Rani
I know you like to portray yurself as a clever smartass dripping with acid but you would do well to read before you open your yap and type a smartass response.

If you check the previous page of this very thread, here is what KIA said directly to me

[quote]

As I recall, the last time you were placed in a position of being asked to put up or shut up, you sunk low, tucked your tail between you legs and ran away from me. I'm dying to see a full display of (Blue) White Power. For once, I'd love to have some blue idiot show me just how well the other side lives.

[/QUOTE

That brought my response to him which you lamely and stupidly attempted to turn back on me.

Grow up. Get a life. I love being the most hated enemy of the libertarian odd couple here. I am thinking of having a lapel pin made as a badge of distinction. Its something to be proud of.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

And what's wrong with meeting Xians of any color?

But, in Uralic it has another non-Progressive-in-a-hurry definition for my Euro-cousins:valkea



The Crushing of Progressives of the Ruddy Sort was an excellent use of White Power!

Finland? A country with a large area and few people, with a strange language, a nasty climate, and a weird history. The only good guys on the Axis side in World War II, and the only country to maintain its independence despite Soviet occupation, probably because it didn't do any murders or looting.

White Power in Finland between 1920 and 1945 meant something very different from its more recent uses. I must say this about the Finns: that upon the news of a Soviet attack on Finland a common black joke was

"So many Russians...

Where will we bury all of them?"

In any event, the "White Power" to which I referred is extremely offensive.

You certainly seem obsessed with insulting me at every possible turn... and even inventing some when the opportunity does not readily present itself.

Its a fair inference. Of course, you can stop that.

Originally Posted by Odin

If they have issues with doing their job it they can find a new job.

I dunno. The only obligation a physician has is, "First, do no harm". That itself can be up to some interpretation, I suppose; but you can hardly say that refusing to perform specific procedures is refusing to do their job (after all, any reasonable physician will have at least some things he simply will not do, no matter how much a patient may want him to).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I dunno. The only obligation a physician has is, "First, do no harm". That itself can be up to some interpretation, I suppose; but you can hardly say that refusing to perform specific procedures is refusing to do their job (after all, any reasonable physician will have at least some things he simply will not do, no matter how much a patient may want him to).

The Big Abortion Bugaboo(TM) concerns emergency services. Should a doctor be allowed to refuse abortion when the fetus is killng its mother?

In the Good Old Days(TM), mom was considered less important than a male child, so the motto was save the child first. Are you OK with that as an optional standard ... not for the patient, but for the doctor? Is it less acceptable if the mother who's dying is your wife?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Please be careful about your word choice. Getting involved with Democratic politics is one sure way of meeting people who aren't white Christians in many places.

Why would I ever join a party who imposes a state of social hush-hushness, who plays and relies on the race card to sustian its standard of living, consistently attacks my right to freely speak and the right of Christians to exist and openly express themselves?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Should a doctor be allowed to refuse abortion when the fetus is killing its mother?

Is the doctor a slave? Should he be allowed to not do something he thinks shouldn't be done? By a group of legislators??

What kind of a stupid question is that? Doctors make calls all the time -- some of which end up with their patients dying. Nothing forces the patient to stay with a particular doctor, particularly if they or their agents disagree with the doctor's intended course of action.

(plus what Rani said)

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... Should a doctor be allowed to refuse abortion when the fetus is killing its mother?

Eh, that's kind of a silly question. If a woman is in the early stages of pregnancy, she will generally have a spontaneous miscarriage if problems are that serious. In the later stages, doctors just do a C-section and send the fetus off to the neonatal ICU.

There are an entire range of issues that you can't possibly fold nicely under those two processes. How about women with autoimmune diseases and <fill in the complication of your choice> or something that happened during the birth of my own daughter (1976).

