Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (101) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: ogrecat Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 439285  
Subject: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=1215&topicid=88

"It's not just contraceptives," said Mary Frank, M.D., a family physician from Mill Valley, Calif., during a discussion of the issue. "It's pain medications and psychotropics. And not only are the patients not getting prescriptions filled, but pharmacists are refusing to return the prescriptions and they are lecturing the patients about the drugs.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155673 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"It's not just contraceptives," said Mary Frank, M.D., a family physician from Mill Valley, Calif., during a discussion of the issue. "It's pain medications and psychotropics. And not only are the patients not getting prescriptions filled, but pharmacists are refusing to return the prescriptions and they are lecturing the patients about the drugs."

When the first story came out, I said that the pharmacist had the right to refuse. This, on the other hand, is completely reprehensible, and the a-holes who are keeping the Rx's should have their licenses stripped; the lecturers should be censured. If one of them tried to pull that with me, I'd be on them like a bad rash. Unfortunately, patients in pain or in need of psychotropic drugs often are not in a frame of mind to give a tongue lashing to a judgmental pharmacist. The self-righteous need to start up their own pharmacy chain. In fact, it's time for them to start a separatist movement, and we should happily oblige. Trying to think up a good name for their state and their pharmacy.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155674 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 140
When the first story came out, I said that the pharmacist had the right to refuse. This, on the other hand, is completely reprehensible, and the a-holes who are keeping the Rx's should have their licenses stripped; the lecturers should be censured.

They DO NOT have the right to refuse.

If your religious convictions don't permit you to remove your clothes in public, you can't take a job as a stripper and then insist only upon removing your gloves. If your religious convictions don't approve of alcohol, you can't take a job as a bartender and insist upon dispensing only soft drinks. If your religious convictions weigh in against smoking, you can't take a job as a clerk in a convenience store and refuse to ring up cigarette sales.

If your religious convictions make it impossible for you, in good conscience, to dispense birth control, pain killers or any other form of medication, you shouldn't be permitted to hold a job as a pharmacist and insist upon dispensing only those items of which you approve.

If you can't dispense birth control when it is prescribed by a physician, you lack the essential qualifications to be a pharmacist.

SLL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ogrecat Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155675 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If your religious convictions make it impossible for you, in good conscience, to dispense birth control, pain killers or any other form of medication, you shouldn't be permitted to hold a job as a pharmacist and insist upon dispensing only those items of which you approve.

If you can't dispense birth control when it is prescribed by a physician, you lack the essential qualifications to be a pharmacist.


I still haven't heard of anyone refusing to dispense Boner Drugs.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155676 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I still haven't heard of anyone refusing to dispense Boner Drugs.

That's different.

SLL


Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155677 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"It's pain medications and psychotropics. And not only are the patients not getting prescriptions filled, but pharmacists are refusing to return the prescriptions and they are lecturing the patients about the drugs.

Quick aside: a big slap with a dead fish to people who think making professionals sign off on a code of ethics automatically means higher quality care...

I can see valid reasons why pharmacists might not be ABLE to fill an Rx right now: high-dollar meds that are preservative-free, pain meds that have a high street value and could entice robbers if they stocked a bunch behind the counter. I don't LIKE having to play "guess the drugstore" as to who might have some narcotic-of-the-week in stock, but I get the reason.

But to refuse on moral grounds? Psychotropic meds??? I bet this doesn't mean lithium, either; they're talking about the "feel good now without doing your share of suffering". And pain meds...I've been learning aLOT about pain meds this past month, and what physical damage they could throw a person into if the person were chemically dependant on pain meds.

The ONLY thing a pharmacist ever said to me even mildly along those lines were when he noted I was also buying a bottle of wine with some antibiotics and he pointed out that I would get very puking sick if I combined the two.

There is going to nbe a pain revolution in this country over the next 20 years. Baby boomers with pain issues due to aging are NOT going to put up with spending money on doctors and tests to come up with an effective pain relief protocol for *them* and have it over-ruled by the guy behind the counter (no disrespect intended to the profession).

I can see the day when doctors doing pain management have an in-house pharmacy. Won't help Joe Sixpack who can just barely afford the ER visit and gets an Rx for Delaudid or Oxycotin, though.

Of course, as more doctors become fearful of one too many narcotic Rxs tripping a flag to DEA, so they err on the side of undertreatment, it may be a moot point.

I am probably still shocky from my recent pain adventures, but anyone behaving in this manner should get multiple root nerve compressions, radiculopathy up one side and down the other, and handed a bottle of ibuprofen.


cm




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155678 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 20
You all realize, don't you, that the fact that pharmacists are refusing -- not just abortiofacients, but also birth control meds, that the issue has never been the "sacred fetus?"

It's about -- ALL ABOUT -- controlling women's sexuality.

It's about forcing women into the position of having sex only within marriage and, even then, only for the purposes of creating a child.

It's a determined effort to prevent all sexual encounters based upon pleasure.

It's so effing wicked it makes me want to puke.

SLL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155679 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"If you can't dispense birth control when it is prescribed by a physician, you lack the essential qualifications to be a pharmacist."

If your religious convictions prohibit your performing an abortion or writing a prescription for birth control, should you be barred from the medical profession? If your religious convictions prohibit you from trading stock in cigarette companies, should you be barred from working as a broker? If your religious convictions prohibit you from counselling someone to have an abortion, should you be prohibited from the priesthood? If your religious convictions prohibit your dispensing birth control, should you be barred from being licensed as a pharmacist.

In addition to arguing that the pharmacist had the right to refuse, I also argued that his employer had the right to, and IMO should, fire the pharmacist.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ogrecat Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155680 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 8:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Of course, as more doctors become fearful of one too many narcotic Rxs tripping a flag to DEA, so they err on the side of undertreatment, it may be a moot point.

I am probably still shocky from my recent pain adventures, but anyone behaving in this manner should get multiple root nerve compressions, radiculopathy up one side and down the other, and handed a bottle of ibuprofen.


http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jul2002/Feature3.asp

Whether we bear it with love or not, however, is a different matter. We do have a real choice there. We are free to choose “the pain of loving” or “the pain of not loving,” the latter being a pain that is empty and barren—a pain without any redeeming qualities. We know that Jesus and his mother and other heroic witnesses like John Paul have chosen the “pain of loving.” That is, they undergo suffering for the love of God and of humanity, so their pain has rich meaning.
-------------

http://www.medjugorjeusa.org/suffering.htm

For most of us it is difficult to understand that suffering can bring great joy, but the select few who can comprehend this principle, suffering become a great blessing. It is a chance to share in the crucifixion of Christ. It is a chance to offer our pain for the sake of others. It is far better to know God and to suffer than it is to not know God. In truth those who do not know God suffer far more because they do not have the comfort of God to help them through the troubled times.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Diablo2Queen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155681 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If your religious convictions prohibit your performing an abortion or writing a prescription for birth control, should you be barred from the medical profession? If your religious convictions prohibit you from trading stock in cigarette companies, should you be barred from working as a broker? If your religious convictions prohibit you from counselling someone to have an abortion, should you be prohibited from the priesthood? If your religious convictions prohibit your dispensing birth control, should you be barred from being licensed as a pharmacist.


Having religious convictions that would prohibit you from counselling someone to have an abortion would be seen as a good thing by most (if not all) Christian churches.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155682 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 18
If your religious convictions prohibit your performing an abortion or writing a prescription for birth control, should you be barred from the medical profession? If your religious convictions prohibit you from trading stock in cigarette companies, should you be barred from working as a broker? If your religious convictions prohibit you from counselling someone to have an abortion, should you be prohibited from the priesthood? If your religious convictions prohibit your dispensing birth control, should you be barred from being licensed as a pharmacist.

Yes. If the work for which you apply includes activities you are unwilling to perform, you lack the qualifications for the job, in my opinion.

Now, there's no reason a chiropodist should be required to perform abortions. But no obstetrician should be permitted to refuse. If you can't trade stock in cigarettes, you shouldn't be engaged in making decisions about what stocks to buy for other people.

The priesthood, of course, is an entirely different matter, since the job description itself precludes counselling women to get an abortion.

Yes, if your religous convictions prohibit your dispensing any legal medication, you are unfit to be a pharmacist.

Find another freaking line of work.

Let me ask you, Bob. If you have just had major surgery and there is only one pharmacy in your town, and you have no car, nor any means of travelling outside your town for the pain medication you desperately need to assuage your agony, are you going to quietly submit to being told by a frickin' busy-body pharmacist that God wants you to suffer, so you can't have your meds?

I've been in severe pain.

CM is right. Any pharmacist refusing to dispense pain medication on religious grounds should be subjected to the most painful treatment available to medical science and partake of their jollies in pleasing God by suffering for MONTHS ON END FROM EXCRUCIATING, UNRELIEVED FRICKIN' PAIN.

IT'S NOT THEIR DECISION TO MAKE. FOR PAIN MEDS, BIRTH CONTROL, PSYCHOTROPICS, OR ANY OTHER LEGALLY-PRESCRIBED G-DAMNED DRUG.

