@jjstraka34 The point that @booinyoureyes made about providing birth control pills exempted its use in treating conditions.
Yeah I did specifically say that. I'm completely aware of that since my wife takes birth control for other purposes.
However, it is true that my post was also a bit shortsighted because, as @deltago pointed out, its not for a pharmacist to know what the prescription is for.
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
I'd say that's a pretty enormous leap.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
It appears my post was deleted that contained MMT vs Austrian debate and other info. Can someone confirm? I have no interest in a censored discussion and would appreciate a reason to determine if this is worth any time?
Looking through the list of comments posted on your profile and using the search function in this thread, it looks like you have two posts that mention MMT. They haven't been deleted; they're still in the thread. You can find them here and here.
We did move some comments in this thread recently to the holding area because they violated the Site Rules against disrespectful behavior, personal attacks, and flaming, as well as two or three that only made sense in the context of the rulebreaking posts (basically, both the flaming and response to the flaming). But when I look through the list of removed posts, none of them appear to be yours.
We usually don't delete posts or remove them from a thread unless there's an active and vicious string of personal attacks between two or more users, and if the only way to stop the rulebreaking behavior is to move the posts until the moderating team can decide on a warning. Formal warnings can also stop rulebreaking behavior, but the moderating team prefers to discuss warnings before issuing them, and those discussions can take one or two days, which is too slow to stop an in-progress flame war.
But again, I'm looking at the posts that were removed, and none of them were yours.
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
I'd say that's a pretty enormous leap.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
Physicians choose what practice they are in, and what services they provide. A podiatrist isn't going to perform heart surgery. This isn't unlike the restaurant question. If a restaurant has something on the menu, they should provide it to all customers. If it isn't on the menu, it's fairly silly to go to that restaurant in the first place. And women in red states face this issue all the time in regards to elective abortions. The city I live in has the only clinic that provides elective abortions in the state. The examples that were given earlier about what the Trump Administration wants to do for medical practitioners in regards to religious liberty were situations where the were refusing to provide their normal services based on the personal behavior of the patients (and they were, again, a nurse refusing to provide post-op care to someone who gotten an abortion, and a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of a lesbian couple).
But it is interesting that the debate about birth control always circles back to abortion (I'm not saying you're equating the two, but MANY in the anti-abortion movement do). Even if you are staunchly against abortion, I fail to see how birth control can possibly be considered something similar. All birth control does is prevent ovulation. The anti-abortion argument against birth control (or the religious argument) seems to be that women are obligated to to allow as many eggs a chance to be fertilized as humanly possible during their lifetimes.
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
I'd say that's a pretty enormous leap.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
Physicians choose what practice they are in, and what services they provide. A podiatrist isn't going to perform heart surgery. This isn't unlike the restaurant question. If a restaurant has something on the menu, they should provide it to all customers. If it isn't on the menu, it's fairly silly to go to that restaurant in the first place. And women in red states face this issue all the time in regards to elective abortions. The city I live in has the only clinic that provides elective abortions in the state. The examples that were given earlier about what the Trump Administration wants to do for medical practitioners in regards to religious liberty were situations where the were refusing to provide their normal services based on the personal behavior of the patients (and they were, again, a nurse refusing to provide post-op care to someone who gotten an abortion, and a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of a lesbian couple).
But it is interesting that the debate about birth control always circles back to abortion (I'm not saying you're equating the two, but MANY in the anti-abortion movement do). Even if you are staunchly against abortion, I fail to see how birth control can possibly be considered something similar. All birth control does is prevent ovulation. The anti-abortion argument against birth control (or the religious argument) seems to be that women are obligated to to allow as many eggs a chance to be fertilized as humanly possible during their lifetimes.
For the record, I am strongly against elective abortion but fine with birth control. The reason they are paired together is that some forms of birth control are abortifacients, which obviously raise religious objections for those who have faith. Just because I don't share that position, doesn't mean I think it is inconsistent or wrong.
About the abortion argument: I don't think you've responded to the hypothetical. It is a perfectly reasonable position to be in favor of medically necessary abortions, but against elective abortions. If a physician was in the practice of providing medically necessary abortions, would you be willing to force them, against their will, to perform an elective abortion when they sincerely believe it to be an act of murder?
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
I'd say that's a pretty enormous leap.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
Physicians choose what practice they are in, and what services they provide. A podiatrist isn't going to perform heart surgery. This isn't unlike the restaurant question. If a restaurant has something on the menu, they should provide it to all customers. If it isn't on the menu, it's fairly silly to go to that restaurant in the first place. And women in red states face this issue all the time in regards to elective abortions. The city I live in has the only clinic that provides elective abortions in the state. The examples that were given earlier about what the Trump Administration wants to do for medical practitioners in regards to religious liberty were situations where the were refusing to provide their normal services based on the personal behavior of the patients (and they were, again, a nurse refusing to provide post-op care to someone who gotten an abortion, and a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of a lesbian couple).
