What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Plante26 said:
And you're both assuming that a child being "born" is up to the mother. Essentially, you're arguing that a child that is able to live outside the mother's womb is at the life-or-death mercy of the mother's decision making process.....or lack thereof, if not able to make that decision in the case of emergency. So what is it? Day before due date, abortion is OK? Two weeks after due date, still OK? Four months before due date? I have two nieces born prematurely at 24 weeks into term, perfectly healthy. Please explain your argument on determining whether or not a baby lives or dies--especially when considering the last two trimesters.
Click to expand...

One, late term abortion is very very rare. This is something anti-choice people try to spin as a regular occurrence. Usually this only happens when the mother's life is in danger.

I consider an unborn child a life that shouldn't be aborted when it can survive outside the womb. That's around 22-24 weeks. I'm fine with that being illegal unless its between the life of the mother and the baby. I'm not going to force a woman to sacrifice her life.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Terrierbyassociation said:
One, late term abortion is very very rare. This is something anti-choice people try to spin as a regular occurrence. Usually this only happens when the mother's life is in danger.

I consider an unborn child a life that shouldn't be aborted when it can survive outside the womb. That's around 22-24 weeks. I'm fine with that being illegal unless its between the life of the mother and the baby. I'm not going to force a woman to sacrifice her life.
Click to expand...

Probably not as rare as you might think, but that's not my point......and as far your your "anti-choice" label is concerned, you're spinning something much larger than that. But my next question would be:

Using your logic, as technology continually advances and makes life possible without the mother being involved, you would be in favor of outlawing abortion?
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Plante26 said:
Probably not as rare as you might think, but that's not my point......and as far your your "anti-choice" label is concerned, you're spinning something much larger than that. But my next question would be:

Using your logic, as technology continually advances and makes life possible without the mother being involved, you would be in favor of outlawing abortion?
Click to expand...

Isn't that what we hope for? An eventual move to there being no abortions?

No one WANTS abortions. We just want the end of abortions to happen in different ways. I want there to be no abortions because no one needs one. You want there to be no abortions right now, whether people need them or not because you believe the lives of these unwanted fetuses are more important because life is sacred. I understand that.

I may not agree, but I understand it.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Terrierbyassociation said:
Isn't that what we hope for? An eventual move to there being no abortions?

No one WANTS abortions. We just want the end of abortions to happen in different ways. I want there to be no abortions because no one needs one. You want there to be no abortions right now, whether people need them or not because you believe the lives of these unwanted fetuses are more important because life is sacred. I understand that.

I may not agree, but I understand it.
Click to expand...

See, I don't know if there are that many people now that NEED abortions. They may want them, because it would make their lives easier, but they don't have a need to get rid of their child.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

rufus said:
Because as part of their membership in the field in which they have chosen to practice, they have taken a professional oath that the patient's health, care and well-being is the #1 priority, and all else is secondary.

If they feel that by doing so it violates their personal morals, they are perfectly free to seek employment in some other profession. This is not a private matter, it is a function of their profession.
Click to expand...

If it were only this black & white. A similar retort would be to just say that the original Hippocratic Oath directly forbids abortion. :)

It is, however, not that black & white. BCPs are built to alter a normal body function. Technically, they do not treat a disease, diagnose a disease, prevent a disease, or provide health maintenance. They simply prevent a woman from becoming pregnant. As such, choosing not to provide a woman with BCPs is in no way similar to refusing to give her an antibiotic, BP med or heart Rx. One could argue that avoidance of a pregnancy is required for the well being of the woman (I know it is for my daughter...I'll kill her if she gets knocked up :D ). However, the counter argument is that you are disrupting a normal body function with an agent that has certain inherent side effects and those risks are not always in the patients best interest. Should a pharmacist or physician be required to give a Oxycontin addict more meds? It would help the patients well being by avoiding withdrawal Sx and it's legal.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for BCPs. My daughter is on them and I'm happy to pay the bill. We had the right to decide to begin them because we felt it was the best thing for her. But, I also believe that pharmacist has a right to say he doesn't feel it's in her best interest (be it a moral or medical argument) and refuse to give them to her. I won't be utilizing his pharmacy in the future but respect his right to an opposing opinion. IMHO, forcing him to provide the BCPs is not much different than forcing my daughter not to take them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

geezer said:
Same thing with the Tea Party. It'll never organize nationally because it's a collection of single-issue voters all with their own issues. If they ever sit down to hash it out for a national campaign, they'll end up killing each other.
Click to expand...

It already is organized nationally, as a Meetup Group with the theme "I do not care for this Mr. Obama" (or liberals, Democrats, "elites," taxes, secular humanism, anything outside my comfort zone, that this is not my beautiful house and not my beautiful wife).

To focus their influence they will have to endorse candidates which means someone will have to speak for them, and that will probably lead to The People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front, unless they anoint a charismatic spokesperson (and Palin is the obvious choice for that).

Their other option is to become an explicit handmaid of the Republican Party like Fox, talk radio and some of the high profile Christian pressure groups, but that would mean swallowing whenever the GOP backs something they don't like, and the chief attraction of a movement as opposed to a party is it can afford to be pure.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

To try and pull us even farther from the third rail, I find this criticism of current movement conservatism rhetoric convincing (although, of course, as an effete intellectual I would... ;) ).
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Kepler said:
To try and pull us even farther from the third rail, I find this criticism of current movement conservatism rhetoric convincing (although, of course, as an effete intellectual I would... ;) ).
Click to expand...

This article cuts both ways......it could be applied in a very similar sense to many liberal circles buying into and stoking the idea that the other side is inherently evil. There is a very aggressive dismissal of those who fall out of line with traditional progressive ideology (see: global warming, economic theory, gun control, role of government, etc.)

Bottom line: Same sh*t, different toilet.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Plante26 said:
This article cuts both ways......it could be applied in a very similar sense to many liberal circles buying into and stoking the idea that the other side is inherently evil. There is a very aggressive dismissal of those who fall out of line with traditional progressive ideology (see: global warming, economic theory, gun control, role of government, etc.)
Click to expand...

I agree with you, in principle -- radicalism blinds whichever direction it comes from. Somewhere buried in the comments somebody makes that very point. However, one respondent says that while true, "the percentage of the right that is radical is greater than the percentage of the left that is radical," by which I think he means the percentage of people on the right that live in a hermetically-sealed bubble, immune from falsifiability, is greater than that on the left.

That seems blatantly obvious to me, but then the question is can it be quantified in some way that's relatively "objective"? (And something a little less snarky than, say, the relative numbers of people watching Glenn Beck vs Keith Olbermann). If somebody says, for example, that 30% (a made up number) of people agree with the statement "Obama could be the anti-Christ," is this balanced by a comparably crazy left-wing statement that commands 30% support?

There may be periods when radical craziness infects one side of the spectrum significantly more than the other. The 60's for the left, perhaps, or now for the right. Anyway I don't see any evidence that the fringes must always balance one another -- one tail might be a lot longer than the other.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Kepler said:
However, one respondent says that while true, "the percentage of the right that is radical is greater than the percentage of the left that is radical," by which I think he means the percentage of people on the right that live in a hermetically-sealed bubble, immune from falsifiability, is greater than that on the left.

That seems blatantly obvious to me, but then the question is can it be quantified in some way that's relatively "objective"?
Click to expand...
You can just as easily make the argument that Obama would never have been elected if not for all the voters in a "hermetically-sealed bubble" on the left that just wanted "change" and were convinced that Obama and the government were going to take care of them like a big nanny, and who were oblivious to much of anything else in the world.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

busterman62 said:
If it were only this black & white. A similar retort would be to just say that the original Hippocratic Oath directly forbids abortion. :)

