Pangloss

I'm surprised, I thought you were opposed to tapping the reserve. You don't think that's kind of a one-shot tease-effect, rather than any kind of real impact?

That would be terrific. I'd call all my religious friends and tell them to watch it.

I agree (and suggested something similar back in post #9). I think finding alternatives is going to have to mean direct government involvement (ensuring availability of services, especially in rural areas), but I think that's better than forcing people to perform medical procedures they find repugnant. (Shortened for brevity.) Interesting! (Isn't it funny how, as different as our two society's legal structures are, we so often have the same moral dilemmas?) The quote about manifestation as distinct from a held belief is also very interesting. Having a legal distinction like that on record in this country might go a long way towards not only establishing the proper footing for things like this, but actually assuaging the religious conflict as well. I think most religious people don't want to be put in this position, and I think that's why we haven't seen this sort of thing happen more often (like, every time a gay person goes to a christian doctor!). line[/hr] That's what a lot of obstetricians do, apparently, rather than be forced to perform abortions. They say "well I can't get the malpractice insurance, so I just won't offer the service", when actually it's a moral objection. And it's not just in the US -- I ran across an article the other day saying that 70% of Italian doctors won't perform abortions because of religious objections. (Incidentally, is abortion still illegal in Northern Ireland? Just curious.) But many doctors are fully trained and capable of performing that procedure, and many of them specialize in the subject most closely related to that procedure (obstetrics). So isn't the real question whether they can be forced to perform at all? Aren't the moral grounds irrelevent? What is the difference between refusing to perform an operation because of who it's on, and refusing to perform an operation because of its result? Quoting from a 1990 paper in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/Does-obstetric-ethics-have-any-role-in-the-obstetricians-response-to-the-abortion-controversy-part-2.html The reason stated in the quote above are right at the end of the quote -- since this may violate their private consciences. That is the ONLY concern -- that it might violate their private consciences. Not "their private consciences are weighed against the rights of the mother and we determine them to be slightly more important". The point being that we let them off the hook, not because they're insufficiently specialized, or because they're talking about some sort of internalized moral dilemma instead of one that impacts on a third party, but rather because their private conscience forbids it, period, end of sentence. I'm not holding this up as the epitome of logic and reason, mind you -- I'm asking why we let these guys off the hook, but not the pharmacists or the in-vitro specialists. Given the state of abortion clinics in rural areas and the far greater immediacy of a need for an abortion (as opposed to a much more time-flexible need for in-vitro fertilization), you would think that it would be the other way around, wouldn't you? line[/hr] iNow (and I think a couple others) made a similar argument, and I admit it's the most sound reasoning on the grounds of precedent. I agree, that's why I (and Sayonarra) have suggested that the government be enabled to ensure alternatives are present. I'm sure you would agree that the abortion situation in rural areas is actually more pressing than the situation we've been discussing. Actually they're in trouble for that as well. Groups are asking that they be required to stock those drugs. (I think Wal-Mart just changed its policy on this at the behest of their lawyers, fearing legal action, if memory serves.)

Ah okay, so you've weighed it and come to the general conclusion that McCain will be the same (at least in the categories you're talking about -- I think you would agree with me on some differences if I were to nit-pick) as Bush. Fair enough, I respect that. The funny thing is, I don't entirely disagree with your point. I see McCain as being different, but he's not different enough in the correct categories/subjects. In short, he doesn't "get it" about what went wrong with the Bush administration -- he's lookin' at the wrong stuff.

On the contrary, as stated in the OP, the woman had alternatives. Thanks, it does sound like a good idea, so I'll go ahead and do it. I did think your point about tone was reasonable. That does strike me as a legitimate concern. I guess that's true enough, and they have no say in the matter -- their crusty ol' captain says "go there and do this", and if they object, they're gone. True enough. I guess I would raise the point here that they're civil servants, and doctors are not. I realize that may be different in the UK, and I wonder if that may underly part of the UK perspective here, i.e. suggesting to UK readers that doctors have less rights in this area because they're somewhat empowered by, and protected by, the state. That's not really the case in the US and in fact doctors generally have the right of refusal of any patient. The one exception might be emergencies, which I'm not even sure is a legal matter. Doctors have licenses, and those licenses have requirements, on pain of losing the license, but it's a different underlying premise with a different understanding of their role in society. I think that goes directly to this next point as well: Right, and here I would raise the same point as above, that as civil servants they lose some of their civil liberties out of necessity because of the power of their authority, as an additional check or balance. But perhaps I'm wrong in not seeing doctors this way in our society; maybe someone can take up the point. I don't, I just see the doctors as having a valid concern, and I think (think being an operative word at this point) that they're on roughly equal footing with the patients of this type (women seeking in-vitro fertilization). Also, there's no indoctrination being accused here. Just refusal of care, which I don't think constitutes indoctrination. He didn't try to convince her of anything, unless I just missed that in the article. line[/hr] Here's a question for the group: Why do we let obstetricians off the hook? Shouldn't they be required to perform abortions?

That's not true, I'm addressing your points directly. Here's the straw man: I did no such thing, and I responded to that accusation specifically in post #9. I did, however, see your point that the tone of my post sounded more like a provocative rant than a regular conversation-starter. I could have phrased it differently, and I acknowledge the point now. It's a fine line sometimes between starting a friendly conversation and drumming up some interest when things are a little slow, and perhaps I went a bit too far to one side. The seriousness of some of the above replies (Sisyphus, john5746, etc) suggests that I have started a legitimate discussion. So I think it merits continuance on that basis. We can change the subject line if you think it's too provocative. This strikes me as falling more under the concept of emergency. I had no objection to doctors being forced to provide emergency or necessary medical care. A more apt comparison: Police officers don't investigate civil matters. We DO allow armed forces to elect not to follow their orders -- they're called conscientious objectors, and their reasons for objection are matters of personal choice. We do that because we don't want people who object to the reasons to actually be forced to perform the service. After all, their performance might suffer and fail to get the job done. Why can't we extend the same courtesy to doctors and pharmacists? Seems reasonable to me. But again, this is not "critical". There's nothing "critical" about this. You're falling for those buzzwords and ignoring what this is really about. But you're absolutely right in pointing out that doctors are being denied a right. That's exactly what's happening. I'd say the same thing. You can't legislate morality. Winning hearts and minds is not something you can do at the point of a gun. Now let's all watch iNow use the "care" buzzword to demonize the doctors too: Oh my, they're seeking care, therefore they're being victimized if they're denied it. Yeesh.

Cute, but those Target employees could find work elsewhere and still remain in the same profession. They weren't breaking the law. The question in my mind is, why is it required of them? At the very least I think we have to recognize the vast difference between emergency medical care and optional, elective procedures. We lump everything under the emotional aegis of "care", but in a case like this we're actually talking about two offsetting personal choices.

Exactly, as usual Sisyphus nailed it with both the pros and cons. The parallel with the pharmacies is important. I support freedom of choice by patients, and I completely agree with the suggestions that these options are important. I'm not putting her behind the doctor or ostracizing her instead of the doctor (the straw man from Sayo's post). What I'm saying is that the doctor has a legitimate freedom as well, and we have to recognize it because we purport to be a free society. Ignoring it is wrong. This order requires him to physically do something, with his very hands, that is anathema to him. He's gone through years of training and personal effort, and he hasn't been rewarded by society for that or given special privileges of any kind -- he WORKS for a living, remember? He's no king sitting in a high castle. He's a working joe who just may make a little more than you (and has the debt to prove it). That having been said, if we're going to decide as a society that these medical practices are going to be available to the public, and that that's a recognized freedom, then maybe we also have an obligation as a society to provide that service. That may mean direct government-sponsored services in areas that don't make them available. In this case making a doctor available to this person, perhaps paying for airfare or other services. In the case of pharmacists unwilling to provide birth control (etc), it may mean direct government intervention as well. I agree that personal choice can't be allowed to create a situation where services aren't available due to nobody wanting to provide them in an area. But forcing the doctors and pharmacists to do something they don't want to do, under threat of legal action, is a serious breach of their basic civil liberties. Bear in mind that legally they can't even quit. It's a law, they can't just throw down the ol' scalpel and give up being a doctor over this. They have to provide this service, or go to jail. I don't want to get into slippery slopes, but we can draw analogies with other jobs. How about a scientist being told what to research, "or else"? And not by his employer, which would allow him to quit and pursue another job, but by the state, under threat of jail time. The pharmacies were just the tip of the iceberg, folks. If society is going to start dictating what people do, and people are going to accept that because those people are in specific professions, I really worry about freedom in this country. But as I say, these matters of choice are also important, so some kind of resolution is definitely called for. But ignoring the doctor's and pharmacist's freedoms is just state-sponsored discrimination. I agree with this sentiment, btw. I just think it's irrelevant to the discussion. Doesn't matter WHY the doctor doesn't want to do it. Their freedom-of-religion argument was bunk, IMO. That's what we do in a free society. We protect people's right to be stupid. Normally we don't protect it at the expense of others, but we also don't order free people to perform a service for other people.

Aren't you just trading one form of propaganda for another? That's the same thing as is this notion that Obama lacks experience.

This is one of those cases that initially sounds very simple, but turns out to be rather complex. Or maybe it isn't. Oh dear! How awful those doctors must be, denying medical care to gays and lesbians! Let's listen to the obligatory media straw man, shall we? Oh my god! Are you telling me he refused to help a pregnant woman dying on the sidewalk?!?!?!?!?! Er wait, how did he know she was a lesbian? ... Um ... <insert patented Jon Stewart camera stare here> I see. So this wasn't about emergency care, it was about an elective procedure, other doctors were available, and what we're really saying here is that the doctor's feelings are less important than this woman's feelings, because she is a lesbian, and they are doctors. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFyZOb5FfQtyvQ6N-Ypy1xR6pTZwD92KTJQG1

Well then they'll have to put aside their differences with the democratic types and share power, at least until they can do something about the fundamentalists. I care two things about Pakistan, in this order: 1) Keeping nukes out of the hands of the fundies. 2) Gradual progress toward democracy. Frankly anything that makes progress on these issues, in this order, is fine with me. And I'm the one paying for it, so that's probably a good thing.

That's true, and Clinton's infamously ugly 1st 100 days would also be a good example of your point, CDarwin. But I happen to agree with bascule, though -- executive experience is seems more useful than senatorial. What I think the word 'experience' may actually mean is something else entirely. Stability, objectivity, critical thinking, calm under pressure, stuff like that.

Thanks!

Cronies come and go. Maybe they'll put in someone more effective in dealing with the fundamentalists. (I mean in Pakistan.) <bonk>

Lol, that's interesting, I didn't know that either. That just goes to show you how united the conservative southern Democrats used to be, that there were only a couple of people who refused to sign it. Also interesting to note how most of the southern states are represented by Democrats twice on that list -- that's how solid the south was for Democrats back then. Notable signees (according to the Wikipedia article) include Carl Vinson, William Fulbright (of scholarship fame), and Russell B. Long, the infamous whip prior to Kennedy (played by Walter Mathau in Stone's JFK movie).

I agree with this, although I feel obligated to add that (and I think you'll agree with me here) there's no suggestion in that southern "version" of the civil war that freeing the slaves was a bad thing, that the south was noble because of slavery, or that blacks were or are less capable than whites. Those were all common sentiments in the ante-bellum south, but they're not common sentiments today, even amongst stereotypical red-necks. The article touches on this as well and I think it's an important point. I'm not sure it's so much a classroom thing anymore as a matter of learning outside the classroom. I call it the "Boy Scout meetings and camping trips" factor. What I learned at Boy Scout summer camp was VERY different from what I learned in school, and some of it was kinda chilling from a socio-political perspective. That's the oft-cited 1964 Civil Rights Act factor, which caused a lot of conservative white southerners (Democrats) to feel betrayed. Further evidence of this is the fact that they continued to vote for local and state Democrats, especially guys like Georgia governor Lester Maddox, who had a well-known position on the inferiority of blacks (he closed his own restaurant rather than serve blacks). But it's worth noting that the "solid south" didn't really become solid until the Reagan revolution, and didn't really have much to do with racism overall. It was a bigger picture than that. For this I usually reference the statistics-heavy, science-minded Earl and Merle Black (of Rice and Emory Universities), and their books "The Rise of Southern Republicans" and "The Vital South". (They have a new one out about partisanship in America.)

Interesting article in the Sunday Times (the famous British paper, not the New York Times) about Obama continuing to alienate the Bubba voter. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4553100.ece The article interviews a southern Republican poll worker whose not afraid to speak his mind (to put it mildly). Here are a couple of standout quotes, and then my thoughts. Um, okay then. Sounds like a regular Rush Limbaugh caller, eh? But he does have an interesting (and amusing) point or two. This is what he feels Obama should be saying to people like him: Colorful. But also an interesting point. And: Quite to the point. He goes on to insist that it's not about racism, and I think for most voters he's right, at least in the sense that they're not thinking that they're voting against Obama because he's black. What racist angle there is in this election is far subtler than that. And it's hard to argue that the guy's an idiot when he pulls out references like this: Gee. He sure doesn't sound like a typical Rush Limbaugh caller NOW, does he? The point of all this being that I think we get a little too comfortable with certain stereotypes here at SFN sometimes, and I wanted to offer a different perspective. White southern men aren't the red-necked, gun-toting yokels of yore anymore. They're more worldly, better educated, less racially unbiased than they were a few decades ago, and they are very, very motivated about voting. I hear sentiments like the above quite a lot amongst these types of people when it comes to Obama. Frankly I've been surprised that more of my friends and associates in general, many of them Democrats, haven't embraced Obama. There are many reasons for it, but there are quite a few things that Obama can do to address these shortcomings. Ultimately I have two points here: 1) White conservative opposition to Obama isn't rooted in racism, or at least not overtly so. It may be an underlying factor, but it could be assuaged and offset by properly spoken words and promises of a more moderate (less liberal) nature. 2) These people are very win-overable. It seems to me that southern conservatives are more open to the idea of voting for a Democrat than they have been in 20+ years. Polling supports this -- just look at how many states are considered contested now. And yet he can't seem to put the numbers up. This thread is mainly about why he continues to fall short in the polls, and how he fails to appeal to certain specific groups. What do you all think? line[/hr] Wups, I forgot the second article. This was in the Saturday New York Times: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34711 It's an article about 15 prominent Democrats coming to Obama and asking him to do more to appeal to undecided moderate voters, as well as malingering Clinton supporters:

Never heard of this. Is it something you observe yourself? I see a Wikipedia article on it, but perhaps you could tell us a bit about it from a personal perspective? It sounds interesting.

Wait... now that I look closer, I think that's Windows Mojave! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Sure, that must be it. The mantra of the closed mind: "You're all waves crashing upon the shore, and nothing you can say will ever change my mind. Now sit there and read while I opine about the tone of the discussion and show you how little your opinion matters to me, now that I've delivered my message. If you're lucky maybe I'll deign to notice you." How's that working out for you so far? Getting everything you need out of the discussion? Cool. Good for you.

"A war against nuances" -- I like that.

News on this from Saturday: Apparently Pelosi has changed her mind, and will now allow debate and direct voting on the issue. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/08/17/congress-to-vote-on-drilling-ban/ This is a step forward, even though it will do nothing about oil prices. It's a step forward because it will put a stop to the daily harassment that House Republicans have been perpetuating on the floor, which has been earning them brownie points back home. What a crock. But hopefully this puts a stop to that nonsense and returns the House to doing real business. Unfortunately the current plan still calls for some grandstanding shenanigans: Yeesh. But I get it now -- someone pointed out to her the hypocrisy of demanding oil be released from the reserve while opposing offshore drilling on the grounds that it wouldn't affect pricing. (chuckle) Way to go, Some Unnamed Adviser.

Well put.

Under the control of the CIA, of course. Read more history my friend!

It's ironic that I'm saying this to you, but communism wasn't what drove the Soviet Union to occupy other countries. It was control over resources that did that, and those factors are exactly the same today as they were in the 1950s. Um, wow. You do know that we have a Speculations subboard, right? Just wondering.