree. The doctor's conscience might excuse him from having to perform this duty himself, but when he attempts to prevent a patient from obtaining access to another doctor in time to administer the drug, or when he attempts to prevent a patient from obtaining the treatment by failing to inform her that it exists, then he has crossed the line.
Depends on what you mean by prevention, if he aids the woman in no way, there is absolutely no prevention there on his part. If he was actively preventing access to some other doctor that is 100% UNACCEPTABLE, which is not the case, he is just not aiding her for reasons we already discussed. As for failing to inform her it exists is silly, she ALREADY KNOWS it exists and that was the whole purpose of her trip to the emergency room.
The line he crossed was the line between exercising his religious beliefs, and attempting to impose his beliefs on his patient.If you take the view that the doctor's actions are justified by his belief that he is saving a life, then how far can he go?
See this is where you muddy the water Kimmy. He crossed no line whatsoever. By exercising his own beliefs about his own actions is in no way imposing his beliefs on anyone else. Her rights stop at the moment they infringe upon his and vice versa, there is no RIGHT of patient to make a doctor to do whatever they ask. Its funny for someone who thinks he is imposing his beliefs and how annoyed that makes you feel. You seem all too ready to force your beliefs upon the doctor and say he was and should be made to act. See whereas he has the right NOT TO ACT, you are fighting on the side that he should be MADE TO ACT, now tell me again who really here is imposing their beliefs on who, the doctor or someone who thinks like you do.
Could he lie to a patient? "You might have heard about this emergency contraceptive called Plan B. Some people think it's an option for rape victims, but they are lying. This drug causes cancer. If you use it, you will die. Trust me." Is that allowed? What's one little lie if it saves a life?Lying is wrong and should not be condoned, actively giving misleading information is wrong. I would not agree to any of that either.
Could he physically restrain the patient to prevent her from obtaining access to the drug? Could he physically lock her in the exam room for 72 hours so that it's too late for her to get the drug? It's justified if it keeps her from going to some other doctor who would give her the drug?What about physically restraining her for 9 months, just to make sure she doesn't have an abortion? I mean, if he believes she might go have an abortion, he has to do whatever he can to save that baby, right?
Alright Kimmy it only took us a couple posts to board the crazy train (woo woo full steam ahead), here comes the brilliant scenarios and WHAT IFs. See you are missing the fact that she has rights, rights to go another hospital, doctor etc.......See again you miss the point, and this is no small point let me tell you, its one you take for granted day in and day out. OTHER PEOPLE PEOPLES RIGHTS STOP AT THE MOMENT THEY INFRINGE UPON YOURS. GOT IT!!! As much as you would like this doctor to be devoid any individual rights, I am glad he is granted them like the rest of us.
On a side note, I hope they do not find that secret lair behind his office, you know the one where he shackles women like this up.
If you feel that Dr Gish is justified in trying to stand between his patients and their treatment by the fact of his beliefs, then wouldn't he also be justified in doing these things as well?I do not feel he is standing in anyones way, you just want it to sound like that to make your faultering argument have some substance. I just do not agree with you or anyone walking through that emergency room to stand between him and his beliefs. Your wishes do not trounce his rights THANK GOD!!
YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH HIM, BUT YOU CANNOT LOOK INTO HIS HEART AND DICTATE WHAT HE VALUES !!!THE MAIN POINT TO THE ARGUMENT IS YOU VALUE LIFE AND DR. GISH VALUES LIFE AND BOTH OF US CAN SEE THAT THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION AND WOULD WEIGH HEAVY ON THEIR CONSCIENCES IN BOTH SITUATIONS. AND I FOR ONE AM NOT FOR DICTATING THAT A DOCTOR HAS TO ACT IN THIS INSTANCE. Again I am for abortion in this case.
What's with the all-caps?
Well I was raising my voice.
Well to simplify things I will keep it short
Older man with terminal cancer = taking his life is ok and you acknowledge the difficulty of the decision of the doctor. Why because its a life he would be taking (DIFFICULTY OF THE SITUATION FOR THE DOCTOR STEMS FROM MORALS OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN)
Potential life being born and the same doctor seeing life starting at that point, in his eyes they are of completely equal value to older man dying from cancer (DIFFICULTY OF THE SITUATION FOR THE DOCTOR STEMS FROM MORALS OF RELIGIOUS ORIGIN)
So what is your problem Kimmy, you can afford consideration for the doctor with the situation of the Older Man with Cancer, but not the doctor who feels equally strong about the life of a potential unborn child.
So either:
1.) You do not like religion, because I am curious if this doctor had these beliefs just upon his own with no religious ties, would you say his societal morals are wrong too
2.) You are a woman and focus more on the woman's situation, than the rights of the doctor
3.) You are being a hypocrite, allowing one doctor extra consideration for the exact same belief in the value of life
-
.....I would think that a doctor who truly considered my treatment to be paramount would find some way to ease my suffering. It would undoubtedly be an extremely difficult choice for the doctor. The question over whether a doctor's treatment of a patient might include providing a merciful end to their suffering is not cut and dried, as many as demonstrated by the many "death with dignity", "living will", euthanasia, pull-the-plug, Terri Schiavo, Sue Rodriguez type dramas that we have seen in the news over the years.
You stated right there in your post "It would undoubtedly be an extremely difficult choice for the doctor". Why is that, is it because most likely his beliefs, his morals regardless of origin would make his actions run contrary to all he has learned in his life. He may very well believe that its not his position to take your life and you already noted it would not be an easy for him to make that decision. I think it would be easier to die then to live with guilt for the rest of your life.
Now if this doctor said I cannot do this because of my morals, would you be ok with that and seek another doctor?
Now if this doctor said I cannot do this because of my religious morals, would you be ok with that and seek another doctor?
In either case you noted that its not an easy decision and I can assume that that stems from the value that the doctor places on life. Now prove to me that Dr. Gish does not value life in the same way but just values it from the point of conception where he thinks life begins. If he tells the woman "Oh no you can go see Dr. So and So, and he will prescribe the drug". He may feel like he is contributing to that action, almost like an accessory to murder. YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH HIM, BUT YOU CANNOT LOOK INTO HIS HEART AND DICTATE WHAT HE VALUES !!!
THE MAIN POINT TO THE ARGUMENT IS YOU VALUE LIFE AND DR. GISH VALUES LIFE AND BOTH OF US CAN SEE THAT THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION AND WOULD WEIGH HEAVY ON THEIR CONSCIENCES IN BOTH SITUATIONS. AND I FOR ONE AM NOT FOR DICTATING THAT A DOCTOR HAS TO ACT IN THIS INSTANCE. Again I am for abortion in this case.
-
Not sure, people can rarely answer questions of that nature correctly until they are actually placed in that situation. In life and death situations, what you think you would do, and what you actually do, are often very different.
Actually all I am asking is for you to picture yourself in the situation right now and if you could do it???
I know you can do that and I know what your answer would be. Just like me it would weigh too heavy on your conscience knowing that you alone are responsible for ending this life. This is not something either of us could take lightly. But I am extremely confident that it would NOT be your hand that would act to end his life. And you cannot hide behind and bypass this situation to another doctor who would do this on your behalf, it would be all you and you alone. Just like you, myself and Dr. Gish we all value life, although we may differ on where we think it begins, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, historically, to some extent, some of our morals have come from religious concepts. That's why I said "in today's society". Most people today realize that murder, theft, etc are immoral on concepts besides the fact that a dude on some mountain somewhere was supposedly told so by God thousands of years ago. Personally, I was raised in the near complete absence of any religious notions, and yet feel strongly that murder (and a variety of other types of crimes) is immoral. There are also many "morals" that come from some religions that we find quite questionable in our society. If doctors of any of these religions want to practice in our society, it is not unreasonable to expect that they leave those beliefs at the door.To think that modern society has somehow evolved from a recent and completely independent point in history is nonsense and here is why.
Bonam, in order for our world to evolve to this "today's society", this world had to live out its past. That past is the foundation for the world we live in today. I am sure you can agree to this and to quote Sir Isaac Newton 'If I have seen a little farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.' This is analgous to where we are at present with all our scientific, political, philosophical and societal achievements having been derived from the world and people that preceeded us.
Not all that long ago the world was dominated by the church, for centuries a pope could be more powerful than a king in many instances. The churches and religions dominated their cultures and society and molded the lives of their people. As the world progressed the separation of church and a more secular society began to take hold. As that separation happened, governments and laws began to take form. And to make this clear the laws and morals in society were derived from the preceeding world. So as much as you think that those secular morals are yours alone, you are only kiddng yourself. As the separation took hold, secular society stripped the values and morals from those preceeding ones dominated by religion. Why, because they needed them in order to function. Now rather then the biblical "Thou shalt not kill", its more men should not kill each other. So as much as you think your morals and values come solely from family and society, you are wrong, you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. Hahaha you maybe more religious then you want to be. AND NOT I AM NOT SAYING EVERY MORAL IN THIS WORLD IS DERIVED FROM RELIGION. But you have to realize that you have been shaped by it more than you will ever know.
You were raised in a household without religious notions thats great, that in anyway does not mean you are less of a moral person. That also does mean that your values and morals are completely secular in nature, as per the reasoning above.
As for "fringe" religious beliefs, they are not in question here, all the hypotheticals and What IFs that could happen would be dealt with accordingly I am sure.
Again, I would contend that someone whose morals are really based solely on their religious beliefs and not on anything else is not someone I would want as my doctor. If by leaving their religious beliefs at the door, the person in question becomes a murderer, thief, rapist, etc, then there is something wrong with that person.Well then my friend, you may lose many friends in your life if you discriminate like this. I guarantee you there are many people around you or close to you that may have beliefs that you are unaware of and would surprise you if you found out.
As for you wolf in sheeps clothing argument, whats your point?? A nutcase is a nutcase is a nutcase. Religious people who kill abortion doctors are whack jobs....but it also does not mean they followed their religious morals either.
Generally, a doctor that shares the beliefs in question would be strongly religious. It is easy to tell a person that is strongly religious in any type of conversation, even if the topic of the procedure that they find questionable never comes up. If it was the case that my family doctor was strongly religious, I would know about it, and would likely have known about it within a short period after starting to go to his clinic. While the value of his career would not be less, I would probably have sought another doctor, as I would likely not have felt comfortable being treated by a fanatically religious person.I think you are very wrong here. Not everyone wheres their religion on their sleeve. To some people their religion is a very private matter and others like to profess it from the mountain top. There was a person I never knew, who was devoutly religious. I worked with this person day in and day out for 3 years and never had a clue.
What if your very religious doctor has the very religious belief of not murdering, not lying, not stealing and not cheating, is that someone you would not like to be friends with......see both religious and societal morals are not on each end of the spectrum like you seem to profess. These morals can be the same and for the most part there will never be a conflict. Its just you believe they come from society/family and he believes they come from religion/family.
Also can you please define a fanatically religious person????
-
I disagree strongly that any of the above morals originate in modern society to any great degree from religion or religious beliefs. Many things that one would consider immoral are also illegal within our society, and that provides a much stronger discouragement than religious belief. Leaving your religious beliefs at the door doesn't mean leaving your morals at the door. In fact, in the case of doctors, they have their hippocratic oath (as referenced many times in this thread), which is completely independent of religious belief.
Well Bonam you have to be kidding, morals and religious ideals have been intertwined for thousands of years before we were ever born, to think otherwise is to be ignorant of history. I do recall this lil thing called the Ten Commandments, thou shall not kill, ahh its somewhere in there. But anyways that was etched into history in written form over 3000 years ago. Even I am not too religious, I definitely do not think it played a small degree in how our modern world was formed, it played a major role.
As for your assertion that our laws are more likely to prevent someone from breaking the law, well I believe that is way out of sync with what I see in the news everyday. I would say that religious morals could very well be a stronger discouragement then any of our laws. Regardless of laws, a person who has their morals based in religion will still carry the feeling that will answer for their actions even if they get caught or not. Besides I believe people with strong morals (who cares the origin of those morals, religious or not) would not act in such a way even if it were legal, thats the big difference.
As for leaving morals at the door, that is exactly what you are asking of people who have their morals based on their religious beliefs.
If you want to assert that religious people have better morals than non-religious people, then you'd need to reference a study showing a statistically significant difference in rates of crimes or immoral acts (i.e. murders, rapes, etc) among samples of religious people and samples of areligious people. Otherwise, lacking such evidence, I would contend that an atheist doctor (or worker of any other profession) would, on average, be no less amicable, polite, helpful, and honest than (for example) a Christian doctor.I do want to assert religious people have a higher moral standard, nor have I. I do assert that people's moral values derived from religion are just as valuable as people with morals derived from society.
I agree that an atheist or Christian doctor are 100% comparable, they could both be great and both be awful doctors. But if your doctor held the same views as Dr. Gish on this one subject, will you now classify him as a nut with whacked out views. Remember that this could be the doctor you knew all your life, who has cared for your health, laughed and joked with you, did evertything possible to help you when you needed it. Is this man's values or is this man's career as a doctor now any less valuable because you do not share the exact same beliefs????
In the case of a person in extreme physical suffering, if it is known for an absolute fact that they have no chance of recovery, given that the condition is 100% terminal, and upon the patient's request, and perhaps contingent on the family's approval, I don't think I would be opposed to a doctor assisting the person with suicide, or referring to another doctor that would be willing. From the point of view of doing harm, prolonging the extreme suffering of an individual who is then going to die anyway could be seen as doing more harm than ending their suffering quickly and painlessly.I am not opposed to it either, I know I would want my life to end. But could you be the one to prescribe the medication or give the man details on how to end his own life, I know I cannot, it would weigh too heavy on my conscience.
But if that man walked through the door and was face to face with you, can you do it???
-
Religious beliefs have no place in the workplace, period. Honestly, if a doctor refuses to perform a procedure (or issue medication) on religious grounds, then he's enough of a nut that I wouldn't want him performing any procedure on me, whether that particular procedure is one that he condones or not.
I think we all agree the situation could have been handled with more sensitivity thats for sure and hopefully if the situation arises again there will be policies and procedures in place that will effectively protect all parties that are involved in the situation.
As for your statement Bonam, it might be an eye opener for you, but I will absolutely guarantee you one thing, many of these potential nuts may have already done procedures on you. You probably meet these people day in and day out and never know it. The reason you may not know it is because rarely do your mutual beliefs and morals run contrary to each other. Rarely and yes rarely do these issues arise in the Grand Scheme of things, and I think we can also agree the world is not perfect and may never be. Bonam, can you for instance provide an example of a situation where this has happened to you.
But I do not really think you know what you are asking for when you say religious beliefs have no place in the workplace, I think good beliefs and morals regardless of their origins should be proudly practiced in the workplace. I kind of like the thought of people not lying, stealing and cheating. Look at all the Wall Street crooks, they practice exactly what you want. Check your morals and beliefs at the door. I guarantee many of these crooks were never raised to be crooks, maybe some were, but the majority were not.
Here is an example for you, which may allow you to see it from the point of view of the doctor.
Since everyone is big on the WHAT IFs..... on this thread I will now add mine.
Dr. Gish is working in the ER and in comes a man that looks absolutely horrible. The man is dying and is terminally ill from cancer. He is in the kind of condition that no one would ever want to be in. Wasting and waiting to die, Dr. Gish is prevented from doing harm to this man, even tho it could be in his best interest. If the man comes to the doctor asking for mercy, to just aid him in dying, aid him with a prescription that will make him sleep forever. If Dr. Gish says no, I am certain you would be ok with that response, I know I would be. But realize here is a man who is suffering and only sees an unknown time of dying (thats all his life is now), but wants to take control of it. The man still has his mind and not his body. The man relieves the doctor of responsibility of taking his life. Now I am going to wager a guess and say with certainty that you would be ok with him not providing a prescription or any advice on how the man could end his own life. Just like most people in this world we would all answer NO !!!. For me, I think like most people, I could not take another's persons life and just be ok with it, all my morals and religious beliefs could not allow me too. I could see his struggle and sympathize with him and I know I would never want this to happen to anyone I love. But still I would sit idly by as the man pleads and do nothing.
Now whether or not you want to allow others to have their beliefs and be guided by them is your choice but I know I do. I will draw a parallel as to why Dr. Gish could not in anyway help the girl. Whether you believe it or not Dr. Gish believes that life may have already began inside the woman and that cannot allow him to act. He believes that the life that maybe growing in the woman is just as valuable as the man that is asking for him to act in his death. There is nothing thats tell me that life does not begin at conception and I would say it does, because all of us are here today and grew from that point to have the life we know today. So to ask Dr. Gish to act against these beliefs is ridiculous. To him, his actions were guided by what he knows, to him that life that could grow and live to be 80 years old and that is a future that he feels is not his to end. He cannot aid in it directly or indirectly, because he believes all life is valuable.
Now to let you know I believe in abortion in this case, but I also respect that others may feel different and that those others are just as much a part of this world as I am. There were alternatives in this case and there will be in the future, but for many on here its ok to belittle the beliefs of this doctor. WHY ???
-
Only if it interferes with their ability to do their job. I could claim that working hard is against my religion, but employers can't discriminate against me because that is my religion, so employers should have to hire me even if I refuse to work hard? Is that what you are saying?
Employers discriminate based on these things all the time. How many atheists get hired as priests? Perhaps I should apply for the position, then I can preach atheism and say "you can't fire me just because of my religious beliefs!".
If I don't do my job, I would expect my employer to fire me.
Well you are really onto something here GC ,again you show off your uncanny ability to draw worthwhile comparisons of real life situations. I am starting to see your way of thinking and it looks good from over here, hey anything goes right. And you are right most employers, when posting a job position, clearly state that they are looking for someone that is lazy.
Well GC here is a hint, if you do not want to be over worked and believe that laziness is part of your daily practice, I have a solution for you. Join a union (synonmous to a religion), there they do not want you to work too hard and its probably written in the CBA not to (synonmous to religious doctrine)
As for the Atheism analogy, BRAVO !!! HATS OFF TO YOU !!! I have no response to that other than "BRILLIANt, JUST BRILLIANT"
Ya but one thing to remember GC, after you were fired for being lazy, now you can worry about not being rehired because you are too old.
-
what do I have to do with what gc said?
I apologize Cybercoma, I was reading your post and posting at the same time and it was directed at GC for the most part but definitely fits into our discussion as well.
-
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not here to argue what the law is, but rather to give my opinion as to what it should be. I think you already know what my opinion is on the matter.
Like you I believe in abortion in this case because of the circumstances.
I believe that the doctor potentially handled the issue with a lack of sensitivity.
I believe that a lot can be learned from the situation and that a new policy outlining procedures and listing of available doctors to prescribe the drug can be implemented.
Where we differ is in the following:
I am not for having goverment introduce legislation that begins to infringe upon peoples religious beliefs, in fact employers cannot descriminate against enthnicity, sex, religious beliefs, etc...... and its seems without a doubt that you are wanting to overturn this. Scary thought, just more and more steps to a society we all do not want in to live in. Also Cyber, just remember this kind of legislation could one day come back to bite you, especially if your employer could fire you on the grounds above, that once protected you. One day you will be old and you may just find yourself obsolete and not able to hold a job.
-
Should a doctor NEVER be made to do something against their beliefs? What if it's a Jehova's Witness doctor, that refuses to give a blood transfusion and the patient dies?
Do you respect that doctor's beliefs?
What IF.......What IF.......What IF. Well even tho the two situations are different in very different in nature, I will still reply.
Two people are rushed into the emergeny room, one who has been hurt in a car accident and another is a woman who has been been raped. The physical injuries to the car accident victim are what people in the health care industry would call "LIFE THREATENING". The other would be an incident where people would be angered and saddened that a woman was raped, but it most cases rape DOES NOT EQUAL "LIFE THREATENING" but rather severe TRAUMATIZATION. WHO SHOULD BE TREATED FIRST????? No one wants a woman to be raped, if it happened to my family or my girlfriend, I would absolutely go frickin bananas and love to get a hold of the culprit, TRUST ME!!!
So we have classified two completely distinct situations, one we will call apples and the other oranges. If a doctor would not give a blood transfusion which is a potential life saving action, then yes he should be fired, the severity of his actions have IMMEDIATELY AND SEVERELY lessened the chance of saving the patient. The other situation was not an immediate risk of life to the mother and AGAIN there were alternative options available to the woman. An unconcious car accident victim cannot get up and choose another doctor. (PS if I were in that situation I would be majorly pissed at that doctor for not giving the pill, but also after him not being helpful, I would walk around him and speak to someone who could help)
And again lets imagine a man who studied to perform abortions, who chose to accept employment at an abortion clinic and then say as the procedure is about to begin "NO WAY JOSE"
So you show me an article thats shows a JW doctor refusing to perform a blood transfusion and I ll show you a crow with a white ass!!!!
-
I'm appalled by your responses betsy.......
And SULLY, you can have your opinions, and I'm equally entitled to think your opinions are offensive and asinine.
You were appalled with all of Besty's responses, were you so appalled that your day has been ruined by Betsy's opinons. Hardly, what you are really appalled at, is that fact that Betsy's has her own mind which she uses and she does not in anyway get swayed by your opinions.
As for my asinine opinions, well at least they are backed by a lot more logic than yours. Your responses all are based on emotion. As I stated in my previous post, I am for abortion in this case, but not for forcing a doctor with strong beliefs against to act against his will.
-
Sure, and I'll bet people in other professions have their own convictions as well. Imagine a vegetarian working at McDonald's who refused to serve customers hamburgers because they contain meat. I wonder how long that person would keep their job for. Or a Muslim taxi driver who refused to carry passengers with alcohol because it goes against his religious beliefs. I'm sure you'd agree with that 100% as well, right?
DOCTOR VS. BURGER GUY
Hmmmmmm........lets see a vegetarian serving burgers at mcdonalds, I would hazard a guess and say that they would have many workers who are vegetarian and still serving burgers. Now lets look a little bit deeper, a vegetarian is someone who by choice does not eat meat, great wonderful its their choice, but they may also choose to still serve a meateater. But you know the wonderful thing is that they have a choice, they can serve or not serve a customer. And now the key point, since this was an obviously wonderful well thought out comparison, is listed below.
Lets compare the duties of doctor vs. McEDEES Burger Flipper
DOCTOR DUTIES:
Prescribe drugs, diagnose disease, provide advice, perform surgeries etc......and to think they studied for 8 or more years to do this
McEDEES Burger Flipper:
Flip burgers and custodial duties
Now lets compare again the doctor who performs thousands of tasks with the particular issue of this thread which represents about 0.001% of his potential duties as a doctor
Now lets MCbring into this comparison the burger flipper, they flip burgers and clean up the restaurant a little. So 95% of their time is devoted to serving burgers. If they knowingly refuse to, fire them because they are refusing to do what their jobs asks of them. Another great thing is that the fired worker can go work elsewhere (thank god for such a democratic notion). I do not know of anywhere in his contract as a doctor that states that this doctor MUST provide her the drug.
And to play along with your ingenius analogy, I guarantee you that this doctor did not focus his studies on how to perform an abortion, then go apply for a position in a health care facility to perform abortions and then say as he is about to perform an abortion " Ahh guys I am so so soooo sorry but I cannot perform an abortion after all, its just not in me to do"
Another thing, the weight on the conscience of the doctor vs. veggie burger flipper is no where even comparable in my eyes.
TAXI CAB DRIVER VS. PUBLIC
Well the taxi cab driver issue is easy. Lets use me as an example in the following scenario.
I hail a cab with after coming out of the liquor store. He by chance has an an issue with my alcohol in tow and says he will not drive me to where I need to go. I begin to get mad and throw together a few letters of the alphabet for him, he drives off spouting his spiel. I send him off using a salute we all know too well. But the good thing is that that salute can also be used to hail the next cab if used properly, so I killed two birds with one stone. I get into the cab and he has no issues with my alcohol and thats good for me, I finally get to go home. As I am being driven home I am thinking to myself, I am gonna get that cabbie fired, I am gonna call his company and ream them out. By the time I get home, after having the paid the cabbie a good chunk of change, I began to realize that I do not have the time to waste on all this S&*T. It also comes clear to me that I am carrying some tasty booze with me and that pouring a drink vs. picking up the phone is much more worth my time.
See we all have choices and we all have alternatives, also the people in any profession should be awarded for the most part their ability to exercise the same right. I also do not know what the cabbie values more his beliefs or the all mighty buck. But maybe at the end of the day he feels better about himself, maybe not. One day he may also be faced with the fact that everyone in town carries booze and that he will need to move onto another profession. In that scenario the market would sort him out, either he sinks or swims, but we all had a choice in the matter.
Khadr - Court rules he must be Repatriated
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
What evidence does Canada/CSIS treat "brown/beige/tan/etc...." "citizens" differently than white ones overseas. In fact I would say that they are treated exactly the same as whites. Its common to say you hate Nazis and Hitler (whites), Stalin and communists (whites) and the list goes on....As a "WHITE-German background" I have never forgiven other "WHITE" groups such as Hitler Youth for the atrocities that they would grow into. They were manipulated like Omar I am sure, but I do not forgive Omar because he has a darker skin pigment, nor do I pretend he cannot be held accoutable for his actions. If you pardon him, please be fair and pardon Hitler Youth, will you do that? Has Canada forgiven Hitler Youth (WHITE)? Has CSIS (even tho they were not around then) forgiven Hitler Youth (WHITE)? I draw the exact same comparison I depise them both, so try not make a race issue out of it.