.

[betsy]

I guess some doctors like Gish, are willing to make a provocative and aggressive stand on moral and religious ground. Good for them!

Taxi cab drivers have no such rights to enforce their religion on the public...in a public street...driving a vehicle meant for public service.

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!

Is that too hard to understand for us Canadians? It is just plain common sense!

Yeah, no double standard there

There's no double-standard at all. You still insist there is because you don't get the point . The difference between this and that had already been explained in one of the posts somewhere on this thread.

If you cannot understand it....what can I say? C'est la vie.

[ScottSA]

in somalia they are.......

I believe that particular 'right' actually belongs to the men of Somalia, not the women of Somalia.

....Yeah you would think that.....but 100% of the time the operation is done by women and it is the women who pressure the mother to make the child under go the clitorectomy.

Men for the most part live in ignorance of the womens genitals and only know what they have been told, that a woman without the cicumsision will be morally corrupt and prone to hysteria.....so it isn't so much as the men forcing the operation.....women collude 100%

.....anyone want to jump at the root of the word "hysteria"?

Let's ban the practice in Somalia and see who screams loudest. I'll bet its the men.

That the men can demonstrate high level control over their women is not proof that the women are independent or seeking their own interest.

If prisoners in a penitentary work making licence plates, does that mean that they chose this labour? That this labour is a perfect expression of their personhood? Does it prove that making licence plates is popular with convicted felons? This analogy is not meant to say that women in Somalia are exactly like prisoners, but I respectfully submit, women in Somalia don't have much that we would consider as 'rights'.

Indeed, many of the supervisors of slave labour in the Confederate South were slaves as well. If a black slave orders around another black slave, does this mean that blacks supported slavery?

Do you ever venture outside the confines of your little undergrad inspired box of bumpersticker slogans? Do you not understand that the world is a bit more complex than Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi would have it? Momo is absolutely right; the custom is female driven, as were most of the western customs that allegedly held women down in our society. You see, once upon a time women believed that they were better served by elevation to a special status, and to domination of the inside world; the life of the home. Even post-feminist writers are coming to the realization that many of the mythologies of post-liberal feminism are ahistorical fabrications. Like the myth that women were pandemically beaten by their husbands, for instance.

Doesn't the hierarchy of PC evils get confusing for you sometimes? You're ready to defend the virtue of tribal barbarism when it's juxtaposed against the Evil colonial white man, but when you are facing undoubtable evil from within the society itself, you have to retreat to a lesser evil in the PC hierarchy...male vs female. You can spout nonsense about how patriarchy this and patriarchy that, but the fact is that you don't have the slightest idea how those societies work, and it's a fair bet that you're incapable of learning.

[Mad_Michael]

Do you ever venture outside the confines of your little undergrad inspired box of bumpersticker slogans? Do you not understand that the world is a bit more complex than Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi would have it? Momo is absolutely right; the custom is female driven, as were most of the western customs that allegedly held women down in our society. You see, once upon a time women believed that they were better served by elevation to a special status, and to domination of the inside world; the life of the home. Even post-feminist writers are coming to the realization that many of the mythologies of post-liberal feminism are ahistorical fabrications. Like the myth that women were pandemically beaten by their husbands, for instance.

Doesn't the hierarchy of PC evils get confusing for you sometimes? You're ready to defend the virtue of tribal barbarism when it's juxtaposed against the Evil colonial white man, but when you are facing undoubtable evil from within the society itself, you have to retreat to a lesser evil in the PC hierarchy...male vs female. You can spout nonsense about how patriarchy this and patriarchy that, but the fact is that you don't have the slightest idea how those societies work, and it's a fair bet that you're incapable of learning.

Bemused giggles. Did you have as much fun writing that as I had reading it?

You are becoming rather colourful!

[ScottSA]

Do you ever venture outside the confines of your little undergrad inspired box of bumpersticker slogans? Do you not understand that the world is a bit more complex than Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi would have it? Momo is absolutely right; the custom is female driven, as were most of the western customs that allegedly held women down in our society. You see, once upon a time women believed that they were better served by elevation to a special status, and to domination of the inside world; the life of the home. Even post-feminist writers are coming to the realization that many of the mythologies of post-liberal feminism are ahistorical fabrications. Like the myth that women were pandemically beaten by their husbands, for instance.

Doesn't the hierarchy of PC evils get confusing for you sometimes? You're ready to defend the virtue of tribal barbarism when it's juxtaposed against the Evil colonial white man, but when you are facing undoubtable evil from within the society itself, you have to retreat to a lesser evil in the PC hierarchy...male vs female. You can spout nonsense about how patriarchy this and patriarchy that, but the fact is that you don't have the slightest idea how those societies work, and it's a fair bet that you're incapable of learning.

Bemused giggles. Did you have as much fun writing that as I had reading it?

You are becoming rather colourful!

Naw, I'm just waiting for your bemused giggling to match your argument ability and degenerate into befuddled cackling. How's your reading of Marx coming along? Still trying to google up that elusive 13th century middle class? What were you saying about Edward abolishing feudalism again? *snort*

[betsy]

Yooooo-hoooooo Qc1765, you sneaky rascal, what's with this one?

Post #32

Airport passengers should voluntarily refuse to ride in taxis driven by those who want to enforce the ban...regardless whether they've got alcohol or not. Unless the public start doing their own little protest....it will only get worse.

I agree. We should also boycott churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

I have no problem with that. Because that's just plain common sense to me, don't you think so?

#37

Almost forgot, let's also boycott pharmacies where the pharmacists refuse to sell the morning after pill. Boycotts are an excellent way for anyone to help bring change.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=6744&st=30

This is basically saying: get another ride! Or go to another store! Or see another doctor!

And you agreed with me.

This solution is similar with what I've said about doctors/patients somewhere in this thread.

Actually this only shows I am consistent with my reasoning.

Now you seem to be saying you don't agree with me regarding this doctor case....and yet you agreed with me on the same principle regarding the cab driver.

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.

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.

Hmmm....

And since it is you (not me), who adamantly believes and keep insisting these two incidents - doctor/cab driver - are comparable, it seems to me, in that case, you are the one who has a double standard.

See what happens when you rely on hunches?

[gc1765]

Yooooo-hoooooo QC, what's with this one?

I agree. We should also boycott churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Almost forgot, let's also boycott pharmacies where the pharmacists refuse to sell the morning after pill. Boycotts are an excellent way for anyone to help bring change.

This is basically saying: get another ride! Or go to another store! Or see another doctor!

You agreed with me.

This solution is similar with what I've said about doctors/patients somewhere in this thread.

Actually this only shows I am consistent with my reasoning.

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?

[betsy]

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.

What's with this "WE" stuff? You mean the passenger and the raped woman are not included in this "WE?"

Is your "WE" not inclusive? You're not making any sense!

Boycott is just a shorter way of saying, "don't ride on that one. Get another one!" So what's the difference?

You're getting funnier the more you try to squirm out of it.

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?

I've answered this same question in this topic. Besides, there could be other options....like this one:

I heard on the radio today that the cabbies will not be able to have a "no alchohol" light. If they reject a passenger on the cue, they'll have to go to the end of the cue, costing them valuable time. Sounds almost like a fair solution.

I don't know much about the taxi business, so how would this work? Do you mean if there's a line-up of taxis waiting for passengers the taxi will have to go to the back of the line? Fair enough, but who's going to enforce it?

You agreed. You said it was "fair enough."

I suggested putting up signs on clinics' doors, "I don't give morning pills."

For hospitals, I also suggested posting a list of names of doctors who are willing to do abortions and give emergency contraceptives.

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?

Isn't my answer very, very clear? I guess you must be flustered. But me thinks thou dost protests too much.

Anyway, hasta la vista.

[gc1765]

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.

What's with this "WE" stuff? You mean the passenger and the raped woman are not included in this "WE?"

Is your "WE" not inclusive? You're not making any sense!

Boycott is just a shorter way of saying, "don't ride on that one. Get another one!" So what's the difference?

You're getting funnier the more you try to squirm out of it.

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?

[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.

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?

Well I guess it's understandable to have your wits scattered all over the place after that explosion on your face, ....and since you asked so nicely, I'll break my hasta-la-vista "oath" and patiently point out to you the nearest answer I can grab on this thread that answers your question. Just scroll up a bit on this same page. Here:

Post #32

Airport passengers should voluntarily refuse to ride in taxis driven by those who want to enforce the ban...regardless whether they've got alcohol or not. Unless the public start doing their own little protest....it will only get worse.

I agree. We should also boycott churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

I have no problem with that. Because that's just plain common sense to me, don't you think so?

In fact, if I remember it right, I actually begged you guys to "boycott" and stay away...far, far away... from the church.

I have no problem with that. Because that's just plain common sense to me, don't you think so?

If I, with my open and staunch support for traditional Christian religion, would agree to you guys to "boycott" the church that refuses to alter the holy scriptures just so to humor the whims of confused liberal thinkers - that in fact I even called this "boycott of the church" just plain common sense.....I thought it clear that it only follows what I think of boycotting a piddly pharmacy for refusing to sell morning pills!

