Training new doctors or denying care
 

How comfortable will you be when your local hospital is entirely to be staffed by Christian scientists who when you arrive at the ER will pray for you but no medications, no surgery, nothing but the care which their religious freedom allows them to select for you. And the government will pay those doctors and license them and give tax dollars to that hospital to provide prayer and nothing more, and it is the only hospital in your county or within 200 miles or your home. When your oncologist hired at Moffitt tells you no chemo or radiation as he will instead only pray for you will you say, "Thank God"

Should your future doctor be taught the full range of medical skills of his specialty or should the objections of some make such an education illegal. The Catholic church considers artificial birth control to be a go directly to Hell sin. Right up there with murder and lust.

No wiggle room there for good Catholics.

So given that the overwhelming majority of first world Catholics are going to Hell, what power should the Catholic church have to regulate the teaching of future doctors who provide women's health, or for that matter men's health.

Do you believe that a urologist should be forbidden to learn how to do a vasectomy? Should an ObGyn never be instructed how to do a tubal ligation? Should all doctors never be taught the proper use of birth control pills, their risks and benefits, and other contraceptive choices? Should any doctor who may be the doctor on call in the hospital when your wife or daughter presents in shock bleeding with an ectopic pregnancy with minutes to survive if that pregnancy is not terminated, never learn how to terminate a pregnancy? Do you make the care of women safer by providing them with doctors who have not been trained in the provision of women's care? Or do you make them safer by training them well to provide necessary and legal care?

NC House bill would increase abortion restrictions | News and Observer News and Observer

Dear Guest: I'll make a wager that you are in the camp of those that mock climate deniers. I'll make a wager that you argue on the side that claim that the term " Islam terrorists" is slanderous.

I'll wager that you hold disdain for religious people.

I'll make a wager that you would argue for government subsidies for as many abortions as a woman desires.

I'll make a wager that you feel very comfortable and secure having the government tell you how to live, how many babies you can have and what income you should be allowed

I'll wager you really believe all that you have quoted above.

Darn Catholics, can't live with them can't live without them...I mean who else can we scape goat for a nation's shame of killing 52,000,000 babies just because a majority of 9 people say we have a right to do so. And what effect do you think abortion will have on the future of the USA since it is upsetting nature's balance? Perhaps a look at china's population control gone awry will allow some understanding and why they hastily up'd the number of kids their citizen can have

You misrepresent or overstate in your above communication

some people just outsmart themselves


Personal Best Regards:

I'll bet you are exactly right in your observations. :)

The original poster hates traditional religion and what it practices, and probably hates America as well. He is thus "enlightened"

It looks like since today's polls are showing a shift downward for Hillary, the liberal posse has taken to religion bashing on these threads today.

Why do these state legislatures think it is government's business to regulate women's health issues? States like NC want smaller government except when they want to poke their noses in every woman's uterus to make sure her pregnancy comes to term. And these are mostly all white males.

And who will ever forget the vaginal probes passed by Gov Bob McDonnell of VA. Yea, the same Bob McDonnell now serving his sentence in federal prison. His nickname is governor ultrasound.

After the next election, the GOP will be like boohoo, boohoo, we lost the women's vote again. No kidding. Obama won the woman's vote by 20 points in 2012. Hillary Clinton will win by an even wider margin.

I'll wager that you didn't answer the issues raised and instead attempted to divert by posing a series of different questions.
Do you believe that doctors should be prohibited from learning how to provide care because the procedure being taught is against some religious person's ethos? Should government be imposing those prohibitions when absolutely clearly for the foreseeable future doctors are going to be needed to provide safe abortions for both medical and personal circumstances? How is the imposition of religious litmus tests on health care any different from your feared Sharia law except that the religion differs?

And to answer your ridiculous questions, you are wrong on almost all of them. So you would loose your bets. Now tell me should Christian Scientists and Catholics get to decide what is and is not taught to your future physician and available in your government supported community hospital or should all doctors be trained in the full range of medical and surgical skills which they reasonably might be expected to be required to provide?

Reading this thread I can't help but think the Muslims are going to win. Given enough bullets we shoot ourselves. Time is on their side

Yet another excellent reason to support gun control. No circular firing squads

We will see what kind of gun control the dems will support when the condidates get in front of a predominantly gun support audience.

We all know they most certainly will not be promoting gun control.

Gotta tend to the voting blocks no matter what.

Yup the speeches are indexed by audience type.

The candidate will raise the flag of what is in front of them....at the moment. They all do it to one degree or another.

Politicians are politicians no matter what gender, race, religion or what ever.