[colliric]

No.

Doctors need to provide medical treatment even if they have religiously based sexist beliefs.

Good. Government should provide abortion at any stage of pregnancy for free.

No.

Patients need to go to doctors they know can provide those services.

You don't go to McDonald's and demand the teenagers give you a Whopper.....

Assholes should not be allowed to force their belief that they should be able to get a Whopper from McDonald's on others.

You have access to the service.... ELSEWHERE.

[Pants-of-dog]

No.

Patients need to go to doctors they know can provide those services.

And how are he patinets supposed to know?

I would love it if the doctors had signs like “Because of our religious beliefs that women do not have the same rights as real human beings, we reserve the right to restrict medical treatments based on that religious bigotry”.

You don't go to McDonald's and demand the teenagers give you a Whopper.....

Whoppers are fast food items that are neither necessary nor follow the same economic conditions or social contexts that things like medical treatments do.

If you want medical treatments to be provided in the same way as fast food, then you can argue for a completely private health care system that employs minimum wage workers.

Assholes should not be allowed to force their belief that they should be able to get a Whopper from McDonald's on others.

You have access to the service.... ELSEWHERE.

Swearing? Really? Are you upset?

Are you going to be all right?

Do you need a minute to stamp your foot about the evil feminists?

[colliric]

And how are he patinets supposed to know?

If you go to a medical service called Saint Vincent's or Mercy Healthcare, Joseph Smith Memorial Hospital, Adventhealth, Anglicare, Bethel or any other hospital named after a Christian concept, Church, individual or Christianity related geographic location in Israel....Maybe that's a pretty big clue they may not offer Abortion services?

It's like a person who drinks Coca-Cola, or Coke for short, who gets absolutely shocked to find out it has Cocaine Leaf extract in it as it's so called "hidden ingredient".... Despite the fact IT'S IN THE NAME.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you go to a medical service called Saint Vincent's or Mercy Healthcare, Joseph Smith Memorial Hospital, Adventhealth, Anglicare, Bethel or any other hospital named after a Christian concept, Church, individual or Christianity related geographic location in Israel....Maybe that's a pretty big clue they may not offer Abortion services?

Perhaps.

But it would be a stereotype and a generalisation to assume that everyone who believes in the Abrahamic god also believes that women should not be allowed to control their own bodies.

And since reality does not always follow these stereotypes and generalisations, it would not be logical to use these stereotypes and generalisations when looking for medical treatments.

[Godstud]

So, if I went to St Vincent's hospital, and I was an atheist, it would be within their rights to refuse treatment? That seems to be the argument.

Would an Atheist doctor be permitted to refuse to treat any religious person? That seems like a very stupid policy if you apply it ANY conceivable way.

Could a misogynist doctor be allowed to never treat female patients, on this basis, as well?

Note: When an ambulance arrives at an accident, it is not called on the basis of any religious affiliation, but on proximity and availability.

Is this how you'll act when meeting a doctor at a hospital?

[colliric]

Abortion is an elective surgery, not an emergency surgery (except in cases of miscarriage or "complications from child birth").

Pants-of-Dog is arguing they should be forced to do elective pre-planned surgeries or be forced to refer patients on.

It's not a refusal of Emergency treatment. Nice try though mate.

Refusing emergency treatment goes against the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. But what Pants-of-Dog is saying is NOT an emergency procedure but a pre-planned procedure.

Would an Atheist doctor be permitted to refuse to treat any religious person? That seems like a very stupid policy if you apply it ANY conceivable way.

If a Gay but also Religious patient goes to a GP and demands Anti-homosexuality Conversion therapy, and medical support to be a "better straight person", yes he is entitled to refuse to help if he doesn't believe in that treatment, and if he doesn't believe Homosexuality is a mental illness like the patient might. The patient has no right to force their morality system upon the doctor.

(Don't laugh, this situation has indeed happened before. People are crazy generally)

Could a misogynist doctor be allowed to never treat female patients, on this basis, as well?

No, but if the Patient asks the male doctor for a Pap-smear or delibrately for a full vaginal and anal examination on multiple unnecessary occasions, he has the right to refuse to treat her and kick her out of his office too.

[Pants-of-dog]

Abortion is an elective surgery, not an emergency surgery (except in cases of miscarriage or "complications from child birth").

This is incorrect.

Elective surgeries are ones that can happen at any time. Emergency surgeries need to happen within a set time frame. Of course, abortion is the latter.

Pants-of-Dog is arguing they should be forced to do elective pre-planned surgeries or be forced to refer patients on.