But it is interesting that the debate about birth control always circles back to abortion (I'm not saying you're equating the two, but MANY in the anti-abortion movement do). Even if you are staunchly against abortion, I fail to see how birth control can possibly be considered something similar. All birth control does is prevent ovulation. The anti-abortion argument against birth control (or the religious argument) seems to be that women are obligated to to allow as many eggs a chance to be fertilized as humanly possible during their lifetimes.
For the record, I am strongly against elective abortion but fine with birth control. The reason they are paired together is that some forms of birth control are abortifacients, which obviously raise religious objections for those who have faith. Just because I don't share that position, doesn't mean I think it is inconsistent or wrong.
About the abortion argument: I don't think you've responded to the hypothetical. It is a perfectly reasonable position to be in favor of medically necessary abortions, but against elective abortions. If a physician was in the practice of providing medically necessary abortions, would you be willing to force them, against their will, to perform an elective abortion when they sincerely believe it to be an act of murder?
Well they already don't have to, so my personal opinion on the matter is fairly irrelevant. There isn't a doctor in this country who is going to be forced to perform an elective abortion. An elective abortion is a service a certain clinic is willing to provide. As I said, many states have exactly ONE of these clinics, so, for doctors who don't want to perform elective abortions, this isn't even remotely an issue in this country. All they have to do to avoid doing so is not work at a clinic that provides elective abortions. Why would a doctor who feels that strongly about the issue be working there in the first place?? I'd say the issue is with clinics that DO provide elective abortions having to deal with bomb threats, terroristic threats to their patients walking into the clinic, and, in more than one case, the doctors themselves being assassinated (and I use that word specifically because the killings were political). Only about 14% of gynecologists even provide the service. And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's. Point being, even if you decide to get an abortion, there is a nearly 90% chance your OBGYN doesn't even provide the service. Granted, that study was done in 2011, but I don't see any newer data on the subject.
Here is some doctors responding to the question on Quora:
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
I'd say that's a pretty enormous leap.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
Physicians choose what practice they are in, and what services they provide. A podiatrist isn't going to perform heart surgery. This isn't unlike the restaurant question. If a restaurant has something on the menu, they should provide it to all customers. If it isn't on the menu, it's fairly silly to go to that restaurant in the first place. And women in red states face this issue all the time in regards to elective abortions. The city I live in has the only clinic that provides elective abortions in the state. The examples that were given earlier about what the Trump Administration wants to do for medical practitioners in regards to religious liberty were situations where the were refusing to provide their normal services based on the personal behavior of the patients (and they were, again, a nurse refusing to provide post-op care to someone who gotten an abortion, and a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of a lesbian couple).
But it is interesting that the debate about birth control always circles back to abortion (I'm not saying you're equating the two, but MANY in the anti-abortion movement do). Even if you are staunchly against abortion, I fail to see how birth control can possibly be considered something similar. All birth control does is prevent ovulation. The anti-abortion argument against birth control (or the religious argument) seems to be that women are obligated to to allow as many eggs a chance to be fertilized as humanly possible during their lifetimes.
For the record, I am strongly against elective abortion but fine with birth control. The reason they are paired together is that some forms of birth control are abortifacients, which obviously raise religious objections for those who have faith. Just because I don't share that position, doesn't mean I think it is inconsistent or wrong.
About the abortion argument: I don't think you've responded to the hypothetical. It is a perfectly reasonable position to be in favor of medically necessary abortions, but against elective abortions. If a physician was in the practice of providing medically necessary abortions, would you be willing to force them, against their will, to perform an elective abortion when they sincerely believe it to be an act of murder?
Well they already don't have to, so my personal opinion on the matter is fairly irrelevant. There isn't a doctor in this country who is going to be forced to perform an elective abortion. An elective abortion is a service a certain clinic is willing to provide. As I said, many states have exactly ONE of these clinics, so, for doctors who don't want to perform elective abortions, this isn't even remotely an issue in this country. All they have to do to avoid doing so is not work at a clinic that provides elective abortions. Why would a doctor who feels that strongly about the issue be working there in the first place?? I'd say the issue is with clinics that DO provide elective abortions having to deal with bomb threats, terroristic threats to their patients walking into the clinic, and, in more than one case, the doctors themselves being assassinated (and I use that word specifically because the killings were political). Only about 14% of gynecologists even provide the service. And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's.
Here is some doctors responding to the question on Quora:
Again, its a hypothetical. The point is that a doctor offering medically necessary abortions, but not elective abortions, is somewhat factually analogous to a baker offering cakes for weddings but not for same-sex weddings.
And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's.
I find it unsavory that people who have a genuine interest in protecting what they believe to be human life have to be maligned in such ways and called sexist. Imputing evil intentions into people who disagree with you is an extremely discourteous way of discussing important issues.
Why would elective abortion be murder and necessary adoption not?
The same way that killing in self-defense, or in defense of another, is not murder.
Well I for one believe killing another person is never right. You must support capital punishment then?
Well, to start, I don't think capital punishment is at all analogous to self-defense.
On capital punishment, I am honestly torn and waffle back and forth whether I believe it to be justifiable in the abstract. I usually think that I support it in the abstract, but I am opposed to it politically (ie, in the real world) for two reasons: 1. I think we should err on the side of life when there is genuine doubt as to the morality of a killing, as it is irrevocable, and 2. I fear that the likelihood of error in the criminal justice system might be too high for it to be feasible without causing the death of innocents. Again, the fact that death is irrevocable is dispositive on this issue. There is no room for corrective justice if the victim of a wrong is no longer around.
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
I'd say that's a pretty enormous leap.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
Physicians choose what practice they are in, and what services they provide. A podiatrist isn't going to perform heart surgery. This isn't unlike the restaurant question. If a restaurant has something on the menu, they should provide it to all customers. If it isn't on the menu, it's fairly silly to go to that restaurant in the first place. And women in red states face this issue all the time in regards to elective abortions. The city I live in has the only clinic that provides elective abortions in the state. The examples that were given earlier about what the Trump Administration wants to do for medical practitioners in regards to religious liberty were situations where the were refusing to provide their normal services based on the personal behavior of the patients (and they were, again, a nurse refusing to provide post-op care to someone who gotten an abortion, and a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of a lesbian couple).
But it is interesting that the debate about birth control always circles back to abortion (I'm not saying you're equating the two, but MANY in the anti-abortion movement do). Even if you are staunchly against abortion, I fail to see how birth control can possibly be considered something similar. All birth control does is prevent ovulation. The anti-abortion argument against birth control (or the religious argument) seems to be that women are obligated to to allow as many eggs a chance to be fertilized as humanly possible during their lifetimes.
For the record, I am strongly against elective abortion but fine with birth control. The reason they are paired together is that some forms of birth control are abortifacients, which obviously raise religious objections for those who have faith. Just because I don't share that position, doesn't mean I think it is inconsistent or wrong.
About the abortion argument: I don't think you've responded to the hypothetical. It is a perfectly reasonable position to be in favor of medically necessary abortions, but against elective abortions. If a physician was in the practice of providing medically necessary abortions, would you be willing to force them, against their will, to perform an elective abortion when they sincerely believe it to be an act of murder?
Well they already don't have to, so my personal opinion on the matter is fairly irrelevant. There isn't a doctor in this country who is going to be forced to perform an elective abortion. An elective abortion is a service a certain clinic is willing to provide. As I said, many states have exactly ONE of these clinics, so, for doctors who don't want to perform elective abortions, this isn't even remotely an issue in this country. All they have to do to avoid doing so is not work at a clinic that provides elective abortions. Why would a doctor who feels that strongly about the issue be working there in the first place?? I'd say the issue is with clinics that DO provide elective abortions having to deal with bomb threats, terroristic threats to their patients walking into the clinic, and, in more than one case, the doctors themselves being assassinated (and I use that word specifically because the killings were political). Only about 14% of gynecologists even provide the service. And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's.
Here is some doctors responding to the question on Quora:
Again, its a hypothetical. The point is that a doctor offering medically necessary abortions, but not elective abortions, is somewhat factually analogous to a baker offering cakes for weddings but not for same-sex weddings.
And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's.
I find it unsavory that people who have a genuine interest in protecting what they believe to be human life have to be maligned in such ways and called sexist. Imputing evil intentions into people who disagree with you is an extremely discourteous way of discussing important issues.
I'm not maligning anyone, or even speaking to you personally on the issue. I'm simply stating that if men were able to get pregnant, there wouldn't even BE a abortion debate in this country, because they, as a whole, would demand it be a choice that was available to them. And since men have (for the most part), been in charge of everything for hundreds upon hundreds of years, I don't find it out of the question at all.
