I love how I'm a genius when I agree with you, but an intellectual marshmallow when I don't. And in the same thread, no less!

My point is that the version of the hippocratic oath that you cited hasn't been in widespread use in a very long time, for, among other reasons, it is no longer relevant.

My point at the beginning of this thread was that doctors are businessmen whose primary interest is in the wellbeing of their client/patient. If a patient wants a procedure done, that is the patient's decision. A doctor can decline to preform the procedure due to personal moral beliefs or due to a lack of specialization and training, but there is nothing inherently wrong in doing what one is hired to do.

To be fair, he never actually mentioned Christianity.

Are you talking to me, here?

Perhaps "intellectual marshmallow" is similar to the phrase "he is one smart cookie"?

Perhaps. I happen to like marshmallows and intellectuals, so maybe that is what he meant.

Yes.

Okay.

You've missed the point completely about the Hippocratic Oath. It's much the same as Catholics having Mass in Latin or English. It is the same, in essence. And the medical community is debating whether the modern or the ancient oath ought to be used. Get it?

In addition, even the MODERN oath affirms "I will NOT play god".

What, in sam hill, do you think that means? Wouldn't that mean things such as, "I will NOT decide - in disregard of another human being - whether that human will or will not be allowed to live?"

Just because YOU PERSONALLY have no love for, or consideration for, the unborn/preborn baby does NOT mean that it is not a human and has no rights.

So strap on your big girl panties, and take a look at some of these "fetal tissues" that had no say in whether or not they got to live:






Are you going to try to tell this that this is really what doctors "are hired to do"?
Are you going to try to tell me that this is an upholding of even the MODERN Hippocratic Oath?

If your answer to either of those questions is "Yes", then you are a sick, sick individual!

And which one is ACTUALLY used?
How many individuals (okay, what percentage) are insisting on the "ancient oath"?

Just because a bunch of nitwits stand up and say "I want it back the way it was in the olden days" does not mean it's a real dispute or debate...


Why don't you ask a doctor instead of telling us what you think it means in your lay-person opinion.


Ask the doctors who take the oath.
This argument of yours is inane. You're making your own standards and imposing them upon others.
What do they consider as "life"?

I realize you couldn't broach the hypocrisy of my analogy earlier, and quite frankly I find that hilarious...

I'm not shocked easily. A removed kidney stone looks pretty nasty too. So does a tumor. If you think a couple of "abortion" pictures are going to make me squemish, you've got another thing coming. Just because it might kind of look like a baby doesn't mean that it is one, frankly.

The medical community is not debating about it, or if it is, you're the first to say so. performing an abortion is no more playing god than putting someone on life support, or performing any other surgery.

My wife and I had a child born 6 weeks early. Obviously, the birth was a shock to everyone.

Oddly, she could have legally gotten a late-term abortion just a day earlier. And people like YOU would have claimed that it was NOT a human being that was aborted!

He's now a perfectly healthy 19-year old.


But you're right. These un-borns are just "fetal tissue" and "pre-humans". Yeah, that's right.

What amazes me is the absurd, stupid and totally in-human lengths you pro-abortionists will go to in order to salve your consciences and convince yourselves that there's nothing wrong with abortions.

Unbelievable! Simply unbelievable! Actually, DEPRAVED is a better adjective to describe your mentality.