It is, however, not that black & white. BCPs are built to alter a normal body function. Technically, they do not treat a disease, diagnose a disease, prevent a disease, or provide health maintenance. They simply prevent a woman from becoming pregnant. As such, choosing not to provide a woman with BCPs is in no way similar to refusing to give her an antibiotic, BP med or heart Rx. One could argue that avoidance of a pregnancy is required for the well being of the woman (I know it is for my daughter...I'll kill her if she gets knocked up :D ). However, the counter argument is that you are disrupting a normal body function with an agent that has certain inherent side effects and those risks are not always in the patients best interest. Should a pharmacist or physician be required to give a Oxycontin addict more meds? It would help the patients well being by avoiding withdrawal Sx and it's legal.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for BCPs. My daughter is on them and I'm happy to pay the bill. We had the right to decide to begin them because we felt it was the best thing for her. But, I also believe that pharmacist has a right to say he doesn't feel it's in her best interest (be it a moral or medical argument) and refuse to give them to her. I won't be utilizing his pharmacy in the future but respect his right to an opposing opinion. IMHO, forcing him to provide the BCPs is not much different than forcing my daughter not to take them.
Click to expand...

That's not the pharmacist's decision to make, that's her physician's.

Again, if the pharmacist has moral objections that prevent him from doing the job he is paid to do, the one he swore an occupational oath to fulfill, then he can seek other means of employment.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Kepler said:
That seems blatantly obvious to me, but then the question is can it be quantified in some way that's relatively "objective"? (And something a little less snarky than, say, the relative numbers of people watching Glenn Beck vs Keith Olbermann). If somebody says, for example, that 30% (a made up number) of people agree with the statement "Obama could be the anti-Christ," is this balanced by a comparably crazy left-wing statement that commands 30% support?
Click to expand...
Find (make up) a quote about Dick Cheney and show it to a comparable audience. I'd be curious on the numbers.

But on your Anti-Christ quote. If you showed it to the Westboro crowd, you'd get close to 100%. Show it to the Rev. Wright's flock and you'd get the same #. The difference is that the Westboro folks believe Obama is the Anti-Christ. The Rev. Wright folks know. :D
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

rufus said:
That's not the pharmacist's decision to make, that's her physician's.

Again, if the pharmacist has moral objections that prevent him from doing the job he is paid to do, the one he swore an occupational oath to fulfill, then he can seek other means of employment.
Click to expand...

Oath of a Pharmacist

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the professionof pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy. I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

Boy, I sure don't see any black and white in that which indicates he has to dispense whatever the doc prescribes. Plenty of room for individual interpretation by my reading. :confused:
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Kepler - as always, you add to the conversation vs. sling mud...that is appreciated by at least one of us. Clear we don't agree on all subjects but your insight is helpful to folks trying to learn vs. shout down.

In terms of your last post...my take is that the right has a few keystone radical issues and those who list those as their top item are more fervent and more focused on that one issue than radicals on the left who may actually be equal/close in number but with fewer that identify with any one issue as vehemently as those on the right.

So, in my theory, the radical left is more spread out across issues but just as committed to their cause as the right where people identify with fewer issues but hold fast to those that are dear to them. As an example, in my opinion, 100 lefties would find more common ground among themselves whereas 100 righties might have a hard time agreeing on religious, economic and inclusivity issues even though they would list themselves in the same party. Just a theory.

Whether that makes one side more radical than the other, that may be in the eye of the beholder.
 
Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

rufus said:
That's not the pharmacist's decision to make, that's her physician's.
Click to expand...
If a pharmacist feels an Rx could be deleterious to his patient he's obligated to clarify that Rx and can refuse to fill it. The most common reasons are allergies or "off label" uses but it happens all the time. Since I don't seem to be convincing you, ask your pharmacist the next time you see him/her if they can refuse to fill an Rx.
rufus said:
Again, if the pharmacist has moral objections that prevent him from doing the job he is paid to do, the one he swore an occupational oath to fulfill, then he can seek other means of employment.
Click to expand...

While the employer would be within his rights to fire the pharmacist for refusing to fill an Rx for BCPs, there is nothing in the oath that requires them to fill any/all Rxs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top