beausox Posted April 5, 2005 Posted April 5, 2005 Except that in one state, someone would be charged w/ murder and in the other they would not. Kind of puts the notion of common law at nought, and common law is the basis of our (and many other) country's legal system. What happens if a woman who lives in Alabama goes to, say, Oregon to have an abortion? Does she get charged w/ murder once she sets foot back in Ala.? This is something that requires a national standard, and w/ the contentiousness of the issue it was ruled correctly back in the 70s that those who choose to have an abortion can do so, and those who don't can do that as well. It'd be nice to have individual states do their own thing, and I'm sure it's been looked at in depth by people smarter than us and it just wasn't feasible b/c of the common law. Nevermind that it's extremely rare for the high court to go reversing big issues like it for the same reason why many of the programs started/decisions made by a previous president aren't immediately changed when a guy from the other side is elected. 295698[/snapback] The law is a combination of common and natural law. Such minor details- life, liberty and property- are natural and immutable.
Adam Posted April 6, 2005 Author Posted April 6, 2005 Except when they're murdering doctors in the name of life. </irony> I know you're being sarcastic. 296256[/snapback] Isn't it amazing that sometimes people become so singleminded in their beliefs, that they end up stomping on them?
nobody Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Except when they're murdering doctors in the name of life. </irony> But the unborn is innocent while the doctor is evil. So it is OK.
UConn James Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 In the news that several states have passed laws to allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for morning-after pills (as long as they give info to a pharmacy where they can be bought --- tho some of them are fighting this stipulation too), brought attention by a woman who suffered a miscarriage and doctors had to prescribe them for some reason. Several other states are considering laws that would require a pharmacist to fill a prescription regardless of his/her individual beliefs. They're licensed by a state to serve citizens of all beliefs. If they won't do the job, they should be de-certified. Just to posit a theory here, but does that mean I can refuse to sell firewood to a pharmacist who does this and say "Freeze to death"? (Well, yes, I know I can do this). Or can doctors at a hospital refuse surgery for someone who shot themselves or slashed their wrist b/c they believe suicide is morally wrong?
Alaska Darin Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 But the unborn is innocent while the doctor is evil. So it is OK. 297310[/snapback] Not according to the 10 Commandments.
BuckeyeBill Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 it all comes down to one thing: at what point does an individual recognize a fetus as a baby? those who consider a fetus at any stage of development within the first two trimesters to be an 'unviable tissue mass' more easily accept the legality of abortion. those who believe that a fetus is actually a baby at any stage of development following the fertilization of the egg consider abortion to be an act of murder. it's worth it to take the politics out of it and do a little soul searching on this particular issue. I know plenty of people who could have been parents and decided not to go through with it. I have yet to hear a single one of them say that they think they did the right thing. maybe others here do know such people, but I don't. 295681[/snapback] A living person is anything with active brain waves and a beating heart. Too many people are considered "unviable tissue mass" and it is a travesty.
stuckincincy Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Here's the text of a Letter to the Editor, published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, 03/20/05: "While I belive in the right to life I am bewildered by the double standard that exists in our court system when it comes to dealing with the unborn. A man will be tried for "unlawful display of human remains without a permit" for displaying an aborted fetus as a pro-life protest, but the doctor who turned this "human" into "remains" cannot be tried for murder. If you were to cause the miscarriage of a woman on her way to a Planned Parenthood clinic, you could be tried for manslaughter, yet the abortionist would receive his fee for the same end. If I were to impregnate a woman, it would be her body (to which I have no rights) until the moment she gives birth, at which time it's "our child" and I am now responsible for what was a moment ago "her body". I have my beliefs, but at the very least I'd like consistency from the courts.".
Alaska Darin Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 A living person is anything with active brain waves and a beating heart. Too many people are considered "unviable tissue mass" and it is a travesty. 297437[/snapback] Actually, I'd contend the opposite. Too many people aren't considered an "unviable tissue mass" and they're screwing up the world for the rest of us.
jimshiz Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 But the unborn is innocent while the doctor is evil. So it is OK. 297310[/snapback] Not according to the 10 Commandments. 297425[/snapback] I don't know if it is actually true, but it made sense to me that the actual translation of the commandment in question is NOT "Thou shall not kill"; but rather "Thou shall not murder". It makes sense to me because even God allowed for wars. And I don't view capital punishment as murder even though someone is being killed. And killing in self-defense is probably OK even though it is not ideal. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with the Dr. killers, but I'll bet some of them argue that they are doing it in "self defense"; ie. defense of the innocent baby rather than defense of themselves.
Alaska Darin Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 I don't know if it is actually true, but it made sense to me that the actual translation of the commandment in question is NOT "Thou shall not kill"; but rather "Thou shall not murder". It makes sense to me because even God allowed for wars. And I don't view capital punishment as murder even though someone is being killed. And killing in self-defense is probably OK even though it is not ideal. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with the Dr. killers, but I'll bet some of them argue that they are doing it in "self defense"; ie. defense of the innocent baby rather than defense of themselves. 297483[/snapback] I don't disagree with the "Thou Shalt not Murder" logic at all. I'm quite sure that is one of the excuses they are using. Exodus 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Not according to the 10 Commandments. 297425[/snapback] Moses: I have brought to you the 15 (stumbles, breaks a stone tablet)...errr...10 Commandments..."
Alaska Darin Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Moses: I have brought to you the 15 (stumbles, breaks a stone tablet)...errr...10 Commandments..." 297547[/snapback] One of the greatest comedy flicks of all time. I roar everytime I watch it. The Inquisition, what a show. The Inquisition, here we go. We know you're wishing that we'd go away, but the Inquisiton's here and it's here to stay...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 One of the greatest comedy flicks of all time. I roar everytime I watch it. The Inquisition, what a show. The Inquisition, here we go. We know you're wishing that we'd go away, but the Inquisiton's here and it's here to stay... 297604[/snapback] Shouldn't he have made a History of the World Part II by now? He ain't getting any younger... "It's good to be the King!"
Alaska Darin Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Shouldn't he have made a History of the World Part II by now? He ain't getting any younger... "It's good to be the King!" 297605[/snapback] He's probably waiting for Jews in space.
Terry Tate Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 In the news that several states have passed laws to allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for morning-after pills (as long as they give info to a pharmacy where they can be bought --- tho some of them are fighting this stipulation too), brought attention by a woman who suffered a miscarriage and doctors had to prescribe them for some reason. Several other states are considering laws that would require a pharmacist to fill a prescription regardless of his/her individual beliefs. They're licensed by a state to serve citizens of all beliefs. If they won't do the job, they should be de-certified. Just to posit a theory here, but does that mean I can refuse to sell firewood to a pharmacist who does this and say "Freeze to death"? (Well, yes, I know I can do this). Or can doctors at a hospital refuse surgery for someone who shot themselves or slashed their wrist b/c they believe suicide is morally wrong? 297331[/snapback] The state should force pharmacists to sell a product they would otherwise refuse to sell, or strip them of their license. Was it all a dream? Did the USSR actually win the Cold War? BTW, if you're so bad at making analogies that you can recognize it yourself, maybe you should type it out just to get it out of your system, then delete it before posting.
Johnny Coli Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 The state should force pharmacists to sell a product they would otherwise refuse to sell, or strip them of their license. Was it all a dream? Did the USSR actually win the Cold War? BTW, if you're so bad at making analogies that you can recognize it yourself, maybe you should type it out just to get it out of your system, then delete it before posting. 297668[/snapback] That's their damn job. That's what they go to school to become pharmacists for. Doctors write the scripts, pharmacists fill them. We already have HMOs refusing to cover certain expensive meds, we sure as hell don't need "conscientious objector" pharmacists.
erynthered Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 "conscientious objector" pharmacists. 297782[/snapback] Good one
Boatdrinks Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 In the news that several states have passed laws to allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for morning-after pills (as long as they give info to a pharmacy where they can be bought --- tho some of them are fighting this stipulation too), brought attention by a woman who suffered a miscarriage and doctors had to prescribe them for some reason. Several other states are considering laws that would require a pharmacist to fill a prescription regardless of his/her individual beliefs. They're licensed by a state to serve citizens of all beliefs. If they won't do the job, they should be de-certified. Just to posit a theory here, but does that mean I can refuse to sell firewood to a pharmacist who does this and say "Freeze to death"? (Well, yes, I know I can do this). Or can doctors at a hospital refuse surgery for someone who shot themselves or slashed their wrist b/c they believe suicide is morally wrong? 297331[/snapback] Right. If they don't want to fill those prescriptions, then get a different job. Remember that good football player at BYU a few years back who would have been drafted but could not play on Sundays because of religious beliefs? He pursued a different avenue of employment, he did not try to make the NFL play on Saturday. That pharmacist should be shot for acting like that. I really HATE people like that. Keep your religion to your freakin' self. I don't care what the heck you believe in, you're my pharmacist so fill my damn precription. ARRRGGGH
Terry Tate Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 Right. If they don't want to fill those prescriptions, then get a different job. Remember that good football player at BYU a few years back who would have been drafted but could not play on Sundays because of religious beliefs? He pursued a different avenue of employment, he did not try to make the NFL play on Saturday. That pharmacist should be shot for acting like that. I really HATE people like that. Keep your religion to your freakin' self. I don't care what the heck you believe in, you're my pharmacist so fill my damn precription. ARRRGGGH 301258[/snapback] All 'We reserve the right to refuse service' signs should be located, and the guilty should be shut down by the state. If they won't serve someone what they ask for, they should be taken out and shot. I can't be bothered to shop elsewhere; taking my business to somewhere that will sell me what I want is asking too much of me. I trust in the state to monitor all businesses, and employ agents to ensure that stores are selling items the public demands. Business owners should not be allowed to determine what goods and services they provide; that should be a state function.
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 All 'We reserve the right to refuse service' signs should be located, and the guilty should be shut down by the state. If they won't serve someone what they ask for, they should be taken out and shot. I can't be bothered to shop elsewhere; taking my business to somewhere that will sell me what I want is asking too much of me. I trust in the state to monitor all businesses, and employ agents to ensure that stores are selling items the public demands. Business owners should not be allowed to determine what goods and services they provide; that should be a state function. 301396[/snapback] Good post, comrade.
Recommended Posts