A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Witchit]

Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person, and abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. If you agree that, prior to viability (second trimester), an abortion is the personal choice of a woman, and her doctor, then you are pro-choice, and why are you arguing?

That is astounding and appalling sexism. An abortion should be between a woman and her doctor?!? A person not even involved in the creation of the child?!? As a man - why do I have no say over someone murdering my baby?

If you're going to support abortion - you should at least have the basic fucking decency to recognize the father in the decision process. Only a liberal would place a fucking doctor above the father.

That is of course up to the woman. Not required. Optional.

Spoken like a true idiot Witchit. What you just stated is 100% illegal. The law cannot discriminate. It must be applied equally among all citizens. Which means if it is ok for a mother to abort a baby without the fathers consent, then it is 100% ok for the father to abort a baby without the mothers consent. It is unconstitutional to hold one set of laws for one set of people and another set of laws for another set of people.

Oh, sorry you're feeling discounted in the decision of a woman who couldn't pick your ass out of a motherfucking lineup.

/not sorry.

 

[Czernobog]

Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person, and abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. If you agree that, prior to viability (second trimester), an abortion is the personal choice of a woman, and her doctor, then you are pro-choice, and why are you arguing?

That is astounding and appalling sexism. An abortion should be between a woman and her doctor?!? A person not even involved in the creation of the child?!? As a man - why do I have no say over someone murdering my baby?

If you're going to support abortion - you should at least have the basic fucking decency to recognize the father in the decision process. Only a liberal would place a fucking doctor above the father.

That is of course up to the woman. Not required. Optional.

Spoken like a true idiot Witchit. What you just stated is 100% illegal. The law cannot discriminate. It must be applied equally among all citizens. Which means if it is ok for a mother to abort a baby without the fathers consent, then it is 100% ok for the father to abort a baby without the mothers consent. It is unconstitutional to hold one set of laws for one set of people and another set of laws for another set of people.

Oh, sorry you're feeling discounted in the decision of a woman who couldn't pick your ass out of a motherfucking lineup.

/not sorry.

The thing is, Witchit, I actually do agree with Patriot that the decision to have an abortion should include the man. However, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that Patriot would be trying to suggest that his problem with abortion is that the man is not consulted, when he has made it quite clear that he wants all abortion banned, and wants women who seek abortions to be charged with murder. He is clearly only trying to drive a wedge between men pro-choice advocates, and women pro-choice advocates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[P@triot]

Oh, sorry you're feeling discounted in the decision of a woman who couldn't pick your ass out of a motherfucking lineup. /not sorry.

What are you talking about? Where does "discounted" come into anything? You're just pissed off over the realization that everything you said was idiotic (not to mention illegal).

When a woman gets pregnant, twats like you want to fly off the handle about how it took TWO to make the baby and how the man is responsible financially, etc. But when it comes to abortion, suddenly you dead silent about how it took TWO to make the baby. It shows you're entire position is idiotic and irrational.

Sorry sweetie. /not sorry.

 

[P@triot]

The thing is, Witchit, I actually do agree with Patriot that the decision to have an abortion should include the man. However, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that Patriot would be trying to suggest that his problem with abortion is that the man is not consulted, when he has made it quite clear that he wants all abortion banned, and wants women who seek abortions to be charged with murder. He is clearly only trying to drive a wedge between men pro-choice advocates, and women pro-choice advocates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I find it astoundingly idiotic in the extreme that you would suffer from such a profound reading comprehension issue in a wealthy nation which provides free (and mandatory) education.

At no time did I state my primary problem with abortion was the man is not consulted. I just brought that up to illustrate the extreme stupidity and illegality of the progressive position. My problem with abortion is that it is taking the life of another human being. Something nobody has the right to do. If a woman who is pregnant wants to kill herself - God Bless her. I'll be the first to support her right to do whatever she wants to do to her body. But she has zero right to do something to someone else's body. And that's exactly what she's doing in an abortion. It is not her body that is having the skull caved in - it is the baby's. It is not her body that is having an arm vacuumed off, it is the baby's.

