Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 1/22/2018: The Returns Of A Terrible Idea, A Times Mania, And Lord Acton’s Observation

Morning!

1. Bad Ideas Never Die Dept. The Obama Administration  killed an unethical Bush Administration rule that permitted a wide variety of health care workers to refuse to administer treatments and procedures they found morally repugnant, what the Bush administration termed workers’ “right of conscience.” It was, and is, a terrible idea; The American Medical Association  explained why, in the context of opposing conscience outs for pharmacists, when it declared..

“RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association reaffirm our policies supporting responsibility to the patient as paramount in all situations and the principle of access to medical care for all people (Reaffirm HOD Policy)…

Now that bad idea and the same ethically warped principles are embodied in a new Trump administration policy that provides “religious freedom protections” for doctors, nurses and other health care workers who object to performing procedures like abortions and gender reassignment surgery. This is a sop to the Republican evangelical base. As I wrote here (actually partially quoting myself from an earlier article),

“Conscience clauses” came into being in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade opinion legalizing abortion. Obviously that right to privacy ruling put Catholic hospitals in a difficult position, so the U.S. Congress passed the Church amendment (named after Sen. Frank Church of Idaho) in 1973. This provision allowed individual health care providers and institutions such as hospitals to refuse to provide abortion and sterilization services, based on moral or religious convictions. Most states adopted their own “conscience clause” laws by 1978. Conscience clauses are a terrible idea that encourage arbitrary professional misconduct. It is an example of how morally-based action can lead to unethical conduct….People who voluntarily undertake the duties of a job should either be prepared to fulfill those duties, take the consequences of not doing so, or not take the job in the first place.That is the ethical duty that one accepts when one agrees to do a job. “

President Trump doesn’t do ethics, and not being a deep thinker,  inconsistencies of principle don’t resister on him. The reason for requiring health care workers to perform their jobs regardless of whether some portion of it clashes with their religious beliefs, moral conviction, political passions or gag reflex is the same whether a doctor objects to abortions, a baker doesn’t approve of gay marriage , a restaurant owner doesn’t want to serve blacks, Hispanics, or Republicans, or an NFL football player is offended by the National Anthem. Society doesn’t work any other way. The religious freedom dodge easily turns into a cover for bigotry, harassment and oppression.

Nothing in the Constitution says that citizens have the right to hurt people when they practice their religion, or defy our laws, or refuse to perform the duties of their professions or employment while still getting paid because they cite religious conscience.

2. I Told You Not To Look Under That Rock! Dept. For some reason, I broke my own rule and skimmed a Paul Krugman column. What was I thinking? What is so digsuting about Krugman is his intellectual dishonesty, as he writes down to his readers using rhetorical tricks, rationalizations and lazy arguments that are 90% political bias and 10% substance at best. Here was the sentence that exploded my head,  stopped me from reading, as Krugman twisted reality to hold Republicans responsible for the government shutdown that was 100% caused by Senate Democrats blocking the continuing resolution to keep the government open:

“Protecting the Dreamers is, by the way, enormously popular, even among Republicans, who oppose deporting them by a huge margin. So it’s not as if the G.O.P. would be giving up a lot.”

So, as long as a provision is popular with its base, a party isn’t “giving up a lot” by supporting it—regardless of whether it is responsible, fair, smart, principled, or in the best interest of the country. Got it, Paul. This is the lowest common denominator theory of democracy being peddled to New York Times reader by its Nobel Prize-winning columnist: legislation by poll.

3. All the Anti-Trump Bile That We Feel Like Printing. After a month or so of putting out a Sunday Review that did not read like the minutes of an I Hate The President Club, the New York Times this past Sunday converted the section into a virtual primal scream., with 11 articles and essays promoting fear, disrespect, contempt or hate for the Chief Executive. Balanced reporting and perspective, yessiree! Here were the headlines:

It’s Been A Year of This? (How President’s Trump’s first year has been “interminable”…)

Hillary Lost, But The Future Is Hers

Islam Says Life Is A Test. So Is Trump

Donald Trump’s Radical Honesty (First sentence:”A year into Donald Trump’s candidacy, we have thoroughly established what a liar he is.”)

They Were Bad, He May Be Worse ( A historian argues that Trump may prove to be a worse President than Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, or Warren G. Harding.)

On the Trump Beat ( Typical superior and airy snark from semi-retired Cross-Fire “From the Left!” veteran Michael Kinsley. I’m GLAD I didn’t run into him when we were in college together.)

The Political Mythbuster in Chief (First sentence: “Donald Trump prides himself on destruction.”)

Learning to Listen From My Son (A dreamy stealth entry: the Buddhist author chastises himself for insulting and demonizing the President, even though he deserves it)

A Trump-Size Hole In Our Relationship (“This President has disrupted my life…”)

Trump So Far Is More Farce Than Tragedy

Presidential Etiquette Guide, Part III (The editorial board’s contribution,, purporting to list the President’s deeds, words, or thoughts that prove he’s scum, a moron, or a poopy-pants. I’d take the time to demonstrate how many of these facts are rumors, lies, biased characterizations, exaggerations, or Presidential jokes intentionally interpreted as serious statements, but I’d rather kill myself. The translation of this entire, juvenile piece would be, “Wehatehimwehatehimwehatehim!” Uh, yes, Times editors, we already knew that.

This self-indulgent whining, single note bitching and virtual spitting is why the first year of Trump’s Presidency has seemed interminable. It is also suicidal. The news media and its familiars are staking their credibility on the President failing, meaning that they are actively conflicted: they have an existential reason to want him to fail, and when the President fails, the nation fails. This is never a good position for any American institution to be in.

When the relentlessly negative spin on everything that the President does is exposed to even the dimmest bulb as naked propaganda, the news media will have forfeited its ability to contribute when there is a genuine reason to expose not just this President, but any President.

Good job, everyone!

4. Then again, the future might not be hers if women keep acting like this…One big reason Hillary lost was the hypocrisy and obnoxiousness of her campaign and its supporters, arguing that women were obligated to vote for a woman regardless of non-biological factors, and sinking to the worst tendencies of the men they had criticized for similar conduct. Since the election, we have seen prominent feminists and female politicians engage in outright male-bashing, watched a female Senator, Senator Gillibrand, drive a male colleague out of office by pronouncing him guilty based on unsubstantiated accusations, watched another, Kamala Harris,  exceed the President in public vulgarity, and a third, Elizabeth Warren, emerge as a full-fledged demagogue while refusing to deal honestly with her  fake Cheokee problem. We saw Senator Diane Feinstein breach her committee’s procedures to release a confidential transcript, then plead that she was only yielding “to pressure” and had a bad cold. Thanks to the #MeToo mob’s excesses, men are wondering whether it is safe to date a woman who might retaliate like the “courageous” but anonymous character assassin of Aziz Ansari,   who couldn’t attend the SAG Awards, where he was a nominee, because he was likely to be shunned.

Male professionals are pondering the wisdom of hiring women, since a real or imagined slight (or the promise of publicity)  could cause them to decide they had been the victim of an “unwelcome” sexual advances years or decades after an alleged “fact.”  Actor Matt Damon has seen his film career endangered because women found his statement, “There’s a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right?,” to be proof of a corrupt and women-hating soul. A female Justice Department lawyer cheating on her husband is at the center of an unfolding scandal suggesting that the fix was in as Loretta Lynch–a female attorney general—oversaw the investigation of possible criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton, her party’s female candidate for President.

Meanwhile,at the Daily Beast, the left-wing political and culture news aggregator and commentary site, we saw “From King George IV to President Trump, The Fat Men Who’ve Ruled The World,” authored by a womn of course, Candida Moss, who would have screamed like a banshee had a male blogger snarked about Hillary’s thighs.

What’s so great about electing women again? Wasn’t the theory that they were better than men? Once again, Lord Acton’ sneat phrasing of the ancient wisdom that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is confirmed. It has been made obvious, if it wasn’t already, that when women acquire power, they abuse it just as predictably and flagrantly as men, just in new and different ways.

68 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Arts & Entertainment, Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Health and Medicine, Journalism & Media, Professions, Religion and Philosophy, Rights, This Helps Explain Why Trump Is President, U.S. Society, Workplace

68 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 1/22/2018: The Returns Of A Terrible Idea, A Times Mania, And Lord Acton’s Observation

  1. ”A female Justice Department lawyer cheating on her husband is at the center of an unfolding scandal”

    Funniest thing:

    ”FBI ‘Failed To Preserve’ Five Months Of Text Messages Between Anti-Trump FBI Agents”

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/21/fbi-failed-preserve-anti-trump-texts/

    • Someone find me a non-conservative news source reporting this, please.

      • You’ll have to look past the first two Google search page results, but ABCnews and WaPo had links.

        Incuriously, they’re a tad less accusatory, somewhat restrained even.

      • ”Someone find me a non-conservative news source reporting this, please.”

        Um….

        “Nets Censor Revelation FBI Lost Texts from Two Shady Anti-Trump Agents”

        ”During their Monday evening newscasts, there was not a single second dedicated to bringing up this highly damaging development. (bolds mine)

        “Instead of reporting on the FBI, ABC’s World News Tonight gushed about the Super Bowl, CBS Evening News reported that Minnie Mouse got her own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and NBC Nightly News fawned over yet another royal wedding in the U.K.”

        Why all that time waiting for Minnie to hit paydirt, might there be a #MeToo story to tell?

  2. joed68

    The Hippocratic oath states “do no harm”. Most of us who are pro-life, are so because we consider abortion to be murder; the taking of a human life. Why should a doctor be compelled to violate that oath, and his conscious? Why can’t someone who’s determined to kill their child, do so with the assistance of a physician who has no such objections?

    • joed68

      To someone who considers this murder, it’s no more defensible than “I was just following orders. Abortions aren’t considered to be an obligatory part of, say, a GP’s skill set, and they’re widely available in facilities that specialize in them.

      • valkygrrl

        You’re so close to overcoming your knee-jerk reaction and thinking.

        Abortions are widely available in civilized areas and the people with the right skill set deliberate set out to get those skills so…..

        Who exactly is being forced?

        In what sort of situation would someone who does not normally preform abortions be compelled to do so?

        • Then the policy is mere grandstanding as opposed to an actual open door for discrimination, as providers have pre-discriminated by merely not working at places that do not offer the particular ‘service’ of killing an unborn baby.

          I don’t know, I feel like this is too simple. I’d need to see the full effects of the policy and ALL relevant laws to determine if there are indeed circumstances which arise in which a conscientious objector may indeed be compelled.

          • valkygrrl

            It could happen in an emergency room, I suppose but given the word “emergency” is involved it would necessarily be a matter of, er, necessity.

            It seems like grandstanding but what happens when conscience turns into what Jack described. The religious freedom dodge easily turns into a cover for bigotry, harassment and oppression. They start by saying it’s about abortion and then…

            Refuse to treat homosexuals? Catholics? Prostitutes?

            No, they used a word, a scary scary word that would raise you dander and get you on their side. Abortion. The real goal is to get official sanction to punish undesirables.

            • You’re gonna have to talk me through two things:

              1) How one goes from refusing a service of the quality and characteristic of aborting an unborn baby to refusing treatment entire classes of people. Because “mothers seeking to end the life of their unborn babies” is in no way remotely analogous to “homosexuals, Catholics, or prostitutes”.

              2) How the service of aborting an unborn baby is even remotely analogous to refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding or baking a cake for a gay wedding.

              I think the best argument here is that the policy is ultimately grandstanding as opposed to opening any *real* doors to abuse.

              • valkygrrl

                I refuse to accept your premise, which I suppose was the whole point of Trump’s little order. He chose to use a word that would fire up your anger and you let him play you. Sad.

                If you want an answer you will refrain from demanding I accept your terminology.

                I made no mention of babies, we’re not talking about babies. There are no babies involved. We’re talking about abortion services to terminate a pregnancy.

                • Isaac

                  I thought that even the vast majority of pro-abortion people were no longer clinging to this level of insidious delusion.

                  It’s a baby. You’re going to have to deal with that and rationalize from there.

                  • No, they won’t deal with that, because the whole self-delusional facade collapses. The pro-abortion movement sustains itself with an ethical and legal fiction, because otherwise women are trapped by biology. So they have made this dishonest deal, internalize it, and can now argue that nothing is killed, it’s not human, it’s not a life, it isn’t sentient so it’s not really there, and so on, with complete self-righteousness and indignation. All I have ever asked is for both sides of the debate to deal honestly with the other side of the scales.

                    • Sue Dunim

                      This is not a person. This is not a human being. That is just a fact, whether you agree or not, and whether you think it is an “unborn child” or not because of your religious belief or lack of biological knowledge. Or both.

                    • It is a human life on the way to being both a person and a being, with no agreed upon stage or point in time when it is suddenly either. Airily dismissing concern for its right to exist and the obligations of those who caused it to exist as superstition,sentimentality, or ignorance doesn’t advance the discussion. I’d guess 99.99% of the pro-abortion group labor under those same religious and scientific beliefs; they just come to a different conclusion because they WANT to, and thus choose to. That is no way to make policy, or agree upon reality.

                    • Another pro-abortionist missing the point of the discussion: whether or not conscientious objection is a valid concern that halts compelled conduct. It would seem to me to be a pro-abortion extremism to demand people violate their own deeply held convictions because the pro-abortion crowd is just so damn sure they are right and the others are wrong that the others must be forced kicking and screaming to conform to their own worldview.

                      The more I see this avoidance of tolerance and more I see an effort to relitigate the topic of abortion and not the topic of this post, the more I am convinced that conscientious objection regarding reasonably held convictions IS a valid reason not to compel behavior.

                      I’m even right on the edge of flipping my views that the exceptions we grant certain pacifist groups in war isn’t fair to that it is fair to do so. When a topic on rightness and wrongness of any particular conduct is as nebulous as abortion then the sage bet is to err on the side of not committing harm, and if the law still says it’s ok for a mother to inflict that harm, the unsettled nature of the act is still so questionable we should carve exceptions for those who want to err on the side of not inflicting harm.

                      Yes for protecting conscientious objectors. No for this creeping effort to compel every last free thinker to engage in conduct that violates such a deeply held conviction as the life of unborn babies should be protected and not destroyed.

                    • “Pro-a ortho it’s”?

                      Thanks autocorrect…should say “pro-abortionist” among all the other errors.

                    • Fixed that one…working on your COTD

                    • joed68

                      “This is not a person. This is not a human being. That is just a fact, whether you agree or not, and whether you think it is an “unborn child” or not because of your religious belief or lack of biological knowledge. Or both.”

                      Well, I guess that settles that!
                      Well then, in that case, there must be a specific instant in which this goes from being a funny-looking thing to a person, and deserving of the protection that personhood grants. Then you have to concede that right up until that instant, it’s not a person, but a person immediately afterward. Then we have to use calculus to sub-divide that instant even further, to make sure we arrive at the right conclusion. Can you see where we’re going?

                • Except, even with my terminology, you can answer the question, because whether or not we use my term or your term, it is an action that kills a human being, rights or no rights, that is conscientiously repugnant enough to violate reasonably held convictions. You must, regardless of terminology, demonstrate:

                  1) How one goes from refusing a service of the quality and characteristic of aborting an unborn baby to refusing treatment entire classes of people. Because “mothers seeking to end the life of their unborn babies” is in no way remotely analogous to “homosexuals, Catholics, or prostitutes”.

                  2) How the service of aborting an unborn baby is even remotely analogous to refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding or baking a cake for a gay wedding.

                  Because, regardless of how sterile you define the act of killing the unborn baby, that act is on a whole different plane from the previous discussions. Now, prove to me the slippery slope between refusing to abort a baby and refusing to treat the flu for a homosexual.

                  “…which I suppose was the whole point of Trump’s little order. He chose to use a word that would fire up your anger and you let him play you. Sad.”

                  Here I thought we could keep this civil. I’ll ignore this for that sake.

                  “I made no mention of babies, we’re not talking about babies. There are no babies involved. We’re talking about abortion services to terminate a pregnancy.”

                  Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can sleep at night.

                  • Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can sleep at night.

                    This has always been the key. It is why slave-owners cited “scientists” who explained why Blacks were sub-human, and why nations at war often present the enemy’s’population as monsters and animals.

                  • valkygrrl

                    1) How one goes from refusing a service of the quality and characteristic of aborting an unborn baby to refusing treatment entire classes of people. Because “mothers seeking to end the life of their unborn babies” is in no way remotely analogous to “homosexuals, Catholics, or prostitutes”.

                    How does one not? They’re all going to hell right? Catholics, homosexuals, prostitutes, feminists, usurers, abortionists, intellectuals, deists, late night hosts. It’s all morally repugnant to the Pat Robertson crowd. It’s not even a slippery slope argument since they’re pretty up-front about it. If you tell them they can refuse, they’ll refuse as much as you’ll let them.

                    • Ok, if you don’t want to have a reasonable discussion, I think we’re done here.

                      Whether or not you recognize it, I think this is a concession.

                      Have a good day!

                • joed68

                  And we refuse to accept your premise, that what we’re talking about is merely a “clump of tissue”. The fact that we believe this is a human being in an early stage of development is the cornerstone of our objection to abortion.

                  • valkygrrl

                    I didn’t offer a premise. I used the term abortion services. You you disagree that there’s a thing called abortion and that is is offered as a service? Is there a value judgement in saying so? Can the word abortion be used without you making assertions sure to start a fight with pro-choice people?

                    Think of it this way. One can say Tobbaco company and fell any way they like about that business or one can always scream CANCER MERCHANTS and complain about evil smokers anytime the word tobacco is used and start a fight.

                    I think you want to fight. Care to prove me wrong?

                    • You’re the only one who seems aggressive with a strand of belligerency right here, right now.

                      Like I said, I suggest this discussion conclude.

                      Lest you actually want to address the very real concerns that our nation historically considers: disgust against compelled behavior that violates reasonably held deep convictions.

        • joed68

          You’re so close to posting a polite reply to my comment.
          Doesn’t this law merely protect a physician from some sort of punitive action should he refuse to perform an abortion? I’m assuming that’s the case, because that’s the only thing that makes sense.

          • valkygrrl

            Do dermatologists need to be protected from punitive action for refusing to perform appendectomies?

            • Chris marschner

              What if an activist chooses a Catholic hospital seeking an abortion even if Planned Parenthood is nearby solely for the purpose of compelling the act to be done by someone they can sue?

              Where I draw a distinction with Jack is that performing a procedure because they don’t think the procedure is morally repugnant is wholly different than refusing service to person who they feel is morally repugnant.

              I do not believe products and services are protected classes and as you said – no one would require a dermatologist to perform an appendectomy.

              I think a narrowly drawn conscience exclusion that focuses on procedures and not people would be a reasonable compromise between those who doctors that believe they are doing harm to the unborn when others are available to do the procedure and those who feel differently.

              • Chris marschner

                Procedures that are considered morally repugnant

                Not – don’t think the procedure is not morally repugnant

              • valkygrrl

                What if an activist chooses a kosher deli and demands pork chops? What if an activist goes to McDonalds and demands they sell toothpaste? What if they call Jack’s ethics business and demand he paint their house?

                • Rich in CT

                  The differences in the demand is such that I see no valid analogy:

                  – Demanding pork is materially different than demanding human fetal tissue be removed from one’s uterus with the intent that the fetal tissue not survive.

                  – Demanding toothpaste is materially different than demanding human fetal tissue be removed from one’s uterus with the intent that the fetal tissue not survive.

                  – Demand a painted house is materially different than demanding human fetal tissue be removed from one’s uterus with the intent that the fetal tissue not survive.

                  • valkygrrl

                    Demanding toothpaste is materially different from demanding pork, what’s your point? Is it that you’re hung up on abortion and ignoring that you can’t demand what isn’t available in the first place?

                    If you go to a bakery that sells cakes, you’re within your right to demand they sell you a cake. If you go to a bakery that sells cakes you are not within your rights to demand breast implants.

                    You also couldn’t demand them of a dermatologist. You could only demand an abortion of someone who provides abortions. Since the only people who provide abortions are already doing that, there’s no one to force so maybe you and the others should fucking get over your Pavlovian reaction when abortion is mentioned and consider what else can happen when you allow moral objections to doing one’s job.

                    • “Since the only people who provide abortions are already doing that, there’s no one to force so maybe you and the others should fucking get over your Pavlovian reaction when abortion is mentioned and consider what else can happen when you allow moral objections to doing one’s job.”

                      You don’t get to keep squawking this line if you aren’t going to slip us down that slope in a logical fashion.

                      I’ve asked you twice now, this makes three.

                      Show me how reasonable objections to being forced to kill an unborn baby leads to refusing to treat a homosexual with the flu.

                      We’re still waiting.

                      I think the best you can settle on here is that the policy is mere grandstanding. You don’t seem willing (or able) to demonstrate how such a policy regarding objections to abortion inherently lead to discrimination against ‘classes’ of people.

                    • valkygrrl

                      Since there are no babies being killed, there can be no one objecting to their killing.

                      Keep using insistent terminology and ignoring the point, go ahead. I can jerk you around just as much as you jerk me around.

                    • Nope, we’re done here. You don’t want to have a good faith discussion about a topic our nation historically considers before it compels conduct: conscientious objection based on reasonably held deep convictions.

                      This will be my stock answer to any other attempt to continue diversion.

                • Rationalization #9: reverse slippery slope. Your argument is unethical.

                  Also silly

                  • valkygrrl

                    Wrong. It is not a rationalization, it is the use of analogy to distance from the very emotional reaction you anti-choice folks are having.

                    • She says with her emotions on full display.

                    • 1. No one is anti-choice. Many are anti-abortion.
                      2. Have the courage and integrity to openly support what you support. That’s respectable.
                      3. I see no emotionalism.

                    • valkygrrl

                      Is abortion not a choice in most cases? It’s called choice because one chooses whether or not to risk puerperal sepsis (child-bed fever), eclampsia, gestational diabetes….

                    • Come on. I know you are smarter than that, and I hope you are more honest. It is called “choice” for the same reason the antiabortion side is “pro-life”—it is a deceitful effort to make people think the other part of the issue, the part that makes it a controversy, doesn’t exist. Sure it’s a choice: it’s a choice to kill a nascent human life for what may be good reasons. Adultery-defenders could call themselves “pro choice.” Bigots choose to be bigots, and they have that right. When choice means “Choice to do something legal that is may still be wrong”, choice alone is not an honest term to use.

                    • joed68

                      “so maybe you and the others should fucking get over your Pavlovian reaction ”

                      At the risk of further incurring your wrath, this is the only “very emotional reaction” that I’ve seen thus far, unless I’m misinterpreting it.

              • Isaac

                You’re trying to reason with someone who just compared ending the life of an unborn baby to removing an appendix. I don’t know why you bother.

                • I don’t think we need to re-litigate the rightness / wrongness of abortion. The real question here is whether or not it rightly has enough reasonably held conscientious repugnance that providers should be protected from compulsion.

                  I think so.

                  • At the risk of sounding stupid or ignorant, to the extent an abortion consists of a prescribed pill and done at home, I would support compulsion. These are generally day after pills, etc.

                    To the extent that it’s a surgical service provided at the hospital, I would not support compulsion of services.

                    But overall, I’m a fence sitter on this issue. I like both sides to some extent. Mostly, I like watching everyone beat each other up. But EA has a lack of “pro-abortion” supporters with any brain cells lately….it’s quite the shame.

                    • “to the extent an abortion consists of a prescribed pill and done at home, I would support compulsion. These are generally day after pills, etc.”

                      Morning after pills are prescription?

                      I’ll have to think about this, but my gut reaction would be, gun store owners can’t deny selling a gun to someone who passes background checks, but if someone comes into the gun store and says “I’m buying this gun and taking it home to kill my neighbor first thing”, I don’t think the gun store owner is obligated to sell the gun.

                  • I believe during a firearm sale, anything a person states as a reason for the purchase is evidence that can disqualify them as a buyer and may even trigger reporting rules. (We’d have to do actual research to confirm.) So, in your stated scenario, that store owner / seller is actively obligated to deny the sale.

                    When discussing this particular topic, it’s so much more complicated than actual abortion due to the off-label (or secondary) uses of contraception and perhaps what I perceive to be the unreasonable religious prohibition of contraception. So I’m a complete flip-flopper on compulsion given any particular scenario.

                    • But now you said contraception…

                      I thought you were discussing abortifacents…

                    • I’ll have to think further on it. My gut does say that if a provider holds a deeply held conviction against contraception, they shouldn’t be compelled to provide it. But yes, “other uses” of contraception can cloud the issue.

  3. JutGory

    Wrong date in title. (Literally a Comment of the Day.)
    -Jut

  4. 1. Bad Ideas Never Die Dept. The Obama Administration killed an unethical Bush Administration rule that permitted a wide variety of health care workers to refuse to administer treatments and procedures they found morally repugnant, what the Bush administration termed workers’ “right of conscience.” It was, and is, a terrible idea; The American Medical Association explained why, in the context of opposing conscience outs for pharmacists, when it declared..

    This idea has precedent.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-22-15b.cfm

    CHICAGO – A federal jury in Peoria, Ill., has awarded $240,000 to two Somalian-American Muslims who were fired from their jobs as truck drivers at Star Transport, an over-the-road trucking company, when they refused to transport alcohol because it violated their religious beliefs, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which brought the case. The trial started on Oct. 19, and the jury returned its verdict the next day after 45 minutes of deliberation.

    Are you arguing that the law that made this possible should be repealed?

      • I agree.

        These laws unduly interfere with the relationship between employer and employee.

      • Chris marschner

        Let me play devil’s advocate.

        Should a Somali Muslim mother be able to force a doctor to perform a clitorectomy on a teenage daughter because it is part of his religion.?

        I don’t know if they are the same thing given that such a procedure is considered morally repugnant in our culture and probably not legal.

        If ethics steps in when the law fails to address an issue does the law step in when ethics fail? That is not a George Carlinesque question.

        I guess what I am trying to reconcile is that if something is legal that does not make it ethical. Ala Marion Barry rationalization. Jack help me understand Should we force someone to perform a legal procedure if they believe that procedure is unethical when other providers are available who do not share the same ethical concerns.

  5. From one of the best twitter parody accounts:

  6. joed68

    ,” authored by a womn of course, Candida Moss, who would have screamed like a banshee had a male blogger snarked about Hillary’s thighs.”
    Ha! The woman is named after an STD! Candida albicans! How fitting!

  7. Sue Dunim

    Life begins at conception… Except it doesn’t always.

  8. Sue Dunim

    And of course two separate conceptions may result in one person.

    The co author of one of my scientific papers had a mix of two cell lines. Complicating things, one was the 46,XY usually found in males, the other the 46,XX usually found in females.

  9. Sue Dunim

    Note that “abortion” includes pregnancy terminations of hydatidiform moles, and also the dilation and currettage required when a foetus is dead and starting to rot within the womb.

    The Catholic Church makes no distinction between these and other abortions, and neither do many Protestant pastors, not GOP policy. All are forbidden because Religion.

    So to say that anything is necessarily “killed” is a deliberate lie, as they know this, it’s no secret esoteric knowledge.

    Sometimes an entity I would say is not merely alive, but a human person, is slain in a procedure. I consider this infanticide, and only to be considered when death of not just the person, but others is inevitable if the procedure is not performed. But this does not apply so early in foetal development that one cannot say how many people are involved. One? Two? Half?

    One can have reasonable discussions on when personhood begins. But not with Religious Zealots, whose discussions of pneumatics are based on the supernatural, and who have a history of mendacity in order to gain purely political power. The very word “pneumatics” implies that ensoulment begins with the first breath, the traditional religious belief held at the time of my birth (and with such I strongly disagree based on science, not superstition). That personhood begins at conception is a religious belief based on an incomplete knowledge of biology, and is younger than the Happy Meal.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

    • ‘That personhood begins before conception is a humanitarian atheist belief based on an incomplete knowledge of spirituality, and is younger than the happy meal’

      Fixed it for you.

      Science changes at a whim, with eggs good for you one day and not the next. Your beloved ‘science’ has been caught with a finger on the scales, faking data, and slanting fact for political gain. It is unreliable, and you are arrogant to look down on others as you are here.

      My beliefs come from literally millions of man-years of experience, plus come from the creator of all that exists. That you believe otherwise is your right, granted by that same creator. Human Nature does not change.

      Why do you push to force everyone see things your way? Progressives cannot tolerate dissent from the meme of the moment.

      • Well done expose on the unreliability of modern science. Regardless, science can be 100% accurate, but it can never hope to come close to solving ethical issues. Science CANNOT in any meaningful way tell us when we as a society should or should not protect life forms.

        Science can give us an inkling as to when an unborn baby feels pain. It can give us an inkling as to when an unborn baby shows signs of neurological activity. It can give us an inkling as to when a born baby visually recognizes its parents. It can give us an inkling as to when a child’s personality is nearly complete. It can give us an inkling as to when a teenagers life habits are almost fully set in stone. It can give us an inkling as to when a mid-20s something is reaching emotional stability.

        But it up to ethics to determine when we protect members of our community from other members of community…in this case unborn babies from their parents.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.