There will be the obligatory debate about Christians not being “above the law” and how if they want the job, they must meet the “ethics” of that job. Such a fraudulent portrayal of the question, of course, will be used by the media, I have no doubt. Very little attention will be paid to the odious idea of forcing a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion or to lop off a confused teenager’s penis in order to comply with the established fictional rights pushed by the sexual dictators of our age.
So: the OHRC wants your balls and the only thing standing in their way are the unsullied consciences of Catholic doctors.
11 comments:
I can already envision the protesters at Queen's Park waving placards bearing Dalton's face with the caption "Sexual Dictator!" underneath.
Paccheco is insane.
So if this is not about abortions or sex change, what is it about?
So if this is not about abortions or sex change, what is it about?
Whatever the socons think up next. It could end up being about tattoo removal or dispensing Kwellada, for all we know.
Whatever the socons think up next. It could end up being about tattoo removal or dispensing Kwellada, for all we know.
ok, so it is about abortions and sex change then. thanks for clearing that up.
Interesting that you would puke out your daily dose of bile on Flanders for his "fraudulent discourse" that you're essentially incapable of disproving.
I dont see why people want services from people who dont want to perform them. And I also dont see how Ontario can afford to kick out doctors or give them an incentive to go offer their services in another jurisdiction.
Are there really cases of women not having an abortion because every doctor they see is a catholic? If so, may I suggest using a phone book, or the internet?
Interesting that you would puke out your daily dose of bile on Flanders for his "fraudulent discourse" that you're essentially incapable of disproving..
Not incapable; just not seeing any value in doing so. He's a lunatic.
And I also dont see how Ontario can afford to kick out doctors or give them an incentive to go offer their services in another jurisdiction.
Maybe it'll free up space for more dedicated professionals who actually understand their vocation?
I don't support forcing doctors to perform abortions, since it is *the* procedure about there are insoluble moral issues. However, it is a standard medical procedure that any professional should be duty-bound to provide information about, in the interests of patient care.
I wouldn't expect a lawyer to understand that, however, since dedication to principle is a rather fungible commodity in that profession.
Maybe it'll free up space for more dedicated professionals who actually understand their vocation?
Maybe, and maybe we're in a doctor shortage already, and this will just exacerbate it.
I don't support forcing doctors to perform abortions
a very sensible position indeed!
any professional should be duty-bound to provide information about, in the interests of patient care
I understand where you're coming from, but wouldnt you want information coming from a source who does not think you're about to kill a human being. because that is what they think. wouldnt you want to go and consult someone who doesnt judge you and who feels sympathy for your plight? I mean sure, the college can force the physican's hand, but somehow I dont think info coming from a doc who's being forced to give it to you against his will is going to be as helpful as that coming from someone who wants to do it.
I understand where you're coming from, but wouldnt you want information coming from a source who does not think you're about to kill a human being. because that is what they think. wouldnt you want to go and consult someone who doesnt judge you and who feels sympathy for your plight?
The issue is, the patient may not know what the professional's attitude about abortion is until the subject comes up in consultation. And who knows what emotional damage can be done when some loony in a position of authority takes it upon him- or herself to seize the opportunity to provide moral guidance when it is not his or her place to do so.
I'm not having this discussion with libertarians who like to argue the nuances involved in the interplay between an individual's conscience and the provision of services. I've had it before. It's just a boring exercise in intellectual vanity. Suffice it to say that if you give the socons an inch, they'll take a mile.
And who knows what emotional damage can be done when some loony in a position of authority takes it upon him- or herself to seize the opportunity to provide moral guidance when it is not his or her place to do so.
That's a good point. I would have expected the existing code to contemplate this situation already.
I just read the linked pdf - it's rather benign, and no doctor will be forced to perform an abortion based on that.
I'm not having this discussion with libertarians who like to argue the nuances involved in the interplay between an individual's conscience and the provision of services.
Really - great. Im looking forward to having my posts unchallenged by you.
Really - great. Im looking forward to having my posts unchallenged by you.
I said I'm not interested in discussion. I'm still interested in kicking the crap (figuratively, of course) out of anyone who attempts to pass off assertions as arguments or whose arguments are based on assumptions that are not grounded in real-world evidence, which is my central problem with gLibertarians and their "beautiful minds."
Jermo, Exactly, nobody will be forced to perform an abortion. If they refuse to provide and, say, they are the only doctor in town and refuse to help the patient make arrangements to find a doctor who WILL provide the service nearby...that's when they might get into trouble.
Post a Comment