It's not a refusal of Emergency treatment. Nice try though mate.

Refusing emergency treatment goes against the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. But what Pants-of-Dog is saying is NOT an emergency procedure but a pre-planned procedure.

Maybe you are confusing “emergency” procedure with “life-saving”.

If a Gay but also Religious patient goes to a GP and demands Anti-homosexuality Conversion therapy, and medical support to be a "better straight person", yes he is entitled to refuse to help if he doesn't believe in that treatment, and if he doesn't believe Homosexuality is a mental illness like the patient might. The patient has no right to force their morality system upon the doctor.

(Don't laugh, this situation has indeed happened before. People are crazy generally)

And now you are comparing abortion to a widely discredited medical practice that most doctors think is a form of torture.

The obvious difference between the two is that abortions are not harmful to the patient while conversion therapy is.

No, but if the Patient asks the male doctor for a Pap-smear or delibrately for a full vaginal and anal examination on multiple unnecessary occasions, he has the right to refuse to treat her and kick her out of his office too.

Why?

You just keep repeating that doctors should be able to refuse treatmwnt, but you have not explained why or provided a good argument for it.

[colliric]

Emergency surgeries need to happen within a set time frame. Of course, abortion is the latter.

Maybe you are confusing “emergency” procedure with “life-saving”.

Emergency surgery IS surgery done because a person's life may be in danger. And/or they are at risk of a worsening injury, becoming disabled or a serious infection.

A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action

Abortion(Also known as the DNC procedure) is only an emergency procedure if it has to occur due to complications from childbirth and also if because of a miscarriage. Which is NOT the case for most pre-planned abortions.

And now you are comparing abortion to a widely discredited medical practice that most doctors think is a form of torture.

The obvious difference between the two is that abortions are not harmful to the patient while conversion therapy is.

I wasn't actually comparing the two, but the more obvious example of Jehovah's Witnesses denying the blood transfusion is much rarer because Atheist doctors are forced to NOT give it to them on the behalf of the Freedom Of Religion of the Patient who is in an emergency situation but does not want Blood transfusion. The Religious patient has a right to demand no blood transfusion in that situation, even if its put their life further at risk. If an Atheist doctor forces the procedure of a blood transfusion on them, because "it's going to save their life dammit!", he can be SUED and rightly so(might be worth it to save the patient's life though, not disputing that part). Doctor's likewise should not be demanded to do procedures or make referrals to non-emergency services they personally don't agree with RELIGIOUSLY since it violates their Religious freedom.

That's more complicated than the example I used.

You just keep repeating that doctors should be able to refuse treatment, but you have not explained why or provided a good argument for it.

Their religion teaches them they could go to hell/hinnom(since Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Muslims too also oppose Abortion) if they give you the service. You already know this when you delibrately go to that service and demand that service from them. You are disrespecting their Religious beliefs delibrately and you know it. You already have access to the service elsewhere (PLANNED PARENTHOOD), so it's not about that at all. That's a lie.

Since you are thinking this is negative for Christianity and are bigoted against that "white man patriarchy" religion, you don't care. But newsflash, Muslims and a significant portion of Jews(orthodox and ultra-orthodox) also oppose Abortion as well. So you are also forcing their doctors to do things their Religions don't agree with also. Congratulations you are a Religious bigot.

[Pants-of-dog]

Emergency surgery IS surgery done because a person's life may be in danger. And/or they are at risk of a worsening injury, becoming disabled or a serious infection.

No. In terms of surgery, the labels are used to define how quickly the surgery needs to be done, not how badly they need it.

A person can need emergency surgery even if the risk is not serious. Or conversely, require elective but life saving surgery.

So while an abortion is not as urgent as an appendectomy, it is more time sensitive than replacing a hip.

Abortion(Also known as the DNC procedure) is only an emergency procedure if it has to occur due to complications from childbirth and also if because of a miscarriage. Which is NOT the case for most pre-planned abortions.

The D and C is not the only possible procedure.

I wasn't actually comparing the two, but the more obvious example of Jehovah's Witnesses denying the blood transfusion is much rarer because Atheist doctors are forced to NOT give it to them on the behalf of the Freedom Of Religion of the Patient who is in an emergency situation but does not want Blood transfusion. The Religious patient has a right to demand no blood transfusion in that situation, even if its put their life further at risk. If an Atheist doctor forces the procedure of a blood transfusion on them, because "it's going to save their life dammit!", he can be SUED and rightly so(might be worth it to save the patient's life though, not disputing that part). Doctor's likewise should not be demanded to do procedures or make referrals to non-emergency services they personally don't agree with RELIGIOUSLY since it violates their Religious freedom.