During delivery, she flipped and presented slightly worse than frank-breach. She should have been stuck in the birth canal. If my then-wife had not been designed to pop out children like she was, it may have been a real problem. In fact, she was asked how she wanted to handle it, since a c-section was not in the cards. She delivered her vaginally, and the doctors were actually amazed. I was just relieved. She was exhausted and sore for a week.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Is the doctor a slave? Should he be allowed to not do something he thinks shouldn't be done? By a group of legislators??

What kind of a stupid question is that? Doctors make calls all the time -- some of which end up with their patients dying. Nothing forces the patient to stay with a particular doctor, particularly if they or their agents disagree with the doctor's intended course of action.

OK, so in the midst of a medical emergency, which was my point if you had actually read it, you opt for making a free-market selection of another provider.

Nice.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, so in the midst of a medical emergency, which was my point if you had actually read it, you opt for making a free-market selection of another provider.

In the midst of a medical emergency is absolutely the wrong time for a doctor to be worrying about some bureaucrat second-guessing him. He needs to focus on doing what he feels it the right thing -- that's what they study for and all that crap.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

the right of Christians to exist and openly express themselves?

Translation: "Wah, Wah, the evil secularists refuse to let us put bigotry and misogyny into law! We are being oppressed". If there is anyone being oppressed it's non-religious people. I've heard tons of stories of Atheists being shunned and mistreated by their neighbors in many parts of the country, the Bible Belt especially when they came out openly about their lack of belief. I, in fact, do not tell anyone in my hometown except my parents that I'm not religious anymore out of fear that I will be shunned, and even worse since she still lives there, that my mom will be shunned for being a "bad mom" because of my atheism.

Wait? Are Christians being oppressed again? Did I miss it? Were there lions?

(gets popcorn, sits in gallery of amphitheater, waits for Great Fire of Rome).

Originally Posted by angeli

Wait? Are Christians being oppressed again? Did I miss it? Were there lions?

(gets popcorn, sits in gallery of amphitheater, waits for Great Fire of Rome).

LOL, that's the exact same sentiment I exude when the Christo-Nuts go on and on about "being oppressed".

Originally Posted by Odin

Translation: "Wah, Wah, the evil secularists refuse to let us put bigotry and misogyny into law! We are being oppressed". If there is anyone being oppressed it's non-religious people. I've heard tons of stories of Atheists being shunned and mistreated by their neighbors in many parts of the country, the Bible Belt especially when they came out openly about their lack of belief. I, in fact, do not tell anyone in my hometown except my parents that I'm not religious anymore out of fear that I will be shunned, and even worse since she still lives there, that my mom will be shunned for being a "bad mom" because of my atheism.

I think the oppressed Atheist needs to grow a stiffer spine and a thicker layer of skin.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

I think the oppressed Atheist needs to grow a stiffer spine and a thicker layer of skin.

That's always easy for the majority to say

"Grow up, we're not oppressing you that much."

Reminds me of the SWAT team shooting grandma. Grandma needs a thicker skin and the atheists losing jobs for their a-beliefs should get a thicker phony persona.

Originally Posted by angeli

Wait? Are Christians being oppressed again? Did I miss it? Were there lions?

(gets popcorn, sits in gallery of amphitheater, waits for Great Fire of Rome).

Wait? Are non-believers being oppresed again? Did I miss it? Were there fires?

(gets popcorn, sits in a public square, waits for the Inquistition part 2)

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Wait? Are non-believers being oppresed again? Did I miss it? Were there fires?

(gets popcorn, sits in a public square, waits for the Inquistition part 2)

No, we are not getting burned at the stakes, but we do get shunned and harassed because we are seen as agents of Satan.

Jesus Christ. Everyone here needs to take a couple of deep breaths, read all their posts out loud before posting 'em, possibly go to a spa or something, and CHILL OUT!

See wasn't that so hard?

Originally Posted by Odin

No, we are not getting burned at the stakes, but we do get shunned and harassed because we are seen as agents of Satan.

Oh, poor baby, like I've never shunned and harassed or labelled as being an agent of Satin in my life.

Originally Posted by writerGrrl

Jesus Christ. Everyone here needs to take a couple of deep breaths, read all their posts out loud before posting 'em, possibly go to a spa or something, and CHILL OUT!

See wasn't that so hard?

Screw that! I think we should allow our emotion to run free, flow down, spill out and fly all over the place. Believe it or not, brawls can be GOOD for the soul!

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Why would I ever join a party who imposes a state of social hush-hushness, who plays and relies on the race card to sustian its standard of living, consistently attacks my right to freely speak and the right of Christians to exist and openly express themselves?

Who wants to suppress Christianity here? Were I an atheist I would find Christianity useful -- at least some parts, that is. The humane parts of Christianity.


It's the GOP that has become "whiter" without becoming (intellectually) brighter, so to speak. No, I don't compare the GOP to Nazis and other such damnable swine. But you need to know what the code words "white power" mean -- as in people being herded into concentration camps, and being directed to the left side meant cyanide fumes in alleged showers that have no visible evidence of water, or being forced to dig their own graves before they are shot en masse.

You still have the right to speak, to write, and to assemble; you just have no right to a sympathetic audience. A sympathetic audience must be earned. Ask any teacher. Ask any politician.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The Big Abortion Bugaboo(TM) concerns emergency services. Should a doctor be allowed to refuse abortion when the fetus is killng its mother?

In the Good Old Days(TM), mom was considered less important than a male child, so the motto was save the child first. Are you OK with that as an optional standard ... not for the patient, but for the doctor? Is it less acceptable if the mother who's dying is your wife?

Two points are in order here:

First, in more than 99% of all abortions, the life or even the health of the mother is not at issue: The would-be mother, for one reason or another, simply doesn't want the child. And anyone who believes otherwise no doubt also thinks those "stimulus" e-mails were actually sent by President Obama.

And second, speaking of President Obama, I was looking at this from what should be his politically strategic perspective: He may need help from "people of faith" on the economy - remember that oppressing the poor and defrauding workers of their wages are two of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengence, according to Roman Catholic doctrine - so I'm questioning how much sense it makes for him to wave red rags - or more aptly, blue rags in this case - in religious people's faces.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Um ... not quite. In an emergency, there isn't time to find another doctor.

That's more or less what I said when Dave changed the question to the 'emergency-only' context. Emergency situations are precisely the times when doctors need to be able to exercise their own best judgment. But it seems that ideologues would prefer that at the time that a doctor's mind needs to be the most focused on what he is doing; precisely then is the best time to make him subservient to the whims of a politician.

KIA
while you are letting your rawer emotions run free looking for a brawl and defending the integrity of the White Race, you may want to check this out

Satin is a cloth that typically has a glossy surface and a dull back. It is a warp-dominated weaving technique that forms a minimum number of interlacings in a fabric. If a fabric is formed with a satin weave using filament fibers such as silk, nylon, or polyester, the corresponding fabric is termed a "satin". If the yarns used are short-staple yarns such as cotton, the fabric formed is considered a sateen.

from Wikipedia

when you made this reply to Odin

Oh, poor baby, like I've never shunned and harassed or labelled as being an agent of Satin in my life.

you just may have been referring to a supernatural being of evil known as SATAN.

We all make typos - me included - but it read rather funny.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, so in the midst of a medical emergency, which was my point if you had actually read it, you opt for making a free-market selection of another provider.

Nice.

In the midst of a medical emergency is absolutely the wrong time for a doctor to be worrying about some bureaucrat second-guessing him. He needs to focus on doing what he feels it the right thing -- that's what they study for and all that crap.

Are we being circular here? The medical issue in question is the "right" of medical providers to refuse to provide care that they personally deem immoral. Note, this is a personal choice imposed on others, not some issue involving a ruling by a bureaucrat.

In other words, if it's legal and protects the life and health of the mother, should health professionals be able to refuse to provide certain services - regardless of the circumstances? There is also the issue of providers not being available to provide legal services, and states making it incredibly difficult to go elsewhere to get them. That's not the issue I was addressing, though it's important too.