SLL


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155683 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Whether we bear it with love or not, however, is a different matter. We do have a real choice there. We are free to choose “the pain of loving” or “the pain of not loving,” the latter being a pain that is empty and barren—a pain without any redeeming qualities. We know that Jesus and his mother and other heroic witnesses like John Paul have chosen the “pain of loving.” That is, they undergo suffering for the love of God and of humanity, so their pain has rich meaning.

I really think I'm going to throw up.

Sickos. Sadistic, m'fing sickos.

SLL


Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155684 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Having religious convictions that would prohibit you from counselling someone to have an abortion would be seen as a good thing by most (if not all) Christian churches."

Absolutely. And a single pregnant woman who adores her pastor for his wisdom and good advice might go to him and get, in your or my view, the wrong advice. But it is his right, as a priest, to give the wrong advice.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155686 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It is a chance to share in the crucifixion of Christ.

Oh, I am totally down with that. Not only did I feel I was sharing the crucifixion, I also got a "Joan of Arc"esque burning at the stake kinda thing goin'.

cm
doubly blessed

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155687 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Absolutely. And a single pregnant woman who adores her pastor for his wisdom and good advice might go to him and get, in your or my view, the wrong advice. But it is his right, as a priest, to give the wrong advice.

So, you must clearly maintain that a pharmacist, if he or she disagrees with the "morality" of a physician's prescription, should have the right to substitue something more "morally appropriate?"

I think your arguments are crazy as hell on this issue, zim.

Pharmacists are trained to safely dispense drugs according to a doctor's prescription. They are entitled to call a physician for instructions if they discover that the prescription in question conflicts with another medication the patient is taking. They are not entitled to substitute their own "prescription" -- including refusal to fill the doctor's prescription -- for that issued by the attending physician.

And it's freaking crazy that it's -- in most places, still -- legal for them to do so.

SLL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155688 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Oh, I am totally down with that. Not only did I feel I was sharing the crucifixion, I also got a "Joan of Arc"esque burning at the stake kinda thing goin'.

cm
doubly blessed


Oh, CM, I'm truly sorry. Pain sucks above all else, and our best duty to our fellow men, I believe, is to alieviate it whenever possible.

I have heard someone screaming in pain -- for hours. I do not wish to hear that again. I do not wish for any human being -- with the exception noted below -- to be subjected to pain.

Those who would do their best to actually prevent the allieviation of pain to please their imaginary friend are loathesome beyond description and should themselves be burned at the stake.

And I don't even believe in capital punishment.

At least most people who are torturer/serial killers are insane and not entirely responsible for their behavior. Ought I to excuse the religious on the grounds of insanity.

It's the only possible excuse, in my judgment, for such a cruel heart.


SLL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Diablo2Queen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155689 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Having religious convictions that would prohibit you from counselling someone to have an abortion would be seen as a good thing by most (if not all) Christian churches."

Absolutely. And a single pregnant woman who adores her pastor for his wisdom and good advice might go to him and get, in your or my view, the wrong advice. But it is his right, as a priest, to give the wrong advice.


When I go to the pharmacy, I'm looking for good service. I want to get my prescriptions filled in a timely fashion. If a pharmacist has factual information about drug interactions and side effects, then I want to hear it. If they have factual information regarding costs and other medications that may be a better value (such as "ask your doctor about getting a scrpt for ABC since there's a generic available instead of the XYZ you're on"), I'd like to hear it. If they want to lecture me about my morals, I don't want to hear it.

A priest is in the business of giving advice and counselling people in a religious context. A pharmacist is in the business of helping people in a medical context. Religion and medicine are two different subjects. Next you'll be saying police shouldn't have to help some crime victims if they (the police) think the victims deserved whatever happened to them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155690 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Let me ask you, Bob. If you have just had major surgery and there is only one pharmacy in your town, and you have no car, nor any means of travelling outside your town for the pain medication you desperately need to assuage your agony, are you going to quietly submit to being told by a frickin' busy-body pharmacist that God wants you to suffer, so you can't have your meds?"

It happens quite a lot, in fact. It's a judgment call on the part of the pharmacist, usually when they suspect that the patient is going to multiple docs and multiple pharmacies to get more controlled substances than they actually need. My own view is that when that is happening, it is an unfortunate result of a system that protects patients' privacy. Another scenario where a pharmacist might refuse to dispense drugs is if he or she sees a potential adverse drug interaction. Pharmacists should have (and do, as of today have) certain discretions/rights.

And no, I wouldn't quietly submit. As I said, I'd do my best to humiliate that pharmacist. I'd make a scene until the cops came and they dragged me away, because I'd consider his moralizing reprehensible, and I would want the pharmacy owner to fire the pharmacist. When I got out of the police car, I'd write a scathing letter to the editor of the local paper. You're right, the pharmacist isn't suited to being a pharmacist, but he has the right to hold the job with whomever will give it to him.

Bob

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ogrecat Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155691 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It is a chance to share in the crucifixion of Christ.

Oh, I am totally down with that. Not only did I feel I was sharing the crucifixion, I also got a "Joan of Arc"esque burning at the stake kinda thing goin'.

cm
doubly blessed


My lower back spasms were more the 'keep on stabbing me jesus'.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LudditeAndroid Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155692 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
It's pain medications and psychotropics. And not only are the patients not getting prescriptions filled, but pharmacists are refusing to return the prescriptions and they are lecturing the patients about the drugs.


The bolded part there is grounds for the pharmacist having his or her license permanently revoked. This is not hyperbole. It is illegal. Sick the pharmacy inspector on these people. Seriously. The inspector has to follow up on every complaint, no matter how small or hard to believe it is. (The inspector who visited us recently was telling us about some of the weirdest complaints he'd ever gotten, like "They're stealing my thoughts!" and "They wouldn't fill my forged prescription, and they called the cops. That's an invasion of my privacy!")

If someone says a pharmacist wouldn't give back an Rx or transfer it, the inspector has to investigate. And when the inspector finds out the aforementioned embarassment-to-the-profession was stealing legally-given prescriptions, that "pharmacist" will be in a world of #$@$.

If you know of any not-really-a-pharmacist doing what the article spoke of, please google "board of pharmacy" +[your state] and report them. Report them for every infraction, and continue to report them until the law catches up with these unethical jerks.

Seriously, if my boss ever stole a prescription and started giving some holier-than-thou lecture to a person in mental or physical pain, I would stomp his head into the ground so hard he'd need double of whatever it was he was lecturing about.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155693 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
When I go to the pharmacy, I'm looking for good service. I want to get my prescriptions filled in a timely fashion. If a pharmacist has factual information about drug interactions and side effects, then I want to hear it. If they have factual information regarding costs and other medications that may be a better value (such as "ask your doctor about getting a scrpt for ABC since there's a generic available instead of the XYZ you're on"), I'd like to hear it. If they want to lecture me about my morals, I don't want to hear it.

A priest is in the business of giving advice and counselling people in a religious context. A pharmacist is in the business of helping people in a medical context. Religion and medicine are two different subjects. Next you'll be saying police shouldn't have to help some crime victims if they (the police) think the victims deserved whatever happened to them.


Damn, Queenie, I'm outta recs.

But, YES! YES! YES!!

Outside a religous context, NO ONE HAS THE MORAL RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON OTHERS! NO ONE!

SLL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155694 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Seriously, if my boss ever stole a prescription and started giving some holier-than-thou lecture to a person in mental or physical pain, I would stomp his head into the ground so hard he'd need double of whatever it was he was lecturing about.

I'd hold him down for you.

SLL


Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155695 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Next you'll be saying police shouldn't have to help some crime victims if they (the police) think the victims deserved whatever happened to them. "

"Outside a religous context, NO ONE HAS THE MORAL RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON OTHERS! NO ONE!"

OK, you got me. UNCLE.

I completely agree that no one SHOULD impose their moral views on others, but it happens all of the friggin' time, even when they aren't presented as such.

How about the woman in a strip club who refuses to take her clothes off? Do you seriously maintain that she has no right to keep her clothes on? No, you don't. You mean that she should be fired. That's my meaning as well.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155696 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How about the woman in a strip club who refuses to take her clothes off? Do you seriously maintain that she has no right to keep her clothes on? No, you don't. You mean that she should be fired. That's my meaning as well.

In a legal sense, of course.

In a moral sense, she had no right to take the job in the first place, since doing so was an act of fraud.

In fact, I'd contend that taking a job, the requirements of which you knew in advance you did not intend to fulfill ought to be classified, legally, as a form of fraud.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that any woman stupid enough to take a job as a stripper and refuses to take her clothes off but still expects to be paid should be stripped naked before a leering crowd by force.

I am SO SICK of the religious using their religion to take advantage of, to control, and to harm others.

Their religion shouldn't trump my rights.

No pharmacist who refuses to do his job should be -- BY LAW -- permitted to retain his or her license to practice.

No gynaecologist who refuses to discuss birth control with her patients should be permitted to retain his or her license to practice.

No policeman who refuses to help a mugged prostitute should be permitted to keep his job.

It's just PLAIN WRONG to impose one's "moral" views on others, and to deprive them of their legal and human rights because you think your imaginary friend wants you to.

I really think that there should be well-defined limits to the "right to practice one's religion." Far better defined than "you can't take drugs or have 16 wives."

SLL


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155697 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I really think that there should be well-defined limits to the "right to practice one's religion." Far better defined than "you can't take drugs or have 16 wives.""

You and I see eye to eye. You've basically said what I've said time and again, that religious tolerance is a fallacy. The only workable religious tolerance I can conceive of is one where people can *believe* what they wish, but I don't think we need some B.S. standard of tolerance to accomplish that.

"People do it all the friggin' time". IOW, there IS no religious tolerance. Religious views conflict constantly, whether people are aware of it or not.

I would be very pleased to see the right of a pharmacist to refuse to dispense birth control legally restricted. It is a freedom that I'm willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155698 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 9:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"In a moral sense, she had no right to take the job in the first place, since doing so was an act of fraud."

"It's just PLAIN WRONG to impose one's "moral" views on others"

Whose moral view should not be imposed? Yours or hers?

This is why we have laws. We have conflicting moral views. We DO impose morals through the law. When we get it right, in your and my view, the laws impose our morals.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155699 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 10:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 50
This is why we have laws. We have conflicting moral views. We DO impose morals through the law. When we get it right, in your and my view, the laws impose our morals.

No, Bob. I wholly disagree.

Those who base their moral views on religion wish to force everyone to behave according to their religion's precepts. They would refuse me the right to an abortion. They would make homosexuality illegal. They would require church attendence, and so on.

Freedom for all to behave as they wish, unless their behavior harms others means that I do not wish to force them to have abortions or engage in homosexual sex. I do not require them to tear down their churches or to preach evolution from the pulpit. They, on the other hand, would forbid teachers of science from teaching science. They, on the other hand would prevent scientists from much-needed research to save the lives of millions.

My rules don't restrict their behavior except when it infringes upon the rights of others and does harm. Their rules would restrict the rights of all to behaviors of which only they approve.

The difference between permitting gays to marry and refusing to allow them to marry is perhaps the best example in current issues.

A married gay couple harms no Christian, except in that the Christian may be "offended" by that couple's sexual behaviors. But the Christian's refusal to permit the gay couple the same rights attendant upon everyone else does real harm to the couple in question. It isn't merely a matter of "offending" the gay couple. The harm is real -- it is financial, it bears upon many rights accorded to all heterosexual couples. It handicaps them in many ways.

Charlie and Q would do no Christian harm by marrying, but millions of Christians do Charlie and Q much harm by their insistence that they not be allowed to marry.

Christians would tear down our science, while we do not insist they tear down their stupid churches. Christians would impose motherhood upon every fertile female who has sex, while we would not impose upon a single one of them the requirement that they abort a fetus. Christians would, if they could, outlaw premarital sex, while we would never force them to have premarital sex.

Christians seek to limit our choices -- even those which have no direct effect upon Christians. We seek only to limit their actions which impinge upon our own harmless freedoms.

I can't imagine that you fail to see the difference.

If by "We DO impose morals through the law," you mean "we FORCE CHRISTIANS TO PERMIT US TO DO THINGS THEY DON'T APPROVE OF," then you have a very strange view of "morals," in my estimation.

It's the old "We're being oppressed if you won't let us oppress you" gambit, and I hate like hell to hear it coming from a fellow atheist.

WE ARE DOING NO HARM TO CHRISTIANS WITH SECULAR LAWS. THEY DO GREAT DAMAGE TO ATHEISTS AND PEOPLE OF OTHER BELIEFS WITH THEIR INSISTENCE ON NARROW, CHRISTIAN LAWS.

That's the difference.

SLL


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155700 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 10:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not only does that pharmacist not have the right to refuse, I would argue that if he does so for other than a valid medical reason (i.e. drug interaction, allergy etc.) He should go to jail for committing a felony.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155701 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 10:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not just fraud, how about criminal neglect, or assault and battery, possibly even manslaughter in some scenarios

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155702 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 11:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"If by "We DO impose morals through the law," you mean "we FORCE CHRISTIANS TO PERMIT US TO DO THINGS THEY DON'T APPROVE OF," then you have a very strange view of "morals," in my estimation."

That's exactly how I see it. But you've described my view of laws, Sandy, not of morals. Law is the most powerful means by which we can protect our moral stance, when we succeed. If it were not for the law, Charlie and Q might fear for their safety if they don't already. Abortion clinics would probably not be in service. We live in a country, like it or not, where not only do we have to protect ourselves from harmful acts by making laws, but we also have to protect our rights to harmless acts, in fact caring acts. I don't consider that "forcing" anything in the way you phrase it, but it is certainly perceived as an *imposition* by those who would do away with abortion and gay marriage. And as long as these people are stuck in their illusion, it is an imposition on their god who stands above your morals, my morals and secular law.

"I can't imagine that you fail to see the difference."

Please don't.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155703 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 11:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
A married gay couple harms no Christian, except in that the Christian may be "offended" by that couple's sexual behaviors.


Then they shouldn't watch.
Busybodies.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155704 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 11:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And as long as these people are stuck in their illusion, it is an imposition on their god who stands above your morals, my morals and secular law.



It is impossible to impose upon something or someone that does not exist.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155705 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 11:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"It is impossible to impose upon something or someone that does not exist."

The majority of Americans believe he exists. The majority of Americans think there's something to be imposed upon that you and I do not. That's what we're dealing with. That's why we need laws. For God's sake, I'm an atheist. I'll swear on a stack of Bibles.

"You do not reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155706 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/21/2005 11:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

A married gay couple harms no Christian, except in that the Christian may be "offended" by that couple's sexual behaviors.


Then they shouldn't watch.


they can't not 'watch'

the slightest mention of any sort of sex and they uncontrollably fantasize about it for hours....



-


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155708 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 1:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Charlie and Q would do no Christian harm by marrying, but millions of Christians do Charlie and Q much harm by their insistence that they not be allowed to marry.
========================================================================

Very true.

Charlie
...of Charlie and Q...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155715 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 9:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

The majority of Americans believe he exists.



The majority of Americans are wrong.


For God's sake, I'm an atheist. I'll swear on a stack of Bibles.



Why would an Atheist swear on a stack of Bibles?



"You do not reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift



Swift was wrong, too.
We've seen it happen -- right here on this very board.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155716 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 9:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

A married gay couple harms no Christian, except in that the Christian may be "offended" by that couple's sexual behaviors.


Then they shouldn't watch.


they can't not 'watch'

the slightest mention of any sort of sex and they uncontrollably fantasize about it for hours....





Ahhhh.... but lascivious daydreaming is different from actually watching.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155718 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"The majority of Americans are wrong."

You're stuck dealing with the majority of Americans, AM. That means that you have to go with the law, or civil disobedience. The pharmacist has the legal right to refuse. You, Sandy, and I agree that he doesn't have the moral right to refuse. Now, as I said, if he did it to me, I'd make a scene until the police dragged me away. That's because of my moral stance. But moral rights are *practically* speaking very different from legal rights. Civil disobedience is a moral right.

You could throw a rock through the pharmacist's window and take the drugs by force, at gunpoint. IMO, that's crossing my "moral line".

If we were dealing with a "perfectly reasonable" population, if NO Americans were "wrong" on any issue, then there'd be no need whatsoever for laws. We've entered into a deal (called a social contract) with people who are "wrong", where *rights* are PRACTICALLY given by laws, not by you, me, or Sandy. That contract in part protects OUR rights to marry people of the same sex, to have abortions, if it is constructed to suit WHAT WE KNOW TO BE MORALLY CORRECT. When we don't like the system in its current construction, we protest in a manner that we find morally acceptable. We don't shoot pharmacists as some pro-lifers shoot doctors. The pharmacist HAS the right to refuse to dispense medications. If you don't like it, change the laws. Good luck converting the pharmacist as has been done "right here on this very board."

"Why would an Atheist swear on a stack of Bibles?"

Are you being obtuse just for the hell of it?

Bob



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155720 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 11:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The most common arguement I have heard from them is that the homosexual relationships somehow "poison" future generation by setting a bad example of what constitutes a valid relationship. The implication (I assume) would be that a large percentage of the population would "turn gay" and that our population would drop precipitously in numbers and our culture would be lost.

-Clearly I don't agree with this. Just presenting a Devil's (God's?) Arguement since the fundies don't have the courage to present it themselves.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155721 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 11:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Imagine for example that one of these pharmacists denied someone their pain medication and they then went on to committ suicide or better yer, denied someon their psychotropic medication and they had a psychotic episode and killed someone. Wouldn't the pharmacist be guilty of criminal negligence, perhaps even manslaughter? If they keep this up, this kind of scenario will happen sooner or later.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CoffeeInBed101 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155723 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 12:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 27
It's a determined effort to prevent all sexual encounters based upon pleasure.

===========================================

Is that why my pharmacy no longer stocks batteries?

CiB

Print the post Back To Top
Author: minnesotagirl Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155724 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 12:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The most common arguement I have heard from them is that the homosexual relationships somehow "poison" future generation by setting a bad example of what constitutes a valid relationship. The implication (I assume) would be that a large percentage of the population would "turn gay" and that our population would drop precipitously in numbers and our culture would be lost.

That may be the argument they are saying out loud, but I can't help wondering if they are thinking something like "I couldn't stand it if *MY OWN* son or daughter turned into one of *THEM* and embarrassed *ME*"

That seems to be why it's such a big deal to some people.

MNgal




Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155725 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 12:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

The most common arguement I have heard from them is that the homosexual relationships somehow "poison" future generation by setting a bad example of what constitutes a valid relationship. The implication (I assume) would be that a large percentage of the population would "turn gay" and that our population would drop precipitously in numbers and our culture would be lost.

That may be the argument they are saying out loud, but I can't help wondering if they are thinking something like "I couldn't stand it if *MY OWN* son or daughter turned into one of *THEM* and embarrassed *ME*"

That seems to be why it's such a big deal to some people.


i don't think it's nearly that rational. (As mentioned?) it comes from four things ....
four deep-seated (seeded?), instinctive things:

> it's icky... their skin crawls when they think about it.
>it's unnatural and confusing ... the Male is supposed to dominate the Female ... what happens when there's too many (or too few) Males??
> they're neurotically obsessed with sex (too much repression while a child and too much MTV while a teen?)
> seems they can't control their fantasies .... any mention and they imagine Ellen with their
wife or Tom with their husband ...and END of marriage.
> and they somehow somewhere got convinced it's their god-given duty to tell other people how to live.


-jp
........ reminds me a bit of creationists ...who feel the need to make up arguments cuz
they can't say Exactly why Evolution bothers them.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: minnesotagirl Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155726 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 1:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
seems they can't control their fantasies .... any mention and they imagine Ellen with their
wife or Tom with their husband ...and END of marriage.


or maybe Biff imagines himself with Tom/Trixie imagines herself with Ellen and they need to repress it cause it's too scary to think about?

MNgal

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cliff666 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155731 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 1:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In a moral sense, she had no right to take the job in the first place, since doing so was an act of fraud.

In fact, I'd contend that taking a job, the requirements of which you knew in advance you did not intend to fulfill ought to be classified, legally, as a form of fraud.

I recall a woman sued Hooters a few years ago. She hired in as a waitress or dancer? or are they the same thing? She claimed the patrons were rude and abusive. Duh!

cliff
... I have no idea if she prevailed.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cliff666 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155733 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 2:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I would argue that if he does so for other than a valid medical reason (i.e. drug interaction, allergy etc.) He should go to jail for committing a felony.

I kinda believe a felony consists in the breech of some law. Failing such a law there can be no crime.

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MATZOID Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155738 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 3:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's because the theist is a dope.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Leia28 One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155739 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 3:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 18
No, Bob. I wholly disagree.

Those who base their moral views on religion wish to force everyone to behave according to their religion's precepts. They would refuse me the right to an abortion. They would make homosexuality illegal. They would require church attendence, and so on.

Freedom for all to behave as they wish, unless their behavior harms others means that I do not wish to force them to have abortions or engage in homosexual sex. I do not require them to tear down their churches or to preach evolution from the pulpit. They, on the other hand, would forbid teachers of science from teaching science. They, on the other hand would prevent scientists from much-needed research to save the lives of millions.

My rules don't restrict their behavior except when it infringes upon the rights of others and does harm. Their rules would restrict the rights of all to behaviors of which only they approve.

The difference between permitting gays to marry and refusing to allow them to marry is perhaps the best example in current issues.

A married gay couple harms no Christian, except in that the Christian may be "offended" by that couple's sexual behaviors. But the Christian's refusal to permit the gay couple the same rights attendant upon everyone else does real harm to the couple in question. It isn't merely a matter of "offending" the gay couple. The harm is real -- it is financial, it bears upon many rights accorded to all heterosexual couples. It handicaps them in many ways.

Charlie and Q would do no Christian harm by marrying, but millions of Christians do Charlie and Q much harm by their insistence that they not be allowed to marry.

Christians would tear down our science, while we do not insist they tear down their stupid churches. Christians would impose motherhood upon every fertile female who has sex, while we would not impose upon a single one of them the requirement that they abort a fetus. Christians would, if they could, outlaw premarital sex, while we would never force them to have premarital sex.

Christians seek to limit our choices -- even those which have no direct effect upon Christians. We seek only to limit their actions which impinge upon our own harmless freedoms.

I can't imagine that you fail to see the difference.

If by "We DO impose morals through the law," you mean "we FORCE CHRISTIANS TO PERMIT US TO DO THINGS THEY DON'T APPROVE OF," then you have a very strange view of "morals," in my estimation.

It's the old "We're being oppressed if you won't let us oppress you" gambit, and I hate like hell to hear it coming from a fellow atheist.

WE ARE DOING NO HARM TO CHRISTIANS WITH SECULAR LAWS. THEY DO GREAT DAMAGE TO ATHEISTS AND PEOPLE OF OTHER BELIEFS WITH THEIR INSISTENCE ON NARROW, CHRISTIAN LAWS.

That's the difference.



I'm a conservative, bible-thumping, evangelical Christian, so I don't generally post a lot over here. However, I saw this thread on the Best of.. and was intrigued.

Please don't lump all Christians into one category. We don't all think the same. It makes me ill to think that people have difficulty getting pain medication.

I would like to see same-sex couples have the right to marry, but churches have the right to refuse to marry anyone.

I am anti-abortion except for certain cases, but I know many pro-choice Christians. When an abortion is not medically required, I think OB/GYNs should be able to refuse to perform the procedure. Someone who becomes a stripper and then refuses to strip is just a moron. However, I think requiring an OB/GYN to perform abortions is unfair.

I do think there are some Christians who would like to impose their will on others. (I think that is strange because if you believe in God, then you most likely believe that God has given people free will.)
However, I have met, and am related to atheists who would also impose their will on others. You don't have a religion, but you do have a set of standards or principals. I don't want your principals forced on me anymore that you want my religion forced on you. There are a lot of freaks who want to rule the world in their own way. Christianity has its share of them. So does Atheism.

Although we will probably disagree on most things, I will gladly join you in pounding anyone who refuses pain medication to someone in need.

-Leia


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155740 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 3:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If a person is prevented from their medications, they are in a very real sense being physically damaged. Criminal neglect would be easy, assault and battery woudlnt take much of a stretch.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CoffeeInBed101 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155741 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 3:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Failing such a law there can be no crime.

===================================================

While refusing to fill a prescription breaks no laws that I am aware of (though you may be able to sue civilly for willful negligence), refusing to give the prescription back is theft. The patient owns the prescription paper and is only relinquishing it to the pharmacist as part of the transaction to acquire the drugs. The paper has a definable value.

I would have called the police and pressed full charges. (I believe that this would be a felony as it deals with controlled substances.) I'm sure the theft of a prescription on the pharmacist records would not bode well for him keeping his job.

CiB


Print the post Back To Top
Author: dlbuffy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155743 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 3:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Although we will probably disagree on most things, I will gladly join you in pounding anyone who refuses pain medication to someone in need.

But you won't join against the ones that refuse to dipsense the Pill? How about the morning after pill?

I think OB/GYNs should be able to refuse to perform the procedure. Someone who becomes a stripper and then refuses to strip is just a moron.

Also, what is your reasoning for this? If it is part of a OB/GYN's training/job/expections...then why is it more reasonable for them to refuse than for a stripper to refuse to take clothes off? I mean they did get all the way through college and med school...it's not like they didn't know this was expected...or that they would have to do it. They had plenty of places to move to another career, just like a stripper could.
What is the distinction you see?

Buffy (who doesn't see one for them or for pharmacists...)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: StringCheeseMark Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155745 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 3:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you can't dispense birth control when it is prescribed by a physician, you lack the essential qualifications to be a pharmacist.


<><><>

It is unethical for a pharmacist to superced the prescribing authority of a physcian. It is acceptable to warn about drug interactions, phone up the physician to double check before filling etc but overstepping the bounds to refuse to fill the Rx for a legal drug.

scm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155747 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 4:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The OBGYN has sworn an oath to care for patients and has an obligation to perform his/her job. Society cannot survive without it. The Stripper can refuse to strip at any time (I assume you are entitled to your money back) as she(he?) has sworn no oath and does not perform an essential function.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: goofyinMD Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155748 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 4:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
or maybe Biff imagines himself with Tom/Trixie imagines herself with Ellen and they need to repress it cause it's too scary to think about?

That is the heart of the matter.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155750 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 4:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"The OBGYN has sworn an oath to care for patients and has an obligation to perform his/her job."

Is this oath to which you refer?

"I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath."

"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. NOR WILL I GIVE A WOMAN A PESSARY TO PROCURE ABORTION. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

Fortunately this oath is antiquated and many docs, and including my entire class at Columbia, have not made this oath, to anyone including Apollo.

Where exactly can I find the job description for an OB/GYN? What about for a plastic surgeon? MUST every plastic surgeon perform a breast augmentation at any person's request?

When euthanasia is legal and docs are the ones licensed to perform it, should I quit the profession because I refuse to perform it for anyone who reasonably requests it?

Bob




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Leia28 One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155754 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 4:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
>>Although we will probably disagree on most things, I will gladly join you in pounding anyone who refuses pain medication to someone in need.

>But you won't join against the ones that refuse to dipsense the Pill? How about the morning after pill?

Nope. I won't join in there. I took the pill both for BC and for controlling endometriosis. However, I haven't really considered whether a pharmacist should have right to refuse to dispense a medication. It doesn't sound right to me, but I don't like to make snap decisions. Also, I undertand, but disagree with the opinion that these drugs are the same as murder. Offering pain drugs isn't murdering anything or anyone. I've had many years to think about the pain medication issue.

..I think OB/GYNs should be able to refuse to perform the procedure. Someone who becomes a stripper and then refuses to strip is just a moron.

.Also, what is your reasoning for this? If it is part of a OB/GYN's training/job/expections...then why is it more reasonable for them to refuse than for a stripper to refuse to take clothes off? I mean they did get all the way through college and med school...it's not like they didn't know this was expected...or that they would have to do it. They had plenty of places to move to another career, just like a stripper could.
What is the distinction you see?

A stripper has one job, to strip. An OB/GYN has more. They care for pregnant women, deliver babies, take care of a women's gynecological health, etc. They can still offer a service even if they don't offer abortions. If an OB/GYN takes a job at an abortion clinic, then the doctor should be fired for not performing abortions.

There is no rule that says a doctor has to perform an abortion. (Well, at least I don't think there is.) So how is there an expectation in college that they would be expected to do this?

There is already a shortage of OB/GYNs. We've already got problems because of malpractice issues and HMOs. I'd hate to lose more OB/GYNs on this account.

-Leia


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155755 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 4:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actually, no. I'm an Osteopath and thats not my oath. But your point is well taken. Perhaps I should emphasize the physicians obligations not this antiquated oath.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kimmie36 One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155756 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 4:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
This has nothing to do with "objection on moral grounds". These folks are trying to accomplish two things:

1. They must control a woman's body, especially as it relates to reproduction. That is the goal, plain and simple.

2. They want people with mental illness to suffer. Why else would you deny someone a psychotropic medication? Denying a mentally ill person their medication makes them a danger to themselves and in some, although more rare, instances, a danger to society.

As I know I've admitted previously, I take a medication for a mental illness. There are plenty of "religious" folks who look down on me and assume my problem is a result of my inadequacies or the fact that I'm just not praying hard enough or living right.

They only reason to deny sick people their medicaiton is that the person doing the denying wants them to suffer.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155761 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 4:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The job description for an OB/GYN is learned through an apprentiship called a Residency. It could best be articulated by the American College of Obstetricians/Gynecologists. I can't comment on specifics as its not my specialty, however, the OB/GYN job description would be a living idea in that it is continually evolving. Obviously, this is a complicated area and an OBGYN does not have to do an abortion on anyone. He/she does have a moral obligation, however to perform an abortion unless he/she can find a suitable substitute. If an abortion is required to save the woman's life, I believe this obligation is a legal one(though Im not a lawyer). That is the standard from what I understand. Of course, an OBGYN can deny doing an abortion for medical reasons (i.e. if for some reason, the abortion would jeopardized the women's health unduly (usually its the other way around, but there are exceptions).

The plastic surgeon is a different story as the implications for foregoing the breast augmentation may not be as dire as foregoing an abortion (again there are exceptions, i.e. psychological effect of lacking a breast from masectomy, or even, legitimately, psychological breast of simply being small-busted.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: satiranarchist Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155775 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 6:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No, sinners USE drugs;
it is the the fundies that NEED them.

*JR*

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ogrecat Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155781 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 7:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
An OB/GYN has more. They care for pregnant women, deliver babies, take care of a women's gynecological health, etc. They can still offer a service even if they don't offer abortions. If an OB/GYN takes a job at an abortion clinic, then the doctor should be fired for not performing abortions.

There is no rule that says a doctor has to perform an abortion. (Well, at least I don't think there is.) So how is there an expectation in college that they would be expected to do this?

There is already a shortage of OB/GYNs. We've already got problems because of malpractice issues and HMOs. I'd hate to lose more OB/GYNs on this account.


Should an anti-abortion OB/GYN learn how to perform a D&C, just in case a patient needs such after a miscarriage?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NotMaggie Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155782 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
2. They want people with mental illness to suffer. Why else would you deny someone a psychotropic medication? Denying a mentally ill person their medication makes them a danger to themselves and in some, although more rare, instances, a danger to society.

As I know I've admitted previously, I take a medication for a mental illness. There are plenty of "religious" folks who look down on me and assume my problem is a result of my inadequacies or the fact that I'm just not praying hard enough or living right.

They only reason to deny sick people their medicaiton is that the person doing the denying wants them to suffer.


My response to you, kimmie36, is a tangent for the thread topic, but a bit of an attempt to commiserate. Some years ago I was on psychotropic medications related to my diagnosis of bipolar disorder. I was taking my meds as required, but I was required to get mandatory blood tests periodically for medication levels and this requires a 12 hour 'fast' from the medications before the test; normally, I would take it about three times a day and even the absence of one dosage could result in my cycling, or at least leave me open to have a mood triggered. The drug is an antimanic-mood stabilizer, among other things.

I have to go to one of the local walk-in lab facilities to have my blood drawn. I was in a placidly contented mood when I showed up exactly 12 hours off my meds, it turned out the clerk there that I had to see to have my test done claimed I misunderstood the protocols of that facility and she refused to take me. The waiting room was pretty busy all things considered, probably about 15 people all waiting for tests, or whatever. I tried to reason with the clerk, saying that the instructions I received said it was okay. She, with an unfortunately typical New York attitude rudely dissed me and actually barked at me nastily for not taking her blunt "no" for an answer. Somehow that triggered an instantaneous 180° degree change and I went ballistic, turned into a maniac, and started screaming like a banshee calling her "you f***ing b****" and made other references to her lack of courtesy and professionalism. The waiting room turned into a captive audience while I let her have it. After probably a long 20 seconds or so, I turned and left in a rage while she started to sputter in shock and wide-eyed terror.

In my case, my mental health issue then not only affects me personally, but also has a direct impact on those around me: my loved ones, affect job performance, and even the potential for acting inappropriately in public. That clerk I encountered probably would prefer me to be fully medicated and managed than to have my proper treatment withheld from me again.

I wonder how far all of the conflicts of interests will go? What if instead of pharmacists, how about law enforcement? Police who do not want to implement use physical force to subdue violent civilians should not be police: they risk not only their own well-being, but other police officers who expect and depend on them to help prevent or contain violent situations, but also put civilians in the general public at risk.

People who do not know how to separate personal sensibilities from professional obligations should resign from their profession or take a leave of absence until they determine if they will be able to fulfill their professional responsibilities as required.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155783 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 8:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The implication (I assume) would be that a large percentage of the population would "turn gay" and that our population would drop precipitously in numbers and our culture would be lost.

And the down side of that would be...?

cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155785 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Or maybe, there's a fear that if gay becomes okay, there'll be more chit-chat, magazine articles in publications that they might read (Like Lady's Home Journal), and they would have to confront two opposing ideas:

gay sex sounds tempting,
and
they're married, and to even test run a gay experience is a sin against monogamy,

so they see themselves shut out of something that, on some level, is intriguing to them, and accepted by mainstream society, but they're totally shut out by the monogamy/sin factor, not the gay/evil factor.

I'm not saying they're all repressed closet cases, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's more bi-curious than not.

cm


Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155786 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 8:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I am anti-abortion except for certain cases,

That sounds like pro-choice. I don't understand how people can say they're anti-anything, except in certain cases. It seems like the idea of having a choice to determine an exception means that the "anti" is not an absolute. If it's not an absolute, is it really an *anti* situation?


cm

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155787 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 8:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 30
I am anti-abortion except for certain cases,

That sounds like pro-choice. I don't understand how people can say they're anti-anything, except in certain cases. It seems like the idea of having a choice to determine an exception means that the "anti" is not an absolute. If it's not an absolute, is it really an *anti* situation?

No, you see, she's "pro-life" except, perhaps, if a 13-year-old girl is raped by her dad, in which case she's more "anti-13-year-old-girl-carrying-her-sister/daughter-to-term" than she is "pro-life."

The fetus is a sacred being, imbued with a soul by the Lord, but is expendable in "certain cases."

Those who claim to believe that the fetus is a person deserving of rights equal to those of the woman carrying it, and that preserving its life is the only "moral choice" who also make exceptions for "the health of the mother" or "rape or incest" are the worst kind of hypocrites, in my view.

Either it's a baby -- a "person" -- with the full complement of human rights -- in which case the 13-year-old rape victim is outta luck and will be required to produce her sister/daughter on schedule -- or it's not. If it's not, then the woman who carries it has every right to decide whether or not to loan it the use of her body for nine months or to terminate the pregnancy. To equivocate that it's REALLY a baby, but SOMETIMES it's okay to "murder" it is the most abysmally illogical and unabashedly egocentric kind of "morality."

You just can't have it both ways.

Is you is,
Or is you ain't,
my baby?


SLL


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155788 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 8:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

I am anti-abortion except for certain cases,

That sounds like pro-choice. I don't understand how people can say they're anti-anything, except in certain cases. It seems like the idea of having a choice to determine an exception means that the "anti" is not an absolute. If it's not an absolute, is it really an *anti* situation?


depends on the exceptions ("only for Goats who've been raped by non-Goats")

and what you mean by 'anti' .. not much "choice" if you want it to be illegal 'except in certain cases'

"anti" doesn't have to be absolute.
in this context, "pro-choice" has to be non-legal




Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155789 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 8:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Those who claim to believe that the fetus is a person deserving of rights equal to those of the woman carrying it, and that preserving its life is the only "moral choice" who also make exceptions for "the health of the mother" or "rape or incest" are the worst kind of hypocrites, in my view.


mostly....
"health of the mother" folks *might* say, fetus rights are secondary to woman's in a life-or-death (or-more-children) situation

"incest" folks might say children of incest are possessed by demons



-j

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155790 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 9:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oh, CM, I'm truly sorry. Pain sucks above all else, and our best duty to our fellow men, I believe, is to alieviate it whenever possible.,

Thanks, SLL. And I am all better now. Neurosurgeons are my new favorite people:-)

But I will say that this was very educational.

There is a big power differential between the one who has the ability to stop the pain and the one in pain. Maybe that is a quick power trip for some.

I did not know this before, but from what I've seen by googling, there is a strong pain/humiliation connection. Do you have to exhibit a certain amount of embarrassing (even if only to you) behavior to "convince" someone you're really in pain enough to get relief? And how does the anxiety of never knowing if you'll believed affect the pain?

The knowledge that there was ample pain relief on hand reduced my pain, I think. Maybe by taking the anxiety away. Didn't some study show that when patients have control of their morphine pump, they tend to take less?

This could be completely coincidental, but the younger, female practitioners (20's) were most unwilling to provide adequate pain relief based on my subjective description. Older females and all males took me at my word and medicated accordingly.

Sorry--this probably should have been a seperate thread. This all just gave me a lot to think about.

cm


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Leia28 One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155791 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 9:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Should an anti-abortion OB/GYN learn how to perform a D&C, just in case a patient needs such after a miscarriage?

Yes. This is different than an expectation than an OB/GYN performing routine abortions.

-Leia


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Leia28 One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155792 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
No, you see, she's "pro-life" except, perhaps, if a 13-year-old girl is raped by her dad, in which case she's more "anti-13-year-old-girl-carrying-her-sister/daughter-to-term" than she is "pro-life."

No, I'm not more this or less that, I just think tragedies like this are difficult to handle. There is no way for everything to be OK in a situation like this. I honestly don't know what is best here.

The fetus is a sacred being, imbued with a soul by the Lord, but is expendable in "certain cases."

Those who claim to believe that the fetus is a person deserving of rights equal to those of the woman carrying it, and that preserving its life is the only "moral choice" who also make exceptions for "the health of the mother" or "rape or incest" are the worst kind of hypocrites, in my view.


Then I guess I'm the worst kind of hypocrite.

Either it's a baby -- a "person" -- with the full complement of human rights -- in which case the 13-year-old rape victim is outta luck and will be required to produce her sister/daughter on schedule -- or it's not. If it's not, then the woman who carries it has every right to decide whether or not to loan it the use of her body for nine months or to terminate the pregnancy. To equivocate that it's REALLY a baby, but SOMETIMES it's okay to "murder" it is the most abysmally illogical and unabashedly egocentric kind of "morality."

You just can't have it both ways.


We disagree again. However, I don't want to argue abortion on this thread, because I think it detracts from the seriousness of the original post. Plus, I don't think it's appropriate since I'm a guest on this board. My post to you was just to remind you that not all Christians think or act the way you claim.

-Leia


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155795 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
All OBGYNs must be able to do a D&C for the reason you state.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155796 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
*Continuing to advocate the Devil (er God, er whatever)*:

I suppose if the whole population "turned gay", we wouldn't have anyone left to breed and the fundies would actually have a point. As for losing our culture, I don't know, do we have one worth keeping?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Shadowfen Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155797 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I suppose if the whole population "turned gay", we wouldn't have anyone left to breed and the fundies would actually have a point.

Are you sure? I know and know of a large number of gays and lesbians who have children - many times from prior marriages.
:)

Shadowfen

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155798 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There are many many addicted drug seekers that continuosly hit up doctors (mostly ER and FP docs). Many of them are very good at this and specifically target the young docs because they figure they are naive. If the doc caves in, they can get into legal and/or administrative trouble, especially if the person ODs or otherwise has something bad happen.

On the other hand (equally if not more common), the doc may underprescribe for pain, as the author is describing. This can lead to law suits as well. It makes for a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Each doc picks his her own approach to this dilema. Its sort of like 'pick your own poison'. Who do you want to be a martyr for? Spin the bottle and hope you don't get sued.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ozymandios Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155799 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ahh, but if everyone were gay, there woudn't be any prior marriages. Gotta have some breeders. Then again, I suppose you could make mechanical baby incubators or something and do in vitro fertilization.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155800 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No, sinners USE drugs;
it is the the fundies that NEED them.




Are you kidding?
Religion is the opiate of the masses -- or something like that.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155801 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No, you see, she's "pro-life" except, perhaps, if a 13-year-old girl is raped by her dad, in which case she's more "anti-13-year-old-girl-carrying-her-sister/daughter-to-term" than she is "pro-life."

The fetus is a sacred being, imbued with a soul by the Lord, but is expendable in "certain cases."

Those who claim to believe that the fetus is a person deserving of rights equal to those of the woman carrying it, and that preserving its life is the only "moral choice" who also make exceptions for "the health of the mother" or "rape or incest" are the worst kind of hypocrites, in my view.

Either it's a baby -- a "person" -- with the full complement of human rights -- in which case the 13-year-old rape victim is outta luck and will be required to produce her sister/daughter on schedule -- or it's not. If it's not, then the woman who carries it has every right to decide whether or not to loan it the use of her body for nine months or to terminate the pregnancy. To equivocate that it's REALLY a baby, but SOMETIMES it's okay to "murder" it is the most abysmally illogical and unabashedly egocentric kind of "morality."

You just can't have it both ways.





Sandy -- there you go again!
You will make their heads explode.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155803 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/22/2005 10:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
My post to you was just to remind you that not all Christians think or act the way you claim.



That's true.
Some of them are even worse.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CoffeeInBed101 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155806 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/23/2005 1:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Those who claim to believe that the fetus is a person deserving of rights equal to those of the woman carrying it, and that preserving its life is the only "moral choice" who also make exceptions for "the health of the mother" or "rape or incest" are the worst kind of hypocrites, in my view.

=====================================================

While I can agree with your analysis on the rape or incest front, I can see a valid argument for those "on the side of life" for the health of the mother argument, though I wouldn't call it that. I am sure there are instances where the probability of the mother surviving sans the fetus is higher than EITHER of the two surviving by the mother carrying the kid to term. In those specific cases, promoting life means advocating death.

CiB
Who doesn't consider it a life until it can survive outside the womb.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: dlbuffy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155815 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/23/2005 9:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
A stripper has one job, to strip. An OB/GYN has more. They care for pregnant women, deliver babies, take care of a women's gynecological health, etc. They can still offer a service even if they don't offer abortions.

Actually, just to be pendantic, you are being unfair in your classifications.

ie - A stripper has one job, to strip; then too a OBGYN has one job, to care for women.

See, and I am assuming you have never been to a strip club (and I will not admit to having done so), strippers have many many jobs in the stripping world. You have the warm-up strippers, you have the feature strippers, you have the lap dancers, you have the drink sales, you have the private parties, you have the back room dances, you have the front window dancers (in some places), you have the dancers that care for high-rollers, etc, etc.

A stripper has to perform just about all of those things (and many are not 'just taking clothes off')...well be willing to if the boss asks. If not they will be fired or have to find a club that doesn't do whatever it is that they don't want to do.

So, everyone has jobs that have tasks they don't want to do, that is just the nature of the beast when you work for someone else.

Buffy (who still does not agree that pharmacists should get to pick and choose...)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kimmie36 One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155834 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/23/2005 11:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
NotMaggie,

That sounds like an absolutely miserable experience and I am very sorry that you were treated that way. Thank you for sharing your story and validating my feelings.

I was feeling a bit bitter about the whole thing yesterday when I wrote my original post. Still, I stand by my statements.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NotMaggie Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155888 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/23/2005 2:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That sounds like an absolutely miserable experience and I am very sorry that you were treated that way. Thank you for sharing your story and validating my feelings.

In hindsight, it was a strangely validating experience, even though it was a classic bipolar outburst at least for me, heh. Still I was proud about being able to turn around and walk away before I did anything worst. From an emotional standpoint, I'm also glad I didn't just sit down and take that clerk's behavior: she was patently wrong (the information I had was correct), she was derisive, denigrating, and overall unprofessional, plus seem to enjoy making people uncomfortable. I was there for several minutes before I dealt with her directly and I saw how other people were uncomfortable with her demeanor. I was the only one who wouldn't stand for her initial brusqueness (and largely because I knew she was incorrect). I wasn't trying to be confrontational; there was a purpose for me being there. She seemed to enjoy escalating the situation thinking that no one would dare cross her. Then she met me. I also think that such bullies, though, only stay that way because few people dare to call them out on their own terms. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes not.

I was feeling a bit bitter about the whole thing yesterday when I wrote my original post. Still, I stand by my statements.

Admittedly, I'm of like mind. I agree with your statements and intent overall.

Good wishes to you,
Meg


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155892 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/23/2005 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

hat sounds like an absolutely miserable experience and I am very sorry that you were treated that way. Thank you for sharing your story and validating my feelings.
/////////
In hindsight, it was a strangely validating experience, even though it was a classic bipolar outburst at least for me, heh. Still I was proud about being able to turn around and walk away before I did anything worst. From an emotional standpoint, I'm also glad I didn't just sit down and take that clerk's behavior:


cool.
....... was hoping you might now see some humor in it .... Learning is even better.

I wasn't trying to be confrontational; there was a purpose for me being there. She seemed to enjoy escalating the situation thinking that no one would dare cross her. Then she met me. I also think that such bullies, though, only stay that way because few people dare to call them out on their own terms. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes not.

at some level of bullidom, just trying is worth it.
good job.


-



Print the post Back To Top
Author: MATZOID Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155921 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/23/2005 4:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Trying to think up a good name for their state and their pharmacy.


How about the state of Grace. (They'll love that, but, of course, I'm thinking more along the lines of Gracie Allen.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 155924 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/23/2005 4:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I'm thinking more along the lines of Gracie Allen."

Don't really get it. Well before my time.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheBMann Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156287 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/26/2005 10:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 28
Ya know...

I'm all for giving self-confessed Bible thumping, Evangelical Christians a whupping when they deserve it, but she didn't really deserve this.

The fetus is a sacred being, imbued with a soul by the Lord, but is expendable in "certain cases."

Those who claim to believe that the fetus is a person deserving of rights equal to those of the woman carrying it, and that preserving its life is the only "moral choice" who also make exceptions for "the health of the mother" or "rape or incest" are the worst kind of hypocrites, in my view.

Either it's a baby -- a "person" -- with the full complement of human rights -- in which case the 13-year-old rape victim is outta luck and will be required to produce her sister/daughter on schedule -- or it's not. If it's not, then the woman who carries it has every right to decide whether or not to loan it the use of her body for nine months or to terminate the pregnancy. To equivocate that it's REALLY a baby, but SOMETIMES it's okay to "murder" it is the most abysmally illogical and unabashedly egocentric kind of "morality."


All the good posters here state time and time again (ad nauseum) that ANYONE is welcome to post on this board as long as they are respectful and make cogent arguments. No trolling.

I read her original post and she wasn't trolling .. she was respectful and explained her positions (as misguided as most of us probably think they are) in cogent manner. Why pound her?

Plus..

...but SOMETIMES it's okay to "murder" it is the most abysmally illogical and unabashedly egocentric kind of "morality.

Is equally illogical and unabashedly egocentric as the statement you're targeting. There are instances in all laws (and morality) where it is OK to kill - self-defense being the most prominent. One could very easily make the argument that an abortion after a rape or incest is an act of self-defense. In which case, there would be no murder, thus no illogic or egocentricity involved.

There can be no justice (for anyone) as long as there are absolutes.

B*Mann






Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156316 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/26/2005 4:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"There can be no justice (for anyone) as long as there are absolutes."

Nearly true, IMO. So far, moral absolutes have remained elusive to discovery. Maybe parallels can be drawn between ethics and science. In science we have hypotheses that graduate to what have become *accepted* hypotheses, or "laws" to some. I'd say that in ethics, we have principles and something approaching absolutes. No sane person would say that slavery or rape is morally acceptable. In that sense, I would argue we have moral absolutes.

Certainly, we have many more moral principles than "absolutes", tools for us to arrive at what is just, tools to use in ethical dilemmas. I think they are intuitive, common-sense principles, derived from experience, and with the use of reason, not absolutism, we apply them to ethical problems. (In contiuing my (poor?) comparison, an engineer can design a plane engine with the tools of scientific hypotheses. He doesn't need them to be laws to proceed.) They aren't principles that can be refuted in the same manner that we refute scientific theories. A scientific hypothesis, founded on evidence, excludes possible events in the universe, and when one of those events is demonstrated to occur, it is proven false. A moral principle (not absolute, i.e. rape/slavery), in my view, can not absolutely exclude anything, including killing someone, because there are competing principles (I can see my comparison is breaking down a little here). For example, the principle of a right to privacy vs. the principle of protection from harm in the case of pedophilic sex offenders who are released from prison into the community.

===============

"Either it's a baby -- a "person" -- with the full complement of human rights -- in which case the 13-year-old rape victim is outta luck and will be required to produce her sister/daughter on schedule -- or it's not."

With regard to "human rights", in Sandy's comment: If, for the sake of argument, you were to accept that it's a "person", I don't think it follows that the fetus has inviolable human rights that stand above all other moral principles. Of course, I don't know what she means by those human rights. If she means the Universal Declaration, it doesn't apply as far as I can tell, to a fetus. We'd need a Universal Declaration of Fetal Rights.

"Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Furthermore, in my view, the Universal Declaration contains some moral "absolutes", if you will, and some moral "principles". Some of them, in fact, presuppose certain social constructs, for example:

"Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."

I'd have a hard time being convinced that these are moral absolutes.

I agree with you, B*Mann, that it is not illogical, egocentric, or immoral for that matter, to be "anti-abortion except for certain cases", FOR THOSE WHO MAINTAIN that a fetus is a human and is worthy of some consideration in ethical problems.

Bob



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mikecorn Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156326 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 4:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Re: Moral Absolutes

Since we cannot rely on divine revelation for moral absolutes, I suggest the Golden Rule as a baseline starting principle. I think this is also a principle included in most religious systems of thought, e.g. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" in the Judeo-Christian system.

Another way to express the Golden Rule: Other persons are just as valuable as myself, and have the same rights.

Big issue: obviously not all persons are born equal. Some are healthy and others are not. Some are smart, others stupid. Some are born rich, others poor. I think these factors should basically make no difference in a person's worth or rights, but others have disagreed, throughout history. Our Christian forebears thought slavery was perfectly OK and even part of God's plan.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolBalance Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156396 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 6:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Please don't lump all Christians into one category. We don't all think the same. It makes me ill to think that people have difficulty getting pain medication.


Well, then get up and speak out, loud and publicly. Speak truth to power. Tell those who are on the fringe that they *are on the fringe* and make it clear to those idiots and the more moderate persons that only idiots on the fringe believe in such things. Tell those in power you will vote differently if they don't figure it out.

Become loud proud and active.

Paul

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sofaking6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156401 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 7:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why pound her?

I'm avoiding getting into details with kimmie, because I can see she's no fundie...however, I have to keep asking because I'm desperate to know how a person convinces themselves that something they know to be a lie is true. I need an answer so I'll pester anyone who seems like they might be honest and introspective enough to give it to me.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sandyleelee Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156404 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 7:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm avoiding getting into details with kimmie, because I can see she's no fundie...however, I have to keep asking because I'm desperate to know how a person convinces themselves that something they know to be a lie is true. I need an answer so I'll pester anyone who seems like they might be honest and introspective enough to give it to me.

I love this answer. I'm out of recs, but know that I love this answer.

This is the mark of curiosity. Regard it, folks. Honor it. It's responsible for almost everything good mankind has ever done.

SLL


Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156409 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 8:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I'm avoiding getting into details with kimmie, because I can see she's no fundie...however, I have to keep asking because I'm desperate to know how a person convinces themselves that something they know to be a lie is true. I need an answer so I'll pester anyone who seems like they might be honest and introspective enough to give it to me."

You must have realized by now, after so much time on this board witnessing intelligent people with one gaping cognitive flaw (in our view), like the one above, that there can not possibly be an answer that would give you an understanding with finality. You are very smart, and by now would probably have imagined, if you possibly could, how a person can convince themselves of the truth of what they know to be false. [If I were able to conceive of how it's done, I be the first to do it. It'd be damned nice to live my life thinking that I might, with the grace of god, go to heaven. But I'd probably die a quick death, because next on my wish list would be to fly without assistance, and I'd end up jumping off the Tower of Pisa to my untimely end (wouldn't it be awesome to fly over Italy?).] So why bother? If they insist, go for it. Educate them. I just don't see any use in it otherwise. If you know there's no reason to believe in the purple dragon (that there's an explanation that will satisfy you), how many times are you going to look for him (her?) in the garage? That'd be more frustrating than pleasuring yourself through a dry suit.

Bob

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156412 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 9:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9

"I'm avoiding getting into details with kimmie, because I can see she's no fundie...however, I have to keep asking because I'm desperate to know how a person convinces themselves that something they know to be a lie is true. I need an answer so I'll pester anyone who seems like they might be honest and introspective enough to give it to me."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
You must have realized by now, after so much time on this board witnessing intelligent people with one gaping cognitive flaw (in our view), like the one above, that there can not possibly be an answer that would give you an understanding with finality. You are very smart, and by now would probably have imagined, if you possibly could, how a person can convince themselves of the truth of what they know to be false.


well.... you don't start with something you "Know to be false". You don't start with something
you know to be a lie. You start with something you neither know to be true or to be false...
Something you're not certain about
( crude example: i 'know' i have a fig tree in my yard
(i can see it); i 'know' it has leaves (i can see three). i Know the number of leaves is either
odd or even; i don't know which. IF it mattered, i could count them. If it mattered, i believe
i could choose to believe the number is odd. No one reading this can verify any of this...
but IF it mattered enough, they could. )

Then you look at the evidence. There's the (IMO: objective by crappy hearsay) evidence of a
zillion Believers one of whom is likely your mother (balanced against the hearsay evidence
of 12 non-believers) and the subjective evidence of the famous PRE and maybe other stuff.

