Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Emergency contraception = abortion. It's a morning after pill.
It is not an abortion KG.... it prevents implantation of the egg.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
Of course they shouldn't be allowed a religious exemption, slaves can't say no.
So when should there be religious exemptions?
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
Of course they shouldn't be allowed a religious exemption, slaves can't say no.
How would they be discriminated against? They would be hired to do a job.... and are now refusing to do they were paid to do.
They are far from slaves... they would be paid employees.
Emergency contraception = abortion. It's a morning after pill.
It is not an abortion KG.... it prevents implantation of the egg.
Fertilized egg.
Once it's fertilized, it's no longer contraception, it's abortion.
Of course they shouldn't be allowed a religious exemption, slaves can't say no.
How would they be discriminated against? They would be hired to do a job.... and are now refusing to do they were paid to do.
They are far from slaves... they would be paid employees.
Where did I say anything about discrimination? I said slaves cannot say no.
Of course they shouldn't be allowed a religious exemption, slaves can't say no.
How would they be discriminated against? They would be hired to do a job.... and are now refusing to do they were paid to do.
They are far from slaves... they would be paid employees.
Where did I say anything about discrimination? I said slaves cannot say no.
Emergency contraception = abortion. It's a morning after pill.
It is not an abortion KG.... it prevents implantation of the egg.
Fertilized egg.
Once it's fertilized, it's no longer contraception, it's abortion.
Contraception prevents conception.
EMERGENCY contraception takes place after conception has potentially taken place...
Not that I have a particular problem with this one. You don't really know if you're pregnant or not when you take it, and it's taken within hours of intercourse.
Excuse me, but I believe we're talking about EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION which is, in reality, not contraception at all.
Someone asked what it was, I answered. I know that pro-abortionists get pissy about the language that they bastardize to hide what exactly it is they promote, but I'll answer questions as I please.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
He did not.
However, trying to compare this to religious objections over religious groups being forced to provide birth control and abortions is like comparing apples and oranges.
Forcing a doctor, as the federal govt, to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
Solution? The hospital doesn't hire certain doctors due to the fact that their personal ideology prevents them from performing all the duties of the job...in your example no jehova's witness who are not willing to forgo the transfusion belief can be hired.
How would they be discriminated against? They would be hired to do a job.... and are now refusing to do they were paid to do.
They are far from slaves... they would be paid employees.
Where did I say anything about discrimination? I said slaves cannot say no.
What slaves are you talking about?
How would they be discriminated against? They would be hired to do a job.... and are now refusing to do they were paid to do.
They are far from slaves... they would be paid employees.
Where did I say anything about discrimination? I said slaves cannot say no.
Paid employees are not slaves. They ARE however paid to do the job they were hired for.... and if that means something that would conflict with their religious beliefs.... tough damn shit for them.
If they cant do the job they are paid for.... they can open their own practice and roll as many chicken bones as they want.
Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:
The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.
The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.
However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.
Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.
He did not.
However, trying to compare this to religious objections over religious groups being forced to provide birth control and abortions is like comparing apples and oranges.
Forcing a doctor, as the federal govt, to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
Solution? The hospital doesn't hire certain doctors due to the fact that their personal ideology prevents them from performing all the duties of the job...in your example no jehova's witness who are not willing to forgo the transfusion belief can be hired.
And with that.... a hospital can be sued for discriminating based on religious beliefs.
If however a doctor takes a job....is paid to do a job...they have zero right to refuse anything required of the job.
Where did I say anything about discrimination? I said slaves cannot say no.
What slaves are you talking about?
All the doctors, nurses, dentists, and everyone else who go into a business where they no longer have any rights.
Do you have a documented case that this scenario has ever taken place? What were the results of the lawsuit? How much did the jury award?
No. It's a hypothetical per the title.
Well then, until it happens don't worry about it.
Where did I say anything about discrimination? I said slaves cannot say no.
Paid employees are not slaves. They ARE however paid to do the job they were hired for.... and if that means something that would conflict with their religious beliefs.... tough damn shit for them.
If they cant do the job they are paid for.... they can open their own practice and roll as many chicken bones as they want.
Again, where did I say anything else?
What slaves are you talking about?
All the doctors, nurses, dentists, and everyone else who go into a business where they no longer have any rights.
Then dont apply for a job that you feel will infringe on your "rights" ....its rather simple. If you are hired for a job.... then do the job you are hired for.
Where did I say anything about discrimination? I said slaves cannot say no.
What slaves are you talking about?
All the doctors, nurses, dentists, and everyone else who go into a business where they no longer have any rights.
No one is being enslaved. My goodness, you are dense.
