One thing that sociological theory has noticed over the last thirty years or so is that in this late modern world, a lot of formerly rigid barriers between public and private have been eroding and blurring with ever greater speed. The paradigmatic case is obviously desecularisation – and one of its chief manifestations the inability to separate public ethics from private morals. It used to be the case that Catholic politicians and doctors would distinguish between their private religious beliefs and their public responsibilities – a position upheld by John Kerry last year under significant pressure from those who would judge consciences and politicise the reception of communion. The primacy of personal morals over public duties has significant dangers. Not least that an appeal to conscience on the part of professionals and institutions will trump the choices of those in a less powerful position, and indeed destroy their ability to choose. This is nowhere better illustrated (though incidences are multiplying faster than we can keep up) than by a current controversy in America regarding the victims of rape [via Obsidian Wings]:
The protocol of six Catholic hospitals run by Centura calls for rape victims to undergo an ovulation test.
If they have not ovulated, said Centura corporate spokeswoman Dana Berry, doctors tell the victims about emergency contraception and write prescriptions for it if the patient asks.
If, however, the urine test suggests that a rape victim has ovulated, Berry continued, doctors at Centura’s Catholic hospitals are not to mention emergency contraception. That means the victim can end up pregnant by her rapist.
Obsidian Wings also notes:
The governor of Colorado has recently vetoed a bill that would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims about emergency contraception. The law would have provided a ‘conscience clause’ for doctors, but not for hospitals. According to Gov. Owens, that’s wrong:
“It is one of the central tenets of a free society that individuals and institutions should not be coerced by government to engage in activities that violate their moral or religious beliefs,” Owens wrote in his veto message. It is only his second veto of the year.
“While this bill did offer health-care professionals the right to decline to offer emergency contraception due to religious or moral beliefs, it did not offer those same protections to health-care institutions. This is wrong. And it is unconstitutional.”
This really is a very simple issue ethically. Rape is a heinous violation of personal rights. The rights of rape victims to be informed about the consequences of such a violation must be respected by public institutions and professionals acting in a public capacity. End of story. Claims about “conscience” are out of the ballpark, as these are really claims to choose on behalf of another in a disempowered position. In a liberal society, these separations between secular public ethics and private religious morals must be defended and defended strongly.
Elsewhere: Original commentary on this issue is at Bitch. Ph.D.
And in other theocracy news: Miss Piss takes on Jeb Bush.
Would your objection to private conscience entering into one’s work also apply to doctors who refused to facilitate legal executions and soldiers who refused to attack their co-religionists?
I suspect that these principles, as always, are coloured by the views of the holder.
Would your objection to private conscience entering into one’s work also apply to doctors who refused to facilitate legal executions and soldiers who refused to attack their co-religionists?
I suspect that these principles, as always, are coloured by the views of the holder.
Hello? What nonsense, EP.
Let’s get some rationality into this discussion to start with.
On the issue of obeying the law, then one could not object to doctors giving lethal injections on the principles Mark outlined.
The second point about soldiers makes no sense in the context. The analogy fails. Soldiers are servants of the State – the democratic State (well sort of) – and as far as I’m aware religion doesn’t enter into it. Catholic just war theory allows soldiers to kill. There is provision in most Western countries for conscientious objection in the case of conscription.
Whether or not this should be extended to those who volunteer for the military but then claim a right to judge for themselves whether a particular war is just – as happened with some US soldiers in Iraq – is another matter.
For me, it would turn on the degree to which their service is voluntary. You’d be aware that for very many disadvantaged Americans (and US military recruiters target ghetto schools for this reason) they see military service as the only path to social mobility.
But I think that the analogy yr making is specious.
Hello? What nonsense, EP.
Let’s get some rationality into this discussion to start with.
On the issue of obeying the law, then one could not object to doctors giving lethal injections on the principles Mark outlined.
The second point about soldiers makes no sense in the context. The analogy fails. Soldiers are servants of the State – the democratic State (well sort of) – and as far as I’m aware religion doesn’t enter into it. Catholic just war theory allows soldiers to kill. There is provision in most Western countries for conscientious objection in the case of conscription.
Whether or not this should be extended to those who volunteer for the military but then claim a right to judge for themselves whether a particular war is just – as happened with some US soldiers in Iraq – is another matter.