I'm so tired of the disingenuous position of progressives. The fact that you people have to lie about everything all the time to defend your position pretty much illustrates that your position is wrong. An abortion does NOT involve the woman's body. It is the baby's body being destroyed.

 

[Czernobog]

The thing is, Witchit, I actually do agree with Patriot that the decision to have an abortion should include the man. However, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that Patriot would be trying to suggest that his problem with abortion is that the man is not consulted, when he has made it quite clear that he wants all abortion banned, and wants women who seek abortions to be charged with murder. He is clearly only trying to drive a wedge between men pro-choice advocates, and women pro-choice advocates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I find it astoundingly idiotic in the extreme that you would suffer from such a profound reading comprehension issue in a wealthy nation which provides free (and mandatory) education.

At no time did I state my primary problem with abortion was the man is not consulted. I just brought that up to illustrate the extreme stupidity and illegality of the progressive position. My problem with abortion is that it is taking the life of another human being. Something nobody has the right to do. If a woman who is pregnant wants to kill herself - God Bless her. I'll be the first to support her right to do whatever she wants to do to her body. But she has zero right to do something to someone else's body. And that's exactly what she's doing in an abortion. It is not her body that is having the skull caved in - it is the baby's. It is not her body that is having an arm vacuumed off, it is the baby's.

I'm so tired of the disingenuous position of progressives. The fact that you people have to lie about everything all the time to defend your position pretty much illustrates that your position is wrong. An abortion does NOT involve the woman's body. It is the baby's body being destroyed.

"Primary"? You're a special kinda stupid, aren't you? If you had the ability to comprehend English as you mocked me for lacking, you would have recognised that I never suggested that "consulting the man" is even a minor concern of yours. You are only concerned with your own fantasy of what abortion is, and your own fact-free hatred of women. You just want to throw the "consulting men" thing out there to muddy the waters, and try to create conflict among pro choice advocates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[P@triot]

The thing is, Witchit, I actually do agree with Patriot that the decision to have an abortion should include the man. However, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that Patriot would be trying to suggest that his problem with abortion is that the man is not consulted, when he has made it quite clear that he wants all abortion banned, and wants women who seek abortions to be charged with murder. He is clearly only trying to drive a wedge between men pro-choice advocates, and women pro-choice advocates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I find it astoundingly idiotic in the extreme that you would suffer from such a profound reading comprehension issue in a wealthy nation which provides free (and mandatory) education.

At no time did I state my primary problem with abortion was the man is not consulted. I just brought that up to illustrate the extreme stupidity and illegality of the progressive position. My problem with abortion is that it is taking the life of another human being. Something nobody has the right to do. If a woman who is pregnant wants to kill herself - God Bless her. I'll be the first to support her right to do whatever she wants to do to her body. But she has zero right to do something to someone else's body. And that's exactly what she's doing in an abortion. It is not her body that is having the skull caved in - it is the baby's. It is not her body that is having an arm vacuumed off, it is the baby's.

I'm so tired of the disingenuous position of progressives. The fact that you people have to lie about everything all the time to defend your position pretty much illustrates that your position is wrong. An abortion does NOT involve the woman's body. It is the baby's body being destroyed.

"Primary"? You're a special kinda stupid, aren't you? If you had the ability to comprehend English as you mocked me for lacking, you would have recognised that I never suggested that "consulting the man" is even a minor concern of yours. You are only concerned with your own fantasy of what abortion is, and your own fact-free hatred of women. You just want to throw the "consulting men" thing out there to muddy the waters, and try to create conflict among pro choice advocates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now I "hate women"?!?

The more progressives get destroyed in an argument the more they resort to outrageous claims. This is the new "racism", uh jack-ass?

 

[Czernobog]

The thing is, Witchit, I actually do agree with Patriot that the decision to have an abortion should include the man. However, I find it hypocritical in the extreme that Patriot would be trying to suggest that his problem with abortion is that the man is not consulted, when he has made it quite clear that he wants all abortion banned, and wants women who seek abortions to be charged with murder. He is clearly only trying to drive a wedge between men pro-choice advocates, and women pro-choice advocates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I find it astoundingly idiotic in the extreme that you would suffer from such a profound reading comprehension issue in a wealthy nation which provides free (and mandatory) education.