Can a zillion Believers be wrong? Absolutely.
Can a zillion Believers and Mom be wrong? Absolutely. (but don't call Mom a liar.....)
Can 12 atheists be wrong? "it COULD happen"

For a lot, the zillion to 12 thing decides it ( the atheists have an advantage beyond their
numbers in that they (often) have well thought arguments .... but they're complicated
("hard work") and sometimes begin with "First off, you're a bubble-headed liar." OK
"and so's your Mom." ....uh, now you've gone too far.)

for some, that doesn't decide it.
for some of those (i figure there's 8 options at that point), they consider the benefits
v the costs of Believing, not-Believing and Believing-not ..... and choose.
The benefits aren't evidence, but they are reasons. Reasonable reasons?
( the benefits aren't necessarily Pascal's Wager kinds of things, they can be quite real
(Mom will be sad cuz she'll think i'm going to hell); in fact real, immediate stuff is probably
more effective)

I think you can choose ....but maybe it's more like you choose to act as if and over time
there's no real difference (They say, if you choose to act as if you're happy, eventually you
will be happy .... never tried it, so they might be wrong ....).

anyways..... that's my story


-bubblehead



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cabinsmama Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156413 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 9:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
I have to keep asking because I'm desperate to know how a person convinces themselves that something they know to be a lie is true. I need an answer so I'll pester anyone who seems like they might be honest and introspective enough to give it to me.

Well, here goes nothing...

In some cases, a person was in a situation that some type of religious belief met a need. Maybe a short "Lord, help me with this" marshalled up a couple more ounces of effort, guts, or whatever...like when you've got a spotter you trust when you're going for a new weight, you feel like you can push a little more than you think you can because you trust your spotter. Even if the spotter never touches the bar, it feels safer.

Sometimes a quick bit of belief gives you a few seconds to center yourself. If you were so culturally inclined, reciting all the given names of known inhabitants of Krypton might have the same effect. Or a particular set of mathmatical equations.

Or maybe belief in a deity kept you from unravelling at a particularly bad time, and you see that as a valid function.

If you are secularly (not necessarily atheistically) raised in a theist culture, it is hard to understand why having a personal belief in a deity is seen as harmful, because your (generic "your") focus is on the secular behavior...in life, politics, education, human rights, etc.

People don't easily give up that which is comforting to them. At some point, in their own time, the fireman, the cop, etc. may get to the point that they see it wasn't the lucky rabbit's foot that kept them safe: it was their own selves, all the time. But do others get to slam them the week or month or year before they're at that point? Is that going to get them there any faster, or accomplish any good?

Personally, I believe lots of things that you might call delusional: I believe people who do bad things can change. I believe that severely abused people can heal. And then there's the whole manicure/court connection...:-)

Now, that's sure not the way to bet the rent...but as long as I'm not demanding that the prisons be opened or the abused be returned to their abusers, if the above private beliefs give me the shot of optimism I need to keep going, why is that a bad thing? I just don't see a bright line running from a *private* theological/spiritual feeling to teaching creationism in schools and repealing Roe v. Wade.

So, I think that there is a sub-group of folks who want to fight the good fight against the "Christian nation" thing, but with one side screaming that you're hell-bound sinners and the other side screaming that you're either insane or too stupid to live, it gets discouraging.

I also believe that it's possible, even desirable, to focus on our commonalities and forgive each other the parts that we just don't get.

Which is probably the most delusional idea of all, but it feels good to think that way.

And that's probably the short answer of some people to the whole question of "why do people believe in something that is a lie?" Reason says it won't affect the outcome of a situation, and it feels better to believe than to not.

cm

all mispellings atributed to the general anesthesia, all typos to the effed-up typing hand



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156414 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 9:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

So, I think that there is a sub-group of folks who want to fight the good fight against the "Christian nation" thing, but with one side screaming that you're hell-bound sinners and the other side screaming that you're either insane or too stupid to live, it gets discouraging.

I also believe that it's possible, even desirable, to focus on our commonalities and forgive each other the parts that we just don't get.


yup. truly delusional and discouraging. or vice versa

all mispellings atributed to the general anesthesia, all typos to the effed-up typing hand


i'm impressed. i can't even think when under general anethesia ... let alone type actual
sentences.


-j
..... when not under a general i CAN type sentences. i just choose not to.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156417 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 10:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"but maybe it's more like you choose to act as if and over time there's no real difference"

Yeah. I didn't see any place where Kimmie said she found a way to believe a falsehood to be true. I did see her comment that some "fake it". As in "but maybe it's more like you choose to act as if and over time there's no real difference".

"For a lot, the zillion to 12 thing decides it "

Is that very different from peer pressure? I know you're unconventional enough not to succumb. How is it different?

You see the danger in taking the approach, "Well, a zillion believe it and like it, so I will too."? That appeal to the comfort in being like the rest, fitting in, is what potential dictators love to see in their potential subjects. The ends are different here, but the means are too similar for me to accept.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156420 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 10:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I just don't see a bright line running from a *private* theological/spiritual feeling to teaching creationism in schools and repealing Roe v. Wade. "

But many atheists and theists do. You're a liberal theist - you keep it to yourself, and use it for inspiration in things that do no harm to others. The problem with religion, the sort that I observe, is that it is meaningless to be religious without action, actions such as building "habitats for humanity" as well as teaching creationism in school. The religions that most subscribe to recommend or demand action inspired by unfounded beliefs. If it were only about inspiring you to marshal up the effort, no problem. But on balance, religions are harmful: the crusades, shaming people for enjoying a good romp in bed, etc. etc., when all the good that may come from religion could be inspired from reason and plain old empathy. Sure, you can say that a lot of harm comes from non-religious sources. That harm is inspired by poorly reasoned or unreasoned beliefs would be my answer. Why add to our problems with religion? It ain't worth it.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zim14 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156421 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 11:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I just don't see a bright line running from a *private* theological/spiritual feeling to teaching creationism in schools and repealing Roe v. Wade. "

Sorry. Totally ignored the *private* bit. If it's private, it's fine with me. I can live with it.

Bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 156423 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 6/27/2005 11:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

"For a lot, the zillion to 12 thing decides it "

Is that very different from peer pressure? I know you're unconventional enough not to succumb. How is it different?


i was thinking of it in an "argument from authority" sense.
if Everyone says X, i count that as evidence... depending on the topic, the methods by
which they arrived at X, and any evidence against X ... it might not be very compelling,
but i might still count it as evidence.

( i was trying to describe how the thoughtful intelligent ones get to believe something
you all Know is false... the zillion to 12 is one step ... those for whom zillion to 12
decides it are bubbleheads <g> )

but peer pressure also can enter into it. but in my analysis, more at the cost/benefit side.
for some, there's great benefit in going along with the crowd. for others a benefit in
going along with the cool kids. for others, not much benefit to either (in HS, we had a
clique made up of people who didn't fit any of the other cliques).


You see the danger in taking the approach, "Well, a zillion believe it and like it, so I will too."? That appeal to the comfort in being like the rest, fitting in, is what potential dictators love to see in their potential subjects. The ends are different here, but the means are too similar for me to accept.


yup.
something of a delicate balance --a society without some conformity falls apart ;
one with too much conformity deserves to fall apart (IMO).

not saying everyone should take the zillion-to-12 seriously or that
anyone should take it as definitive ...
just saying it can be *part* of a balanced breakfast.

goes back to ...if you start out knowing X to be false, you don't take the zillion who say X
at all seriously (you know they're wrong); if you start out unconvinced either way, you
might listen to them (if you could list ALL the things the zillion agree on, i'm pretty sure
you'd find most to be true ( the list would include the infinite # of truths in 2+2 not equal
1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, ...))


-jp

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: eatnbybears Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 167285 of 439285
Subject: Re: Only sinners need drugs Date: 9/24/2005 12:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I read through the article that started this string.

First thing I noticed was that The AMA and the Pharmacists mad no mention of pain medications and psychotropics, just the B pills.

Mary Frank, M.D is the one who came up with the comment on pain medications and psychotropics. Did not seem to be an issue.


It's not just contraceptives," said Mary Frank, M.D., a family physician from Mill Valley, Calif., during a discussion of the issue. "It's pain medications and psychotropics.


At which point I did start to wonder .... If you opened a medical practice 30 miles from the nearest Pharmacy .... How much could you make writing "and filling" Oxycodone, steroids, Other Pain meds. If you write the script and stock the med .... wow .... what a deal !

As for Pharmacy safety ... Just a fact ... 28.9 percent of pharmacists have experienced a theft or robbery of controlled drugs at their pharmacy within the last five years; 20.9 percent do not stock certain controlled drugs in order to prevent diversion.

(I have run into this, that it would be ready for pick up at 10:00 next AM)

Download for free here (ignore the $25.00 printed version)

http://www.casacolumbia.org/supportcasa/item.asp?cID=12&PID=138

Research ... Wrecks the drama, but makes the world easier to understand.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (101) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement