It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WCmutant
It's not so simple. Political arguments about freedom are restructured and argued in a way where one side suggests that the other side getting more freedoms is inhibiting on their own freedoms and vice versa. So one has to wade through the rhetoric to see which side is TRULY on the side of freedom for that issue.
PS: The existence of a government guarantees that no one is ever truly free. There will always be restrictions placed on the populace to maintain a working society.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: chuck258
Don't think most far right conservatives wouldn't love to segregate gays. They already don't like transgender people using the same bathrooms. Give 'em time.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Teikiatsu
the problem comes in when you go into the hospital in premature labor and there's no clear indication that the hospital is affiliated with a religious group and you are left there to suffer, till the baby's heartbeat stops risking infection because well, it's their religious beliefs that to cause the death of the fetus would be wrong.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: VelvetPawn
The point here is people are being pushed over the top lately
The point is doctors have a sworn oath, and declining people care on the basis of incompatible religious beliefs is in violation of that oath.
HIPPOCRATIC OATH, MODERN VERSION
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
In a federal lawsuit filed Thursday, the ACLU said that Michigan-based Trinity Health Corporation, one of the USA's largest Catholic health systems, refused to provide the standard of care to at least five women who miscarried at one of the company's hospitals. Trinity operates more 88 hospitals around the country.
According to the suit, each of the women had suffered a preterm, premature rupture of membranes, a condition in which the amniotic sac breaks and leaves no fluid around the fetus.
When this happens early in a pregnancy, it virtually always results in fetal death, said Sarah Prager, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, who is not involved in the lawsuit. Premature rupture of membranes is often caused by an infection. "This is a situation where there is virtually no chance that the fetus will survive," Prager said. "The miscarriage has started. It just hasn't completed."
Women in this situation are at high risk of serious infections and dangerous bleeding, Prager said. Terminating the pregnancy is considered the standard of care, Prager said.
"If you delay action until there is no longer a fetal heartbeat, that can often put the mother’s life at risk or risk her future fertility," Prager said.
According to the lawsuit, Trinity hospital staff refused to terminate the women's pregnancies. The women developed serious complications, including life-threatening infections, severe pain and hemorrhaging.
Ten of the 25 largest hospital systems in the U.S. are Catholic and nearly one of nine hospital beds in the country is in a Catholic facility, Kolbi-Molinas said. Instructions from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, forbid hospitals from performing abortions, even to protect a woman’ s health.
You're not being sincere in the least: you just made a claim that there are only one or two instances of discrimination against certain sexual orientations in the country. You have lost all credibility.
In regard to what the bill intends to do, I'll leave you with the words of its sponsor, Julio Gonzalez what he intends the proposed law SPECIFICALLY to address:
"Though the bill does not include any LGBT-specific reference, Gonzalez specifically highlighted to the Herald Tribune the examples of wedding vendors that been found in violation of nondiscrimination laws when refusing service to same-sex couples. “We have seen in other states the bakers, the photographers who don’t want to participate in certain religious events,” he said.
“This is not about discriminating,” he insisted. “This is making sure the state stops, at a narrowly crafted level, from intruding into somebody’s liberties.” This is despite the fact that the bill empowers refusals of service in ways much more explicit than similarly controversial bills considered earlier this year in Indiana and Arkansas.
To say that it has nothing to do with discrimination specifically directed at gays and/or lesbians, which you yourself just tried to minimize as "one or two instances" when the laws author and sponsor says otherwise would be a bit ... what was the word you attempted earlier?
Oh yes ... "obtuse."
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Take them to court where it will allow.
HB 401, the "Protection of Religious Freedom" bill, seeks to provide "immunity from liability for health care facility, health care provider, person, closely held organization, religious institution, business owned or operated by religious institution, or private child-placing agency that refuses to perform certain actions that would be contrary to religious or moral convictions or policies."
originally posted by: grandmakdw
You twisted the meaning of my words.
I embrace all religions and all fellow humans.
I am not justifying scorning anyone.
I am saying that we need to allow people to be
free to practice their religion rather
than held hostage to anti-theist intolerance
of all beliefs.
originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
I didn't twist anything. I take your posts to mean that Christian business owners should have the right to deny service to other people based on their religious beliefs. But Jesus specifically taught to love everyone. He was the one giving sustenance and attention and hope to all the 'unclean'...the lepers, the prostitutes, heck even people possessed by demons. So.... discrimination is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus and thus Christianity.
The people who want to deny marriage rights to gays, that refuse to bake a cake to celebrate love..... they are not practicing their religion. In fact they're spitting in the face of Jesus with such actions. It's just a d*ck move and there is no justification for it and there should be no support of it.