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
I'd say that's a pretty enormous leap.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
Physicians choose what practice they are in, and what services they provide. A podiatrist isn't going to perform heart surgery. This isn't unlike the restaurant question. If a restaurant has something on the menu, they should provide it to all customers. If it isn't on the menu, it's fairly silly to go to that restaurant in the first place. And women in red states face this issue all the time in regards to elective abortions. The city I live in has the only clinic that provides elective abortions in the state. The examples that were given earlier about what the Trump Administration wants to do for medical practitioners in regards to religious liberty were situations where the were refusing to provide their normal services based on the personal behavior of the patients (and they were, again, a nurse refusing to provide post-op care to someone who gotten an abortion, and a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of a lesbian couple).
But it is interesting that the debate about birth control always circles back to abortion (I'm not saying you're equating the two, but MANY in the anti-abortion movement do). Even if you are staunchly against abortion, I fail to see how birth control can possibly be considered something similar. All birth control does is prevent ovulation. The anti-abortion argument against birth control (or the religious argument) seems to be that women are obligated to to allow as many eggs a chance to be fertilized as humanly possible during their lifetimes.
For the record, I am strongly against elective abortion but fine with birth control. The reason they are paired together is that some forms of birth control are abortifacients, which obviously raise religious objections for those who have faith. Just because I don't share that position, doesn't mean I think it is inconsistent or wrong.
About the abortion argument: I don't think you've responded to the hypothetical. It is a perfectly reasonable position to be in favor of medically necessary abortions, but against elective abortions. If a physician was in the practice of providing medically necessary abortions, would you be willing to force them, against their will, to perform an elective abortion when they sincerely believe it to be an act of murder?
Well they already don't have to, so my personal opinion on the matter is fairly irrelevant. There isn't a doctor in this country who is going to be forced to perform an elective abortion. An elective abortion is a service a certain clinic is willing to provide. As I said, many states have exactly ONE of these clinics, so, for doctors who don't want to perform elective abortions, this isn't even remotely an issue in this country. All they have to do to avoid doing so is not work at a clinic that provides elective abortions. Why would a doctor who feels that strongly about the issue be working there in the first place?? I'd say the issue is with clinics that DO provide elective abortions having to deal with bomb threats, terroristic threats to their patients walking into the clinic, and, in more than one case, the doctors themselves being assassinated (and I use that word specifically because the killings were political). Only about 14% of gynecologists even provide the service. And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's.
Here is some doctors responding to the question on Quora:
Again, its a hypothetical. The point is that a doctor offering medically necessary abortions, but not elective abortions, is somewhat factually analogous to a baker offering cakes for weddings but not for same-sex weddings.
And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's.
I find it unsavory that people who have a genuine interest in protecting what they believe to be human life have to be maligned in such ways and called sexist. Imputing evil intentions into people who disagree with you is an extremely discourteous way of discussing important issues.
I'm not maligning anyone, or even speaking to you personally on the issue. I'm simply stating that if men were able to get pregnant, there wouldn't even BE a abortion debate in this country, because they, as a whole, would demand it be a choice that was available to them. And since men have (for the most part), been in charge of everything for hundreds upon hundreds of years, I don't find it out of the question at all.
That's a huge assumption, especially considering that men and women have been for the most part equally split on this issue. Also, I didn't take it as speaking to me personally, but I think making generalized assumptions is almost worse than personal allegations; at least in some instances, sexism may be at the core of someone's anti-abortion stance, but as a general proposition it is highly inaccurate. Worse, such accusations promote a culture of viewing anyone who disagrees as morally repugnant rather than simply having a different set of values. If we all think that those who hold opposing views do so for morally repugnant reasons, there is very little reason to talk to one another or to even trust in democratic systems.
Asking women to provide documentation from a Dr. stating they aren't taking the pill for sexual reasons isn't that far removed from throwing suspected witches in the water to see if they float.
I'd say that's a pretty enormous leap.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
Physicians choose what practice they are in, and what services they provide. A podiatrist isn't going to perform heart surgery. This isn't unlike the restaurant question. If a restaurant has something on the menu, they should provide it to all customers. If it isn't on the menu, it's fairly silly to go to that restaurant in the first place. And women in red states face this issue all the time in regards to elective abortions. The city I live in has the only clinic that provides elective abortions in the state. The examples that were given earlier about what the Trump Administration wants to do for medical practitioners in regards to religious liberty were situations where the were refusing to provide their normal services based on the personal behavior of the patients (and they were, again, a nurse refusing to provide post-op care to someone who gotten an abortion, and a pediatrician refusing to treat the child of a lesbian couple).
