Pediatric nurse sues Winnebago Co Health Dept after losing job for her beliefs

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

I don't talk to people who refer to abortion as killing.

Killing is illegal. Abortion is not.

A fetus is not a human being. It may be a potential human being, but it is not a human being.

In this case I am not talking about the abortion of a human fetus... I am talking about newborn babies...

Hillary Clinton, and those philosophers, doctors and researchers I mentioned were talking about newborn babies and not just about a human fetus...

Are you talking about babies that might be better off to let nature take its course?

I do not support hooking everything up to a machine to see if you can make it live.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Why are you bringing up euthanising babies when it has zero to do with the topic of your own thread?

Many of the same people, philosophers, and doctors and scientists who say killing a human fetus is alright since it is the law are also people who believe newborn babies have no rights just like a human fetus in their mind have no rights...

What does it have to do with this thread?... Everything because it is what will come next...

Yet you can't even begin to prove that it will happen.

It also has nothing to do with the thread. The thread is about a woman getting sacked because she refused to do her job.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

That has bugger all to do with the thread.

You claimed that because it is the law it is no big deal nurses and doctors to get fired if they disagree with such a view, and such laws... But you fail to understand that those same philosophers, doctors, and politicians also believe that newborn babies have no rights just like a human fetus has no right in the mind of some...

I have already proved that many of these same philosophers, doctors and politicians are trying to make it perfectly legal to kill newborn babies... But you claim that has nothing to do with a thread about nurses and doctors being forced to kill human fetuses even if they don't agree with it?...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
believe that newborn babies have no rights just like a human fetus has no right in the mind of some....

What?

You're not making any sense.

originally posted by: Annee

Are you talking about babies that might be better off to let nature take its course?

I do not support hooking everything up to a machine to see if you can make it live.

I have shown evidence that those philosophers, doctors, researchers, and even politicians like Hillary Clinton are talking about newborn babies and babies, not fetuses, and not just those that can't live without being hooked up to a machine.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: TerryDon79

That has bugger all to do with the thread.

You claimed that because it is the law it is no big deal nurses and doctors to get fired if they disagree with such a view, and such laws... But you fail to understand that those same philosophers, doctors, and politicians also believe that newborn babies have no rights just like a human fetus has no right in the mind of some...

I have already proved that many of these same philosophers, doctors are trying to make it perfectly legal to kill newborn babies... But you claim that has nothing to do with a thread about nurses and doctors being forced to kill human fetuses even if they don't agree with it?...

So? People don't always get what they want. Just like you wanting to debate on a topic unrelated to the thread.

Nice try at baiting though.

originally posted by: Annee

What?

You're not making any sense.

I already posted these...

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Read the other excerpts and links I gave please. Not going to repost them all again.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Which all prove nothing. You've got a none argument of a fallacy from the moment you replied to someone on this thread.

BTW, both of your telegraph links don't work.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If she doesn't want to do her job, she can find work elsewhere. Maybe a Catholic hospital for instance.

There are things I don't necessarily like doing in my job as well, but I am not paid to be a conscientious objector, I am paid to do my job.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Bad link

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Which all prove nothing. You've got a none argument of a fallacy from the moment you replied to someone on this thread.

So, just by responding to someone in this thread I have no argument at all?... That's a very messed up and authoritarian way of thinking... Because I disagree with you I have no right to respond...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
BTW, both of your telegraph links don't work.

They work perfectly fine for me.

Here is the article from the Journal of Medical Ethics.

J Med Ethics 2013;39:261-263 doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

Featured article

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1, Francesca Minerva2

-
Author Affiliations

1Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
2Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
...

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

jme.bmj.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Way to twist my words!

You replied to someone who replied to the op. Your reply was totally unrelated to the thread. You have baited people to comment on the op so you can lord it over with the euthanisation of babies.

This is what we call a bait thread.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I would never allow a catholic near a child of mine.

a reply to: jokei

Me neither...I look after a dude who used to be in Catholic care and he was told if he played with himself he would get aids....
He is now convinced he has aids....cheers Catholic care you made him very unwell...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If she doesn't like the conditions of her job she can go elsewhere.

Abortion is legal in the US. She has no excuse to deny services.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

We are being told that no one is being forced to do anything with Obama's mandate

And obviously she was not. That she was given a choice is precisely the premise of her case - she just finds the choice unreasonable.

That the WANTED her to do something is not the same as that she was FORCED to do it. You might find it unfair - and it might BE unfair - but no way does that constitute her being forced.

It just does not.



Edit ( to clarify my abortion stance. And rant a bit) : I do by the way find the abortion date limits in the U.S. disgusting - most states have a limit at 24-26 weeks, 3 states at 28 weeks and 9 does not have an upper limit at all!

Fetal viability is at 22 weeks. Abortion after that is just plain murder. Where I live (Denmark) the limit has been at 12 weeks since abortion was legalized, and in the 40 years that have passed we still have not found a reason to raise the limit. I simply cannot fathom why anyone would believe a third-trimester limit to be reasonable!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I think the nurse is off base. She does not own / run the Hospital and her employment is contingent upon her compliance with job criteria.

I am getting tired of these people interjecting their personal beliefs into their job. Their position is to represent the business who employs them.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Pediatric nurse sues Winnebago Co Health Dept after losing job for her beliefs

Does the desire to 'protect' the bigots have anything to do with 'snowflakism'?

a reply to: Annee

I'm shocked you actually said that.

You aren't talking about a Dog that's been mangled by a car accident are you?

Oh wait no you're not, you're talking about a human living CHILD. You speak so nonchalantly as though oh hey, it's just a kid who the hell cares not me. Why should my tax dollars be spent on someone else's kid, just kill it and save me some fricking money.

Oh so very honorable of you annee.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why are you bringing up euthanising babies when it has zero to do with the topic of your own thread?

Because if he doesn't talk in pointless hypotheticals and appeals to emotion his opinion has no legs to stand on.