For me, it would turn on the degree to which their service is voluntary. You’d be aware that for very many disadvantaged Americans (and US military recruiters target ghetto schools for this reason) they see military service as the only path to social mobility.
But I think that the analogy yr making is specious.
I think your extrapolation that public officials should check their religion at the door is tremendously silly and naive. A religous person has a worldview, and it informs most if not all of their decisions and opinions. To say a religious public official must live in open defience of their faith because of office is discriminatory. Should atheists exclusively have a say on moral issues.
As for the Catholic Hospital situation: you said “these are really claims to choose on behalf of another in a disempowered position”. I think the ultimate disempowered position is newly created life, whatever the circumstances of its creation. I certainly think abortion procedures kill the disempowered. So if you’re very concerned about the vulnerable victims of violence, which is to be commended, then it should be at all stages of life.
I think your extrapolation that public officials should check their religion at the door is tremendously silly and naive. A religous person has a worldview, and it informs most if not all of their decisions and opinions. To say a religious public official must live in open defience of their faith because of office is discriminatory. Should atheists exclusively have a say on moral issues.
As for the Catholic Hospital situation: you said “these are really claims to choose on behalf of another in a disempowered position”. I think the ultimate disempowered position is newly created life, whatever the circumstances of its creation. I certainly think abortion procedures kill the disempowered. So if you’re very concerned about the vulnerable victims of violence, which is to be commended, then it should be at all stages of life.
Atheism is not the issue.
The issue is twofold.
(1) Power. Someone who’s just been raped is hardly going to be the classic liberal rational person who can make their own choices. She is going to be very traumatised. Therefore Doctors owe her a duty of care. If I were raped, I couldn’t imagine the horror of falling pregnant as a consequence.
(2) Basic principles. Issues of public health ought to be decided according to secular criteria. If doctors don’t like it, let them act according to their consciences and seek some other career. But they don’t exist in isolation – they have a public duty to their patients – and their consciences in this matter ought to be guided by the public criterion of what’s good for their patient.
I think the ultimate disempowered position is newly created life, whatever the circumstances of its creation.
Try some empathy here. Even being slapped is a violent violation. How much more so is being sexually violated? Do you really think that this is what God envisages as the creation of life?
If so, you are either ridiculously dogmatic or utterly lacking in any human feeling. As a Catholic, I suggest you reflect on that.
Atheism is not the issue.
The issue is twofold.
(1) Power. Someone who’s just been raped is hardly going to be the classic liberal rational person who can make their own choices. She is going to be very traumatised. Therefore Doctors owe her a duty of care. If I were raped, I couldn’t imagine the horror of falling pregnant as a consequence.
(2) Basic principles. Issues of public health ought to be decided according to secular criteria. If doctors don’t like it, let them act according to their consciences and seek some other career. But they don’t exist in isolation – they have a public duty to their patients – and their consciences in this matter ought to be guided by the public criterion of what’s good for their patient.
I think the ultimate disempowered position is newly created life, whatever the circumstances of its creation.
Try some empathy here. Even being slapped is a violent violation. How much more so is being sexually violated? Do you really think that this is what God envisages as the creation of life?
If so, you are either ridiculously dogmatic or utterly lacking in any human feeling. As a Catholic, I suggest you reflect on that.
You’re just being silly, Kim.
If we apply Mark’s proposition, that any person with a public function must perform it despite personal beliefs.
There would be no such thing as conscientious objection in Markworld. If the Fearless Leader tells you to bomb the Chinese, you had better do it!
Much left-wing activism takes the form of conscientious refusal to follow orders. Now according to Mark, it’s wrong — you vill alvays follow ze orders!
You’re just being silly, Kim.
If we apply Mark’s proposition, that any person with a public function must perform it despite personal beliefs.
There would be no such thing as conscientious objection in Markworld. If the Fearless Leader tells you to bomb the Chinese, you had better do it!
Much left-wing activism takes the form of conscientious refusal to follow orders. Now according to Mark, it’s wrong — you vill alvays follow ze orders!
I think Marcel’s position is that adding murder on top of rape does not make the world a better place.
I think Marcel’s position is that adding murder on top of rape does not make the world a better place.
EP, ludicrous hyperbole, I’m afraid.
If we apply Mark?Äôs proposition, that any person with a public function must perform it despite personal beliefs.
Yes.
But what is the ground for the legitimacy of the public duty? A liberal, secular respect for the ability to choose of those in disempowered positions. Or an illiberal, fascist order to commit genocide.
The two situations are incommensurable and you know it. The relevant criterion is the basis of the Government’s legitimacy and the nature of public and professional duties.
For the same reason, I disagree with the practice of public servants criticising the actions of the Government that is democratically elected and that they are bound to serve. That’s regardless of whether the Government in question is the Howard government. Hence I condemned that Greenie guy who ran against Howard.
EP, ludicrous hyperbole, I’m afraid.
If we apply Mark?Äôs proposition, that any person with a public function must perform it despite personal beliefs.
Yes.
But what is the ground for the legitimacy of the public duty? A liberal, secular respect for the ability to choose of those in disempowered positions. Or an illiberal, fascist order to commit genocide.
The two situations are incommensurable and you know it. The relevant criterion is the basis of the Government’s legitimacy and the nature of public and professional duties.
For the same reason, I disagree with the practice of public servants criticising the actions of the Government that is democratically elected and that they are bound to serve. That’s regardless of whether the Government in question is the Howard government. Hence I condemned that Greenie guy who ran against Howard.
But what is the ground for the legitimacy of the public duty?
And who is to judge whether an order has legitimacy or not?
We’re back to the conscience of the individual again.
But what is the ground for the legitimacy of the public duty?
And who is to judge whether an order has legitimacy or not?
We’re back to the conscience of the individual again.
Well, Marcel then is a fool, EP.
Since yr so concerned about sperm theft, surely you could empathise with the horrors of sperm violence.
I’m sorry, but as a women, I fail to see how being raped could ever be some sort of joyous creation of life.
It’s precisely in these exceptional and distressing situations that someone’s conscience should not override the rights that a woman has over her body – which have already been violently elided in this case.
If you can’t see this, then I despair of you.
Well, Marcel then is a fool, EP.
Since yr so concerned about sperm theft, surely you could empathise with the horrors of sperm violence.
I’m sorry, but as a women, I fail to see how being raped could ever be some sort of joyous creation of life.
It’s precisely in these exceptional and distressing situations that someone’s conscience should not override the rights that a woman has over her body – which have already been violently elided in this case.
If you can’t see this, then I despair of you.
Since yr so concerned about sperm theft, surely you could empathise with the horrors of sperm violence.
Well I used to, but after years of experience I realised that the feminists who want abortion, gay marriage and all that stuff just don’y give a shit about rights for men. In fact, they work hard and consistently to ensure that men don’t have any rights.
So my sympathy for “women’s rights” and “gay rights” is a mirror of the Left’s sympathy for men’s rights.
If men can’t have a choice (raped or otherwise), why the hell should women (raped or otherwise) have one?
Since yr so concerned about sperm theft, surely you could empathise with the horrors of sperm violence.
Well I used to, but after years of experience I realised that the feminists who want abortion, gay marriage and all that stuff just don’y give a shit about rights for men. In fact, they work hard and consistently to ensure that men don’t have any rights.
So my sympathy for “women’s rights” and “gay rights” is a mirror of the Left’s sympathy for men’s rights.
If men can’t have a choice (raped or otherwise), why the hell should women (raped or otherwise) have one?
Bullshit, EP.
It’s got nothing to do with the conscience of the individual – if that’s an absolute criterion. Either a directive is legitimate – as in rationally justifiable and democratically enacted – or it’s the arbitrary directive of a dictatorial regime.
That’s an objective not a subjective conscientious judgement.
But it’s irrelevant to the issue – as you know – having attempted to shift the issue using idiotic RWDB rhetorical tactics – the issue has nothing to do with the conscience of those acting under the orders of an illegitimate fascist regime but has everything to do with the basic liberal issues of church and state separation and human rights.
Your argument is therefore specious in the extreme.
You realise that you’re defending the proposition that if women who are raped are ovulating then they should give birth.
Shame on you! For Christ’s sake!
Bullshit, EP.
It’s got nothing to do with the conscience of the individual – if that’s an absolute criterion. Either a directive is legitimate – as in rationally justifiable and democratically enacted – or it’s the arbitrary directive of a dictatorial regime.
That’s an objective not a subjective conscientious judgement.
But it’s irrelevant to the issue – as you know – having attempted to shift the issue using idiotic RWDB rhetorical tactics – the issue has nothing to do with the conscience of those acting under the orders of an illegitimate fascist regime but has everything to do with the basic liberal issues of church and state separation and human rights.
Your argument is therefore specious in the extreme.
You realise that you’re defending the proposition that if women who are raped are ovulating then they should give birth.
Shame on you! For Christ’s sake!
No idea why I’m bothering engaging with you, EP, but it’s got nothing to do with personal predilection. If there are rights – then they are absolute and ought to be defended. End of story.
Where’s cs when we need him? There is no such thing as sperm theft!
No idea why I’m bothering engaging with you, EP, but it’s got nothing to do with personal predilection. If there are rights – then they are absolute and ought to be defended. End of story.
Where’s cs when we need him? There is no such thing as sperm theft!
Nonsense, Mark.
You are avoiding the basic principle underlying this particular issue: whether an individual can, in conscience, disobey the orders of the State because of ethical views held by that individual.
Should a vegetarian be thrown of the dole if he refuses a job at a butcher’s? Thes issues pop up everywhere, and are not confined to the single sample you’ve presented here.
If a doctor believes that performing a certain action will lead to the commission of a crime — should he do it or not?
Nonsense, Mark.
You are avoiding the basic principle underlying this particular issue: whether an individual can, in conscience, disobey the orders of the State because of ethical views held by that individual.
Should a vegetarian be thrown of the dole if he refuses a job at a butcher’s? Thes issues pop up everywhere, and are not confined to the single sample you’ve presented here.
If a doctor believes that performing a certain action will lead to the commission of a crime — should he do it or not?
CS is a loon and his fabricated air-castles won’t help you.
A baby’s right to live is absolute. If a doctor defends that right, what’s your problem?
CS is a loon and his fabricated air-castles won’t help you.
A baby’s right to live is absolute. If a doctor defends that right, what’s your problem?
It’s not a crime, EP – termination of pregnancy is a legal right in the United States.
Your analogy fails.
A doctor has to offer a patient the options that are provided by law.
And the broader issue is the one I’ve pointed to above – imposing his/her “conscience” on the rights of a woman in an extremely vulnerable position.
You’re obviously quite unable to understand the distinction between public and private – as evidenced by your casuistry.
It’s not a crime, EP – termination of pregnancy is a legal right in the United States.
Your analogy fails.
A doctor has to offer a patient the options that are provided by law.
And the broader issue is the one I’ve pointed to above – imposing his/her “conscience” on the rights of a woman in an extremely vulnerable position.
You’re obviously quite unable to understand the distinction between public and private – as evidenced by your casuistry.
Fuck me dead, EP.
A baby’s right to live is absolute.
Yes, but we’re not talking about a baby! We’re talking about a totally unwanted possible conception resulting from rape!
Fuck me dead, EP.
A baby’s right to live is absolute.
Yes, but we’re not talking about a baby! We’re talking about a totally unwanted possible conception resulting from rape!
Let’s go to bed, Mark.
Let’s go to bed, Mark.
A good suggestion, Kim, it’s late – we’ll leave this thread to its own life for a while, yeah?
A good suggestion, Kim, it’s late – we’ll leave this thread to its own life for a while, yeah?
And, Mark, as is well known, I reject the reasoning behind Humanae Vitae.
And, Mark, as is well known, I reject the reasoning behind Humanae Vitae.
I hate it when a good argument starts just before bedtime.
I hate it when a good argument starts just before bedtime.
Well, EP, Mark and I have been inspired by this thread to go to bed but avoid making babies… you know, wouldn’t want to commit “murder” etc etc…
Well, EP, Mark and I have been inspired by this thread to go to bed but avoid making babies… you know, wouldn’t want to commit “murder” etc etc…
I think that in EP’s spurious examples;
1) A doctor has a duty of care to patients. Therefore a doctor must advise a rape victim about treatments which prevent further trauma to the patient by terminating a pregnancy, or as in this case, not allow the pregnancy to occur in the first place. However, in the case of an execution, a doctor also governed by notion, ‘First do no harm’, and doctors can’t perform executions anyway (they DO NOT ‘pull the trigger’ or ‘push the plunger’ – emergency medical technicians, ambos in other words, do). Doctors merely advise of the state of the deceased – or not. And I think you’ll find that no US State requires by state fiat just any random doctor to be present at executions. ‘Do no harm’ also applies to the instance of the rape victim. Allowing them to become pregnant due to the rape is inflicting HARM the patient. Doctors HAVE NO RIGHT OF REFUSAL. If they think they do, they ought to stop being a doctor.
2) No, soldiers cannot refuse to kill co-religionists, or in fact another other person they are legally ordered to do so, or expected to kill in a state of war (or war-like conditions), under their present rules of engagement. Failure to do so is called refusal to obey orders, cowardice in the face of the enemy, mutiny if done en-mass, etc. All of which are serious offences under military law and usually punished severely.
In a state of war, generally the State’s needs (and/or the people’s collective requirements) override a personal objection that a soldier may feel. Ours is not to wonder why, etc.
I think that in EP’s spurious examples;
1) A doctor has a duty of care to patients. Therefore a doctor must advise a rape victim about treatments which prevent further trauma to the patient by terminating a pregnancy, or as in this case, not allow the pregnancy to occur in the first place. However, in the case of an execution, a doctor also governed by notion, ‘First do no harm’, and doctors can’t perform executions anyway (they DO NOT ‘pull the trigger’ or ‘push the plunger’ – emergency medical technicians, ambos in other words, do). Doctors merely advise of the state of the deceased – or not. And I think you’ll find that no US State requires by state fiat just any random doctor to be present at executions. ‘Do no harm’ also applies to the instance of the rape victim. Allowing them to become pregnant due to the rape is inflicting HARM the patient. Doctors HAVE NO RIGHT OF REFUSAL. If they think they do, they ought to stop being a doctor.
2) No, soldiers cannot refuse to kill co-religionists, or in fact another other person they are legally ordered to do so, or expected to kill in a state of war (or war-like conditions), under their present rules of engagement. Failure to do so is called refusal to obey orders, cowardice in the face of the enemy, mutiny if done en-mass, etc. All of which are serious offences under military law and usually punished severely.
In a state of war, generally the State’s needs (and/or the people’s collective requirements) override a personal objection that a soldier may feel. Ours is not to wonder why, etc.
I wonder whether informed consent is obtained for the ovulation test. If it’s not medically necessary, but is performed to assauge the conscience of the doctor, does he or she pay for it?
Perhaps any Catholic doctors with issues of conscience dealing with live women presenting at sexual assault units or in A&E could go and be pathologists. Fewer dilemmas there, and a buck in it as well.
I wonder whether informed consent is obtained for the ovulation test. If it’s not medically necessary, but is performed to assauge the conscience of the doctor, does he or she pay for it?
Perhaps any Catholic doctors with issues of conscience dealing with live women presenting at sexual assault units or in A&E could go and be pathologists. Fewer dilemmas there, and a buck in it as well.
EP it’s not killing a foetus, it’s preventing conception from occurring in the first place. There is no life being murdered as you put it. By taking your logic to it’s limits, every woman who ovulates, has sex, achieves conception but not a pregnancy, or who miscarries is guilty of murder because a possible life has been lost. Get real.
On the issue of mens vs womens rights. I note that you are very specific in your demands and ideas that women have more rights than men. You are only talking about a woman’s right to own her own body. You can’t carry a child and you don’t know how if affects you. You don’t have any right, ever, to make decisions for me about my body. Or any women’s body for that matter. So women have some rights. Boo hoo. Men still have the majority of rights in this western world, even more so in the third world. We are nowhere near equal yet. So be thankful for what you have and let women enjoy what we have fought so long for.
EP it’s not killing a foetus, it’s preventing conception from occurring in the first place. There is no life being murdered as you put it. By taking your logic to it’s limits, every woman who ovulates, has sex, achieves conception but not a pregnancy, or who miscarries is guilty of murder because a possible life has been lost. Get real.
On the issue of mens vs womens rights. I note that you are very specific in your demands and ideas that women have more rights than men. You are only talking about a woman’s right to own her own body. You can’t carry a child and you don’t know how if affects you. You don’t have any right, ever, to make decisions for me about my body. Or any women’s body for that matter. So women have some rights. Boo hoo. Men still have the majority of rights in this western world, even more so in the third world. We are nowhere near equal yet. So be thankful for what you have and let women enjoy what we have fought so long for.