That's more complicated than the example I used.

So you are using an example where the patient gets to decide the treatment as an argument as to why the patient should not be allowed to decide.

You are bad at debate.

Their religion teaches them they could go to hell/hinnom(since Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Muslims too also oppose Abortion) if they give you the service. You already know this when you delibrately go to that service and demand that service from them. You are disrespecting their Religious beliefs delibrately and you know it. You already have access to the service elsewhere (PLANNED PARENTHOOD), so it's not about that at all. That's a lie.

Since you are thinking this is negative for Christianity and are bigoted against that "white man patriarchy" religion, you don't care. But newsflash, Muslims and a significant portion of Jews(orthodox and ultra-orthodox) also oppose Abortion as well. So you are also forcing their doctors to do things their Religions don't agree with also. Congratulations you are a Religious bigot.

If the only argument is that the doctor has an irrational fear of imaginary places, then there is no rational argument.

If the doctor had a deeply held religious belief that he would have some sort of spiritual punishment if he treated Christians or white people, would that be allowed?

[colliric]

So you are using an example where the patient gets to decide the treatment as an argument as to why the patient should not be allowed to decide.

You are bad at debate.

The patient gets to determine the treatment because of their legal right to freedom of Religion, and because it doesn't challenge the Atheist doctor's own rights to freedom of religion(only their professional ethical beliefs). Of course if a doctor thinks "you'll die idiot" and gives it to them anyway, well he has the right to choose to risk getting sued and I wouldn't blame him since it's his job to save lives, even though he'll lose it most likely.

If the only argument is that the doctor has an irrational fear of imaginary places, then there is no rational argument.

From your point of view, but of course this position is bigoted against Christians AND Muslims AND Jews(that don't believe in abortion), since all three have denominations that do not believe in Abortions.

If the doctor had a deeply held religious belief that he would have some sort of spiritual punishment if he treated Christians or white people, would that be allowed?

Except you're not asking for that. You're asking them to go against their religion and deliver a service their Religion finds inheriantly immoral. That's not discrimination on the basis of your belief system or race. You are not just asking them to provide general health services to Atheists or homosexuals. You are asking them to provide a SPECIFIC service that you already know goes against their Religious beliefs the moment you enter their office.

You are being bigoted to them. They're not being bigoted to you, since they are not treating you differently. They are not offering you a service they are ALSO not offering their other patients too. Rather than asking for the same service and to be treated with respect, you are demanding they bend to your will and treat you to "special treatment" outside of the normal services they provide. You have no right to do that to them, they have the right to freedom of Religious beliefs. And you have the legal right to go to Planned Parenthood or some other non-religious health organisation for that service.

[Ter]

So should a Muslim butcher be forced to sell pork meat ?

[Godstud]

@Ter stop trolling.

Serving food isn't the same as seeking medical assistance.

[colliric]

:roll: @Ter stop trolling.

Serving food isn't the same as seeking medical assistance.

His point is still valid.

[Godstud]

@colliric No. His point is not valid. If I have a shop, I can choose to sell what I like. I am not forced to keep a specific inventory. It's completely unrelated, and you know it.

If I have a model shop and only choose to carry airplane models, that's my decision. I don't have to sell car models, but I will lose out on those customers because I do not stock them.

It would only be a valid comparison if a Christian went to a Muslim Halal shop and was not allowed to purchase pork, because the customer is not the same religion as the shop owner.

[colliric]

It would only be a valid comparison if a Christian went to a Muslim Halal shop and was not allowed to purchase pork, because the customer is not the same religion as the shop owner.

If the shop owner doesn't stock pork because he religiously opposes it, the customer of another Religion has no right to demand he stock pork "just because". He is being treated equally. No customer can buy pork, not even Muslims getting tempted to taste it. So he is being equally treated.

If I go to a free Hare-Krishna or Religiously Hindu Indian restaurant (which I have once or twice) I have no right to demand to be served Beef because "I want you to, you are discriminating against me" . They don't believe in serving it religiously, and I already know that as it's explicitly advertised as "Vegetarian restaurant" with Religious affiliation.

Even if I go to McDonald's India, I have no right to demand the workers serve me a Big Mac, since the workers are religiously Hindu and McDonald's India doesn't offer any beef products in respect of the majority religion of both customers and workers. This despite the fact it is a McDonald's restaurant, and they serve this exact item elsewhere in other countries. You can't get a Big Mac at any McDonald's in India, "because Indians don't eat beef, we're Hindu, why not try a Maharaja(Chicken) Mac instead?".

You have no right to demand Christian Churches, which fund and run those hospitals, or a Christian Doctor, offer abortion services. You're a spoilt brat. You have that option elsewhere already.

You have no right to demand cake for a Gay Marriage either, since they don't provide services for Gay Marriages equally and you already know that too. Just order the cake and put your own icing on it, or buy it elsewhere... You can buy Cake on Amazon these days.

[Godstud]

You have no right to demand Christian Churches, which fund and run those hospitals, or a Christian Doctor, offer abortion services. You're a spoilt brat. You have that option elsewhere already.

These hospitals are usually funded, at least in a large part, by public funds, however.

[Pants-of-dog]

The patient gets to determine the treatment because of their legal right to freedom of Religion,

....which you now want to completely abandon.

It is interesting how you ignore the fact that you are arguing that women should not have the same rights as other patients.

and because it doesn't challenge the Atheist doctor's own rights to freedom of religion(only their professional ethical beliefs). Of course if a doctor thinks "you'll die idiot" and gives it to them anyway, well he has the right to choose to risk getting sued and I wouldn't blame him since it's his job to save lives, even though he'll lose it most likely.

Yes, the do tor is only allowed to ignore the patient’s wishes if there is a logical medical reason. Being scared of mythical geography is not a logical medical reason.

From your point of view, but of course this position is bigoted against Christians AND Muslims AND Jews(that don't believe in abortion), since all three have denominations that do not believe in Abortions. Not everyone is a bigoted atheist like you are.

It is not bigotry (since there is no prejudice or discrimination involved) and I am not an atheist.

Except you're not asking for that. You're asking them to go against their religion and deliver a service their Religion finds inheriantly immoral.

That us exactly what I am asking. The only difference between your argument that doctors should not treat women because of their religious beliefs and the argument that doctors should not treat Christians because of their religious beliefs is about who is getting targeted with bigotry.

If you support your argument, you logically also support doctors being allowed to refuse treatment to minorities or even white people.

That's not discrimination on the basis of your belief system or race. You are not just asking them to provide general health services to Atheists or homosexuals. You are asking them to provide a SPECIFIC service that you already know goes against their Religious beliefs the moment you enter their office.

They are not offering you a service they are ALSO not offering their other patients too. Rather than asking for the same service and to be treated with respect, you are demanding they bend to your will and treat you to "special treatment" outside of the normal services they provide.

The fact that it is a specific treatment is irrelevant to your argument.

Are you now making a second argument?

If so, I can simply modify the question.

Should a doctor be allowed to refuse to do prostate exams and surgery if they think their sky friend hates it?

You are being bigoted to them. They're not being bigoted to you, since they are not treating you differently.

Ad hominem. Please note that I am not calling you names. Try to be equally respectful.

You have no right to do that to them, they have the right to freedom of Religious beliefs. And you have the legal right to go to Planned Parenthood or some other non-religious health organisation for that service.

People in Australia do have the right to medical care.

—————————

So should a Muslim butcher be forced to sell pork meat ?

I already pointed out that the economic context of medical treatments is not comparable to making food choices.

If you are arguing that they should be done the same, then you are arguing for almost complete privatisation of medical services, with unlicensed providers.

[Ter]

I already pointed out that the economic context of medical treatments is not comparable to making food choices.

Yes but that kind of problem has already occurred.
A Muslim working at the cash register of a department store refused to handle pork meat which a customer was trying to purchase. The customer was requested to go use another cash register.
Do you think this is all right ?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes but that kind of problem has already occurred.
A Muslim working at the cash register of a department store refused to handle pork meat which a customer was trying to purchase. The customer was requested to go use another cash register.
Do you think this is all right ?

Maybe.

Pork is not a necessary medical treatment.

The person serving it is not getting government money that was raised by taxing the person being served.

There are rational medical reasons for refusing to handle pork, while there is no rational medical reason for religious denials of medical treatment.

Et cetera.

[Ter]

Maybe.

it was a question that needs a yes or a no answer.

Pork is not a necessary medical treatment.

Neither is abortion a medical necessity in 99.3% of the cases.
I am also pretty sure that if it would be a genuine medical necessity, even most if not all religious doctors would perform the abortion.

There are rational medical reasons for refusing to handle pork, while there is no rational medical reason for religious denials of medical treatment.

You are really trying to weasel out of this, aren't you ?
Explain how a shrink-wrapped portion of pork meat can infect the person operating the till.