• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

apdst said:
So, the religious freedom part is open to interpretation? That's skeery!
Click to expand...

No, it's not open to interpretation. You are free to practice your religion. You are not free to practice any profession you want regardless of your ability to carry out the functions of that profession.
 
jallman said:
No, it's not open to interpretation. You are free to practice your religion. You are not free to practice any profession you want regardless of your ability to carry out the functions of that profession.
Click to expand...

Just like you're free to choose not to take a life, if it's contrary to your religious, or moral values. Holding to a religious conviction is usually what one does when, "practicing", one's religion. You sure you're a centrist? The way you support a double standard, you could be a real live Liberal.
 
apdst said:
Just like you're free to choose not to take a life, if it's contrary to your religious, or moral values. Holding to a religious conviction is usually what one does when, "practicing", one's religion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No one is going to fine you, jail you, attack you, or hinder your pursuit of happiness in any way because you practice your morality. However, don't expect anyone to make concessions in the quality of the public good because you want to practice your morality and pursue a profession that your morality opposes. There's no right to practice a profession regardless of your ability or willingness to practice it effectively.


You sure you're a centrist? The way you support a double standard, you could be a real live Liberal.
Click to expand...

You sure you're a conservative? The way you interpret the Constitution in a feel-good, anything goes way, you could be a real life liberal.
 
apdst said:
No, they're issued M-16's to kill the enemy, not only to defend themselves, but to contribute to the unit's combat power and to protect the wounded troops in their care.
Click to expand...

A conscientious objector does not have to kill anyone. They don't even have to be in the military. It is their choice. They are not forced to do anything.
 
jallman said:
Absolutely. No one is going to fine you, jail you, attack you, or hinder your pursuit of happiness in any way because you practice your morality. However, don't expect anyone to make concessions in the quality of the public good because you want to practice your morality and pursue a profession that your morality opposes. There's no right to practice a profession regardless of your ability or willingness to practice it effectively.
Click to expand...

"The public good", has been the excuse to rescind rights for thousands of years. Jews were sent to concentration camps for, "the public good". Japanese, Germans and Italians were sent to internment camps for, "the public good". I get worried when people start talking about taking away my rights for, "the public good". "For the public good", is the basis of Facism and Communism.




You sure you're a conservative? The way you interpret the Constitution in a feel-good, anything goes way, you could be a real life liberal.
Click to expand...

If I thought that Liberalism was the gaurdian high protector of my liberties, you're damn right I would be a Liberal. But, I know better.
 
USA-1 said:
A conscientious objector does not have to kill anyone. They don't even have to be in the military. It is their choice. They are not forced to do anything.
Click to expand...

A soldier that decalres a concientious objector status isn't automatically allowed to be released from the military. They still have to serve their obligation. It only means that they won't be required to serve in an MOS that requires them to kill the enemy. For instance, a CO probably wouldn't be made to serve on a cannon crew, not even as a powder monkey. he wouldn't be made to be a gunner on a gunship, or a pilot of a bomber. Are you getting the picture, now?
 
apdst said:
A soldier that decalres a concientious objector status isn't automatically allowed to be released from the military. They still have to serve their obligation. It only means that they won't be required to serve in an MOS that requires them to kill the enemy. For instance, a CO probably wouldn't be made to serve on a cannon crew, not even as a powder monkey. he wouldn't be made to be a gunner on a gunship, or a pilot of a bomber. Are you getting the picture, now?
Click to expand...

Right, but he is not forced to kill anyone. Just like doctors are not forced to perform abortions. Your argument does not make any sense.
 
USA-1 said:
Right, but he is not forced to kill anyone. Just like doctors are not forced to perform abortions. Your argument does not make any sense.
Click to expand...

Not yet. However, they are, or least PBO wants to be forced to despense drugs that violate their convictions. It's the same thing.
 
apdst said:
"The public good", has been the excuse to rescind rights for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

You would have a point if anyone here was talking about "rescinding rights". However, the discussion has been focused on dispeling this myth that one has a right to practice any profession he wishes despite an moral objection to practicing the profession.

I would be willing to concede if you could make a reasonable argument that there is a right, enumerated or implied, that you may practice any profession you wish.

Jews were sent to concentration camps for, "the public good". Japanese, Germans and Italians were sent to internment camps for, "the public good". I get worried when people start talking about taking away my rights for, "the public good". "For the public good", is the basis of Facism and Communism.
Click to expand...

Way to toss Godwin's salad there, apdst.




If I thought that Liberalism was the gaurdian high protector of my liberties, you're damn right I would be a Liberal. But, I know better.
Click to expand...

Funny that. You seem to interpret the constitution like one...complete with a victimhood mentality and creation of rights that simply don't exist in it.
 
apdst said:
Not yet. However, they are, or least PBO wants to be forced to despense drugs that violate their convictions. It's the same thing.
Click to expand...

It is not even close to the same thing.
 
jallman said:
Way to toss Godwin's salad there, apdst.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out the historical rellevance of your comments. If it's too much for you handle, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
This is totally unprofessional to say the least. I would say the same thing toward a democrat who did this short of thing.
 
apdst said:
There are no degrees of violation when referring to violating someone's liberties.
Click to expand...

Doctors are not forced to perform abortions.
If dispensing drugs is your job you do not have the protected right to judge others and decide who gets what. You can and should be fired for not filling a prescription because of your beliefs. You have the right to refuse and your employer has the right to fire you.
 
