Bigotry at birth

[lakewinola]

look at this crap. no doubt a Rush dittohead

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/6919504.htm

[jporterweb]

It's sad when people can not stop calling Rush racist. Well I guess I'm a racist then, because I agree with him. Am I a racist? Please help me, cause last time I checked I wasn't.

[Skinzaholic]

Although this is a great example of the still wide gap between racial eaquality in our world... and shows that misguided individuals are STILL alive and well in America... I have one question...

What about the husband/wife's rights?

The argument shouldn't be simply that their personal convictions were wrong... nor how retarded it is to assume they listen to Rush's radio program (and thus can be labeled a "dittohead")... but more importantly...

Does the hospital have a RIGHT to disregard the patients wishes in this matter?

Does the NAACP have a RIGHT to intervene and bring charges against this man or the hospital?


Think about it...

My wife and I chose to have our second baby using a mid-wife. Does the hospital have the RIGHT to infringe on our wishes and insist a doctor perform the precedure?

What is the difference here.... simply racial discrimination? (One could argue we had 'Doctoral Discrimination').


(Skin Fans... let's try to discuss this ina mature manner without personal attacks).

[Spence]

Skinz has pretty clearly delineated the competing interests here: individual rights v. societal needs. It's an old conflict. Probably an eternal one.

I think Skinz's analogy using the midwife is not appropos, however. As long as a midwife is qualified to perform all medical procedures required of her, I see no problem. However, this white racist was not objecting to black health care workers on the basis of their qualifications, he was objecting on the basis of their race. The black hospital workers were qualified, but were barred from serving that patient because of the color of their skin. That's not the same thing as choosing a qualified midwife over a qualified doctor. The judicial and legislative branches of our government have, for some time, recognized that society has an important vested interest in destroying all aspects of invidious discrimination--whether it is based on race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.

Had the choice been mine, I think I would have considered the situtation. If the woman is facing a medical emergency, I'd comply with his wishes [if possible]. Otherwise, I would have told him and his wife to get their healthcare somewhere else. Maybe the Klan will start running free clinics for jackasses like that guy and his wife.

[Skinzaholic]

I can see your point Spence... and perhaps the mid-wife example only partially grabs the topic... but the basis is still the same.

Freedom.

Is free speech really free at all?
Is free speech only for the media (as many believe)?
Is the government controlling free speech?

We have a local hospital in Harrisburg called "Holy Spirit"... it is catholic in nature and belief. It is their policy to have a priest go around and visit each new patient after they are admitted... pray with them... answer questions.. or just listen. I personally know of several people who did not want that service... and informed the priest of that fact upon arrival.

The hospital didnt cry "descrimination".

No one felt slighted at all.

It was simply a different belief. Based on religious preference.


Now believe me... I am not suggesting that racial discrimination is on the same grounds as religious interpretation... BUT... there are real people in this country who feel very strongly STILL about keeping to their own race. Right or wrong... it is America, the boiling pot of races.

Therefore, with that angle... what is the answer? Is free really free... even if the majority of our society feels the choice is morally wrong.

AFTERALL... the husband didn't really hurt anyone (except for some pride and feelings). Shouldn't they have just as much right to dictate who is involved in this personal time for their family?