At no time did I state my primary problem with abortion was the man is not consulted. I just brought that up to illustrate the extreme stupidity and illegality of the progressive position. My problem with abortion is that it is taking the life of another human being. Something nobody has the right to do. If a woman who is pregnant wants to kill herself - God Bless her. I'll be the first to support her right to do whatever she wants to do to her body. But she has zero right to do something to someone else's body. And that's exactly what she's doing in an abortion. It is not her body that is having the skull caved in - it is the baby's. It is not her body that is having an arm vacuumed off, it is the baby's.

I'm so tired of the disingenuous position of progressives. The fact that you people have to lie about everything all the time to defend your position pretty much illustrates that your position is wrong. An abortion does NOT involve the woman's body. It is the baby's body being destroyed.

"Primary"? You're a special kinda stupid, aren't you? If you had the ability to comprehend English as you mocked me for lacking, you would have recognised that I never suggested that "consulting the man" is even a minor concern of yours. You are only concerned with your own fantasy of what abortion is, and your own fact-free hatred of women. You just want to throw the "consulting men" thing out there to muddy the waters, and try to create conflict among pro choice advocates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now I "hate women"?!?

The more progressives get destroyed in an argument the more they resort to outrageous claims. This is the new "racism", uh jack-ass?

Destroyed? I love how You make all of these outrageous proclamations, and then just "declare" that you have "destroyed" me. so, tell me, what colour is the sky in your reality?

 

[Dana7360]

Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Again, it's not MY Morality. I had nothing to do with it.

As to your question - by the command of The Divine to ensure that all know the Truth of the proper way of Life, that no Man or woman shall be able to claim ignorance as a defense when their Soul is judged.

Sorry. You "Divine" has no more legal authority in this nation than does the Christian "God", or the "Muslim "Allah", and I do not recognise that legal authority. Come back when you can find a legal, constitutional authority to dictate morality.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And your moral beliefs also have no basis in anything other than your opinion.....so there we are.....at least ours..the 10 commandments work pretty well......

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that you should not live your life in accordance with whatever moral code you believe to be important. However, you also do not have the right to dictate that everyone else ive in accordance with that moral code.

You keep responding as if you believe that I want to prevent you from living your personal life in accordance with your personal moral code. I don't. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy where you get to dictate that moral code to everyone else.

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

 

[Anathema]

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

Conservatives so not believe in Freedom. Not True Conservatives anyway.

 

[hadit]

Again, the state does not get to violate a citizen's individual rights. Every individual has the Constitutionally protected right to marry whomever they chose. period. The state does not get to dictate who a person can, and cannot marry. There is no compelling reason to allow the State to make such dictation, so long as both parties are legally consenting adults.

Again, the state never "violated" a citizen's "individual rights". There is a monumental difference between recognizing a marriage and preventing a marriage. Homosexuals were never prevented anything. They could have held their own ceremony and acknowledged their own marriage. But like typical fascist progressives, you want society to be forced to accept your views.

You are talking about a difference without distinction. "Why yes, you can get married. Of course, it will be meaningless, and no one in this state will recognise it, nor will you be granted any of the actual rights, and privileges of legitimate married couples, but by all means, have your little marriage," Sorry, it doesn't work that way, and you know it. The state does not get to decide who's marriages are legitimate, and who's are not, so long as both parties are consenting adults.

Not so. As long as the state grants rights and privileges to married couples, it defines what marriage is. There are people you don't get to marry, even if you are both consenting adults.

Wrong. So long as the state grants rights and privileges to married couples, it is bound by the Constitution to treat all citizens equally regardless of race, religion, or gender. It does not have the constitutional authority to decide that some people have more right to "recognised" marriage than others.

Just one example, you cannot marry a person who is already married.

 

[2aguy]

Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Again, it's not MY Morality. I had nothing to do with it.

As to your question - by the command of The Divine to ensure that all know the Truth of the proper way of Life, that no Man or woman shall be able to claim ignorance as a defense when their Soul is judged.

Sorry. You "Divine" has no more legal authority in this nation than does the Christian "God", or the "Muslim "Allah", and I do not recognise that legal authority. Come back when you can find a legal, constitutional authority to dictate morality.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And your moral beliefs also have no basis in anything other than your opinion.....so there we are.....at least ours..the 10 commandments work pretty well......

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that you should not live your life in accordance with whatever moral code you believe to be important. However, you also do not have the right to dictate that everyone else ive in accordance with that moral code.

You keep responding as if you believe that I want to prevent you from living your personal life in accordance with your personal moral code. I don't. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy where you get to dictate that moral code to everyone else.

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

So...in your live and let live world.....Doctors will not have to under go abortion training to graduate from medical school if it goes against their beliefs? Pharmacists won't have to give drugs that induce abortion if it goes against their religious or secular beliefs about life...right?

Or does your belief in live and let live only count when they do what you say....since 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by left wingers who didn't believe in live and let live....right?

Vote for Trump....Save America...

 

[Czernobog]

Again, it's not MY Morality. I had nothing to do with it.

As to your question - by the command of The Divine to ensure that all know the Truth of the proper way of Life, that no Man or woman shall be able to claim ignorance as a defense when their Soul is judged.

Sorry. You "Divine" has no more legal authority in this nation than does the Christian "God", or the "Muslim "Allah", and I do not recognise that legal authority. Come back when you can find a legal, constitutional authority to dictate morality.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And your moral beliefs also have no basis in anything other than your opinion.....so there we are.....at least ours..the 10 commandments work pretty well......

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that you should not live your life in accordance with whatever moral code you believe to be important. However, you also do not have the right to dictate that everyone else ive in accordance with that moral code.

You keep responding as if you believe that I want to prevent you from living your personal life in accordance with your personal moral code. I don't. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy where you get to dictate that moral code to everyone else.

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

So...in your live and let live world.....Doctors will not have to under go abortion training to graduate from medical school if it goes against their beliefs? Pharmacists won't have to give drugs that induce abortion if it goes against their religious or secular beliefs about life...right?

Or does your belief in live and let live only count when they do what you say....since 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by left wingers who didn't believe in live and let live....right?

Vote for Trump....Save America...

I'm fine with doctors not getting abortion training. Now, getting a hospital to give a doctor surgical privileges who is not fully trained in all surgical practices? Well, that would be between them, and the hospitals, now wouldn't it it?

As far as pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, so long as they can, and will direct patients to pharmacists who will, more power to them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

Sorry. You "Divine" has no more legal authority in this nation than does the Christian "God", or the "Muslim "Allah", and I do not recognise that legal authority. Come back when you can find a legal, constitutional authority to dictate morality.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And your moral beliefs also have no basis in anything other than your opinion.....so there we are.....at least ours..the 10 commandments work pretty well......

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that you should not live your life in accordance with whatever moral code you believe to be important. However, you also do not have the right to dictate that everyone else ive in accordance with that moral code.

You keep responding as if you believe that I want to prevent you from living your personal life in accordance with your personal moral code. I don't. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy where you get to dictate that moral code to everyone else.

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

So...in your live and let live world.....Doctors will not have to under go abortion training to graduate from medical school if it goes against their beliefs? Pharmacists won't have to give drugs that induce abortion if it goes against their religious or secular beliefs about life...right?

Or does your belief in live and let live only count when they do what you say....since 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by left wingers who didn't believe in live and let live....right?

Vote for Trump....Save America...

I'm fine with doctors not getting abortion training. Now, getting a hospital to give a doctor surgical privileges who is not fully trained in all surgical practices? Well, that would be between them, and the hospitals, now wouldn't it it?

As far as pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, so long as they can, and will direct patients to pharmacists who will, more power to them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Good...we agree on something.....

 

[Czernobog]

And your moral beliefs also have no basis in anything other than your opinion.....so there we are.....at least ours..the 10 commandments work pretty well......

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that you should not live your life in accordance with whatever moral code you believe to be important. However, you also do not have the right to dictate that everyone else ive in accordance with that moral code.

You keep responding as if you believe that I want to prevent you from living your personal life in accordance with your personal moral code. I don't. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy where you get to dictate that moral code to everyone else.

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

So...in your live and let live world.....Doctors will not have to under go abortion training to graduate from medical school if it goes against their beliefs? Pharmacists won't have to give drugs that induce abortion if it goes against their religious or secular beliefs about life...right?

Or does your belief in live and let live only count when they do what you say....since 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by left wingers who didn't believe in live and let live....right?

Vote for Trump....Save America...

I'm fine with doctors not getting abortion training. Now, getting a hospital to give a doctor surgical privileges who is not fully trained in all surgical practices? Well, that would be between them, and the hospitals, now wouldn't it it?

As far as pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, so long as they can, and will direct patients to pharmacists who will, more power to them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Good...we agree on something.....

Yeah...I think you missed my scepticism that any hospital would ever offer a doctor surgical privileges who was not trained in abortion procedures. But, hey, if you're okay with a doctor spending all that money getting his PhD, while never being able to get privileges at a hospital to practice, more power to him/her.

 

[Dana7360]

Sorry. You "Divine" has no more legal authority in this nation than does the Christian "God", or the "Muslim "Allah", and I do not recognise that legal authority. Come back when you can find a legal, constitutional authority to dictate morality.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And your moral beliefs also have no basis in anything other than your opinion.....so there we are.....at least ours..the 10 commandments work pretty well......

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that you should not live your life in accordance with whatever moral code you believe to be important. However, you also do not have the right to dictate that everyone else ive in accordance with that moral code.

You keep responding as if you believe that I want to prevent you from living your personal life in accordance with your personal moral code. I don't. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy where you get to dictate that moral code to everyone else.

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

So...in your live and let live world.....Doctors will not have to under go abortion training to graduate from medical school if it goes against their beliefs? Pharmacists won't have to give drugs that induce abortion if it goes against their religious or secular beliefs about life...right?

Or does your belief in live and let live only count when they do what you say....since 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by left wingers who didn't believe in live and let live....right?

Vote for Trump....Save America...

I'm fine with doctors not getting abortion training. Now, getting a hospital to give a doctor surgical privileges who is not fully trained in all surgical practices? Well, that would be between them, and the hospitals, now wouldn't it it?

As far as pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, so long as they can, and will direct patients to pharmacists who will, more power to them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Requiring all doctors to be fully trained in all surgical practices is not practical.

Doctors who perform surgery usually specialize. There are general surgeons but they usually work ER. Or remove an appendix or something like that. When something specific needs to be done or when it's an emergency a specialist is called.

All the things that are listed in your post are just more roadblocks to women who want to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of choice.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to do their job then they need to find another job. Or at least have someone on site that is willing to do the job if the pharmacist isn't. No one should be denied legal medication that's prescribed by a doctor for any reason. It's not the pharmacist to determine what drugs someone should or shouldn't take. That's up to the doctor and patient.

 

[2aguy]

And your moral beliefs also have no basis in anything other than your opinion.....so there we are.....at least ours..the 10 commandments work pretty well......

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that you should not live your life in accordance with whatever moral code you believe to be important. However, you also do not have the right to dictate that everyone else ive in accordance with that moral code.

You keep responding as if you believe that I want to prevent you from living your personal life in accordance with your personal moral code. I don't. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy where you get to dictate that moral code to everyone else.

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

So...in your live and let live world.....Doctors will not have to under go abortion training to graduate from medical school if it goes against their beliefs? Pharmacists won't have to give drugs that induce abortion if it goes against their religious or secular beliefs about life...right?

Or does your belief in live and let live only count when they do what you say....since 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by left wingers who didn't believe in live and let live....right?

Vote for Trump....Save America...

I'm fine with doctors not getting abortion training. Now, getting a hospital to give a doctor surgical privileges who is not fully trained in all surgical practices? Well, that would be between them, and the hospitals, now wouldn't it it?

As far as pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, so long as they can, and will direct patients to pharmacists who will, more power to them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Requiring all doctors to be fully trained in all surgical practices is not practical.

Doctors who perform surgery usually specialize. There are general surgeons but they usually work ER. Or remove an appendix or something like that. When something specific needs to be done or when it's an emergency a specialist is called.

