James Dobson...Foot in mouth disease.

[jillian]

You have no idea what my views on abortion are, do you? I provided another link, which I'll provide again...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath


I once again bolded the portions about abortion and the fact that they take some "form of oath" but not this one. Most doctors do not take the original oath because it precludes them from performing abortions...

Now, do you want to assume more about me or simply use your brain rather than your partisan goggles?

I read your link. It also says that portions of the oath were changed because they praise non-abrahamic deities.

What it also says is the modification you're talking about is still raised in discussions about abortion. I'd say it's a pretty sure bet that it's only raised by anti-choice advocates.

You tell me you're pro reproductive choice and I'll apologize for misjudging you.

 

[dmp]

Jillian - dude...

 

[no1tovote4]

I read your link. It also says that portions of the oath were changed because they praise non-abrahamic deities.

What it also says is the modification you're talking about is still raised in discussions about abortion. I'd say it's a pretty sure bet that it's only raised by anti-choice advocates.

You tell me you're pro reproductive choice and I'll apologize for misjudging you.

I am pro-true choice. I believe that we should begin a new form of study that would have doctors remove the fetus in an attempt to incubate ex-utero rather than have directed action at killing the fetus. I know that at the beginning of this it would have much the same relevant effect for the child, but the long-term effects would be beneficial for all involved. Allowing the woman to actually make a reproductive choice, over time, where she chould choose to incubate naturally or ex-utero once the new science had reached its potential. This would allow the woman maximum choice, rather than simplifying it to only mean "choose to kill or choose to birth"... It would also be beneficial to the rights of the unborn. This would allow for maximum protection of the rights of all involved and, over time, would allow even a more positive outcome for every woman.

The "modifications" were put in so that doctors could then perform that action if they so chose... It is the reason that the original oath is no longer taken by the large majority of doctors. A few still do take it, they are anti-abortion that is why they take it in that form.

I am not being ambiguous, I am being clear. The Hippocratic Oath is taken by Medical Doctors, and the oath has been changed and is no longer the oath of Hippocrates... Notice my site also stated that they take some "form of oath" but does not say they take the Hippocratic Oath...

 

[Nienna]

Seems to me as if Pruett and Gilligan are simply upset that the research they did goes against their own personal beliefs. Pruett wrote an entire book explaining the importance of fathers in child development, and yet, he doesn't want to admit that a pair of lesbians raising a child is intentionally denying that child a father. Gilligan spent time researching the different roles that mothers and fathers play in child-rearing, and came to the conclusion that gender DOES matter in parenting. Yet, because this finding is being used against her preconceived political views, she is upset.

Dobson did not disparage Cheney & Poe. He did not even deny that they are capable of loving this child. What he claimed is that having both mother and a father gives the child the optimum develpomental experience, and that this should not be sacrificed to satisfy the desires of two adults.

 

[theHawk]

anti-choice advocates

pro reproductive choice

I'm curious to know where this new terms come from? Does being "pro reproductive choice" mean that you support abortion on demand? Anti-abortionists do favor choice you know, the choice is made before conception.
These new terms being thrown out are getting so rediculous. What alot of people object to is poisoning and chopping up perfectly healthy fetuses and throwing them in the garbage, which is exactly what abortion is. Abortion is not a matter of "reproductive choice" any more than the holocaust was "die Reinigung". Lets all just call a spade a spade.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm well aware of his credentials. He has simply strayed so far from the fundamental premises of the Hippocratic oath as to render it meaningless.

As for judging, I have never been a great advocate of the notion, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Judge, and prepare to be judged.

If you were well-aware of Dr. Dobson's credentials, then calling him a doctor "in name only" is a deliberate falsehood on your part. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You failed to grasp the point of my post(in response to Bully's response to DMP).

In fact, your response is exactly the kind of mentality I was making fun of in the first place:
And why should what you believe about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual govern how everyone else treats a group of people?

The DSM provides objective criteria used in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Religious dogma is rooted in the subjective interpretation of some divine being's will, in which case, one might as well rely upon augury and haruspices.

 

[Nienna]

The DSM provides objective criteria used in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Religious dogma is rooted in the subjective interpretation of some divine being's will, in which case, one might as well rely upon augury and haruspices.

Yes, pressure from special interest groups is VERY objective and scientific reason to remove a disorder from the list.

 

[Nienna]

In Jim Dobson's defense...

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003477.cfm

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yes, pressure from special interest groups is VERY objective and scientific reason to remove a disorder from the list.

Empirical data was the driving force behid the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, not pressure from special interest groups.

<blockquote>In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, a<b>lthough some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range</b>. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980). (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

A metanalysis of studies, while showing a few differences, consistently place both homo and heterosexuals within the bounds of normal human behavior. Sorry, but facts trump dogma.

 

[Bullypulpit]

In Jim Dobson's defense...

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003477.cfm

There's no defending the indefensible.

 

[Nienna]

Empirical data was the driving force behid the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, not pressure from special interest groups.

<blockquote>In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, a<b>lthough some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range</b>. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980). (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

A metanalysis of studies, while showing a few differences, consistently place both homo and heterosexuals within the bounds of normal human behavior. Sorry, but facts trump dogma.

Guess that depends on how one defines (or redefines) "normal."

 

[dilloduck]

Guess that depends on how one defines (or redefines) "normal."

No joke----the problem is that we don't have a control group of feral humans to study to see what "normal" is. Humans who have lived without the prejudice of preconceived concepts of right an wrong, good or bad may provide us with a more accurate view of "normal".

 

[Dirt McGirt]

TWO: James Dobson Rebuked on Video for Distorting Research of NYU Professor Carol Gilligan
Mon Dec 18, 2:31 PM ET

MIAMI BEACH, Fla., Dec. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Truth Wins Out (TWO) released an exclusive video today featuring celebrated New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, Ph.D, who upbraided Focus on the Family leader, James C. Dobson, for misrepresenting her research in a guest column he wrote in last week's issue of Time Magazine. The exclusive Truth Wins Out video can be viewed on YouTube at [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NHdSVknB5Q[/ame].


Additionally, Angela Phillips, the renowned author of "The Trouble With Boys" also sent a pointed letter to Dobson today accusing him of "seriously misrepresenting" her work and asking him to publish her letter "prominently" on Focus on the Family's Web site. Last week, Kyle Pruett, M.D. of the Yale School of Medicine, also expressed concerns that the Focus on the Family leader "cherry picked" his work...In the video, filmed for Truth Wins Out by videographer Lisa Darden, Gilligan expressed her extreme displeasure with Dobson and how she was "mortified" by his use of her work...

Earlier today, Professor Angela Phillips, author of "The Trouble With Boys," echoed Gilligan and Pruett in a letter to Dobson, obtained exclusively by Truth Wins Out. TWO received a tip that Phillips' work had been misquoted by Ray Foster, a concerned citizen who wanted the truth to be told. In her letter, Phillips, a journalist and professor at Goldsmiths College in London, asked that Dobson print the following letter "prominently" on his organization's Web site.
-----
Dear James Dobson:

It has come to my attention that my book "The Trouble with Boys" has been seriously mis-represented in writings by James Dobson.

Having read his newsletter; "How Boys Learn to Become Men" on the Focus on the Family web site I was incensed to find that I have been quoted as a source for suggesting that:

"The high incidence of homosexuality occurring in Western nations is related, at least in part, to the absence of positive male influence when boys are moving through the first crisis of child development."

I certainly agree that boys suffer from a lack of positive men in their lives but I am at pains to point out that positive men are often as much lacking in two parent households as they are in lone mother (or two mother) households. I do not suggest that lack of positive male role models leads to homosexuality (or indeed that it would be problematic if it did). My concern is that boys without positive men around them are more likely to be violent, angry and lacking in self control. I have never heard that these are characteristics that are associated with homosexuality.

Dobson goes on to say: " One of the primary objectives of parents is to help boys identify their gender assignments and understand what it means to be a man.

My concern is that boys are currently learning, either from their fathers, or in the absence of fathers, from the women who rear them, and the men they encounter, that the most important thing about being a man is being: "not gay", "not gentle" and not "girlie". While adult men are afraid to demonstrate that it's okay to be gentle and caring how are boys to learn anything positive about what it means to be a man?

I would be grateful if you could publish this letter prominently on your website.

I look forward to a swift acknowledgement.

Yours sincerely

Angela Phillips

Author of The Trouble with Boys
----------
FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/200612...search_of_nyu_professor_carol_gilligan125_xml

 

[Dirt McGirt]

James Dobson's organization crosses the line when it comes to their Focus on the Family Message. His holier-than-thou political lobbying for legislation is too intrusive. It's one thing to go around the country and proselytizing a moral values message. But it's another when you form coalition groups with other organizations and try to put pressure on lawmakers in order to enact moral values legislation and abstinence-only programs. I'm fully aware that that's how Washington works, but it's a bit ironic to watch the small government Republicans criticizing liberals and Democrats for pushing their values onto other people and then crawling into bed with the likes of Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson who likewise try to push their values onto other people. It wreaks of hypocrisy.

I don't dispute that a traditional nuclear family is the ideal situation for children, but Dobson's stance about abstinence-only programs and "traditionalism" is unrealistic. Unmarried people are going to have pre-marital sex. A recently published Guttmacher Report shows that "despite public opinion that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, researchers say the number of Americans having premarital sex hasn't changed much since the 1940s." "http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=78654.

IMO, a message of both abstinence AND condoms is the most realistic and effective way to stop diseases and unwanted pregnancies. And whether you like it or not, same sex couples are forming families and raising children. Denying it isn't going to make it unhappen- it's already part of reality. If Focus on the Family wants to hold true to real principles of focusing on the family for the sake of all children, then they should come up with ways for gays and lesbians to be better parents. There's no reason to blame children for the lifestyle choices of their parents.

 

[dilloduck]

James Dobson's organization crosses the line when it comes to their Focus on the Family Message. His holier-than-thou political lobbying for legislation is too intrusive. It's one thing to go around the country and proselytizing a moral values message. But it's another when you form coalition groups with other organizations and try to put pressure on lawmakers in order to enact moral values legislation and abstinence-only programs. I'm fully aware that that's how Washington works, but it's a bit ironic to watch the small government Republicans criticizing liberals and Democrats for pushing their values onto other people and then crawling into bed with the likes of Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson who likewise try to push their values onto other people. It wreaks of hypocrisy.

I don't dispute that a traditional nuclear family is the ideal situation for children, but Dobson's stance about abstinence-only programs and "traditionalism" is unrealistic. Unmarried people are going to have pre-marital sex. A recently published Guttmacher Report shows that "despite public opinion that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, researchers say the number of Americans having premarital sex hasn't changed much since the 1940s." "http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=78654.

IMO, a message of both abstinence AND condoms is the most realistic and effective way to stop diseases and unwanted pregnancies. And whether you like it or not, same sex couples are forming families and raising children. Denying it isn't going to make it unhappen- it's already part of reality. If Focus on the Family wants to hold true to real principles of focusing on the family for the sake of all children, then they should come up with ways for gays and lesbians to be better parents. There's no reason to blame children for the lifestyle choices of their parents.

Crosses WHAT line ? Which civil rights would you suggest be taken away from them ?

 

[Psychoblues]

My daughter had an abortion. Neither of us are ashamed of it or feel any need to be ashamed of it excepting the shame of societal misunderstanding. After all, are you better than me or should I consider myself better than you? Jesus taught judgement is in the hands of God and NO other. Our lives are our own and to ourselves we must be true.


Psychoblues

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I'm not suggesting any civil rights be taken away from Dobson. I'm just calling him an intrusive, intellectually dishonest, religiously motivated hack who denies reality and uses his influence to pressure politicians in order to impose his beliefs on the masses. His coalition crosses the line when it coherces lawmakers into dictating policy and legislation for everyone, i.e. lobbying for gay marriage amendments, abortion, funding for stem cell research, condoms, etc. Focus on the Family is no different than PETA or the ACLU in that regard.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not suggesting any civil rights be taken away from Dobson. I'm just calling him an intrusive, intellectually dishonest, religiously motivated hack who denies reality and uses his influence to pressure politicians in order to impose his beliefs on the masses. His coalition crosses the line when it coherces lawmakers into dictating policy and legislation for everyone, i.e. lobbying for gay marriage amendments, abortion, funding for stem cell research, condoms, etc. Focus on the Family is no different than PETA or the ACLU in that regard.

Coerce lawmakers into dictating policy?-----like any one of the thousands of lobbyists up there?---It's the American way, dude. Where have you been ??

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Coerce lawmakers into dictating policy?-----like any one of the thousands of lobbyists up there?---It's the American way, dude. Where have you been ??

I'm fully aware that that's how Washington works, but it's a bit ironic to watch the small government Republicans criticizing liberals and Democrats for pushing their values onto other people and then crawling into bed with the likes of Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson who likewise try to push their values onto other people. It wreaks of hypocrisy.

^
Come on man, I clearly acknowledged that I'm aware of how the game works in Washington...but I can still bitch about Focus on the Fam's pushing their beliefs on me.

Do you find it equally right when a dishonest fat fuck like Michael Moore cherry picks information and pressures lawmakers to advance his personal agenda or do you just sit back and say "oh well, it's the American way."