If I think and stated if you don't agree with your doctor, by all means, go to another doctor....it's just the same as with pharmacies, or taxis, or dentists, or restaurants. Boycott away! Use your freedom to choose!

Unless you're chained to the doctor's hips, or to the pharmacy's counter or to the taxi's meter, or to the dentist's chair or to the diner's table....unless there's anything that prevents you from leaving - like a gun to your head - then what's stopping you????

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?

Whether you think it is wrong or not does not make any difference unless it's against the law.

And yes, boycott means just that. Now, whether other people will follow your advice and avoid this cab or that doctor as well is another story. You can still freely express your ire, protest and do your own "boycott".

BUT it still boils down to the same thing: Don't ride that cab or don't go to that doctor.

It's really that simple.

Btw, you do remind me of someone who used to be on this thread....I just can't remember who. Let me think about it.

Now, hasta la vista!

[cybercoma]

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?

The problem in this thread is not the pharmacists. The problem is when a woman was raped and she went to an emergency room, the doctor at the ER refused her the morning after pill and refused to refer her to someone that would give it to her. She didn't have a choice to see another doctor. She was raped and sought emergency services at the hospital, only to have the doctor try to force his beliefs on her.

[Drea]

Cyber if I were her I would sue the ass off that doctor.

He has absolutely no right to refuse a legal medication or procedure. If a doctor has certain religious beliefs where he cannot perform a procedure (or write a prescription) then he should a.) not be a doctor b.) work on ONLY the parishners (sp) from his church. This would mean of course, that he should not have been in the ER (where non churchies go) at all.

[cybercoma]

I think the doctor should lose his license for causing unnecessary duress to the patient, whom after being raped was fairly confident she would become pregnant because of where she was at in her cycle.

Imagine that. Imagine being raped, being fairly confident you could've been impregnated, then after mustering up the courage to go to the ER and report the incident... the doctor who sees you denies you the morning after pill.

I want to know if those who are against the morning after pill, which is not an abortion it is just a method for stopping a person from getting pregnant, are also against using birth control or condoms, which arguably do the same thing.

[gc1765]

I agree. We should also boycott churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

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?"

[gc1765]

The problem in this thread is not the pharmacists. The problem is when a woman was raped and she went to an emergency room, the doctor at the ER refused her the morning after pill and refused to refer her to someone that would give it to her. She didn't have a choice to see another doctor. She was raped and sought emergency services at the hospital, only to have the doctor try to force his beliefs on her.

I realize that, but the argument about pharmacists refusing to sell morning after pills came up in another thread (the taxi driver thread) and is related to this discussion. Betsy seems to think that everyone should be boycotting taxis who refuse to carry alcohol, but when it comes to the issue of refusing to sell morning after pills, she avoids the question. A clear double standard.

[Moxie]

Cyber if I were her I would sue the ass off that doctor.

He has absolutely no right to refuse a legal medication or procedure. If a doctor has certain religious beliefs where he cannot perform a procedure (or write a prescription) then he should a.) not be a doctor b.) work on ONLY the parishners (sp) from his church. This would mean of course, that he should not have been in the ER (where non churchies go) at all.

I agree I'd sue him as well, but I'd plaster his god fearing fundy ways all over the media first.

This woman was RAPED, do those who think he was within the boundries of his oath get that? He vowed to "Do no Harm". Can you image being raped and then treated as she was by this doctor? I don't care if he worships the moon his job is his patients, you leave your morals at the door or quit. He should have his license to practice medicine in a hospital revoked. Enough of this pandering to religious fanatics whom deem what is moral and just. To allow that woman to suffer as he did speaks volumns regarding him and his god. As for the inane assertion that she go to another doctor, dear god how inhumane that is. How can anyone be that cold blooded and cruel. Get raped and you must shop around until you find a doctor who's not judging your morals. I'm having flash backs to the sixties and seventies, women and coat hangers. Religion is just another excuse for small minded men to subjugate a women's right to be equal in society in the name of their god or prophet. We need a law banning religion in medicine, not a law regulating morals in medicine.

[kimmy]

Btw, you do remind me of someone who used to be on this thread....I just can't remember who. Let me think about it.

Was that directed at me? If you're accusing me and GC of being the same person, you might not want to go down that road, considering how much your posts resemble somebody who got banned from this forum a year back.

-k

[gc1765]

Btw, you do remind me of someone who used to be on this thread....I just can't remember who. Let me think about it.

Was that directed at me? If you're accusing me and GC of being the same person, you might not want to go down that road, considering how much your posts resemble somebody who got banned from this forum a year back.

-k

If Betsy is accusing us of being the same person...well, that's probably the best compliment I have received on this forum Thanks Betsy (even though you are wrong).

[cybercoma]

I agree I'd sue him as well, but I'd plaster his god fearing fundy ways all over the media first.

This woman was RAPED, do those who think he was within the boundries of his oath get that? He vowed to "Do no Harm". Can you image being raped and then treated as she was by this doctor? I don't care if he worships the moon his job is his patients, you leave your morals at the door or quit. He should have his license to practice medicine in a hospital revoked. Enough of this pandering to religious fanatics whom deem what is moral and just. To allow that woman to suffer as he did speaks volumns regarding him and his god. As for the inane assertion that she go to another doctor, dear god how inhumane that is. How can anyone be that cold blooded and cruel. Get raped and you must shop around until you find a doctor who's not judging your morals. I'm having flash backs to the sixties and seventies, women and coat hangers. Religion is just another excuse for small minded men to subjugate a women's right to be equal in society in the name of their god or prophet. We need a law banning religion in medicine, not a law regulating morals in medicine.

I only have one objection to what you said, and that is, "leave your morals at the door or quit."

The problem here is that the doctor clearly left his morals at the door by bringing his completely immoral idea that he justifies with religion into the emergency room. Steven Weinberg was absolutely correct when he said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

This is positively an example of an otherwise good person, doing something horrible because he believes it is the right thing to do for a mythological entity he calls God.

[betsy]

Btw, you do remind me of someone who used to be on this thread....I just can't remember who. Let me think about it.

Was that directed at me? If you're accusing me and GC of being the same person, you might not want to go down that road, considering how much your posts resemble somebody who got banned from this forum a year back.

-k

????

That word "thread" was an error. It should've said "used to be on this board"

Even then, you're not the only one who had contributed and had stopped pursuing the discussion on this thread...so it is surprising that you'd jump right out with indignation!

What is this? The thread of assumptions???? HUNCHES????

Wait a minute....I get it! Of course you and GC seemed to have problems reading on this thread.....maybe that's why you assumed I was taking a shot at you?

But just to make it clear: No, it's not directed at you at all....unless you consider your writing style the same as that of GC - which I don't. You've got your own signature Kimmy style! There! Are we clear now?

Gee, talk about sensitive....it must be the heat....

[betsy]

Btw, you do remind me of someone who used to be on this thread....I just can't remember who. Let me think about it.

Was that directed at me? If you're accusing me and GC of being the same person, you might not want to go down that road, considering how much your posts resemble somebody who got banned from this forum a year back.

-k

If Betsy is accusing us of being the same person...well, that's probably the best compliment I have received on this forum Thanks Betsy (even though you are wrong).

You've got your own style too, GC! Your "character" is very much alive .....and that's a compliment!

But I do love teasing you!

You really have to be more careful with those hunches, though. Seems to be highly contagious.

[gc1765]

At least my "hunch" turned out to be correct...

[betsy]

At least my "hunch" turned out to be correct...

[ScottSA]

The problem in this thread is not the pharmacists. The problem is when a woman was raped and she went to an emergency room, the doctor at the ER refused her the morning after pill and refused to refer her to someone that would give it to her. She didn't have a choice to see another doctor. She was raped and sought emergency services at the hospital, only to have the doctor try to force his beliefs on her.

I realize that, but the argument about pharmacists refusing to sell morning after pills came up in another thread (the taxi driver thread) and is related to this discussion. Betsy seems to think that everyone should be boycotting taxis who refuse to carry alcohol, but when it comes to the issue of refusing to sell morning after pills, she avoids the question. A clear double standard.

Oh, I don't think so. If a doctor believes that life begins at conception, and that killing or interfering with a fetus puts him in violation of the Hypocratic oath, that is qualitatively different from a Taxi driver refusing to take passengers. As far as I know, there's no taxi-driver's oath forbidding alcohol, is there?

[gc1765]

Oh, I don't think so. If a doctor believes that life begins at conception, and that killing or interfering with a fetus puts him in violation of the Hypocratic oath, that is qualitatively different from a Taxi driver refusing to take passengers. As far as I know, there's no taxi-driver's oath forbidding alcohol, is there?

Perhaps you can show me where exactly in the modern version of the Hippocratic oath it specifically says "I will not give morning after pills to women who were raped" and then prove to me that this particular doctor actually took that oath, and that the oath is legally binding. Then you might have a point.

[cybercoma]

So, Scott... You believe women should be forced to carry for 9 months and give birth to babies they conceived through rape? They should be forced to mother the child of a rapist?

If your mother, daughter or wife were brutally raped... would you be willing to sit there with them distraught and tell them that they're going to rot in hell if they don't give birth to the rapist's child?