Tweet of the Day

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,313
6,851
1,743
Yukon, OK
It is the harsh reality of what we agree/disagree on in this country when many think it is ok and not ok to impose our own personal religious beliefs.

It is not my answer. Just a reflection of reality and struggle that is currently happening

Both allowing a Dr to refuse medical treatment based on Religious beliefs or preventing an abortion based on Religious beliefs involve a human life and a potential for that life to be extinguished
It's a harsh reality that apparently it takes being religious to know that killing a fetus is wrong...
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
29,861
15,824
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
What percentage of abortions are for a real life saving purpose?
less than 1%.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not arguing for abortion. I have a personal belief it is only acceptable in 2 instances.

I also think it is wrong that ANY Dr should have an option to with hold what could be live saving medical treatment because they do not share the same religious view of the person in need of it. However I do believe a Dr outside of a potential life saving event who has a private practice with no Federal Funding should be able to pick and choose their own patients without govt interference.

Can you imagine being a Jewish person in an ER needing life saving medical attention just minuets from death and the Dr to come see you is Muslim?

Can you imagine A Mormon Dr. refusing life saving medical treatment to a Catholic Priest.

This is the argument at stake. Allowing Dr's the freedom to refuse medical treatment which could potentially cost a life because they do not worship the same God or worship in the same way is wrong. I do not see how the SCOTUS can uphold this without MAJOR guidelines and qualification of when it is/isn't OK for a Dr to refuse service based on personal religious beliefs.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,235
3,828
743
49
While I agree with your second statement, your first impiles that if I'm paying you I can restrict your personal religious beliefs..
Well if you look at abortion. Some feel it is the absolute right to restrict someones beliefs if they are accepting Federal Funds or even NOT accepting Federal Funds. And many people who oppose abortion do so based on their personal religious beliefs.

So by the statement you made here. You would have to agree that a person who goes to a Dr and wants to pay for an abortion should be able to have that abortion performed and No person should be able to stop that process if it does not violate the personal religious beliefs of the Dr performing it and the person paying for it.....
Interesting way to define murder for hire.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,235
3,828
743
49
What percentage of abortions are for a real life saving purpose?
less than 1%.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not arguing for abortion. I have a personal belief it is only acceptable in 2 instances.

I also think it is wrong that ANY Dr should have an option to with hold what could be live saving medical treatment because they do not share the same religious view of the person in need of it. However I do believe a Dr outside of a potential life saving event who has a private practice with no Federal Funding should be able to pick and choose their own patients without govt interference.

Can you imagine being a Jewish person in an ER needing life saving medical attention just minuets from death and the Dr to come see you is Muslim?

Can you imagine A Mormon Dr. refusing life saving medical treatment to a Catholic Priest.

This is the argument at stake. Allowing Dr's the freedom to refuse medical treatment which could potentially cost a life because they do not worship the same God or worship in the same way is wrong. I do not see how the SCOTUS can uphold this without MAJOR guidelines and qualification of when it is/isn't OK for a Dr to refuse service based on personal religious beliefs.
The argument you seem to be pushing us that abortion is medically necessary. Listen to Tom Coburn on this issue. He's a Dr. And many others are, that say most supposedly medically necessary abortions are not really that because assumptions are made. Even if getting medical funds, there's no reason a Dr. Should be forced to TAKE a life against their religious views. This isn't about a Muslim Dr. withholding medicine to kill a Jew.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,173
50,535
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
less than 1%.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not arguing for abortion. I have a personal belief it is only acceptable in 2 instances.

I also think it is wrong that ANY Dr should have an option to with hold what could be live saving medical treatment because they do not share the same religious view of the person in need of it. However I do believe a Dr outside of a potential life saving event who has a private practice with no Federal Funding should be able to pick and choose their own patients without govt interference.

Can you imagine being a Jewish person in an ER needing life saving medical attention just minuets from death and the Dr to come see you is Muslim?

Can you imagine A Mormon Dr. refusing life saving medical treatment to a Catholic Priest.

This is the argument at stake. Allowing Dr's the freedom to refuse medical treatment which could potentially cost a life because they do not worship the same God or worship in the same way is wrong. I do not see how the SCOTUS can uphold this without MAJOR guidelines and qualification of when it is/isn't OK for a Dr to refuse service based on personal religious beliefs.
I have skin tags under my arm pits. I went to a dermatologist and asked to have them removed. The derm said, "no".

Physicians and other health care providers say no to things every single day. Forcing them to say yes is as unethical as your suggestion that a Mormon physician would refuse a Catholic priest (which is absolutely ludicrous, btw - Mormonism is very much a religion of works and such an unethical act would leave one's soul in danger).

Your argument is a slippery slope argument. Every day decisions based on commonly held ethical principles (normative ethics) says that this particular slope just isn't slippery. There are, of course, scumbags with low morals who violate ethics, but the vast majority of physicians (and pharmacists) take their ethical duties very seriously.
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
11,029
10,728
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
How many backbones does our country have?
Farmers
Teachers
Working Man
Middle Class
African Americans
Immigrants
Public School System
Agriculture
Trans/non-binary/cis/non-conforming
Black Trans/non-binary/cis/non-conformin

What others are there?
Last I heard there were like 87, none of which are the first 8 on your list. If I knew who the scorekeeper was I could get you an answer.
 
Oct 22, 2005
160
92
1,578
Stillwater
What are cis and nonbinary? What are Mayor Pete and Prez Boren very confusing. I’m hip to the LBTQ , lost after those four letters.
"Cis" means you're a typical person. i.e. A man who knows he's a man and likes women. "Nonbinary" means you can make up whatever pronoun you want to be, and you're probably confused about life in general.

Mayor Pete is gay, and I believe Boren is too.