AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I think you have it backwards. Doctors were practicing their art & science long before government became involved. It was the government that forcibly inserted itself between the doctors and their patients.

Moreover in typical authoritarian fashion, government stipulated what it would pay unilaterally, and in several programs required that providers accept that as full payment.

Now authoritarian zealots such as yourself insist that physicians should be forced to perform procedures they have heretofore refused on sound (in my view) and certainly defensible moral grounds, simply because the government will pay for it.

Cyclo is a closet authoritarian, masquerading as a champion of "progressive" reformer. Unfortunately the price of his "reforms" is freedom. Let him live in his own ant hill.

Using Cyclops theory, medical personnel in Nazi Germany were perfectly justified in performing or assisting with or sanctioning unconscionable, brutal, painful, and often maiming or deadly experimental procedures on Jewish or other expendible people because the government said they had to do that.

When the goverment can take away the right of doctors or any other people to refuse to do what they believe to be morally wrong, we have lost the America that most of us love.

Boy, the rightwingnuts just cannot resist Godwin's law, can they?

You are free to hold whatever opinion about me that you like, George. It seems to me that you have gotten rather bitter about this whole health care debate and are sort of lashing out these days. I don't take it as a reflection of myself at all, but instead, you are just choosing a target to vent said frustrations upon.

I reject your false construction, that I am denying anyone any freedom whatsoever; and what more, I also intend to keep pushing to reform all of our 'ant hills,' including yours, and I make no bones about that whatsoever. Why should I?

I suggest that you get off your ass and help more Republicans win, more Conservatives win, if you don't want to see our society change in progressive ways. My entire life, Washington has been dominated by the 'Reagan revolution,' and I doubt you bitched too much about the rise of Conservative principles in Washington; now, your ox is being gored by a different group running things for a while. Either get used to it or do something about it, but this childish puling is unbecoming.

Cycloptichorn

I don't think any special efforts are required to bring about a reversal of recent political trends in this country. It is already happening and your admired friends are doing the work for us.

Foxfyre wrote:

Using Cyclops theory, medical personnel in Nazi Germany were perfectly justified in performing or assisting with or sanctioning unconscionable, brutal, painful, and often maiming or deadly experimental procedures on Jewish or other expendible people because the government said they had to do that.

Not so much, but thanks for creating a Straw Man.

Quote:

When the goverment can take away the right of doctors or any other people to refuse to do what they believe to be morally wrong, we have lost the America that most of us love.

The government is taking away nobody's right to refuse anything at all. Nobody is forced to perform an abortion who doesn't wish to.

So is the victory of the Angular Miracle evidence that there will be a change of economic "direction" in Germany, or will it be business as usual?

Then you take back your statement that the doctor should not have to get out of the business if he refuses to perform the abortion?

The Nazi analogy was purely to illustrate the government deciding what is and is not morally right for doctors or other medical personnel to do.

What is the difference between the Nazi government deciding that and the U.S. government deciding that?

If the government decides that it is okay to take out a healthy gall bladder or healthy appendix because the patient does not want to risk an attack for whatever reason, then the doctor cannot refuse to do that? How about the woman who wants a hysterectomy despite having a healthy uterus so that she will be relieved of the monthly menstrual cycle?

Can you not see what a slippery slope it becomes when the government decides what is and is not moral as opposed to what is and is not legal?

I didn't make a slippery slope argument. If you had better debating skills you would see that. I was making an argument that your opinion puts us on a slippery slope. That is something quite different.

Can you not see what a slippery slope it becomes

But I accept that it is your opinion that the government has the moral authority to require medical personnel (and presumable anybody else) to do whatever the government declares legal and anybody who refuses should get out of the business.

Other than in life or death situations or extreme circumstances, MACs would never or mostly never willingly give the government that kind of power.

Quite true. In my opinion, conservatives generally are far better skilled at debating than liberals.

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't make a slippery slope argument. If you had better debating skills you would see that. I was making an argument that your opinion puts us on a slippery slope. That is something quite different.

Are you serious?

You stated:

Quote:

Can you not see what a slippery slope it becomes

That's a Slippery Slope argument. Your argument that my opinion 'puts us on a slippery slope' is the definition of a slippery slope argument. This is truly shocking that you don't realize this, and repeated it again; I wonder if you could describe what YOU think a Slippery Slope argument is, then?

Quote:

Quote:

But I accept that it is your opinion that the government has the moral authority to require medical personnel (and presumable anybody else) to do whatever the government declares legal and anybody who refuses should get out of the business.

Other than in life or death situations or extreme circumstances, MACs would never or mostly never willingly give the government that kind of power.

You already have, the government regulates pretty much everything, you just haven't examined the issue in enough depth to realize it; or, admitting it is too difficult for you to square with your viewpoint.

The gov't already, for example, places strict limits on what your house can be made of. How it can be built. What sorts of utilities will be piped in there. What sort of car you drive, what kind of efficiencies it must have. What drugs you can use, what food you can eat, what clothes you can wear. Regulation touches your entire life. And it ain't so bad, and much of it is good and saves lives. You ought to admit this.