Please show me the evidence that a doctor has been fired for refusing to perform an abortion. Doctors can not perform all kinds of procedures that they chose not to specialize in, e.g., a plastic surgeon can do face lifts but not liposuction. A ob/gyn can do births but not abortions.

The religious right wants these doctors and other health care professionals 1) to be able to LIE to patients or misinform them, and 2) put themselves in ERs, pharmacies, and other bottlenecks where there refusals can delay timely health care.

A doctor can say, "I don't do abortions, so you will have to go to another doctor if you want one. Here is a directory." Not, "I don't do abortions because you are sinful slut and should die" (not your job as a doctor to judge them) or "you can't have one anyhow, because it's too late" (when that's not true) or "it's too dangerous" (it's the safest outpatient operation in the U.S., and much safer than childbirth).

Where time is of the essence, and delay equals denial, my right to have the legal medical treatment I want trumps your right to refuse. If you refuse to do blood transfusions because you have a religous objection, should you be able to work in an ER, where your presence as the sole doctor on duty may cause someone to die?

@Old Poor Richard, "Refuse to treat gunshot wounds or motorcycle crash injuries, that's not reasonable. But refuse to do abortions, vasectomies, face lifts, liposuction? That's OK with me." Why? Isn't getting shot because you're a stupid gangster, or riding dangerous motorcycles a lifestyle choice that your doctor might have religous objections to? Why do you get to object to abortion (which you think is murder but I do not) and I can't object to gansters (who murder each other).

It wasn't like the women on the plane were screeching, "me first, me first!" Geez! Give them some credit. It was one guy, interviewed on TV, saw a woman with a baby trying to crawl over the seats (I would have done the same if my baby were on that plane, not to save me, but to save HIM, a future man!).

That guy said, "let the women and children go first." He wasn't thinking it all through. It was the midst of a crisis, and his instinct, seeing that woman with her baby, was to use a cliched phrase that conveyed his meaning. He wasn't saying, gee, wait guys, we're REQUIRED to put these slutty, spoiled women and and their brats first. No, he's just a great guy, altruistic and yes, heroic. It was a CHOICE of all those passengers to be kind and altruistic.

Plus, everyone knows you don't get between a mother and safety when her children's lives are in danger. I bet they made that rule to avoid stampedes.

Now all you armchair "heroes" are going to parse it to death and insist that women should not demand equal treatment BEFORE THE LAW because men sometimes act altruistically in a crisis?

(Because we all know that women NEVER sacrifice anything for men...like, say, dying in childbirth.)

What does this have to do with equal pay for the same job? Or not being fired for refusing to have sex with the boss? Or being allowed to work in whatever profession I am qualified for? You are comparing apples and oranges: social expectations on one side, and legal restrictions/loopholes on the other that benefit one group over another.

I am SO GLAD that none of your guys were on that plane. I'm sure the women-and-children first guy would be shaking his head at your stupid arguments. Bravo to him, and shame on you.

For the record, I think that the proper sequence is this: unaccompanied older children first, then caretakers (male or female) with small children/infants/disabled, then unaccompanied, able-bodied passengers, then crew (most of which might be women, but they're TRAINED), captain last. But who but an idiot is going to parse that out when the plane is sinking?

"And I thought we were getting on the same page ... sigh"

Every adult should have the same rights and responsibilities. In the case of the airplane going down, with one tiny aisle for evacuation, it would be impractical to try to get adult women out before men. If a building went down, I could see how women taking care of the children while the men lifted things would be a better way to go.

My point has not been that, however. My point has been that, given the ideal of parity in all things, the demand for equality in the good stuff *must* be combined with a demand for equality in the bad stuff.

BTW: I don't care who rescues me. Male or female. But, male or female, they had damn sure better not have gotten there because of lowered standards, 'cause I'm toast if they have!

Have a pleasant rest of the weekend, Juliebird!

Well, of course a 5'0', 90-lb woman who can't lift 50 lbs shouldn't expect to become a firefighter! (Let's not forget that plenty of *men* fail to make the cut in some of these professions. Obviously, fewer women than men out of a random 100 people will have the strength to perform the necessary feats than. But that doesn't mean that *lll* women are thus incapable).

And it's interesting to note that there are practical arguments for keeping women out of some professions, but you have yet to recognize the practical reasons for "women and children first" in an emergency.

And I thought we were getting on the same page ... sigh.

(BTW, here's a wiki page on reasons against women in the US military. We're both right).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Contemporary_debate

I'm pretty sure that the reason is the fear that sexual relationships would get in the way of morale, not chivilarous (sp?) actions. Actually, I think many soldiers are quite chivilarous to their fellow soldiers, since they want all others to do the same for them. I am *not* saying that their actions are self-serving,by the way.

"Women in combat (or desiring to serve in that capacity) is an example of women refusing to be treated as "the fairer sex." Ditto women who want to be firefighters, police officers, miners, professional athletes in contact sports, and other traditionally "male only" jobs"

Some of these limitations are objective, since they take more upper-body strength, which men as a group are far superior to women. Some of them to have men that don't welcome women, sure. I don't know how to change the minds of incumbent workers, so that is perhaps a different story. If women can lift whatever weight is required, go for it. But don't put artificial "gimmes" so they get through. If a building is burning, and my 200 lb unconscious body is laying on the floor, I don't give a damn what your gender is, buy you damn well better be able to get me out!

If women get into pro football, I can only hope that they get hit just as hard by the other team as a male would.