Frankly Zoe, your first question kind of crossed my mind as well. For whose benefit is the ovulation test? I am afraid here, whether we are talking faith or medicine, such ‘rules’ are nothing more than legalism.
Frankly Zoe, your first question kind of crossed my mind as well. For whose benefit is the ovulation test? I am afraid here, whether we are talking faith or medicine, such ‘rules’ are nothing more than legalism.
No, soldiers cannot refuse to kill co-religionists, or in fact another other person they are legally ordered to do so…
Nuremberg.
No, soldiers cannot refuse to kill co-religionists, or in fact another other person they are legally ordered to do so…
Nuremberg.
“Nuremberg.”
Godwin.
“Nuremberg.”
Godwin.
“Godwin.”
Victory.
“Godwin.”
Victory.
“Victory.”
Thanks.
“Victory.”
Thanks.
Err, depends what C.L. means by ‘Nuremberg’.
Nuremberg concluded “I was just following orders” is _not_ an excuse. (Hence the the messiness over AbuGraib) And hence soldiers can refuse certain orders.
However, conscientious objection is a different kettle of fish to refusing to commit genocide.
Conscientious Objection is not doing the ‘job’ of a soldier.
Genocide is not the ‘job’ of a soldier.
Providing Emergency contraception is the ‘job’ of a doctor. If he can’t do it, he shouldn’t be a doctor. A doctor is a function and a repositiory of knowledge, not a moral position or lecturer. That is why they save the life of said rapist if he has been shot by police. Doctors are not allowed to have a moral position when doing their job.
The same applies for Pharmacists who refuse to fill out presciptions of the pill because of their religious belief. They aren’t doing their job ergo they shouldn’t be a pharmacist.
If someone has an evironmental awakening whilst working in a petroleum refinery should they (a) engage in industrial sabotage to bring down the EvilEmpire of whatever; or (b) quit?
Obviously they should quit, and fight the EvilEmpire or whatever from without.
Err, depends what C.L. means by ‘Nuremberg’.
Nuremberg concluded “I was just following orders” is _not_ an excuse. (Hence the the messiness over AbuGraib) And hence soldiers can refuse certain orders.
However, conscientious objection is a different kettle of fish to refusing to commit genocide.
Conscientious Objection is not doing the ‘job’ of a soldier.
Genocide is not the ‘job’ of a soldier.
Providing Emergency contraception is the ‘job’ of a doctor. If he can’t do it, he shouldn’t be a doctor. A doctor is a function and a repositiory of knowledge, not a moral position or lecturer. That is why they save the life of said rapist if he has been shot by police. Doctors are not allowed to have a moral position when doing their job.
The same applies for Pharmacists who refuse to fill out presciptions of the pill because of their religious belief. They aren’t doing their job ergo they shouldn’t be a pharmacist.
If someone has an evironmental awakening whilst working in a petroleum refinery should they (a) engage in industrial sabotage to bring down the EvilEmpire of whatever; or (b) quit?
Obviously they should quit, and fight the EvilEmpire or whatever from without.
“Obviously they should quit, and fight the EvilEmpire or whatever from without.”
What, you mean like from Endor?
“Obviously they should quit, and fight the EvilEmpire or whatever from without.”
What, you mean like from Endor?
But Harry, enabling murder is not the job of a doctor.
So under Nuremburg rules, a doctor can refuse to promote abortion.
But Harry, enabling murder is not the job of a doctor.
So under Nuremburg rules, a doctor can refuse to promote abortion.
It’s not abortion if there is no baby. It’s about preventing conception.
It’s not abortion if there is no baby. It’s about preventing conception.
If there is no baby, a man cannot be held responsible for supporting it.
Feminist arguments contradict themselves.
If there is no baby, a man cannot be held responsible for supporting it.
Feminist arguments contradict themselves.
Well, Evil, it’s worth the odd bit of contradiction occasionally to be able to hold more than one thought in your head at a time.
Not that there actually is a contradiction, here. Just sayin’
Well, Evil, it’s worth the odd bit of contradiction occasionally to be able to hold more than one thought in your head at a time.
Not that there actually is a contradiction, here. Just sayin’
EP’s lost the argument and I can see the segue to sperm theft coming!
EP’s lost the argument and I can see the segue to sperm theft coming!
Hang on EP, I was talking about the Catholic hospital thing. The medication prevents conception, hence there is no abortion because there is no baby.
Hang on EP, I was talking about the Catholic hospital thing. The medication prevents conception, hence there is no abortion because there is no baby.
At least Zoe admits that feminist ideology is based on contradictions.
The contradictions are based on interpretation of all facts and events in a way that favours the feminist cause.
Thus, the same fetus is a “parasite” when a woman wants to kill it, but a “baby” when a man wants to abandon it.
Of course, it is this fundamental contradiction and sexism that will eventually spell the end of feminism. In the long term, no self-contradictory ideology like femionism or communism can survive sustained contact with free speech.
At least Zoe admits that feminist ideology is based on contradictions.
The contradictions are based on interpretation of all facts and events in a way that favours the feminist cause.
Thus, the same fetus is a “parasite” when a woman wants to kill it, but a “baby” when a man wants to abandon it.
Of course, it is this fundamental contradiction and sexism that will eventually spell the end of feminism. In the long term, no self-contradictory ideology like femionism or communism can survive sustained contact with free speech.
Mindy’s hit the nail on the head. This isn’t an argument about abortion. There is no fetus. If EP wants to argue the “culture of life” line, he’d be better advised to focus on the evils of contraception – that’s what this Catholic hospital group is on about.
Mindy’s hit the nail on the head. This isn’t an argument about abortion. There is no fetus. If EP wants to argue the “culture of life” line, he’d be better advised to focus on the evils of contraception – that’s what this Catholic hospital group is on about.
Oh, get nicked, Evil, I said no such thing, as any half wit who can read knows.
And I’m making an effort to be very fucking civil, at some expense to my blood pressure. Ride your own little one trick pony all you like, but don’t tell fibs about what I think.
Oh, get nicked, Evil, I said no such thing, as any half wit who can read knows.
And I’m making an effort to be very fucking civil, at some expense to my blood pressure. Ride your own little one trick pony all you like, but don’t tell fibs about what I think.
Okay Zoe, I’ll stipulate that you did not admit that all feminist ideology is based on self-contradictions.
But it is, anyway.
Whether a fetus is a “parasite” or a “baby” is entirely dependent on which interpretation is favourable to women.
Okay Zoe, I’ll stipulate that you did not admit that all feminist ideology is based on self-contradictions.
But it is, anyway.
Whether a fetus is a “parasite” or a “baby” is entirely dependent on which interpretation is favourable to women.
Thank you, Evil.
As for the rest of your comment, me and my blood pressure aren’t going there. No point.
Thank you, Evil.
As for the rest of your comment, me and my blood pressure aren’t going there. No point.
Now you know how I feel whenever a feminist viewpoint appears on radio, TV or newspapers.
Except you can answer back.
###################
Now, on to more pleasant topics. Isn’t Currency Lad generous to be hosting Mark’s job application on his site? See, RWDBs can be nice.
Now you know how I feel whenever a feminist viewpoint appears on radio, TV or newspapers.
Except you can answer back.
###################
Now, on to more pleasant topics. Isn’t Currency Lad generous to be hosting Mark’s job application on his site? See, RWDBs can be nice.
Yes, it was a very kind offer by C.L.
Yes, it was a very kind offer by C.L.
Hey Zoe, I’m chalking that one up to us (and Mark) as a victory against EP! Note how he changed the subject when we made a point he couldn’t refute (just rubbin it in). It’s okay EP, we still love arguing with you.
Hey Zoe, I’m chalking that one up to us (and Mark) as a victory against EP! Note how he changed the subject when we made a point he couldn’t refute (just rubbin it in). It’s okay EP, we still love arguing with you.
Don’t forget Kimberella, Mindy!
Don’t forget Kimberella, Mindy!
“What, you mean like from Endor?”
Of course I mean Endor, you hairy toed freak!
Do I have to spell _everything_ out.
“What, you mean like from Endor?”
Of course I mean Endor, you hairy toed freak!
Do I have to spell _everything_ out.
“Do I have to spell _everything_ out.”
Yeah. Correctly, too.
“Do I have to spell _everything_ out.”
Yeah. Correctly, too.
EP,
“But Harry, enabling murder is not the job of a doctor.”
Umm, EP – you seem to have failed to grasp that a soldier is killing other combatants yet not committing murder, and that is their job. So you glib dismissal of that would be?
“So under Nuremburg rules, a doctor can refuse to promote abortion.”
No. Under Nuremberg a doctor can refuse to do something he is ordered to if it is illegal ie abuse civillians, commit genocide.
Emergency contraception is not illegal, and there is a rocksolid case for it being moral as well. So, it is the doctor’s job to give the emergency contraception, and we should expect him to do it irrespective of his personal beliefs.
If his beliefs are so strong he simply should not hold the position of a doctor. It is, as soemone pointed out earlier, like a vegan refusing to do work in a butcher. They get fired. They aren’t even allowed to hand out vegan promoting material with every fillet.
EP,
“But Harry, enabling murder is not the job of a doctor.”
Umm, EP – you seem to have failed to grasp that a soldier is killing other combatants yet not committing murder, and that is their job. So you glib dismissal of that would be?
“So under Nuremburg rules, a doctor can refuse to promote abortion.”
No. Under Nuremberg a doctor can refuse to do something he is ordered to if it is illegal ie abuse civillians, commit genocide.
Emergency contraception is not illegal, and there is a rocksolid case for it being moral as well. So, it is the doctor’s job to give the emergency contraception, and we should expect him to do it irrespective of his personal beliefs.
If his beliefs are so strong he simply should not hold the position of a doctor. It is, as soemone pointed out earlier, like a vegan refusing to do work in a butcher. They get fired. They aren’t even allowed to hand out vegan promoting material with every fillet.
“Yeah. Correctly, too.”
Victory!
Sorry man, I just assumed you knew that Endor’s only export was petroleum.
“Yeah. Correctly, too.”
Victory!
Sorry man, I just assumed you knew that Endor’s only export was petroleum.
Hang on. You’re not _that_ Fyodor? The deposed king of Endor?
Y’know, Fyodor the Defendor of Endor?
Hang on. You’re not _that_ Fyodor? The deposed king of Endor?
Y’know, Fyodor the Defendor of Endor?
Grovelling apologies Kim! How could I forget your marvellous put downs of EP’s feeble arguments. I’m claiming tiredness and slinking away until you forgive me.
Grovelling apologies Kim! How could I forget your marvellous put downs of EP’s feeble arguments. I’m claiming tiredness and slinking away until you forgive me.
“Hang on. You?Äôre not _that_ Fyodor? The deposed king of Endor?
Y?Äôknow, Fyodor the Defendor of Endor?”
Endor? No. It is a silly place. I thought it’s only export was wood chips and fur coats.
“Defender”
“Hang on. You?Äôre not _that_ Fyodor? The deposed king of Endor?
Y?Äôknow, Fyodor the Defendor of Endor?”
Endor? No. It is a silly place. I thought it’s only export was wood chips and fur coats.
“Defender”
Was Popper always ethical?
Was Popper always ethical?
RE your CV – I think you should have emphasised your ironing skills too Mark. You can make $30 a basket.
RE your CV – I think you should have emphasised your ironing skills too Mark. You can make $30 a basket.
How much did you need done, Mindy?
How much did you need done, Mindy?
Nah, I’ve done it myself. Sorry. Besides when you take out the airfare to Alice you probably wouldn’t have much of your $30 left.
Nah, I’ve done it myself. Sorry. Besides when you take out the airfare to Alice you probably wouldn’t have much of your $30 left.
That’s true!
That’s true!
Cheers, Mindy!
Cheers, Mindy!
Harry pretty much nailed it. Contraception isnt illegal, therefore doctors have no right to no inform their patients about it. It isnt comparable in any way to soldiers not commiting genocide because they were ordered to.
Harry pretty much nailed it. Contraception isnt illegal, therefore doctors have no right to no inform their patients about it. It isnt comparable in any way to soldiers not commiting genocide because they were ordered to.
“Endor? No. It is a silly place.”
It’s only a model.
“Defender”
I was being lyric.
“Endor? No. It is a silly place.”
It’s only a model.
“Defender”
I was being lyric.
A religous person has a worldview, and it informs most if not all of their decisions and opinions.
And they are welcome to make a decision to resign, then, aren’t they? That simple.
A religous person has a worldview, and it informs most if not all of their decisions and opinions.
And they are welcome to make a decision to resign, then, aren’t they? That simple.