[Rhodes22-list] Politics - The Camel's Nose Is Well Inside TheTent

[Brad Haslett]

Hank,

There's a gazillion good things to reply to today - the beauty of this
list.  I pick you!

*"And, when it comes to these matters, the decision belongs to the woman.
 You have no dog in this fight."*

You might want to ask my youngest son Alex about that. I spent a gazillion
dollars after he was born (and before) to keep my foot door as a father, and
would do it again!

Despite Dave's comment about poetry, "read between the lines".

Alex's Father






On 10/27/06, Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
>
> Hank,
>
> I'd hardly regard a pregnancy as an inconvenience.  In many
> cases, it is a disaster.  Even in the best of circumstances,
> it is a lot of work, worry, and discomfort, to say the least.
>
> As a pregnancy is literally putting your life on the line,
> the option of having a ready-to-hand safety net when one
> suffers a "clothing malfunction" is not just a matter of
> convenience.
>
> As there are many parts of the country where pharmacies are
> far between, and transportation is often a problem for those
> who can least afford to get pregnant, there is a case for
> requiring religion-free dispensation.
>
> And, when it comes to these matters, the decision belongs to
> the woman.  You have no dog in this fight.
>
> I question your analogy.
>
> /Robert
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Hank wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > As I understand it, the RU84 (did I get that right) is a morning after
> > contraceptive.  Hardly a treatment for a serious medical
> condition.  Would
> > you extend your line of reasoning to the point that all OB/GYN doctors
> must
> > perform abortions?  The type of treatments that the pharmacists are
> refusing
> > to treat or support are these same type of convenience treatments, not
> those
> > requiring treatment for a detrimental disease.
> >
> > Hank
> >
> > On 10/26/06, DCLewis1 at aol.com <DCLewis1 at aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hank,
> > >
> > > As you point out, there's a lot to be said for letting you decide how
> > > to  run
> > > your business, but clearly, that can be taken too far.  Society
> > > has  decided,
> > > for better or worse, that you can't discriminate based on race,
> > > color,  sex,
> > > religious convictions, physical handicaps, sexual orientation, and
> > > the  list
> > > may go on.  We can discuss the reasonableness of those laws, but
> they  are
> > > generally accepted laws.   All we need is for a guy like  Rummy to
> step
> > > forward
> > > and claim that drunkeness is part of his religious  conviction and
> there's
> > > a
> > > case against the hapless Somali cab driver he wants to  hit, and I
> suspect
> > > Rummy
> > > would win big time (certainly by Somali cab driver  standards).
> > >
> > > >From my perspective, Moslem cab drivers are a zit to
> this  problem.  The
> > > real
> > > problem is born again Christian doctors and pharmacists  that deny
> > > service.
> > > They are licensed to be in business by the public,  they are tightly
> > > regulated
> > > and they benefit greatly from that regulation  and licensing.  I think
> is
> > > reasonable to expect them to provide the service  they have
> represented
> > > they
> > > would provide, without discrimination.  If a  person were in physical
> > > distress, I
> > > think it's unreasonable that they be denied  service because the
> medical
> > > practitioner decided the person was a "good person"  or "bad person",
> or
> > > the
> > > disease or affliction at issue was gods revenge, or any  other hare
> > > brained reason.
> > > If they want to pass judgement on people,  diseases, conditions,
> and/or
> > > approved drugs they should be  philosophers or ethicists; if they want
> to
> > > practice
> > > medicine they should be  doctors or pharmacists.  The individual has a
> > > choice,
> > > but having made that  choice and represented that they would provide a
> > > service (which is an  implicit part of their licensing) they are
> committed
> > > to
> > > provide the service  without discrimination to the best of their
> ability.
> > >
> > > I see the whole issue as just another kind of discrimination based on
> > > religious convictions.
> > >
> > > Just my opinion.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
> --
> Robert Skinner         Coordinates N43° 41.330', W70° 24.889'
> "Squirrel Haven", 9 Gateway Commons, Gorham, Maine 04038-1331
> '87 West Wight Potter 15' Mark II # 1618 "Little Dipper"
> '94 West Wight Potter 19' Swing Keel Short Rig # 754 "Edith P"
> Home message and FAX machine 207-839-8777, Cell 207-653-1752
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>