All the things that are listed in your post are just more roadblocks to women who want to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of choice.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to do their job then they need to find another job. Or at least have someone on site that is willing to do the job if the pharmacist isn't. No one should be denied legal medication that's prescribed by a doctor for any reason. It's not the pharmacist to determine what drugs someone should or shouldn't take. That's up to the doctor and patient.

Murder is still murder.

 

[Czernobog]

And I am not, in any way, suggesting that you should not live your life in accordance with whatever moral code you believe to be important. However, you also do not have the right to dictate that everyone else ive in accordance with that moral code.

You keep responding as if you believe that I want to prevent you from living your personal life in accordance with your personal moral code. I don't. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy where you get to dictate that moral code to everyone else.

The reason why you get replies like that from that person and people like it, is because they are deep in projection. They expect everyone else to be like them.

That person wants to force everyone to live the same way that person lives so that person expects others to do the same thing. That person doesn't understand the "live and let live" idea of life. Nor does that person understand the meaning or concept of freedom.

That person believes that everyone is free to believe and live just the same way that person believes and lives.

All right wingers I've ever encountered are just like the person you're replying to.

So...in your live and let live world.....Doctors will not have to under go abortion training to graduate from medical school if it goes against their beliefs? Pharmacists won't have to give drugs that induce abortion if it goes against their religious or secular beliefs about life...right?

Or does your belief in live and let live only count when they do what you say....since 100 million men, women and children have been murdered by left wingers who didn't believe in live and let live....right?

Vote for Trump....Save America...

I'm fine with doctors not getting abortion training. Now, getting a hospital to give a doctor surgical privileges who is not fully trained in all surgical practices? Well, that would be between them, and the hospitals, now wouldn't it it?

As far as pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, so long as they can, and will direct patients to pharmacists who will, more power to them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Requiring all doctors to be fully trained in all surgical practices is not practical.

Doctors who perform surgery usually specialize. There are general surgeons but they usually work ER. Or remove an appendix or something like that. When something specific needs to be done or when it's an emergency a specialist is called.

All the things that are listed in your post are just more roadblocks to women who want to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of choice.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to do their job then they need to find another job. Or at least have someone on site that is willing to do the job if the pharmacist isn't. No one should be denied legal medication that's prescribed by a doctor for any reason. It's not the pharmacist to determine what drugs someone should or shouldn't take. That's up to the doctor and patient.

Murder is still murder.

True. So, what do you suppose should happen to a woman who contracts a doctor to "commit murder"?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[P@triot]

Yeah...I think you missed my scepticism that any hospital would ever offer a doctor surgical privileges who was not trained in abortion procedures. But, hey, if you're okay with a doctor spending all that money getting his PhD, while never being able to get privileges at a hospital to practice, more power to him/her.

Clearly, like all progressives, you're completely ignorant about what an abortion is. Because it is the furthest thing from a "surgical procedure" imaginable. Any hack can shove clamps up a woman's vagina and smash the skull of the infant in there then pull it out limb by limb.

The fact that you even consider something so barbaric "surgical" is, in itself, fall down hilarious. It shows how uninformed you are and how you swallow the progressive propaganda as quickly as they can feed it to you.

 

[P@triot]

Murder is still murder.

True. So, what do you suppose should happen to a woman who contracts a doctor to "commit murder"?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The exact same thing that happens to any woman who contracts with a hitman to kill her husband. Why is this so difficult for you?

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah...I think you missed my scepticism that any hospital would ever offer a doctor surgical privileges who was not trained in abortion procedures. But, hey, if you're okay with a doctor spending all that money getting his PhD, while never being able to get privileges at a hospital to practice, more power to him/her.

Clearly, like all progressives, you're completely ignorant about what an abortion is. Because it is the furthest thing from a "surgical procedure" imaginable. Any hack can shove clamps up a woman's vagina and smash the skull of the infant in there then pull it out limb by limb.

The fact that you even consider something so barbaric "surgical" is, in itself, fall down hilarious. It shows how uninformed you are and how you swallow the progressive propaganda as quickly as they can feed it to you.

The only one clueless is you. Toddle on back to the corner and your factless masturbation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk