Nope. This kind of discovery, pushing the frontiers of knowledge, is the only thing we as a species do that's of any value. Spending all of our effort trying to "fix[...] the current issues of the world" would just drag us down to the lowest common denominator.
Let the current issues of the world fix themselves or die trying.
Course, I've also stayed up way too late playing KOL, so I guess it's not proof of much. (Other than possibly that I like only getting four hours of sleep.)
Depends on who you ask. Ocelotbob would say that it's proof that KOL is a religion.:)
I don't think you have to go that far in this post to find impassioned atheists. Face it, for a lot of atheists, it's a religion.
Try reading for comprehension next time. Atheism isn't a "cause, principle or activity" and the people you quote are not pursuing anything. You quote atheists being emotional and you think that makes atheism a religion? You'll find the same level of emotion in discussions about sports, music and operating systems.
Now, let's look at the definition of zeal, shall we?
Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance.
Do you really, honestly think that the people you quoted are devoted to atheism and act in tireless diligence in its furtherance? I mean really? Just because they posted on a message board? On slashdot? I don't think you've seriously thought about this.
Y'all are both irrational idiots, in my opinion. Least the christian fundies recognize that their beliefs are in fact, religious, something that most atheists will vehemently deny. So far, I've only met one atheist who is intellectually honest enough to state that, yes, her beliefs are religious. You intellectually honest enough to admit the same?
I'm not sure why you would claim that ignoring the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" is being "intellectually honest". I would describe it more as being a complete moron. Since you seem to be having some problems in that area, let me help you out.
Here's the definition of atheism. Note in particular entry 1a, which is the minimal requirement to be an atheist, the lack of a belief in any god or gods.
Here's the definition of religion. Note that atheism does not fit any of these meanings. There's no belief in a supernatural power (obviously), no belonging to a corresponding organization, no being part of a religious order, no following a spiritual leader and no zeal or conscientious devotion.
Religious people often try to drag atheism down to their level but it just doesn't follow.
You really need to use the definitions everyone else in the world use.
He does. It's just that people like you pay attention to only one part of the definition of atheism and ignore the rest. This view is promoted by certain Christians who don't like the word "atheist" and want to be able to argue erroneously that being an atheist requires as much faith as being a Christian. (Note that I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just pointing out where this attitude often comes from.)
To tell whether or not you're an atheist, ask yourself the following question: "What god or gods do I believe in?" If the answer is "none", you're an atheist. If you also believe that because of the nature of gods it is impossible to know for certain whether or not a god exists then you are also an agnostic.
The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.
This definition applies more to religious persuasion than to atheistic. No one suggested atheism to me. It was the natural outgrowth of growing up. There's definitely far more of an advertising campaign for religion.
Yes, as I've explained before, I think that you have been brainwashed, but I don't hold that against you.
How very generous of you. You can be very condescending, you know. Especially since, as I pointed out above, religion has a far greater advertising campaign associated with it and if we accept your definition of "brainwashing" you are far more likely to be brainwashed than I am.
Don't tell me that there aren't repeated anti-religion suggestion in high school. By the same token, if you dare to speak positively about religion in high school, you are considered a pirahia at best, and disciplinary action is taken against you at worse.
Actually, you have it backwards. In most high schools in the United States the overwhelming majority of the students and faculty are Christian and you are a pariah if you dare to be other. It doesn't take much of a Google search to find instances of churches distributing religous materials in the school, schools having field-trips to churches, acceptance of Bible clubs but resistance to humanist or free-thinker clubs, etc. In my own experience I never met a single student or faculty member who admitted to being atheist and I never got into any discussions of religion vs. atheism.
Let's look at your reasons for believing. It should be important to note that I personally am only interested in believing in a religion if I have evidence that it is true. That being said...
Put in context, religion has been in fact the engine that powered the rise of the West for millenia, and has been the cause of destruction for at most, a few centuries.
Even if were to I accept your simplistic view of the effect of Christianity (I note that you ignore the religious nature of the Nazi regime), this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the Christian mythology and is therefore irrelevant.
Metaphisically, it is simply more logical and convenient to believe in a creator. Everything has an origin, even the big-bang.
It isn't logical to believe in things for which there is no evidence. There is certainly no evidence that the big-bang (if it even happened) had an origin. You are putting the cart before the horse.
Entrophy for a close system tells us that things tend to descend into chaos.
Entropy is a property of the universe and cannot be applied to any hypothetical event or area outside of the universe.
To me, it is more logical to believe in order ultimately raising from order (God) than from nothingness.
Quantum theory places causality in doubt, but even if causality holds it is not correct to define God as "order". There is nothing about a hypothetical cause of the universe that implies a sapient personality and certainly nothing that implies any of the religious beliefs that people hold. Even if you hypothesize a god you then face the question of what caused that god? After all, if a god can exist without cause then so can the universe and there becomes no reason to multiply entities.
Believing in God is also politically convenient. For once, it allows for things such as inalienable rights. Basically, a belief in God means that no government can be designed to be served by the people, but the other way around, because no government has any natural power over its people (the power is given by the people).
History has shown that religious governments are no less oppressive than non-religious. But that doesn't really matter because political convenience has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of belie
Why is there such a problem to limit "oversight" of cases where there is incertitude and no immediate threat of harm? which brings me to my next point:
Because religious medical personnel abuse the situation. They steal prescriptions. Catholic hospitals refuse to give emergency birth control to rape victims. If the oversight was reduced the abuse would go up.
I never mentioned that carrying a child to term is an equivalent alternative to the morning after pill (it's an alternative, but by no means it's equivalent). I was referring to the pharmacy down the street, or even another pharmacist in the same store that has no problem dispensing the pill. The new law that was passed goes so far as to outlaw the act of one pharmacist asking to another to fulfill some prescriptions.
I guess those pharmacists should have been willing to use those options in the first place. If they hadn't abused their patients there would have been no reason for a law. There are plenty of laws that go beyond the bare minimum necessary to protect people because of past abuse. There's nothing about religious beliefs that merits special treatment.
You'd be surprised how much good is done by Catholic charities, and by religious charities in general.
And how much bad. Like contributing to the spread of AIDS in Africa by lying about the effectiveness of condoms in blocking the disease. It's a truism that religious people think it's more important to save the soul than the body. The government can't let that non-fact-based concern override proper treatment for the patient.
But besides the good, you are speaking of removing choices from the public (There is a Catholic hospital around here that's considered one of the best in the country. I'd rather go there). You are also curtailing the freedom of organizations to run an institution as they see fit so long as it abides by universally-agreed upon medical ethical standards and does not cause meaningful harm to anyone.
Universally-agreed upon medical ethical standards is an impossible goal. Are you going to tell me that if one doctor thinks heart surgery destroys the soul then it can't be practiced anywhere? Nonsense. We need a more rational goal.
Is a hypothetical. Surely you are familiar with that. Where is your evidence that medical personnel at a Catholic hospital are necessarily trained in the latest abortion techniques as opposed to just refusing service? My point is that if something that is controversial is not available (say a pharmacy does not carry the pill), is it right for the government to force them to carry it (or hire the appropiate personnel)?
Does every hospital have the personnel to perform advanced heart or brain surgery? No. Why would you assume that abortion would be any different?
Yup, the brainwashing can sometimes start in high school, but for the majority it does not happen until college. I know, I convinced some of my friends in high school to leave religion. I regret that now.
Your constant reference to the decision to leave religion as "brainwashing" indicates that you are too biased to have a meaningful opinion on the subject. Anything further that you write on it is just drivel.
Well then, where did modern science originate? And please don't tell me that it was the Greeks or Chinese. The Greeks died out millenia before modern science, and though their surviving philosophies did contribute to science, the right climate had to exist for science to develop. The Chinese did not produce that much meaningful science until their contact with the west.
Science has developed all over the world, by all different kinds of people. But that's not the point. The point is that you claimed that science could not have developed without religion. That is completely different from saying that religion contributed to how science actually did develop. You have no evidence to support your claim and could never show any. Even if you were able to prove that every scientist who ever lived was a christian that wouldn't prove that it couldn't have developed without religion.
Of course it applies to non-Christians because socially-beneficial traits tend to spread out accross cultures. Please read on the subject and not just attack a single line out of context. The whole point is that the West's rise is in large part the result of Christianity and Judaism.
In one person's extremely humble opinion.
As a matter of fact, I grew up as an atheist. Have you read Aquinas? Weber? Pascal? The Catholic cannon? The whole Bible?
Yes. Have you read Dawkins? Smith? Mills? Have you read the Koran? The Vedas? Have you evaluated all of the other religions that humanity has come up with?
Let's cut to the chase. You think that I've been "brainwashed". You think that you have some superior insight. Present your arguments for Christianity. Right here. Right now. Don't bother making excuses that this isn't a good forum or that my heart is hardened or any other bullshit. Just do it.
I believe that in some cases, the medical professional's rights can be preserved, in particular, when dealing with ethical or moral incertitude.
The problem with this is that any medical professional can claim ethical or moral incertitude about any procedure at any time. Giving them a free reign in this regard removes necessary regulatory oversight. There are people who would claim that a person (or at least their immortal soul) is better off if they bleed to death rather than if they receive a blood transfusion. These people are entitled to their religious beliefs but they can't be allowed to kill patients over them. There has to be objective regulation.
My attitude allows for religious groups to subsidize medical care, such as in the case of Catholic hospitals. Your attitude prevents religious groups from subsidizing medicine at all because a government law would force them to act against their core morality for every case where that morality should come into play.
I'm not sure how much subsidizing goes on given that hospitals are profit-oriented organizations. Even if there is subsidizing, I would say that non-subsidized complete care is preferable to subsidized incomplete care.
I am not arguing that the welfare of the patient shouldn't come first. I am arguing that when the welfare of the patient is not emminently threatened (such as in the case where alternatives exist), then the law shouldn't threaten the religious convictions of medical personnel either.
I suspect we also disagree somewhat on the definition of "alternatives". For example, I don't consider carrying the child to term an alternative to the morning-after pill or abortion anymore than I would consider amputation an alternative to treating an infection with medication.
No you haven't. You said that if the institution has trained medical personnel for a procedure, it shouldn't refuse it. Well, what if there is no trained personnel (as in Catholic hospitals in regards to abortion)? Should the hospital be forced to hire medical personnel to give out abortions?
Where is the evidence for your assertion that Catholic hospitals do not have any personnel capable of performing abortions as opposed to simply prohibiting the procedure?
No. The Treaty of Triopoli proves nothing but a good move in international relations by Humphrey, written decades after the founding of the country (not a founding father, nor a constitutional scholar). The US is based on divine-origin rights ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" ).
The Treaty of Tripoli was ratified unanimously by Congress and signed by the President and represents the prevailing attitude of the time. It was put into law a mere five years after the founding of the country (which was 12/15/1791, when the Constitution was ratified). The document you quote from is the Declaration of Independence, which is not U.S. law. The Constitution is very clear on the subject of the U.S. not being based on religion. The First Amendment recognizes that people may be of any religion or none and Article VI Section 3 declares that no religious test shall ever be required to hold public office. There is no other mention of religion in the text and no mention of "God" at all.
Just as I suspected: A bigot. I don't blame you. College tends to brainwash you because the typical professor holds the popular but erroneous belief that reason and religion are at odds (the reason is simple: it makes them, the so-called proponents of reason, feel more important).
How typical of a religious person to make a broad assumption with no basis in facts. As it happens I was raised Christian but came to my senses late in high school, well before I entered college.
That's also why Slashdot seems to have somewhat of a hive mentality. Most people here still haven't grown up to see past their ego.
Expanding your ad hominem attacks to encompass the entire population of Slashdot does not make them any less invalid. You appear to believe that you alone are "grown up" but you've shown no signs of it.
The site you quote references a biased source that provides no evidence for its assertions. You have failed to prove that science would not have come into being without religion and your question is therefore fallacious and not worthy of a response.
The US's tremendous economic growth, too, has in large part been attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic of most of it's people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber).
I notice that the site you link to indicates that this "Protestant work ethic" that Weber writes about applies to non-Christians as well. What was your point again?
Until now, I haven't taked much about religion per se, but now I can pity you. You are blind and you think that you can see everything. I hope to God that you get past your blind hate of things you do not understand.
I understand religion in general and Christianity in particular, probably better than you. Having an outside perspective tends to do that for you. Don't let that get in the way of your ignorant judgement of me though.
So? I agree that there are rights not mentioned in the constitution but what does that have to do with anything? Does that mean that there is also a right to the pill?
It means that bringing up the Constitution in that context (as you did) is irrelevant.
Agreed. They don't have the right to stop people from taking it. That's why refusing to give back a prescription is wrong. Refusing to dispense a drug however, does not mean preventing others from taking it unless we're talking about the only pharmacist in the region (this is part of the limitation issue that I believe should exist for religion within medicine). The law however, makes no such distinctions and just comes down on against the pharmacist's freedom of religion and of self determination.
If you are now claiming to agree that the pharmacist cannot refuse to give back the prescription or refuse to fill the prescription if he is the only pharmacist in the area then I'm not sure we disagree as much as you might think. The law errs on the side of the patient, as is appropriate. If a pharmacist objects to a particular medicine and therefore gives the prescription to the pharmacist next to him and has her fill it then I don't think there will be any need to involve the police. The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that the patient's right to have the medicine overrides the pharmacist's right to not be the person who gave it to her. I would point out that if pharmacists hadn't started stealing prescriptions or refusing to fill them when there are no other options then there wouldn't be a shiny new law to stop them.
(again, if you ask me to help you in seeing the parallel between both cases, I give up).
Just so it's clear, I've not so much asked you for help in seeing the parallel as pointed out that there is no parallel. You can consider this an invitation to "give up" and stop trying to interject an unrelated medical procedure into this discussion.
I agree with that statement. However, that's not what you've been saying. You've mentioned that religion has no place in medicine. That is a far cry from saying that you shouldn't force your beliefs on others. Make up your mind. Is this about forcing beliefs, or about removing religion from medicine? If the issue is about forcing beliefs, then religious people shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs either. It's a thin line, but one that allows for religion within medicine.
Perhaps I should clarify my position. Religious beliefs are not a valid factor in making medical decisions because they are not objective facts. Again, this is pretty clear if you think of the case of a Christian Scientist who would not perform any operations or dispense any medicine. Obviously the belief structures of religious people are informed by their religion and I am not suggesting that religious people shouldn't be allowed to be medical professionals. What I am saying is that if the welfare of the patient conflicts with the religious beliefs of the medical personnel then the patient comes first.
A "Yes" would've work, but I like this answer better. What if a Catholic hospital does not have qualified personnel for dispensing abortions?
This is a stupid question that is already answered in my previous response.
No it's not hipocrisy. Since you've demonstrated to have problems with general questions, I've tried to make the question more specific. However, the connection between circumcision and abortion is clear: There is professional disagreement as to the ethics of either case, and though they are also different, it's medical disagreement that's at the heart of conscientious objections. It's funny that I have to spell out things for you. Cant' you think for yourself?
It is hypocrisy. You whine like a little baby if I bring up a new concept but you keep trying to insert circumcision into the discussion. I do not understand your unnatural obsession with that procedure but it is irrelevant to this discussion. The rest of this paragraph is ad hominem and equally irrelevant.
Just as I suspected: Ignorance of religion. What is America based on if not on the belief of a creator and a Judeo-christian background?
This is false. The Treaty of Tripoli conclusively proves otherwise that the United States was not founded on christianity. The Constitution and the writings of the founders provide additional edification if you're interested (and I'm sure you're not).
The human origin of ethics and human-derived rights (as opposed to divine-derived rights) were the main principles behind communism, facism and nazism.
This is false. The human origin of ethics and human-derived rights is the main principle behind Secular Humanism, not communism, facism or nazism. The nazis, in particular, were christian and believed themselves to be doing the christian god's work.
By contrast, the vast majority of those that have changed the world for the better have been religious. Study some history. Study some religious texts. Open your mind.
This is false. Religion has been the enemy of enlightenment and progress throughout history. I'm not saying that no good at all has come from religion but the good is definitely in the minority. As for studying history and religious texts, I would suggest you take your own advice. All available evidence from this thread indicates that I am more informed about both subjects than you are.
This latest post of yours was definitely an eye opener. You've ignored my points and attempted to shift the topic of discussion. You tell falsehoods about religion, humanism and history. When you run out of ways to defend your position (and that doesn't take long) you resort to ad hominem attacks. People like you denigrate religion and contribute to the rise of secularism in educated populaces throughout the world. Thank you for your shining example of the religious mind.
So there is a right to the morning after pill that can be derived from the constitution?
I point out that you agree with me that we are not limited to just those rights mentioned in the Constitution. You claim to interpret this to mean that I think that the Constitution specifically mentions a right to the morning after pill. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you're not a troll.
No, I have problems with laws that are over-reaching. Refusing to give a prescription back should be illegal. Refusing to act against one's own ethical beliefs shouldn't. I would agree with a law that posed stiffer penalties to pharmacists that refuse to give a prescription back. The law that was passed as a result of this case forces pharmacists to surrender their religious freedoms. That's a big difference.
No one has the freedom to force their religion on others. If a person believes that taking the morning after pill (or aspirin, or any other medicine) is against their religion then they have the right to not take it. They do not have the right to stop other people from taking it. I don't think we'd be having this argument if the pharmacist was a Christian Scientist and refused to give out any medication at all.
Within the medical profession, there are often no consensus in many areas, and allowances are made for the doctor's personal liberties so long as they don't conflict with the patients in any meaningful way.
Not allowing a person to get medicine that their doctor has prescribed to them is definitely "meaningful".
That's why alternative course of treatment exist, and why clinics can refuse to give abortions, circumcision, etc. You seem to be confusing "regulation" with "total dictatorship control." When there are no agreements within the very professionals that make up the community, who decides but the government and how is this different from state dictatorship?
There are agreements in the medical community. The drug is safe and legal. The government isn't some monolithic entity that dicates to medical professionals against their very judgement. The branches of the government that regulate the medical industry are made up of medical professionals. The agreements about prescription drugs are already made; that's why they're legal prescription drugs.
So you seem to be saying that within limits, these freedoms do apply to doctors. Why is then, that the only freedom (within limits as well) that does not apply at all is religion?
You come so close to understanding and then fail. My point is that there are limits on these freedoms when applied to the medical profession and that the limit to freedom of religion is that you can't force yours on other people.
So, is that a yes, or a no? Please answer the question.
I've answered the question. Any institution licensed as a hospital should be required to perform any legal medical procedure for which they have qualified personnel.
On another note, circumcision is often cited as an example of conscientious objection because there is a disagreement on the medical community of whether or not is beneficial, and therefore, whether or not it should be performed. If there is no medical concensus about the ethics and the need for something as simple as circumcision, religion aside, how can you have a concensus in more complex and controversial procedures such as late-term abortions?
It's funny to watch you complain about me introducing new situations to the conversation (rape victims) and then go and introduce your own (late-term abortions). It's very hypocritical of you. My amusement, of course, is irrelevant to the fact that there is no connection between circumcision and abortion. It is a fallacy to assume that objections to one necessitate objections to another.
Religion is often very helpful in providing guidance to ethically-murky situations.
Actually, religion isn't any more helpful in providing ethical guidance than reading any other book or talking to any other people. There's nothing special about religious texts or religious leaders.
Are there no ethically-murky situations in medicine?
This question appears to be a non sequiter. We're talking about a specific situation (or two, or three, or as many as you bring up in an apparent attempt to dodge the question).
The morning after pill definitely does have to be administered within a very short time of the potential conception and as you've conceded it cannot be obtained from another pharmacy if the prescription is stolen by the original pharmacist. So I'm not sure why you said this.
You know what? You are right. In this case the pharmacist deserved to get fired and I had made that claim from my very first post on the issue. However, rather than letting the store owner handle it (or the local police if that fails), the people seeking the prescription chose to involve the state government and seek legislation. How is that not overstepping the boundaries of the established law?
Are you attempting to find some problem with writing new laws to deal with new situations? I'm having trouble believing that you really believe this in principle and not simply for this specific case.
You would normally refer to someone that would force you to act against your morality as a tyrant, but yet you ask others to act against their morality when there clearly are alternatives that don't require them to do so.
The alternative is that they NOT BE A PHARMACIST. I don't know how to make this any more clear to you. You claim that this is government "control" but you seem to not understand that the government DOES REGULATE the medical profession. This is necessary to keep unqualified people from performing medicine. Your own article that you had me read pointed out the consequences of not doing this. Why do you pretend to be confused by this? A person who is unwilling to perform their duties is not qualified to hold them. The government regulates the medical industry and has the responsibility to ensure that people who hold medical positions are qualified. People who make medical decisions based on religion are not.
But since ad-hominems are in fashion, let me jump in the band-wagon. What other right guaranteed on the constitution do you believe has no place in medicine? Do you seriously think that rights guaranteed by government can be banned outright because there is disagreement? Would you ban free speech from medicine? What about freedom of the press? What about freedom to assemble? What about rights to privacy? If you answer no to all those but yes to banning freedom of religion, then I suggest that you take a look about your pre-conceptions of religion. The word "bigot" comes to mind.
Why do you claim the Constitution gives pharmacists the right to refuse to give out legal medicines? Where did you get the idea that freedom of religion means being able to force that religion on others?
As for your other rights, let's take a look, shall we? I believe in free speech. I do not believe in the right of doctors to give patients information or advice that is false. And make no mistake, lying is not against the law. But a doctor lying to his patient sure as hell should be.
Freedom of the press? Freedom to assemble? Why don't you explain how they apply to medical treatment and I'll tell you what I think.
I do like your mention of the right to privacy though. I'll take it as read, then, that you agree with me that we are not limited to those rights explicitly described in the Constitution (like you tried to claim earlier with regards to the morning after pill). It's nice to see that I'm getting through to some extent.
My point is that an institution should not be licensed as a hospital if it is going to refuse to perform certain procedures based on religion. Religious beliefs have no bearing whatsover on the practice of medicine.
So what are you suggesting? That Catholic hospitals be forced to perform abortions? What constitutional basis can you possibly have for that?
I'm suggesting that institutions that refuse to provide services such as abortions or emergency contraception to rape victims not be licensed as hospitals. If fundamentalists don't want to provide medical services then they shouldn't pretend to be medical personnel. Licensing should reflect that.
BTW, what do you think protects a Catholic hospital against being forced to provide abortions? (Hint, read about the law how it protects medical conscientious objectors).
Only in some states. You're right though, this is a problem that is in the process of being dealt with. Religion has no place in medicine and an increasing number of people are realizing that.
Ever heard of Health Care Conscientious Objector laws? I've got news for you, in some states medical personnel are permitted to withold treatment on the basis of the personnel's beliefs so long as the treatment is not life threatening and there are alternatives. For example, a doctor may refuse to perform circumcision if it goes against the doctor's beliefs.
What kind of ridiculous non sequiter is this? A circumcision is not an operation that has to be performed within a limited window and a doctor's refusal to perform the operation does not stop the operation being performed elsewhere.
The distinction is "bona fide", a need that cannot be fulfilled any other way does not fall into the ubrella of protection. The pharmacist case does not fit this description since the need was not life-threatening, and since other pharmacies, or another clerk at the same store could supply the pill.
I see you're ignoring the part about the pharmacists refusing to return the prescriptions. That makes it impossible to get the pills elsewhere. You ask for evidence, I provide it and you ignore it. If that's the way things are going to be then what purpose is there to discussing anything with you?
Agreed. By that same token, neither do others have the right to force others to act against their religious beliefs if there are alternatives. In this case, there were alternatives, but the government is forcing people to act against their own beliefs.
No. There weren't. Why do you continue to make this dishonest claim? When the pharmacist refuses to return the prescription there is no alternative way to get the drugs in time. Stop lying about this.
All of your other points about muslims and the FDA are non-sequiturs.
No they are not. You claim that it's acceptable for medical personnel to deny treatment based on religious beliefs. I am showing you that it is not.
We are not dealing with life or death, we are not dealing with cases where there were no alternatives, and we are not dealing with FDA mandate that the "cure" for pregnancy has to be the "morning after" pill.
Dealing with life and death is irrelevant to the question of prescription drugs. The overwhelming majority of prescription drugs are not life and death situations. As for alternatives, if the morning-after pill is denied the only other option to avoid the unwanted pregnancy is abortion, a procedure that carries its own risks. It is unethical for medical personnel to interfere with a person's lawful right to medication that protects them having to undergo a surgical procedure that can risk their life.
Your implication that I have no ethics is unwarranted and childish. If you cannot defend your arguments without resorting to ridiculous name-calling then perhaps you should stop replying.
You appear to think that only a person who agrees with you can have ethics. That anyone you holds a position differing from yours does so because they have not considered the ethical implications of their actions. This is a very closed-minded attitude that precludes reasonable discussion.
Nevertheless, I read the article that you linked to. It does not seem convincing to me. The ethicist's conclusion that the pharmacist must give the drugs to the 16 year-old girl is correct. It is not for the pharmacist to decide what a "bona-fide need" is. As for Phillip Bondy, of course he has the right to have parts of his body removed should he so choose. The article tries to denigrate his reason for doing so but again it is not for others to judge his predilections. His choice of action harms no one. It a
I agree completely. However, that move should still have rightly left up to the discretion of a private party (the store owner) and not the government.
Pharmacists (like other medical personnel) are regulated by the government for the safety and welfare of all citizens. Medical personnel are not permitted to withhold treatment to anyone based on race, sex, or religious beliefs. Nor should they be able to.
I've yet to hear of this happening. Can you provide some supporting evidence, or is this a rumor? The case in question did not involve refusal to give back the prescription (that is, assuming that there was a prescription in the first place).
No, an unwanted pregancy is not an ailment. It's a consequence. The natural state of the human body tends towards reproduction. The term "ailment" is defined by dictionary.com as "A physical or mental disorder, especially a mild illness." Pregnancy cannot be a disorder because a woman's body is naturally predisposed to child bearing, and sex is the natural means for pregnancy.
The relevant definition of "disorder" from the same site is:
3. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body: eating disorders and substance abuse.
It's a bit circular, but the main point is that an ailment affects the function of the mind and body. The negative mental and physical effects of pregnancy are well documented. That's not to say that a pregnancy can't be an overall positive, if it's wanted.
Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex, in other words, it's primary biological purpose. By definition, pregnancy cannot be a disorder but it is indeed a very real consequence of sex.
Biology is not destiny. Pregnancy may be the primary evolutionary purpose of sex but we as a people do not govern ourselves according to the dictates of evolution, nor should we. Pregnancy is one possible consequence of sex; it is not the only or even (I would argue) the most important.
When did I ever argue against preventative birth control?
When you said that what the pharmacists were refusing to provide was not medicine. Birth control pills are preventative and as this article indicates, pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for them.
the constitution does not guarantee a right to the "morning after" pill
The Constitution doesn't guarantee any rights. It recognizes them and provides limits on government action accordingly. The founding fathers knew that they couldn't list every right so they provided the ninth amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I'm getting pretty tired of people arguing against every right that isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
The question at the heart of this issue is: Should the government have the power to force mandatory access to non-vital pills over people's rights of freedom of religion and of self-determination?
No, the question at the heart of the issue is this: Should the government have the power to require medical personnel to do their job. And the answer is YES! It's no different than a doctor refusing to perform a blood tranfusion or provide assistance to a Muslim or atheist because it's against her religion. Incidentally, birth-control and morning-after pills are as vital as almost any prescription medicine available. The majority of prescription medicine is not of the "if you don't take this you'll die" variety.
Here's a solution for people who don't want to fulfill prescriptions for medicine that violates their religious beliefs: DON'T BE A PHARMACIST.
One reason for believing in God is that our own universe seems improbably fine-tuned for life. But if our universe is one among a vast ensemble of universes with randomly varying physical constants, then it is only to be expected that a few of these universes should be life-fostering.
This article refers to "some thinkers" saying that other universes need to exist so that there's no reason for god, but I notice that he doesn't name any of them, even though he does mention names elsewhere in the article.
As the author says, this is the anthropic principle. It's not really very mysterious -- if the universe were different, we'd be different. As Douglas Adams put it, "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole." There's no need to believe in multiple universe to realize that the anthropic principle demolishes the "this universe was designed especially for us" argument.
Its amazing that you say you are not following Reference.com definition of religion (#4) when you are talking and defending the belief you have.. which by the definition means you are in a religion. The zeal in which you answer your questions and the thought process in which you obviously think about define it as such.
What belief? What I have is a lack of belief. I find it impossible to believe that you do not understand this; I think you're just being dishonest. As for zeal, having a discussion on a web board is not zeal. If that were zeal then operating systems, sports, bands and video games would all be religions. That they are not is obvious to everyone and again, I do not believe that you are honestly confused about this.
I don't see much purpose in continuing this discussion. You're ignoring everything posted in favor of your own defective definitions of atheism, agnosticim and religion. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately as a troll or if you're just honestly incapable of understanding basic theological concepts but it really doesn't matter.
Feel free to reply to this. If you post something that merits a response you'll get one but otherwise you get to have the last word.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait 'til the mid-life crisis starts. It won't be pretty.
Nope. This kind of discovery, pushing the frontiers of knowledge, is the only thing we as a species do that's of any value. Spending all of our effort trying to "fix[...] the current issues of the world" would just drag us down to the lowest common denominator.
Let the current issues of the world fix themselves or die trying.
You've posted this several times. What's it like not to know the difference between correlation and causation?
You cure the cancer with HIV, cure the HIV with Ebola and then cure the Ebola with decapitation. It's easy!
Course, I've also stayed up way too late playing KOL, so I guess it's not proof of much. (Other than possibly that I like only getting four hours of sleep.)
:)
Depends on who you ask. Ocelotbob would say that it's proof that KOL is a religion.
I don't think you have to go that far in this post to find impassioned atheists. Face it, for a lot of atheists, it's a religion.
Try reading for comprehension next time. Atheism isn't a "cause, principle or activity" and the people you quote are not pursuing anything. You quote atheists being emotional and you think that makes atheism a religion? You'll find the same level of emotion in discussions about sports, music and operating systems.
Now, let's look at the definition of zeal, shall we?
Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance.
Do you really, honestly think that the people you quoted are devoted to atheism and act in tireless diligence in its furtherance? I mean really? Just because they posted on a message board? On slashdot? I don't think you've seriously thought about this.
Y'all are both irrational idiots, in my opinion. Least the christian fundies recognize that their beliefs are in fact, religious, something that most atheists will vehemently deny. So far, I've only met one atheist who is intellectually honest enough to state that, yes, her beliefs are religious. You intellectually honest enough to admit the same?
I'm not sure why you would claim that ignoring the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" is being "intellectually honest". I would describe it more as being a complete moron. Since you seem to be having some problems in that area, let me help you out.
Here's the definition of atheism. Note in particular entry 1a, which is the minimal requirement to be an atheist, the lack of a belief in any god or gods.
Here's the definition of religion. Note that atheism does not fit any of these meanings. There's no belief in a supernatural power (obviously), no belonging to a corresponding organization, no being part of a religious order, no following a spiritual leader and no zeal or conscientious devotion.
Religious people often try to drag atheism down to their level but it just doesn't follow.
You really need to use the definitions everyone else in the world use.
He does. It's just that people like you pay attention to only one part of the definition of atheism and ignore the rest. This view is promoted by certain Christians who don't like the word "atheist" and want to be able to argue erroneously that being an atheist requires as much faith as being a Christian. (Note that I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just pointing out where this attitude often comes from.)
Here's a reference for you: atheism.
Note entry 1a.
To tell whether or not you're an atheist, ask yourself the following question: "What god or gods do I believe in?" If the answer is "none", you're an atheist. If you also believe that because of the nature of gods it is impossible to know for certain whether or not a god exists then you are also an agnostic.
The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.
This definition applies more to religious persuasion than to atheistic. No one suggested atheism to me. It was the natural outgrowth of growing up. There's definitely far more of an advertising campaign for religion.
Yes, as I've explained before, I think that you have been brainwashed, but I don't hold that against you.
How very generous of you. You can be very condescending, you know. Especially since, as I pointed out above, religion has a far greater advertising campaign associated with it and if we accept your definition of "brainwashing" you are far more likely to be brainwashed than I am.
Don't tell me that there aren't repeated anti-religion suggestion in high school. By the same token, if you dare to speak positively about religion in high school, you are considered a pirahia at best, and disciplinary action is taken against you at worse.
Actually, you have it backwards. In most high schools in the United States the overwhelming majority of the students and faculty are Christian and you are a pariah if you dare to be other. It doesn't take much of a Google search to find instances of churches distributing religous materials in the school, schools having field-trips to churches, acceptance of Bible clubs but resistance to humanist or free-thinker clubs, etc. In my own experience I never met a single student or faculty member who admitted to being atheist and I never got into any discussions of religion vs. atheism.
Let's look at your reasons for believing. It should be important to note that I personally am only interested in believing in a religion if I have evidence that it is true. That being said...
Put in context, religion has been in fact the engine that powered the rise of the West for millenia, and has been the cause of destruction for at most, a few centuries.
Even if were to I accept your simplistic view of the effect of Christianity (I note that you ignore the religious nature of the Nazi regime), this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the Christian mythology and is therefore irrelevant.
Metaphisically, it is simply more logical and convenient to believe in a creator. Everything has an origin, even the big-bang.
It isn't logical to believe in things for which there is no evidence. There is certainly no evidence that the big-bang (if it even happened) had an origin. You are putting the cart before the horse.
Entrophy for a close system tells us that things tend to descend into chaos.
Entropy is a property of the universe and cannot be applied to any hypothetical event or area outside of the universe.
To me, it is more logical to believe in order ultimately raising from order (God) than from nothingness.
Quantum theory places causality in doubt, but even if causality holds it is not correct to define God as "order". There is nothing about a hypothetical cause of the universe that implies a sapient personality and certainly nothing that implies any of the religious beliefs that people hold. Even if you hypothesize a god you then face the question of what caused that god? After all, if a god can exist without cause then so can the universe and there becomes no reason to multiply entities.
Believing in God is also politically convenient. For once, it allows for things such as inalienable rights. Basically, a belief in God means that no government can be designed to be served by the people, but the other way around, because no government has any natural power over its people (the power is given by the people).
History has shown that religious governments are no less oppressive than non-religious. But that doesn't really matter because political convenience has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of belie
Why is there such a problem to limit "oversight" of cases where there is incertitude and no immediate threat of harm? which brings me to my next point:
Because religious medical personnel abuse the situation. They steal prescriptions. Catholic hospitals refuse to give emergency birth control to rape victims. If the oversight was reduced the abuse would go up.
I never mentioned that carrying a child to term is an equivalent alternative to the morning after pill (it's an alternative, but by no means it's equivalent). I was referring to the pharmacy down the street, or even another pharmacist in the same store that has no problem dispensing the pill. The new law that was passed goes so far as to outlaw the act of one pharmacist asking to another to fulfill some prescriptions.
I guess those pharmacists should have been willing to use those options in the first place. If they hadn't abused their patients there would have been no reason for a law. There are plenty of laws that go beyond the bare minimum necessary to protect people because of past abuse. There's nothing about religious beliefs that merits special treatment.
You'd be surprised how much good is done by Catholic charities, and by religious charities in general.
And how much bad. Like contributing to the spread of AIDS in Africa by lying about the effectiveness of condoms in blocking the disease. It's a truism that religious people think it's more important to save the soul than the body. The government can't let that non-fact-based concern override proper treatment for the patient.
But besides the good, you are speaking of removing choices from the public (There is a Catholic hospital around here that's considered one of the best in the country. I'd rather go there). You are also curtailing the freedom of organizations to run an institution as they see fit so long as it abides by universally-agreed upon medical ethical standards and does not cause meaningful harm to anyone.
Universally-agreed upon medical ethical standards is an impossible goal. Are you going to tell me that if one doctor thinks heart surgery destroys the soul then it can't be practiced anywhere? Nonsense. We need a more rational goal.
Is a hypothetical. Surely you are familiar with that. Where is your evidence that medical personnel at a Catholic hospital are necessarily trained in the latest abortion techniques as opposed to just refusing service? My point is that if something that is controversial is not available (say a pharmacy does not carry the pill), is it right for the government to force them to carry it (or hire the appropiate personnel)?
Does every hospital have the personnel to perform advanced heart or brain surgery? No. Why would you assume that abortion would be any different?
Yup, the brainwashing can sometimes start in high school, but for the majority it does not happen until college. I know, I convinced some of my friends in high school to leave religion. I regret that now.
Your constant reference to the decision to leave religion as "brainwashing" indicates that you are too biased to have a meaningful opinion on the subject. Anything further that you write on it is just drivel.
Well then, where did modern science originate? And please don't tell me that it was the Greeks or Chinese. The Greeks died out millenia before modern science, and though their surviving philosophies did contribute to science, the right climate had to exist for science to develop. The Chinese did not produce that much meaningful science until their contact with the west.
Science has developed all over the world, by all different kinds of people. But that's not the point. The point is that you claimed that science could not have developed without religion. That is completely different from saying that religion contributed to how science actually did develop. You have no evidence to support your claim and could never show any. Even if you were able to prove that every scientist who ever lived was a christian that wouldn't prove that it couldn't have developed without religion.
Of course it applies to non-Christians because socially-beneficial traits tend to spread out accross cultures. Please read on the subject and not just attack a single line out of context. The whole point is that the West's rise is in large part the result of Christianity and Judaism.
In one person's extremely humble opinion.
As a matter of fact, I grew up as an atheist. Have you read Aquinas? Weber? Pascal? The Catholic cannon? The whole Bible?
Yes. Have you read Dawkins? Smith? Mills? Have you read the Koran? The Vedas? Have you evaluated all of the other religions that humanity has come up with?
Let's cut to the chase. You think that I've been "brainwashed". You think that you have some superior insight. Present your arguments for Christianity. Right here. Right now. Don't bother making excuses that this isn't a good forum or that my heart is hardened or any other bullshit. Just do it.
I believe that in some cases, the medical professional's rights can be preserved, in particular, when dealing with ethical or moral incertitude.
The problem with this is that any medical professional can claim ethical or moral incertitude about any procedure at any time. Giving them a free reign in this regard removes necessary regulatory oversight. There are people who would claim that a person (or at least their immortal soul) is better off if they bleed to death rather than if they receive a blood transfusion. These people are entitled to their religious beliefs but they can't be allowed to kill patients over them. There has to be objective regulation.
My attitude allows for religious groups to subsidize medical care, such as in the case of Catholic hospitals. Your attitude prevents religious groups from subsidizing medicine at all because a government law would force them to act against their core morality for every case where that morality should come into play.
I'm not sure how much subsidizing goes on given that hospitals are profit-oriented organizations. Even if there is subsidizing, I would say that non-subsidized complete care is preferable to subsidized incomplete care.
I am not arguing that the welfare of the patient shouldn't come first. I am arguing that when the welfare of the patient is not emminently threatened (such as in the case where alternatives exist), then the law shouldn't threaten the religious convictions of medical personnel either.
I suspect we also disagree somewhat on the definition of "alternatives". For example, I don't consider carrying the child to term an alternative to the morning-after pill or abortion anymore than I would consider amputation an alternative to treating an infection with medication.
No you haven't. You said that if the institution has trained medical personnel for a procedure, it shouldn't refuse it. Well, what if there is no trained personnel (as in Catholic hospitals in regards to abortion)? Should the hospital be forced to hire medical personnel to give out abortions?
r igin.html). Are you saying that no good came from science?
Where is the evidence for your assertion that Catholic hospitals do not have any personnel capable of performing abortions as opposed to simply prohibiting the procedure?
No. The Treaty of Triopoli proves nothing but a good move in international relations by Humphrey, written decades after the founding of the country (not a founding father, nor a constitutional scholar). The US is based on divine-origin rights ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" ).
The Treaty of Tripoli was ratified unanimously by Congress and signed by the President and represents the prevailing attitude of the time. It was put into law a mere five years after the founding of the country (which was 12/15/1791, when the Constitution was ratified). The document you quote from is the Declaration of Independence, which is not U.S. law. The Constitution is very clear on the subject of the U.S. not being based on religion. The First Amendment recognizes that people may be of any religion or none and Article VI Section 3 declares that no religious test shall ever be required to hold public office. There is no other mention of religion in the text and no mention of "God" at all.
Just as I suspected: A bigot. I don't blame you. College tends to brainwash you because the typical professor holds the popular but erroneous belief that reason and religion are at odds (the reason is simple: it makes them, the so-called proponents of reason, feel more important).
How typical of a religious person to make a broad assumption with no basis in facts. As it happens I was raised Christian but came to my senses late in high school, well before I entered college.
That's also why Slashdot seems to have somewhat of a hive mentality. Most people here still haven't grown up to see past their ego.
Expanding your ad hominem attacks to encompass the entire population of Slashdot does not make them any less invalid. You appear to believe that you alone are "grown up" but you've shown no signs of it.
To start, modern science would not have been possible without religion (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_o
The site you quote references a biased source that provides no evidence for its assertions. You have failed to prove that science would not have come into being without religion and your question is therefore fallacious and not worthy of a response.
The US's tremendous economic growth, too, has in large part been attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic of most of it's people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber).
I notice that the site you link to indicates that this "Protestant work ethic" that Weber writes about applies to non-Christians as well. What was your point again?
Until now, I haven't taked much about religion per se, but now I can pity you. You are blind and you think that you can see everything. I hope to God that you get past your blind hate of things you do not understand.
I understand religion in general and Christianity in particular, probably better than you. Having an outside perspective tends to do that for you. Don't let that get in the way of your ignorant judgement of me though.
So? I agree that there are rights not mentioned in the constitution but what does that have to do with anything? Does that mean that there is also a right to the pill?
It means that bringing up the Constitution in that context (as you did) is irrelevant.
Agreed. They don't have the right to stop people from taking it. That's why refusing to give back a prescription is wrong. Refusing to dispense a drug however, does not mean preventing others from taking it unless we're talking about the only pharmacist in the region (this is part of the limitation issue that I believe should exist for religion within medicine). The law however, makes no such distinctions and just comes down on against the pharmacist's freedom of religion and of self determination.
If you are now claiming to agree that the pharmacist cannot refuse to give back the prescription or refuse to fill the prescription if he is the only pharmacist in the area then I'm not sure we disagree as much as you might think. The law errs on the side of the patient, as is appropriate. If a pharmacist objects to a particular medicine and therefore gives the prescription to the pharmacist next to him and has her fill it then I don't think there will be any need to involve the police. The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that the patient's right to have the medicine overrides the pharmacist's right to not be the person who gave it to her. I would point out that if pharmacists hadn't started stealing prescriptions or refusing to fill them when there are no other options then there wouldn't be a shiny new law to stop them.
(again, if you ask me to help you in seeing the parallel between both cases, I give up).
Just so it's clear, I've not so much asked you for help in seeing the parallel as pointed out that there is no parallel. You can consider this an invitation to "give up" and stop trying to interject an unrelated medical procedure into this discussion.
I agree with that statement. However, that's not what you've been saying. You've mentioned that religion has no place in medicine. That is a far cry from saying that you shouldn't force your beliefs on others. Make up your mind. Is this about forcing beliefs, or about removing religion from medicine? If the issue is about forcing beliefs, then religious people shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs either. It's a thin line, but one that allows for religion within medicine.
Perhaps I should clarify my position. Religious beliefs are not a valid factor in making medical decisions because they are not objective facts. Again, this is pretty clear if you think of the case of a Christian Scientist who would not perform any operations or dispense any medicine. Obviously the belief structures of religious people are informed by their religion and I am not suggesting that religious people shouldn't be allowed to be medical professionals. What I am saying is that if the welfare of the patient conflicts with the religious beliefs of the medical personnel then the patient comes first.
A "Yes" would've work, but I like this answer better. What if a Catholic hospital does not have qualified personnel for dispensing abortions?
This is a stupid question that is already answered in my previous response.
No it's not hipocrisy. Since you've demonstrated to have problems with general questions, I've tried to make the question more specific. However, the connection between circumcision and abortion is clear: There is professional disagreement as to the ethics of either case, and though they are also different, it's medical disagreement that's at the heart of conscientious objections. It's funny that I have to spell out things for you. Cant' you think for yourself?
It is hypocrisy. You whine like a little baby if I bring up a new concept but you keep trying to insert circumcision into the discussion. I do not understand your unnatural obsession with that procedure but it is irrelevant to this discussion. The rest of this paragraph is ad hominem and equally irrelevant.
Just as I suspected: Ignorance of religion. What is America based on if not on the belief of a creator and a Judeo-christian background?
This is false. The Treaty of Tripoli conclusively proves otherwise that the United States was not founded on christianity. The Constitution and the writings of the founders provide additional edification if you're interested (and I'm sure you're not).
The human origin of ethics and human-derived rights (as opposed to divine-derived rights) were the main principles behind communism, facism and nazism.
This is false. The human origin of ethics and human-derived rights is the main principle behind Secular Humanism, not communism, facism or nazism. The nazis, in particular, were christian and believed themselves to be doing the christian god's work.
By contrast, the vast majority of those that have changed the world for the better have been religious. Study some history. Study some religious texts. Open your mind.
This is false. Religion has been the enemy of enlightenment and progress throughout history. I'm not saying that no good at all has come from religion but the good is definitely in the minority. As for studying history and religious texts, I would suggest you take your own advice. All available evidence from this thread indicates that I am more informed about both subjects than you are.
This latest post of yours was definitely an eye opener. You've ignored my points and attempted to shift the topic of discussion. You tell falsehoods about religion, humanism and history. When you run out of ways to defend your position (and that doesn't take long) you resort to ad hominem attacks. People like you denigrate religion and contribute to the rise of secularism in educated populaces throughout the world. Thank you for your shining example of the religious mind.
So there is a right to the morning after pill that can be derived from the constitution?
I point out that you agree with me that we are not limited to just those rights mentioned in the Constitution. You claim to interpret this to mean that I think that the Constitution specifically mentions a right to the morning after pill. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you're not a troll.
No, I have problems with laws that are over-reaching. Refusing to give a prescription back should be illegal. Refusing to act against one's own ethical beliefs shouldn't. I would agree with a law that posed stiffer penalties to pharmacists that refuse to give a prescription back. The law that was passed as a result of this case forces pharmacists to surrender their religious freedoms. That's a big difference.
No one has the freedom to force their religion on others. If a person believes that taking the morning after pill (or aspirin, or any other medicine) is against their religion then they have the right to not take it. They do not have the right to stop other people from taking it. I don't think we'd be having this argument if the pharmacist was a Christian Scientist and refused to give out any medication at all.
Within the medical profession, there are often no consensus in many areas, and allowances are made for the doctor's personal liberties so long as they don't conflict with the patients in any meaningful way.
Not allowing a person to get medicine that their doctor has prescribed to them is definitely "meaningful".
That's why alternative course of treatment exist, and why clinics can refuse to give abortions, circumcision, etc. You seem to be confusing "regulation" with "total dictatorship control." When there are no agreements within the very professionals that make up the community, who decides but the government and how is this different from state dictatorship?
There are agreements in the medical community. The drug is safe and legal. The government isn't some monolithic entity that dicates to medical professionals against their very judgement. The branches of the government that regulate the medical industry are made up of medical professionals. The agreements about prescription drugs are already made; that's why they're legal prescription drugs.
So you seem to be saying that within limits, these freedoms do apply to doctors. Why is then, that the only freedom (within limits as well) that does not apply at all is religion?
You come so close to understanding and then fail. My point is that there are limits on these freedoms when applied to the medical profession and that the limit to freedom of religion is that you can't force yours on other people.
So, is that a yes, or a no? Please answer the question.
I've answered the question. Any institution licensed as a hospital should be required to perform any legal medical procedure for which they have qualified personnel.
On another note, circumcision is often cited as an example of conscientious objection because there is a disagreement on the medical community of whether or not is beneficial, and therefore, whether or not it should be performed. If there is no medical concensus about the ethics and the need for something as simple as circumcision, religion aside, how can you have a concensus in more complex and controversial procedures such as late-term abortions?
It's funny to watch you complain about me introducing new situations to the conversation (rape victims) and then go and introduce your own (late-term abortions). It's very hypocritical of you. My amusement, of course, is irrelevant to the fact that there is no connection between circumcision and abortion. It is a fallacy to assume that objections to one necessitate objections to another.
Religion is often very helpful in providing guidance to ethically-murky situations.
Actually, religion isn't any more helpful in providing ethical guidance than reading any other book or talking to any other people. There's nothing special about religious texts or religious leaders.
Are there no ethically-murky situations in medicine?
This question appears to be a non sequiter. We're talking about a specific situation (or two, or three, or as many as you bring up in an apparent attempt to dodge the question).
Same with the morning after pill.
The morning after pill definitely does have to be administered within a very short time of the potential conception and as you've conceded it cannot be obtained from another pharmacy if the prescription is stolen by the original pharmacist. So I'm not sure why you said this.
You know what? You are right. In this case the pharmacist deserved to get fired and I had made that claim from my very first post on the issue. However, rather than letting the store owner handle it (or the local police if that fails), the people seeking the prescription chose to involve the state government and seek legislation. How is that not overstepping the boundaries of the established law?
Are you attempting to find some problem with writing new laws to deal with new situations? I'm having trouble believing that you really believe this in principle and not simply for this specific case.
You would normally refer to someone that would force you to act against your morality as a tyrant, but yet you ask others to act against their morality when there clearly are alternatives that don't require them to do so.
The alternative is that they NOT BE A PHARMACIST. I don't know how to make this any more clear to you. You claim that this is government "control" but you seem to not understand that the government DOES REGULATE the medical profession. This is necessary to keep unqualified people from performing medicine. Your own article that you had me read pointed out the consequences of not doing this. Why do you pretend to be confused by this? A person who is unwilling to perform their duties is not qualified to hold them. The government regulates the medical industry and has the responsibility to ensure that people who hold medical positions are qualified. People who make medical decisions based on religion are not.
But since ad-hominems are in fashion, let me jump in the band-wagon. What other right guaranteed on the constitution do you believe has no place in medicine? Do you seriously think that rights guaranteed by government can be banned outright because there is disagreement? Would you ban free speech from medicine? What about freedom of the press? What about freedom to assemble? What about rights to privacy? If you answer no to all those but yes to banning freedom of religion, then I suggest that you take a look about your pre-conceptions of religion. The word "bigot" comes to mind.
Why do you claim the Constitution gives pharmacists the right to refuse to give out legal medicines? Where did you get the idea that freedom of religion means being able to force that religion on others?
As for your other rights, let's take a look, shall we? I believe in free speech. I do not believe in the right of doctors to give patients information or advice that is false. And make no mistake, lying is not against the law. But a doctor lying to his patient sure as hell should be.
Freedom of the press? Freedom to assemble? Why don't you explain how they apply to medical treatment and I'll tell you what I think.
I do like your mention of the right to privacy though. I'll take it as read, then, that you agree with me that we are not limited to those rights explicitly described in the Constitution (like you tried to claim earlier with regards to the morning after pill). It's nice to see that I'm getting through to some extent.
My point is that an institution should not be licensed as a hospital if it is going to refuse to perform certain procedures based on religion. Religious beliefs have no bearing whatsover on the practice of medicine.
So what are you suggesting? That Catholic hospitals be forced to perform abortions? What constitutional basis can you possibly have for that?
I'm suggesting that institutions that refuse to provide services such as abortions or emergency contraception to rape victims not be licensed as hospitals. If fundamentalists don't want to provide medical services then they shouldn't pretend to be medical personnel. Licensing should reflect that.
BTW, what do you think protects a Catholic hospital against being forced to provide abortions? (Hint, read about the law how it protects medical conscientious objectors).
Only in some states. You're right though, this is a problem that is in the process of being dealt with. Religion has no place in medicine and an increasing number of people are realizing that.
Ever heard of Health Care Conscientious Objector laws? I've got news for you, in some states medical personnel are permitted to withold treatment on the basis of the personnel's beliefs so long as the treatment is not life threatening and there are alternatives. For example, a doctor may refuse to perform circumcision if it goes against the doctor's beliefs.
What kind of ridiculous non sequiter is this? A circumcision is not an operation that has to be performed within a limited window and a doctor's refusal to perform the operation does not stop the operation being performed elsewhere.
The distinction is "bona fide", a need that cannot be fulfilled any other way does not fall into the ubrella of protection. The pharmacist case does not fit this description since the need was not life-threatening, and since other pharmacies, or another clerk at the same store could supply the pill.
I see you're ignoring the part about the pharmacists refusing to return the prescriptions. That makes it impossible to get the pills elsewhere. You ask for evidence, I provide it and you ignore it. If that's the way things are going to be then what purpose is there to discussing anything with you?
Agreed. By that same token, neither do others have the right to force others to act against their religious beliefs if there are alternatives. In this case, there were alternatives, but the government is forcing people to act against their own beliefs.
No. There weren't. Why do you continue to make this dishonest claim? When the pharmacist refuses to return the prescription there is no alternative way to get the drugs in time. Stop lying about this.
All of your other points about muslims and the FDA are non-sequiturs.
No they are not. You claim that it's acceptable for medical personnel to deny treatment based on religious beliefs. I am showing you that it is not.
We are not dealing with life or death, we are not dealing with cases where there were no alternatives, and we are not dealing with FDA mandate that the "cure" for pregnancy has to be the "morning after" pill.
Dealing with life and death is irrelevant to the question of prescription drugs. The overwhelming majority of prescription drugs are not life and death situations. As for alternatives, if the morning-after pill is denied the only other option to avoid the unwanted pregnancy is abortion, a procedure that carries its own risks. It is unethical for medical personnel to interfere with a person's lawful right to medication that protects them having to undergo a surgical procedure that can risk their life.
I suggest you read a little bit about ethics before knee-jerking like that. Here's a link to start: http://www.consciencelaws.org/Examining-Conscience -Issues/Ethical/Articles/Ethical23.html.
Your implication that I have no ethics is unwarranted and childish. If you cannot defend your arguments without resorting to ridiculous name-calling then perhaps you should stop replying.
You appear to think that only a person who agrees with you can have ethics. That anyone you holds a position differing from yours does so because they have not considered the ethical implications of their actions. This is a very closed-minded attitude that precludes reasonable discussion.
Nevertheless, I read the article that you linked to. It does not seem convincing to me. The ethicist's conclusion that the pharmacist must give the drugs to the 16 year-old girl is correct. It is not for the pharmacist to decide what a "bona-fide need" is. As for Phillip Bondy, of course he has the right to have parts of his body removed should he so choose. The article tries to denigrate his reason for doing so but again it is not for others to judge his predilections. His choice of action harms no one. It a
I agree completely. However, that move should still have rightly left up to the discretion of a private party (the store owner) and not the government.
Pharmacists (like other medical personnel) are regulated by the government for the safety and welfare of all citizens. Medical personnel are not permitted to withhold treatment to anyone based on race, sex, or religious beliefs. Nor should they be able to.
I've yet to hear of this happening. Can you provide some supporting evidence, or is this a rumor? The case in question did not involve refusal to give back the prescription (that is, assuming that there was a prescription in the first place).
Here you go. Sixth paragraph.
No, an unwanted pregancy is not an ailment. It's a consequence. The natural state of the human body tends towards reproduction. The term "ailment" is defined by dictionary.com as "A physical or mental disorder, especially a mild illness." Pregnancy cannot be a disorder because a woman's body is naturally predisposed to child bearing, and sex is the natural means for pregnancy.
The relevant definition of "disorder" from the same site is:
3. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body: eating disorders and substance abuse.
It's a bit circular, but the main point is that an ailment affects the function of the mind and body. The negative mental and physical effects of pregnancy are well documented. That's not to say that a pregnancy can't be an overall positive, if it's wanted.
Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex, in other words, it's primary biological purpose. By definition, pregnancy cannot be a disorder but it is indeed a very real consequence of sex.
Biology is not destiny. Pregnancy may be the primary evolutionary purpose of sex but we as a people do not govern ourselves according to the dictates of evolution, nor should we. Pregnancy is one possible consequence of sex; it is not the only or even (I would argue) the most important.
When did I ever argue against preventative birth control?
When you said that what the pharmacists were refusing to provide was not medicine. Birth control pills are preventative and as this article indicates, pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for them.
the constitution does not guarantee a right to the "morning after" pill
The Constitution doesn't guarantee any rights. It recognizes them and provides limits on government action accordingly. The founding fathers knew that they couldn't list every right so they provided the ninth amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I'm getting pretty tired of people arguing against every right that isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
The question at the heart of this issue is: Should the government have the power to force mandatory access to non-vital pills over people's rights of freedom of religion and of self-determination?
No, the question at the heart of the issue is this: Should the government have the power to require medical personnel to do their job. And the answer is YES! It's no different than a doctor refusing to perform a blood tranfusion or provide assistance to a Muslim or atheist because it's against her religion. Incidentally, birth-control and morning-after pills are as vital as almost any prescription medicine available. The majority of prescription medicine is not of the "if you don't take this you'll die" variety.
Here's a solution for people who don't want to fulfill prescriptions for medicine that violates their religious beliefs: DON'T BE A PHARMACIST.
I find it odd that the Slashd
One reason for believing in God is that our own universe seems improbably fine-tuned for life. But if our universe is one among a vast ensemble of universes with randomly varying physical constants, then it is only to be expected that a few of these universes should be life-fostering.
This article refers to "some thinkers" saying that other universes need to exist so that there's no reason for god, but I notice that he doesn't name any of them, even though he does mention names elsewhere in the article.
As the author says, this is the anthropic principle. It's not really very mysterious -- if the universe were different, we'd be different. As Douglas Adams put it, "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole." There's no need to believe in multiple universe to realize that the anthropic principle demolishes the "this universe was designed especially for us" argument.
Its amazing that you say you are not following Reference.com definition of religion (#4) when you are talking and defending the belief you have.. which by the definition means you are in a religion. The zeal in which you answer your questions and the thought process in which you obviously think about define it as such.
What belief? What I have is a lack of belief. I find it impossible to believe that you do not understand this; I think you're just being dishonest. As for zeal, having a discussion on a web board is not zeal. If that were zeal then operating systems, sports, bands and video games would all be religions. That they are not is obvious to everyone and again, I do not believe that you are honestly confused about this.
I don't see much purpose in continuing this discussion. You're ignoring everything posted in favor of your own defective definitions of atheism, agnosticim and religion. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately as a troll or if you're just honestly incapable of understanding basic theological concepts but it really doesn't matter.
Feel free to reply to this. If you post something that merits a response you'll get one but otherwise you get to have the last word.