USA-1 said:
Doctors are not forced to perform abortions.
If dispensing drugs is your job you do not have the protected right to judge others and decide who gets what. You can and should be fired for not filling a prescription because of your beliefs. You have the right to refuse and your employer has the right to fire you.
Click to expand...

Depensing drugs that cause harm are a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, as well.

So, IOW, you're for civil liberties, up to the point they get in the way of your agenda, then it's time to **** can them. Right? For the public good, of course.
 
apdst said:
Just pointing out the historical rellevance of your comments. If it's too much for you handle, then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

There was exactly zero relevance in any of that to our discussion at hand. When you can show the Constitution as being the standard of those regimes and how they moved against or for it, then there would be some relevance. For the moment, all you did was spout nonsense about Nazis and Communists while the discussion was about doctors in America performing their duties.

It did not escape my notice that you failed to address any of the post and the request for you to make a point. Here, let me repost it for your convenience, though I hold little hope that you will move with purpose toward coming through on a real argument.

You would have a point if anyone here was talking about "rescinding rights". However, the discussion has been focused on dispeling this myth that one has a right to practice any profession he wishes despite an moral objection to practicing the profession.

I would be willing to concede if you could make a reasonable argument that there is a right, enumerated or implied, that you may practice any profession you wish.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
There was exactly zero relevance in any of that to our discussion at hand. When you can show the Constitution as being the standard of those regimes and how they moved against or for it, then there would be some relevance.
Click to expand...

You should read up on how Hitler got rid of the Weimar Republic. Then, you will get the picture. Mussolini abolished Italy's constitution when he took power, as well. Mussolini imposed a punitive tax on males that hadn't father children...for the public good, of course.

For the moment, all you did was spout nonsense about Nazis and Communists while the discussion was about doctors in America performing their duties.
Click to expand...

The discussion is about personal liberties. You claim that violating a person's liberties, for the public good, is okay. I'm only pointing out historical examples of the same idea and how it didn't go very well.
 
apdst said:
You should read up on how Hitler got rid of the Weimar Republic. Then, you will get the picture. Mussolini abolished Italy's constitution when he took power, as well. Mussolini imposed a punitive tax on males that hadn't father children...for the public good, of course.
Click to expand...

I will read up on that again when it becomes relevant to a discussion at hand.

The discussion is about personal liberties. You claim that violating a person's liberties, for the public good, is okay. I'm only pointing out historical examples of the same idea and how it didn't go very well.
Click to expand...

I made no such claim. Please go back and point me to the exact post where I indicated that personal liberties should be violated.
 
jallman said:
I made no such claim. Please go back and point me to the exact post where I indicated that personal liberties should be violated.
Click to expand...

You said that people have the right to practice their religion. Then you say they can't refuse to take a human life, based on their religious beliefs. Practicing a religion is adhereing to religious principles. Refusing to take a human life would be the practice of religion. Basically, you're saying that religious freedom has limits.

jallman said:
I will read up on that again when it becomes relevant to a discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

How about infomring yourself on the subject, then making the decision as to whether, or not, it's rellevant? As long as you have no clue what I'm talking about, you can't make that decision with any credibility.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The discussion is about personal liberties. You claim that violating a person's liberties, for the public good, is okay. I'm only pointing out historical examples of the same idea and how it didn't go very well.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case. What about your thoughts on the patriot act?
 
apdst said:
You said that people have the right to practice their religion.
Click to expand...

And they do.

Then you say they can't refuse to take a human life, based on their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. Please quote me as saying that.

Practicing a religion is adhereing to religious principles.
Click to expand...

And?

Refusing to take a human life would be the practice of religion.
Click to expand...

Nothing restricting that practice in anything I stated.

Basically, you're saying that religious freedom has limits.
Click to expand...

Well, it does. You can't practice human sacrifice or any other nonsense such as that. But I haven't declared any limitation on the practice of religion within the context of this discussion.


How about infomring yourself on the subject, then making the decision as to whether, or not, it's rellevant? As long as you have no clue what I'm talking about, you can't make that decision with any credibility.
Click to expand...

First of all, you make the incredibly stupid assumption that I didn't know what you were talking about and that I needed education on that matter. Secondly, your repetition of the matter doesn't give it any more relevance now than it did the first time you posted it.

MASSIVE FAIL on your part.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well if that's the case. What about your thoughts on the patriot act?
Click to expand...

Any part of the patriot act that violates a citizen's civil liberties, IMO, is illegal.
 
jallman said:
Nothing restricting that practice in anything I stated.
Click to expand...

You've stated that a practitioner can be forced to despense medicine that goes against his/her religious convictions. If a person is forced to go against his/her religious convictions, then that person's religious freedom is being violated.
 
apdst said:
You've stated that a practitioner can be forced to despense medicine that goes against his/her religious convictions.
Click to expand...

No I did not. I specifically said no one forces him to be a practitioner of that profession, thereby eliminating the necessity of his dispensing with his moral convictions to keep practicing.

If a person is forced to go against his/her religious convictions, then that person's religious freedom is being violated.
Click to expand...

No, no one is forcing him to be a doctor. If the duties of a doctor are against his religious beliefs, then don't be a doctor. Nothing is violated here at all.

Find me a right to practice medicine despite moral objection to practicing medicine in the constitution and you have a point. Otherwise, you are just being liberal in your interpretation of the first amendment and creating rights where there are none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom