• 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!

Should a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or transgender surgery?

Should a doctor be forced to perform an abortion or transgender surgery?

  • Total voters
    48
Bucky said:
A doctor is required to save lives, not destroy or alter them.

Nothing in religion would make a black doctor not save the life of say a nazi. Where does it say that in the Bible or Koran?

However, abortion is a different subject matter.
Click to expand...

Still, the difference is private practice vs. what an employer requires of you.

I would hope that the laws never take such decisions away from a doctor, but I also disagree with a doctor not performing the work required from their employer.
 
Bucky said:
From the ACLU:

https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty

The fundamental right to religious liberty cannot be violated. Contraception, abortions referrals are things against the Christian teaching and forcing doctors to go against their faith and religion would be a clear violation of religious liberty.
Click to expand...
The major problem with this argument is that your are reducing the right to a religious one. One does not have to be religious to disagree with either abortion or transgenders and the related issues. A doctor has the right to refuse to perform these procedures purely on the basis of his personal desires.
 
Removable Mind said:
In other words, "Don't make the baker make a wedding cake for the queers"....:roll: Yeah, same old church - different pew, argument.
Click to expand...

Do you know why the Gresham baker lost in court?

It wasn't because he refused to bake a cake. That's the general media lie. It was because he also denigrated the couple on social media in the after-math.

I live about 3 miles from the incident.

Believe me or not, I don't care. But I suggest you hunt down the court documents rather than believing what the media says.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Do you know why the Gresham baker lost in court?

It wasn't because he refused to bake a cake. That's the general media lie. It was because he denigrated the couple on social media in the after-math.

I live about 3 miles from the incident.
Click to expand...

Yeah...well, I guess we live in a terrible country. The media has overtaken truth and justice. Guess we all might as well move to Syria or Iran. They have great media there. They are theocratic ran countries.
 
Removable Mind said:
And that means what? In Ireland, because of the right to life law for the yet to be born, then that would be applicable. Not in the US. We don't live under universal laws all around the globe.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Do no harm, seems to me, explicitly denies abortion rights.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes.

Do no harm, seems to me, explicitly denies abortion rights.
Click to expand...

Who's being harmed by abortion? "Who" is the operative word.

Denying abortion rights..... Hmmmmmm. Does that apply to those who live in the Vatican? Oh, forgot, the Pope doesn't have a uterus.
 
Removable Mind said:
Yeah...well, I guess we live in a terrible country. The media has overtaken truth and justice. Guess we all might as well move to Syria or Iran. They have great media there. They are theocratic ran countries.
Click to expand...

I would say our media is worse than theirs for the sole reason that too many people trust ours. Not so much Iran's, or Syria's. Their people know they are being lied to.
 
Removable Mind said:
Who's being harmed by abortion? "Who" is the operative word.

Denying abortion rights..... Hmmmmmm. Does that apply to those who live in the Vatican? Oh, forgot, the Pope doesn't have a uterus.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on if you consider the unborn, life or not.
 
Bucky said:
From the ACLU:



https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty

The fundamental right to religious liberty cannot be violated. Contraception, abortions referrals are things against the Christian teaching and forcing doctors to go against their faith and religion would be a clear violation of religious liberty.
Click to expand...

No, and no one has ever forced them to. There are approximately a billion different medical specialties in which a doctor would never be asked to perform an abortion, or SRS.

If said doctor doesn't want to perform those things, they can join one of those billion different medical specialties, rather than elbowing their way into the ONLY TWO specialties that DO perform those procedures, simply to be a vicious assholes to their patients.

Hell, they don't even have to avoid those specialties entirely. You could work at a clinic that simply doesn't have those services, because they're not set up to do surgical procedures.

If said doctor decides to go into a surgery-performing place of work in one of those two specialities simply so they can be a vicious asshole and refuse services they certainly new in advance they'd be expected to perform, their employer is completely justified in firing them on the spot, just like they'd fire anyone who won't do the work or attacks their clients.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
I guess that depends on if you consider the unborn, life or not.
Click to expand...

It's life. Human life only begets human life. The question is: Are all stages of human life equal? If it's believed to be, then the follow up question is: Why?

I realize that some believe that a conception is related to a divine plan or perhaps via some type of influential intervention. Such a notion raises a lot of other questions.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I would say our media is worse than theirs for the sole reason that too many people trust ours. Not so much Iran's, or Syria's. Their people know they are being lied to.
Click to expand...

Kind of like we, in America, know (or should know) that politicians who blatantly lies to their constituents - is protected speech?
 
Removable Mind said:
It's life. Human life only begets human life. The question is: Are all stages of human life equal? If it's believed to be, then the follow up question is: Why?

I realize that some believe that a conception is related to a divine plan or perhaps via some type of influential intervention. Such a notion raises a lot of other questions.
Click to expand...

First and foremost on my mind, is we don't know when to consider the fetus, sentient life or not. I say err on the side of caution. From what little we understand, 10 weeks seems to definitely be sentient. How much earlier? Not a clue.
 
Removable Mind said:
Kind of like we, in America, know (or should know) that politicians who blatantly lies to their constituents - is protected speech?
Click to expand...

Yes, but too many people actually believe their protected lies.
 
Lord of Planar said:
First and foremost on my mind, is we don't know when to consider the fetus, sentient life or not. I say err on the side of caution. From what little we understand, 10 weeks seems to definitely be sentient. How much earlier? Not a clue.
Click to expand...

Define "Sentient".

And they apply that definition to a stage that doesn't have the neural/brain development capacity to be sentient.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but too many people actually believe their protected lies.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is a wonderful thing for some people. For a lot of others, not so good. Believing political lies got us to where we are today. The same goes for people who believe the eons of so-called political pundits who spew out hours of opinion and those opinions are believed by a lot of people to be fact.
 
Lord of Planar said:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient

Consider that under the category of known unknowns.
Click to expand...



So according to Webtster...

Definition of sentient

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions sentient beings
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

The above is impossible for much older fetuses - say at 20 weeks, much less a 10 week old fetus. None of those stages have the developmental ability to be sentient.
 
Bucky said:
I don't want someone to be forced to do something that will go against his/her faith.
Click to expand...

Well, then they shouldn't have gone into a profession where they would have to
 
Removable Mind said:
So according to Webtster...

Definition of sentient

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions sentient beings
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

The above is impossible for much older fetuses - say at 20 weeks, much less a 10 week old fetus. None of those stages have the developmental ability to be sentient.
Click to expand...

Many scientists would disagree with you. Being able to express such feelings is not part of the definition.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Many scientists would disagree with you. Being able to express such feelings is not part of the definition.
Click to expand...

Love to see sources on those who disagree. I really would. You might be the very first to produce such scientific studies that disagree.

How many countless dissections on every possible stages have been conducted for decades?

It's biologically clear that the brain and wiring components aren't near developed to be even close to sentient until substantially latte stage fetuses. And even then, they're extremely limited.

It'd be virtually impossible to apply any of the 3 elements of the Webster... How do you personally think it's possible?


1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions sentient beings
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
 
Lord of Planar said:
Many scientists would disagree with you.
Click to expand...
MANY CAN CALL THEMSELVES "SCIENTISTS" without actually qualifying. Because first of all it means accepting Facts, not opinions. Which appears to be nearly impossible for various folks to do, like promoting claims of abortion opponents with cherry-picked data.

ON THE OTHER HAND, dictionary definitions are fundamentally unscientific. That definition would possibly qualify a house fly, the insect, as "sentient". It is most certainly aware of its surroundings, and can respond to stimuli indicating a swat is approaching --and it can often avoid getting swatted. Which leads to either of two conclusions: Either the bug should be more valued by abortion opponents than an unborn human, or the dictionary definition is faulty --and a corrected definition won't allow either the bug or the unborn human to qualify.

Lord of Planar said:
Being able to express such feelings is not part of the definition.
Click to expand...
SO WHAT? You are the one who implied that an unborn human could qualify as "sentient". Despite the fact that that doesn't make it superior to a bug, which most folks have no problem killing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
First and foremost on my mind, is we don't know when to consider the fetus, sentient life or not. I say err on the side of caution. From what little we understand, 10 weeks seems to definitely be sentient. How much earlier? Not a clue.
Click to expand...

10 weeks is nowhere near sentient.
 
A very strong no from me, someone else shouldn't be allowed to force any medical professional to use their license in a way that professional deems unethical.
 
ACLU is a bunch of joke and, frankly I’m sorry but, they are too much political


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom