[Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule

Sat Feb 28 22:02:21 PST 2009

Gary,

I disagree, I think you are aware of what a job entails when you accept it. If you don't want to do certain parts of the job, don't take it, or shut up and do the job. 

If someone thinks it is immoral to serve a Black person, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Christian, or Gay person, should the pharmacist be allowed to follow their conscious, or should they be told to do the job, or take a hike? Or course not. People except, and should be expected to get treatment and service for things that are legal and offered at that place. 

It is not the JOB of people to be making moral judgments for others, just themselves. If they are in a job that requires them to do things they disagree with, they should not be in that job. Go do something else. 

Best Regards,

Donovan

--- On Sat, 2/28/09, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, vision2020 at moscow.com, garrettmc at verizon.net
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 3:33 PM

"...a doctor, 
lawyer, teacher, banker, and others, everyday do crap at their jobs they have 
moral problems with. That is the challenge in life, live and not commit sins 
against the others. You cannot pick and choose the treatment you want to give 
and withhold based on your feelings about a situation you know little or nothing 
about."

This is 
incorrect in several respects. Many doctors decide that they would prefer to be 
pediatricians and do not treat adults. Many doctors decide to be plastic 
surgeons and do not treat enlarged prostates. Some specialize in the brain and 
do not become podiatrists. In the same way many doctors decide that they want to 
respect and prolong life and do not become abortionists. The idea that just 
because you are an M.D. you must perform procedures that are abhorrent is 
nonsense.

Were a 
doctor hired to work at a hospital whose policy was to provide life ending 
procedures to the pre-born and refused, that might  be one thing but, 
at many hospitals, particularly religiously affiliated institutions performing 
infanticide or euthanasia is not 
part of their mission statement. A doctor might well base his decision to work 
at such an institution on just that policy and to penalize them for that 
decision is, again, nonsense.

I 
suppose I can understand a person not wanting to have to deal with the 
consequences of their bad actions but to force another to aid and abet you 
against their will and under threat of government sanction is beyond nonsense, 
its unconscionable.

g

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Donovan Arnold 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; garrettmc at verizon.net 
  Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:53 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to 
  Rescind Conscience Rule

      Garret,

I believe that abortion is murder in the 
        eyes of God. It is the intentional taking of a developing life. I think 
        any woman that has an abortion should feel more guilty of that than a 
        person who commits accidential manslaughter. They should be highly 
        discouraged from having an abortion because they will have to live with 
        that decision for the rest of their life. 

Having said that 
        though. I don't think a fetus can be considered a person according to 
        the law. It isn't something the law can touch. It is kind of like hating 
        your neighbor, abandoning you elderly parents, or not obeying God. It 
        may be evil and wrong, but you really cannot make it illegal or force 
        people to behave the way you want. 

I think someone that has more 
        children than they can provide for should be charged with child abuse 
        and neglect. A farmer that doesn't feed this cattle and horses goes to 
        jail, so should parents. 

I don't agree with the conscious rule. 
        If you cannot do the job, quit, that is what the rest of us have to do. 
        Does a banker say, "Hey, it is against the Bible to charge such an 
        interest rate." Bullshit, a doctor, lawyer, teacher, banker, and others, 
        everyday do crap at their jobs they have moral problems with. That is 
        the challenge in life, live and not commit sins against the others. You 
        cannot pick and choose the treatment you want to give and withhold based 
        on your feelings about a situation you know little or nothing about. 

"That being the case, it seems wise to ensure women have access to abortions that are
as safe as possible."

Two points, one, it is impossible for it to be safe because it is terminating a life. That is the
opposite of safe. 

Second, when people are not ensured to have access to life saving 
procedures which they have no
 control over or decision in, such as certain
operations and treatments, why should a woman have access to a voluntary
procedure which most people object to wanting to pay or participate in? If she
wants to pay for the procedure herself, that is her body, we cannot stop it, but
why should I have to pay for it, and make sure she can get one on my dime?

I agree with you about birth control. I think that everyone should be given education
about birth control. The government should not hide information.  

Best Regards,

Donovan

--- 
        On Sat, 2/28/09, Garrett Clevenger 
        <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:

        From: 
          Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Subject: 
          [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
To: 
          vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 11:14 
          AM

The right of woman to be able to terminate a pregnancy she is unwilling or
unable to see through trumps the right of a fetus. That may seem harsh and I
would never encourage a woman to have an abortion. The fact is, having an
abortion is probably the hardest decision a woman will ever make. You can make
them feel guilty about that, and perhaps some will choose not to have an
abortion, but there will always be some who decide to have an abortion. That
being the case, it seems wise to ensure women have access to abortions that are
as safe as possible.

According to http://wuphysicians.wustl.edu/dept.aspx?PageID=8&ID=35,
between 10% to 50% or more of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. That
being the case, the argument that God wants all pregnant women to give birth
becomes ridiculous. Why would there be such a high miscarriage rate if that were
so?

It's ironic that many of the same
 people against abortion also promote
abstinence-only sex ed, or try to limit access to birth control, which makes me
think they aren't too interested in reducing unwanted pregnancies, but
mostly in promoting the idea that woman are baby-making machines.

Which brings us to the woman who recently had octuplets. Does she have the
right to have 8 babies at once when taxpayers are going to be paying up to $1
million a piece for their post-natal care, particularly when she already has 6
kids, particularly when she is a single mom, particularly when she is
emotionally unstable? Does the fertility doctor who implanted those 8 embryos in
her have the right to do so, particularly knowing the woman's issues?

There are too many kids born into irresponsible households, leading to all
kinds of problems down the road that society as a whole will have to deal with.
It only makes sense that if there are some who see that they
 won't be able
to responsibly care for that child, or that their pregnancy will lead to health
issues for the woman, that they should be given a safe way to terminate their
pregnancy. That is a personal decision that government should keeps its nose out
of apart from ensuring that doctors are allowed to do their job.

Until all adults are given equal rights to live as they see fit, extending
rights to fetuses seems hypocritical since some peoples' rights are thought
by some to be a little more special than other peoples rights. 

This issue is yet again another example of religious people trying to force
their views on everybody else. There is a reason it is illegal to pass religious
laws, and we need to ensure fanatics don't violate our Constitution.

Saying all this, I have to wonder if the 'conscience rule' as I
understand it, is a big deal. Isn't preventing people from expressing their
religious views
 all illegal, too?

I'm not too keen on government restricting that right, nor am I keen on
government forcing people to do things they aren't morally inclined to do.

gclev

g writes:

"Looks as though the right to kill the unborn trumps another's right
to 
conduct their business as they, in accordance with their conscience and 
their morals, deem appropriate.

I guess some peoples rights are a little more special than other peoples 
rights."

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

  =======================================================
 List 
  services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the 
  communities of the Palouse since 1994.   

  http://www.fsr.net                       

  mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090228/9bf4ef29/attachment.html 