Boom!!!! Scott Brown Pulls Ahead

[uscitizen]

Each state does elect their own to represent them. But, your missing the point I'm making. The elected official of each state does have impact on the rest of the nation.
What they vote on effects me, so I should be able to send donations to the person of my choice.

But you keep missing the point I am making. States rights. MOre in line with what our founders envisioned and set up.

States rights used to be a republican plank. What happened with that?

I'm not missing your point...my donations to another state does no impede that states rights.

It does if it influences THEIR elections.

 

[DiveCon]

but they get to decide for THEMSELVES
you can not force me to do something i refuse to do

What if it's a Jewish doctor who REFUSES to operate on a Muslim patient. You can't FORCE him do something he REFUSES to do RIGHT?

Thats not the same topic as the abortion thing with brown. Brown supported the sepearation of church and state by voting in favor of not forcing doctors to perform abortions if it goes against their morals.

Your argument about jewish doctors has nothing to do with the original issue you were discussing, it is an effort to distract away from the fact that what scott brown did was actually in line with the seperation of church and state.

IMO

and in most people with common sense

 

[Baruch Menachem]

If a Dr refused to operate on a relative of mine on religious grounds and my relative died as a result that Dr. Had better be prepared to meet his maker.

If a Doctor has a conflict when dealing with a patient, they should pass the patient over to another doctor.


The way I understand what is being debated here, is Brown thinks a person should not be compelled to do something he considers immoral. We are not talking about emergency procedures either. We are talking about, what those support it, refer to as 'cosmetic surgery removing unnecessary tissue.' Would you compel a doctor to do a nose job? Especially if the doctor had some weird reason to feel that this was unethical?

are doctors now slaves of the state?

 

[Meister]

But you keep missing the point I am making. States rights. MOre in line with what our founders envisioned and set up.

States rights used to be a republican plank. What happened with that?

I'm not missing your point...my donations to another state does no impede that states rights.

It does if it influences THEIR elections.

You are talking about state rights, and I stand by my post on that.
I have a right to donate to a politician that has influence at the federal level.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Maine is more rural than Mass, and here it would be only in the most remote areas someone would be more than an hour away from a hospital

So there ARE examples of a patient having only ONE option for health care! Thakns for PROVING my point.

no, being more than an hour away from a hospital doesnt mean you would only have one option
just it would take longer to get to those options

So let's say that during the rape the woman has her arm broken two ribs broken and a collapsed lung. I guess a road trip isn't out of the question.

 

[Sinatra]

Each state does elect their own to represent them. But, your missing the point I'm making. The elected official of each state does have impact on the rest of the nation.
What they vote on effects me, so I should be able to send donations to the person of my choice.

But you keep missing the point I am making. States rights. MOre in line with what our founders envisioned and set up.

States rights used to be a republican plank. What happened with that?

I'm not missing your point...my donations to another state does no impede that states rights.

To say nothing of the DNC now sending in staff and $$$$ to try and save the Oakely campaign.

Scott Brown is receiving support by and large from the people - while Coakley is receivng the majority of her support from the Democrat polical machine.

This Massachusetts story is now a national race that is proving just how far out of touch the Democrats have become with the interests of the American people - even the historically liberal folks of Massachusetts.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thats not the same topic as the abortion thing with brown. Brown supported the sepearation of church and state by voting in favor of not forcing doctors to perform abortions if it goes against their morals.

Your argument about jewish doctors has nothing to do with the original issue you were discussing, it is an effort to distract away from the fact that what scott brown did was actually in line with the seperation of church and state.

IMO

You are quite correct - Brown's stance on the abortion issue is actually among the most common sense of any politician. Protect the woman's right for choice, as well as the medical person's right to not have to engage in the practice as well.

It is the stance that most protects individual freedom.

Massachusetts voters understand this, and so, Coakleys attempts to raise the "Oh no he's a Republican he will take away your right to choice" is simply not working this time around.

BULLSHIT TOTAL BULLSHIT!!! It has NOTHING to do with PERFORMING abortions it has to do with PERSCRIBING medication. What if the doctor is a SCIENTOLOGIST and a SEVERELY depressed person comes in seeking HELP. A Scientologist will NEVER prescribe ANTI-DEPRESSANTS and so the SEVERLY depressed person goes home and kills himself. There is NO END to the services that could be REFUSED under "MORAL" objections. If you have a problem with ANY aspect of your job that you MAY be required to perform then you have NO RIGHT to be in that position.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm not missing your point...my donations to another state does no impede that states rights.

It does if it influences THEIR elections.

You are talking about state rights, and I stand by my post on that.
I have a right to donate to a politician that has influence at the federal level.

we will just have to disagree then.

 

[DiveCon]

So there ARE examples of a patient having only ONE option for health care! Thakns for PROVING my point.

no, being more than an hour away from a hospital doesnt mean you would only have one option
just it would take longer to get to those options

So let's say that during the rape the woman has her arm broken two ribs broken and a collapsed lung. I guess a road trip isn't out of the question.

they would treat her for those injuries
she could seek out abortion treatment from someone else

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well I see that there are 5 hospitals in Berkshire county, is that right?

List of Massachusetts Hospitals - Board of Registration in Medicine

There is a list of all our hospital for you cold fusion

OK I give you've got a bunch of choice but here in Idaho where the SAME law was proposed we have MANY hard to reach rural areas thus TAKING AWAY a patients RIGHT to get the health care THEY want.

 

[uscitizen]

If a Dr refused to operate on a relative of mine on religious grounds and my relative died as a result that Dr. Had better be prepared to meet his maker.

If a Doctor has a conflict when dealing with a patient, they should pass the patient over to another doctor.


The way I understand what is being debated here, is Brown thinks a person should not be compelled to do something he considers immoral. We are not talking about emergency procedures either. We are talking about, what those support it, refer to as 'cosmetic surgery removing unnecessary tissue.' Would you compel a doctor to do a nose job? Especially if the doctor had some weird reason to feel that this was unethical?

are doctors now slaves of the state?

They are bound by their oath and liscencing requirements which they agreed to.
And I think the optional surgery thing is a strawman issue thrown in.

 

[Sinatra]

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. “I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers,” says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. “If she’s not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout,” the Democrat says. “So right now, she is destined to lose


Democrat Strategist: Coakley "is destined to lose" | American Conservative Values Journal

 

[DiveCon]

If a Dr refused to operate on a relative of mine on religious grounds and my relative died as a result that Dr. Had better be prepared to meet his maker.

If a Doctor has a conflict when dealing with a patient, they should pass the patient over to another doctor.


The way I understand what is being debated here, is Brown thinks a person should not be compelled to do something he considers immoral. We are not talking about emergency procedures either. We are talking about, what those support it, refer to as 'cosmetic surgery removing unnecessary tissue.' Would you compel a doctor to do a nose job? Especially if the doctor had some weird reason to feel that this was unethical?

are doctors now slaves of the state?

They are bound by their oath and liscencing requirements which they agreed to.
And I think the optional surgery thing is a strawman issue thrown in.

their oath says to "do no harm"
they can hold to that oath and refuse to treat if they believe it is doing HARM

 

[Cold Fusion38]

If a Dr refused to operate on a relative of mine on religious grounds and my relative died as a result that Dr. Had better be prepared to meet his maker.

If a Doctor has a conflict when dealing with a patient, they should pass the patient over to another doctor.


The way I understand what is being debated here, is Brown thinks a person should not be compelled to do something he considers immoral. We are not talking about emergency procedures either. We are talking about, what those support it, refer to as 'cosmetic surgery removing unnecessary tissue.' Would you compel a doctor to do a nose job? Especially if the doctor had some weird reason to feel that this was unethical?

are doctors now slaves of the state?

NO!!!! WRONG AGAIN!!! It is NOT about abortion it is about PRESCRIBING MEDICATION that you have a "MORAL" objection to. NOBODY is saying a doctor must perform an ABORTION!!! But if you are going to be a GYNOCOLOGIST you MAY have to look at a VAGINA or two so you MAY not want to specialise in that field if you have a PROBLEM with vaginas. If you have a problem with ASSHOLES you may not want to be the chariman of the RNC or a proctologist. Just sayin.



THIS is the issue. He is saying that you should not have to precsribe MEDICATION if you have a "MORAL" objection to it which leaves the door WIDE open for doctors or pharmacists to REFUSE medication based on ANY objection. As I pointed out there are NUMEROUS religions that would have a problem with COUNTLESS meds so as far as I am concerned you should avoid a profession that MAY require you to do something that conflicts with you "values".

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You are quite correct - Brown's stance on the abortion issue is actually among the most common sense of any politician. Protect the woman's right for choice, as well as the medical person's right to not have to engage in the practice as well.

It is the stance that most protects individual freedom.

Massachusetts voters understand this, and so, Coakleys attempts to raise the "Oh no he's a Republican he will take away your right to choice" is simply not working this time around.

BULLSHIT TOTAL BULLSHIT!!! It has NOTHING to do with PERFORMING abortions it has to do with PERSCRIBING medication. What if the doctor is a SCIENTOLOGIST and a SEVERELY depressed person comes in seeking HELP. A Scientologist will NEVER prescribe ANTI-DEPRESSANTS and so the SEVERLY depressed person goes home and kills himself. There is NO END to the services that could be REFUSED under "MORAL" objections. If you have a problem with ANY aspect of your job that you MAY be required to perform then you have NO RIGHT to be in that position.

"Thats not the same topic as the abortion thing with brown. Brown supported the sepearation of church and state by voting in favor of not forcing doctors to perform abortions if it goes against their morals." YOUR WORD PILG!!!



Well once again you LIE because this is NOT about forcing a doctor to perform an abortion. So I use a "Straw Man" and you FLAT OUT LIE!

 

[uscitizen]

If a Doctor has a conflict when dealing with a patient, they should pass the patient over to another doctor.


The way I understand what is being debated here, is Brown thinks a person should not be compelled to do something he considers immoral. We are not talking about emergency procedures either. We are talking about, what those support it, refer to as 'cosmetic surgery removing unnecessary tissue.' Would you compel a doctor to do a nose job? Especially if the doctor had some weird reason to feel that this was unethical?

are doctors now slaves of the state?

They are bound by their oath and liscencing requirements which they agreed to.
And I think the optional surgery thing is a strawman issue thrown in.

their oath says to "do no harm"
they can hold to that oath and refuse to treat if they believe it is doing HARM

Hmm a valid point.
However medicine is a science not a religion and as long as no physical harm is done....

 

[Cold Fusion38]

no, being more than an hour away from a hospital doesnt mean you would only have one option
just it would take longer to get to those options

So let's say that during the rape the woman has her arm broken two ribs broken and a collapsed lung. I guess a road trip isn't out of the question.

they would treat her for those injuries
she could seek out abortion treatment from someone else

Why should she be FORCED to seek an ABORTION when all she WANTED was the morning after pill?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

BULLSHIT TOTAL BULLSHIT!!! It has NOTHING to do with PERFORMING abortions it has to do with PERSCRIBING medication. What if the doctor is a SCIENTOLOGIST and a SEVERELY depressed person comes in seeking HELP. A Scientologist will NEVER prescribe ANTI-DEPRESSANTS and so the SEVERLY depressed person goes home and kills himself. There is NO END to the services that could be REFUSED under "MORAL" objections. If you have a problem with ANY aspect of your job that you MAY be required to perform then you have NO RIGHT to be in that position.

Well once again you LIE because this is NOT about forcing a doctor to perform an abortion. So I use a "Straw Man" and you FLAT OUT LIE!

Ok I upset you, sorry...i'll respond to what you said but it has nothing to do with the abortion thing scott brown voted on...hence why i put that jpeg in the thread.

The law we are talking about in relation to scott brown only referred to abortion. Scott Brown, along with the majority of MA state senators (90% Democrat in our senate), voted to uphold individual doctors rights to not perform what they consider an immoral act. In doing so our democratic state senate upheld the seperation of church and state.

The bill did not say that a doctor can refuse to write perscriptions based on anything as it was very narrow and specific in relation to being about abortion only.

There...a more civil respons for you.

EDIT: This discussion did stem from scott brown's vote on the abortion thing right?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

They are bound by their oath and liscencing requirements which they agreed to.
And I think the optional surgery thing is a strawman issue thrown in.

their oath says to "do no harm"
they can hold to that oath and refuse to treat if they believe it is doing HARM

Hmm a valid point.
However medicine is a science not a religion and as long as no physical harm is done....

A life is ended in an abortion........

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So let's say that during the rape the woman has her arm broken two ribs broken and a collapsed lung. I guess a road trip isn't out of the question.

they would treat her for those injuries
she could seek out abortion treatment from someone else

Why should she be FORCED to seek an ABORTION when all she WANTED was the morning after pill?

Thats when you let one of the OTHER doctors in the hospital write the perscription . If EVERY single doctor is a devout catholic/christian then she can just CALL a planned parenthood clinic and they will call in the perscription for her.....well they can in our state here anyway.