But it is interesting that the debate about birth control always circles back to abortion (I'm not saying you're equating the two, but MANY in the anti-abortion movement do). Even if you are staunchly against abortion, I fail to see how birth control can possibly be considered something similar. All birth control does is prevent ovulation. The anti-abortion argument against birth control (or the religious argument) seems to be that women are obligated to to allow as many eggs a chance to be fertilized as humanly possible during their lifetimes.
For the record, I am strongly against elective abortion but fine with birth control. The reason they are paired together is that some forms of birth control are abortifacients, which obviously raise religious objections for those who have faith. Just because I don't share that position, doesn't mean I think it is inconsistent or wrong.
About the abortion argument: I don't think you've responded to the hypothetical. It is a perfectly reasonable position to be in favor of medically necessary abortions, but against elective abortions. If a physician was in the practice of providing medically necessary abortions, would you be willing to force them, against their will, to perform an elective abortion when they sincerely believe it to be an act of murder?
Well they already don't have to, so my personal opinion on the matter is fairly irrelevant. There isn't a doctor in this country who is going to be forced to perform an elective abortion. An elective abortion is a service a certain clinic is willing to provide. As I said, many states have exactly ONE of these clinics, so, for doctors who don't want to perform elective abortions, this isn't even remotely an issue in this country. All they have to do to avoid doing so is not work at a clinic that provides elective abortions. Why would a doctor who feels that strongly about the issue be working there in the first place?? I'd say the issue is with clinics that DO provide elective abortions having to deal with bomb threats, terroristic threats to their patients walking into the clinic, and, in more than one case, the doctors themselves being assassinated (and I use that word specifically because the killings were political). Only about 14% of gynecologists even provide the service. And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's.
Here is some doctors responding to the question on Quora:
Again, its a hypothetical. The point is that a doctor offering medically necessary abortions, but not elective abortions, is somewhat factually analogous to a baker offering cakes for weddings but not for same-sex weddings.
And for the record, if men could have babies, you'd be able to get an abortion in the drive-through at McDonald's.
I find it unsavory that people who have a genuine interest in protecting what they believe to be human life have to be maligned in such ways and called sexist. Imputing evil intentions into people who disagree with you is an extremely discourteous way of discussing important issues.
I'm not maligning anyone, or even speaking to you personally on the issue. I'm simply stating that if men were able to get pregnant, there wouldn't even BE a abortion debate in this country, because they, as a whole, would demand it be a choice that was available to them. And since men have (for the most part), been in charge of everything for hundreds upon hundreds of years, I don't find it out of the question at all.
That's a huge assumption, especially considering that men and women have been for the most part equally split on this issue. Also, I didn't take it as speaking to me personally, but I think making generalized assumptions is almost worse than personal allegations; at least in some instances, sexism may be at the core of someone's anti-abortion stance, but as a general proposition it is highly inaccurate. Worse, such accusations promote a culture of viewing anyone who disagrees as morally repugnant rather than simply having a different set of values. If we all think that those who hold opposing views do so for morally repugnant reasons, there is very little reason to talk to one another or to even trust in democratic systems.
Except, #1 it was an obviously sarcastic comment and #2 it's meant to illustrate a point that I believe to be true, which is that if the power dynamics in American society (and throughout it's history) were the same, and the gender-roles in regards to child-bearing were reversed, I absolutely believe this wouldn't even be a debate. Frankly, I didn't even mention a group of people. I wasn't speaking at or to males in general. And the reason I believe this is evidenced by the debate around birth control and viagra, where one is used a wedge-issue by religious employers who don't want to provide coverage for it, and viagra, which is CERTAINLY an elective drug, is never even mentioned. I see no reason to believe if the stakes weren't just erections, but being forced to carry a child for 9 months, the scales on this debate would tip dramatically. Regardless, we will never have the actual answer to this hypothetical, nor was it my intention to get into a protracted debate about it, since it's basic premise is in the realm of science fiction.
We did move some comments in this thread recently to the holding area because they violated the Site Rules against disrespectful behavior, personal attacks, and flaming, as well as two or three that only made sense in the context of the rulebreaking posts (basically, both the flaming and response to the flaming). But when I look through the list of removed posts, none of them appear to be yours.
We usually don't delete posts or remove them from a thread unless there's an active and vicious string of personal attacks between two or more users, and if the only way to stop the rulebreaking behavior is to move the posts until the moderating team can decide on a warning. Formal warnings can also stop rulebreaking behavior, but the moderating team prefers to discuss warnings before issuing them, and those discussions can take one or two days, which is too slow to stop an in-progress flame war.
But again, I'm looking at the posts that were removed, and none of them were yours.
Thanks, it seems to have reappeared now. Apologies for the other comment- I have edited that post.
Regardless, we will never have the actual answer to this hypothetical, nor was it my intention to get into a protracted debate about it, since it's basic premise is in the realm of science fiction.
Hypotheticals aren't supposed to be real, but merely instruments for thought experiments.
We have factually analogous situations to the hypothetical I provided (that are far from "science fiction"), and my questions is whether you'd follow your line of reasoning on opposing exemptions to their logical conclusion, which would include forcing physicians to perform elective abortions.
You could just draw a line there, and say that's a step to far when balanced against other interests, but I think most people would concede that market participation should not require people to sacrifice all their core values.
Does anyone think a doctor that performs elective abortions is opposed to performing elective abortions? I never would have conceived (har har) of a pro-life doctor working at a clinic that provides abortion services. They would just go work somewhere else.
Or is this more like somebody going into a catholic hospital and demanding an abortion? I doubt that’s likely either.
Does anyone think a doctor that performs elective abortions is opposed to performing elective abortions? I never would have conceived (har har) of a pro-life doctor working at a clinic that provides abortion services. They would just go work somewhere else.
Or is this more like somebody going into a catholic hospital and demanding an abortion? I doubt that’s likely either.
The first is very unlikely. These days I'd say the 2nd isn't all that unlikely. All it takes is one person to feel 'offended' that they can't get their abortion at a Catholic hospital and voila, instant lawsuit (and instant notoriety)...
Does anyone think a doctor that performs elective abortions is opposed to performing elective abortions? I never would have conceived (har har) of a pro-life doctor working at a clinic that provides abortion services. They would just go work somewhere else.
Or is this more like somebody going into a catholic hospital and demanding an abortion? I doubt that’s likely either.
Again it is a hypothetical. However, many people (like myself) are deeply opposed to elective abortions but not medically necessary abortions.
Does anyone think a doctor that performs elective abortions is opposed to performing elective abortions? I never would have conceived (har har) of a pro-life doctor working at a clinic that provides abortion services. They would just go work somewhere else.
Or is this more like somebody going into a catholic hospital and demanding an abortion? I doubt that’s likely either.
The first is very unlikely. These days I'd say the 2nd isn't all that unlikely. All it takes is one person to feel 'offended' that they can't get their abortion at a Catholic hospital and voila, instant lawsuit (and instant notoriety)...
I don't think there is a ground to sue on that basis.
An interesting case is when a nurse refused to perform abortions due to her Catholic faith and Duke University Health System refused to make any exemption for her. She sued under Title VII. The complaint alleges that Duke took retaliatory actions. The case is currently pending, and is a very interesting one to follow.
The next time a Democrat tells someone "we are the party of the little guy" you know they are lying. If you didn't know that before you will definitely know it now.
Despite my typical Libertarian views, the megabanks need *more* regulation and scrutiny, not less. They are the ones who caused the housing collapse in 2008 and if no one is careful they'll do it again, only in a different sector the next time.
The next time a Democrat tells someone "we are the party of the little guy" you know they are lying. If you didn't know that before you will definitely know it now.
Despite my typical Libertarian views, the megabanks need *more* regulation and scrutiny, not less. They are the ones who caused the housing collapse in 2008 and if no one is careful they'll do it again, only in a different sector the next time.
Based on what we know now, ALL Republicans support the bill. 12 Democrats do. For a breakdown of the numbers as they would probably stand if this vote was taken tomorrow (taking into account 2 Independents caucusing with the Dems), we have:
Republicans in favor: 51 Republicans opposed: 0 Democrats in favor: 12 Democrats opposed: 37
So, I would venture to say this is how things typically get framed. 100% of the Republican Party supports something, while 24% of the Democratic Party supports something, and both sides are equally to blame. Even when the ONLY people in favor of these regulations are Democrats (3/4 of them to precise). So the lesson here would be if you care about banking regulations, you'd want to elect more progressive candidates to replace some of the Blue Dogs. Well, no Democrat would shed a tear if Heitkamp, Tester, Manchin, or Donnelly were replaced. The problem is they live in deeply rural, deeply red states, where only Republican-lite can get elected. Which is why the Senate, in general, in modern America with 50 States, sucks.
There are very deep wounds that divide the party which aren't going away anytime soon. Progressives need to beat the Democratic establishment that just argued in court their right to rig primaries, before we can even worry about the GOP. The DNC and DCCC would seem to rather lose to Republicans than win with a progressive.
There are very deep wounds that divide the party which aren't going away anytime soon. Progressives need to beat the Democratic establishment that just argued in court their right to rig primaries, before we can even worry about the GOP. The DNC and DCCC would seem to rather lose to Republicans than win with a progressive.
Sounds like their complaints about Moser are the exact reason why Bernie didn't win the Democratic primary in the first place, which is that he was tone-deaf to anything that didn't relate 100% to economics, which is viewed as suspect by the main constituency in the Democratic Party, which is minority women. And she is going to get tagged as a carpetbagger, since she just moved back there in 2017. Whether or not that means she can't win is up in the air.
The DCCC might have a point in this case, and Mosler sounds a bit faux-gressive. This is just a tiny drop in a much larger bucket though. The DCCC have been extremely active lately in many ways.
The next time a Democrat tells someone "we are the party of the little guy" you know they are lying. If you didn't know that before you will definitely know it now.
Despite my typical Libertarian views, the megabanks need *more* regulation and scrutiny, not less. They are the ones who caused the housing collapse in 2008 and if no one is careful they'll do it again, only in a different sector the next time.
It was Democrats in the House of Representatives, Democrats in the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House who passed Dodd-Frank in the first place. Not all the Democrats voted for it, and there are Democrats voting to weaken it, and if you really want to vote smart you should research individual legislators, but overall, the Democratic party has supported regulation of the financial industry while the Republican party has opposed it.
You might view the Democratic party as insufficiently dedicated to financial regulations, but that's the general trend. The votes bear it out, and the passage of Dodd-Frank was only possible because of the Democratic party.
There are very deep wounds that divide the party which aren't going away anytime soon. Progressives need to beat the Democratic establishment that just argued in court their right to rig primaries, before we can even worry about the GOP. The DNC and DCCC would seem to rather lose to Republicans than win with a progressive.
Many people (in particular, Jonathan Rauch, my favorite public intellectual) say that less democratic primaries lead to more democratic outcomes in the general election. If you think that the current level of polarization is too high, then you should consider allowing the party bosses to pick the candidates. They have incentives to win general elections, and are therefore likely to pick candidates who are more moderate and palatable for the greater voting populace.
The alternative is the current situation, where activist groups understand the importance of primary voting and galvanize the more extreme wings of each party to ensure that a polarizing figure is nominated for each party's ticket.
I understand that you, as a Sanders supporter, may not like that, but for those who wish to see less polarization I think what you call "rigging primaries" would actually be helpful. You wouldn't see renegades like Trump or Sanders be as successful if the parties were more concerned with appealing to the general populace.
I don't think the level of polarization is too high, I am actually encouraged by it. I also think the rift between the left and center will continue to grow as awareness of heterodox economic views increase. When more people understand how the system actually operates, I think there will be less tolerance for the status quo. I'll take a look at the articles, but the idea sounds antithetic to breaking up the establishment and progressive ideas.
The next time a Democrat tells someone "we are the party of the little guy" you know they are lying. If you didn't know that before you will definitely know it now.
Despite my typical Libertarian views, the megabanks need *more* regulation and scrutiny, not less. They are the ones who caused the housing collapse in 2008 and if no one is careful they'll do it again, only in a different sector the next time.
No, was not the "lack of regulation". When one guy make a mistake, is one think but when everyone starts to do the same mistake, is due a external factor. Also, who will regulate the regulators? Who will prevent regulators from "selling regulations" that only will prevent concurrency?
For a libertarian, you have no political skepticism; you believe the mainstream version without studying and believe that the government is a solution.
----------------------
How many "crashes" occurred before the creation of FED?
Comments
However, it is true that my post was also a bit shortsighted because, as @deltago pointed out, its not for a pharmacist to know what the prescription is for.
Let's take another hypothetical. Do you think a physician who willingly provides medically necessary abortions should also be required to provide elective abortions if he believes them to be murder?
We did move some comments in this thread recently to the holding area because they violated the Site Rules against disrespectful behavior, personal attacks, and flaming, as well as two or three that only made sense in the context of the rulebreaking posts (basically, both the flaming and response to the flaming). But when I look through the list of removed posts, none of them appear to be yours.
We usually don't delete posts or remove them from a thread unless there's an active and vicious string of personal attacks between two or more users, and if the only way to stop the rulebreaking behavior is to move the posts until the moderating team can decide on a warning. Formal warnings can also stop rulebreaking behavior, but the moderating team prefers to discuss warnings before issuing them, and those discussions can take one or two days, which is too slow to stop an in-progress flame war.
But again, I'm looking at the posts that were removed, and none of them were yours. Again, personal attacks, flaming, "unapologetic bigotry," insults, and disrespectful behavior are against the Site Rules.
For what it's worth, only one member of the moderating team is known to be a liberal, and another is known to be conservative.
If anyone in this thread has yet to read the Site Rules, you can view here.
But it is interesting that the debate about birth control always circles back to abortion (I'm not saying you're equating the two, but MANY in the anti-abortion movement do). Even if you are staunchly against abortion, I fail to see how birth control can possibly be considered something similar. All birth control does is prevent ovulation. The anti-abortion argument against birth control (or the religious argument) seems to be that women are obligated to to allow as many eggs a chance to be fertilized as humanly possible during their lifetimes.
About the abortion argument: I don't think you've responded to the hypothetical. It is a perfectly reasonable position to be in favor of medically necessary abortions, but against elective abortions. If a physician was in the practice of providing medically necessary abortions, would you be willing to force them, against their will, to perform an elective abortion when they sincerely believe it to be an act of murder?
Here is some doctors responding to the question on Quora:
https://www.quora.com/Does-legalization-of-abortion-force-dissenting-doctors-particularly-Catholic-doctors-to-perform-abortions
I find it unsavory that people who have a genuine interest in protecting what they believe to be human life have to be maligned in such ways and called sexist. Imputing evil intentions into people who disagree with you is an extremely discourteous way of discussing important issues.
On capital punishment, I am honestly torn and waffle back and forth whether I believe it to be justifiable in the abstract. I usually think that I support it in the abstract, but I am opposed to it politically (ie, in the real world) for two reasons:
1. I think we should err on the side of life when there is genuine doubt as to the morality of a killing, as it is irrevocable, and
2. I fear that the likelihood of error in the criminal justice system might be too high for it to be feasible without causing the death of innocents. Again, the fact that death is irrevocable is dispositive on this issue. There is no room for corrective justice if the victim of a wrong is no longer around.
We have factually analogous situations to the hypothetical I provided (that are far from "science fiction"), and my questions is whether you'd follow your line of reasoning on opposing exemptions to their logical conclusion, which would include forcing physicians to perform elective abortions.
You could just draw a line there, and say that's a step to far when balanced against other interests, but I think most people would concede that market participation should not require people to sacrifice all their core values.
It can't be both, but I won't belabor the point.
Or is this more like somebody going into a catholic hospital and demanding an abortion? I doubt that’s likely either.
I don't think there is a ground to sue on that basis.
An interesting case is when a nurse refused to perform abortions due to her Catholic faith and Duke University Health System refused to make any exemption for her. She sued under Title VII. The complaint alleges that Duke took retaliatory actions. The case is currently pending, and is a very interesting one to follow.
Despite my typical Libertarian views, the megabanks need *more* regulation and scrutiny, not less. They are the ones who caused the housing collapse in 2008 and if no one is careful they'll do it again, only in a different sector the next time.
Republicans in favor: 51
Republicans opposed: 0
Democrats in favor: 12
Democrats opposed: 37
So, I would venture to say this is how things typically get framed. 100% of the Republican Party supports something, while 24% of the Democratic Party supports something, and both sides are equally to blame. Even when the ONLY people in favor of these regulations are Democrats (3/4 of them to precise). So the lesson here would be if you care about banking regulations, you'd want to elect more progressive candidates to replace some of the Blue Dogs. Well, no Democrat would shed a tear if Heitkamp, Tester, Manchin, or Donnelly were replaced. The problem is they live in deeply rural, deeply red states, where only Republican-lite can get elected. Which is why the Senate, in general, in modern America with 50 States, sucks.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/04/politics/texas-democrats-house-primary-drama/index.html
You might view the Democratic party as insufficiently dedicated to financial regulations, but that's the general trend. The votes bear it out, and the passage of Dodd-Frank was only possible because of the Democratic party.
The alternative is the current situation, where activist groups understand the importance of primary voting and galvanize the more extreme wings of each party to ensure that a polarizing figure is nominated for each party's ticket.
I understand that you, as a Sanders supporter, may not like that, but for those who wish to see less polarization I think what you call "rigging primaries" would actually be helpful. You wouldn't see renegades like Trump or Sanders be as successful if the parties were more concerned with appealing to the general populace.
Here is Jonathan Rauch's take in two very good pieces. If you want to read more check out his short essay Political Realism: How hacks, machines, big money, and back-room deals can strengthen American democracy. It gives a powerfully counter-intuitive take on professional politicians.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/re-engineering-politicians-how-activist-groups-choose-our-politicians-long-before-we-vote/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/
No, was not the "lack of regulation". When one guy make a mistake, is one think but when everyone starts to do the same mistake, is due a external factor. Also, who will regulate the regulators? Who will prevent regulators from "selling regulations" that only will prevent concurrency?
For a libertarian, you have no political skepticism; you believe the mainstream version without studying and believe that the government is a solution.
----------------------
How many "crashes" occurred before the creation of FED?