...in China, or India, or other third world countries, and if American corporations could buy slaves to work in those countries to increase their profits for the American corporation...would that be okay, simply because slavery is not legal in America? Or should we have moral standards for American corporations who have plants, facilities, workers, etc abroad?
Translation from trollspeak to English: PLEASE SOMEBODY ARGUE WITH ME SO THAT NO MATTER HOW BAD I LOSE THE ARGUMENT I CAN CLAIM VICTORY AND STROKE MY OWN EGO!
Looks like I struck a nerve in Lucrumb... Funny, who would have guessed it would be Lucrumb that gets bent out of shape and responds with screaming an all caps large print non sequitur...
Suppose slavery was legal in another country but our moral American corp were not allowed to do business in a foreign country based on our human rights policy of not owning slaves, do we not do business and become uncompetitive and eventually close up shop to the slave owner countries? I understand people are a different issue but I think American corps currently compromise enviromental laws, etc with no moral qualms. Why does every American corp have to agree to a majority ideology?
We ignore the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia because we need their oil... We ignore the human rights violations in China because we need them to buy our bonds... And we claim to be the greatest country on earth, where our moral center is that of a drug addict willing to buy drugs from any hoodlum?
On the flip side, what is America's moral obligation to female Muslims in the US regarding genital mutilation and that of American Muslim Doctors who perform this procedure?
I can't see how any doctor who got his license to practice medicine in the USA, and took the Hippocratic oath could perform any medical procedure that he believed was harming a patient. Does genital mutilation at the request of a patient violate his oath of duty? No more than a plastic surgeon who performs any other elective cosmetic surgery, right? Face it, in the modern age, isn't circumcision just cosmetic surgery in the name of religion? "A Look at the Evidence Medical researchers looked at this trend and began to question the validity of the blind acceptance of circumcision. A close look at the evidence (or lack thereof) led the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to issue its first statement on the practice in 1975: âThere is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.â In fact, no medical organization in the world recommends newborn circumcision because the risks of the procedure may not outweigh the risks to the infant. This led North Carolina and many other states to end Medicaid coverage for routine infant circumcision. As a result, prevalence of circumcision in the U.S. today has declined to 31-79 percent, depending upon regional and ethnic variations."
If you don't like it then leave and take that douchebag south america with you. Another booze induced post.