Should Catholic Hospitals be compelled to provide the "morning after pill"?

[chobie]

Should a hospital that has surgical services be required to provide cosmetic surgery or bariatric surgery?

Nice comparison. A rape victim being giving a pill to prevent her from facing even more health risks then the ones she has already been subjected to from being raped....as compared to a *** job.

 

[simpilotswife]

Should a hospital that has surgical services be required to provide cosmetic surgery or bariatric surgery?

If they have the facilities and personnel, sure.

 

[simpilotswife]

I have a question about facilitating sin.....

If a Catholic hospital can withhold the morning-after pill because it's against their religion, what's to prevent them from deciding to withhold treatment for venereal disease is single? What's to prevent them from withholding treatment to homosexuals? After all, that'd be facilitating a sin (according to the Catholic faith) right?

 

[mrsltg]

Oh NOW it's a sin.....alrighty then


You're sure of that are you? What if they can't?


Sure it is. If I tell someone that they can't smoke in my house because I don't want them to smoke it's forcing my beliefs on them.


So causing the death of millions in Africa = Okay. Giving a pill to someone who has been horribly traumatized by one violation so another doesn't occur = not Okay


Do I? I wonder if that guy Law does?

Oh for the LOVE OF CHRIST - get a clue! Catholics are not causing the deaths of millions in Africa. They are under no obligation to provide condoms to anyone. If you are so concerned, provide condoms and start your own charity to disburse them to Africans. Catholics do not believe in impeding life. That's the answer plain pure and simple. Artificial birth control is against the Catholic doctrine. Perhaps instead of directing your vitriol at the Catholic church you could point it one of the other non-religious affiliated organizations (or even a religious organization not involved) who are not providing condoms and not telling people to STOP HAVING SEX. Preventing AIDS is actually very simple.

As far as the issue at hand is concerned, you seem to be of the belief that your beliefs are all that matter. No. We, thankfully, have a Bill of Rights. It specifically guarantees freedom of religion as a right. I don't see freedom to obtain contraceptive services enumerated anywhere in there. The point of the first 10 (or Bill of Rights) was simply to list the MOST IMPORTANT freedoms every man has. Anything after is not as important. You might argue that a right to privacy will cover this. It still won't trump the right to religious freedom. And, as I said in a previous post, the communities need the hospitals more than the hospitals need the communities. The Church isn't in this deal to make money. Push them to a point of grave sin and they will close. I wonder what people will do then? What happens when the nearest hospital is now 200 miles away?

Erin

 

[mrsltg]

I have a question about facilitating sin.....

If a Catholic hospital can withhold the morning-after pill because it's against their religion, what's to prevent them from deciding to withhold treatment for venereal disease is single? What's to prevent them from withholding treatment to homosexuals? After all, that'd be facilitating a sin (according to the Catholic faith) right?

You really need to read up on Catholicism. There is no sin involved in any of these examples. We don't banish lepers, either.

Erin

 

[froglady]

Since the rape victim has already been inconvenienced why would anyone want to make things easier.

Yes, they should provide the assistance mandated by law.

And any trauma victim has already been traumatized. (duh) Aren't the non-trauma hospitals making his/her life more difficult by not paying the extra money to have a specialist on call? Shouldn't the law then mandate that ALL hospitals must provide any medical treatment available anywhere, regardless of cost?


You find it morally repugnant to put a rape victim through further trauma. A devout Catholic finds providing birth control to be morally repugnant. The question is, does the state have the right to enforce your morality on someone else, or do they have a right to follow their religious belief.

Will the rape victim die if not given the "treatment?" No. (Unlike someone who is bleeding to death and needs a transfusion) Will she suffer if it is withheld? Probably, and it will vary depending upon circumstances. (How readily available is the treatment elsewhere , she might never become pregnant at all, etc)

Will the devout Catholic suffer if he/she gives the treatment? According to the church, yes...possibly for eternity.

 

[froglady]

I have a question about facilitating sin.....

If a Catholic hospital can withhold the morning-after pill because it's against their religion, what's to prevent them from deciding to withhold treatment for venereal disease is single? What's to prevent them from withholding treatment to homosexuals? After all, that'd be facilitating a sin (according to the Catholic faith) right?

No, a sin would be for them to give Viagra to a known homosexual, thereby facilitating the sin.

 

[simpilotswife]

Oh for the LOVE OF CHRIST - get a clue!

Oh my....isn't that taking God's name in vain? And I'm the one who should get a clue?

Catholics are not causing the deaths of millions in Africa. They are under no obligation to provide condoms to anyone. If you are so concerned, provide condoms and start your own charity to disburse them to Africans. Catholics do not believe in impeding life. That's the answer plain pure and simple. Artificial birth control is against the Catholic doctrine.

If you hadn't been so busy taking the Lord's name in vain then perhaps you would have read that my objections is not that they are not handing out condoms but rather they are telling people that they cannot use them which is a death sentence.....sorry that is murder in my book.

Perhaps instead of directing your vitriol at the Catholic church you could point it one of the other non-religious affiliated organizations (or even a religious organization not involved) who are not providing condoms and not telling people to STOP HAVING SEX. Preventing AIDS is actually very simple.

Yes it is very simple and the only people that I know that are so adamantly against educating people about how to prevent disease and have sex safely are the Catholics.....how about that.

As far as the issue at hand is concerned, you seem to be of the belief that your beliefs are all that matter. No. We, thankfully, have a Bill of Rights. It specifically guarantees freedom of religion as a right. I don't see freedom to obtain contraceptive services enumerated anywhere in there. The point of the first 10 (or Bill of Rights) was simply to list the MOST IMPORTANT freedoms every man has. Anything after is not as important. You might argue that a right to privacy will cover this. It still won't trump the right to religious freedom. And, as I said in a previous post, the communities need the hospitals more than the hospitals need the communities. The Church isn't in this deal to make money. Push them to a point of grave sin and they will close. I wonder what people will do then? What happens when the nearest hospital is now 200 miles away?

The church doesn't sin, people do.

The Catholic Church teaches the concept of Free Will, perhaps it should practice what it preaches and allow people to make their choices. God allows you to make your choice to sin every day-you know like taking the Lord's name in vain, why not do the same for others?

 

[simpilotswife]

No, a sin would be for them to give Viagra to a known homosexual, thereby facilitating the sin.

Why? If they treat a homosexual for venereal disease isn't that facilitating their sin as well?

 

[mrsltg]

Oh my....isn't that taking God's name in vain? And I'm the one who should get a clue?


If you hadn't been so busy taking the Lord's name in vain then perhaps you would have read that my objections is not that they are not handing out condoms but rather they are telling people that they cannot use them which is a death sentence.....sorry that is murder in my book.


Yes it is very simple and the only people that I know that are so adamantly against educating people about how to prevent disease and have sex safely are the Catholics.....how about that.


The church doesn't sin, people do.

The Catholic Church teaches the concept of Free Will, perhaps it should practice what it preaches and allow people to make their choices. God allows you to make your choice to sin every day-you know like taking the Lord's name in vain, why not do the same for others?

You are honestly clueless. A Catholic hospital cannot provide a service it feels is a sin. That is free will. A person has the free will to choose where to be treated. The government DOES NOT have free will to override religious freedom. Give the Constitution a gander - it's great reading!

Erin

 

[simpilotswife]

You really need to read up on Catholicism. There is no sin involved in any of these examples. We don't banish lepers, either.

No? No sin in having extramarital intercourse? You sure about that? Cause if that's the case I'll tell the single Catholic school teacher who was fired recently because she was pregnant (they said she sinned) that mrsltg says she wasn't sinning.

 

[mrsltg]

Why? If they treat a homosexual for venereal disease isn't that facilitating their sin as well?

Denying someone health and life would be a sin. Not to mention, the Church doesn't make homesexuals where badges...

Erin

 

[froglady]

It is when making that decision subjects them to your religion.


Is that supposed to make a rape victim feel better? Funny I don't think it would assuage me much.

So your feeling is that it's OK to base a decision that might adversely affect someone's health/emotional well-being on saving money, but not on religious belief? Just so we understand each other. It's OK to withhold treatment if it's too expensive, but not if you feel it's morally wrong.

 

[mrsltg]

No? No sin in having extramarital intercourse? You sure about that? Cause if that's the case I'll tell the single Catholic school teacher who was fired recently because she was pregnant (they said she sinned) that mrsltg says she wasn't sinning.

Ok, one more time for the non-believers - providing medication to a sick person is not a sin. Providing a medication that will amount to an abortion in the eyes of the Church is.

And, while I don't the specifics of this young woman's situation, my guess is the school didn't feel she was setting a proper example. That, too, is their perogative. They are not judging whether or not she sinned.

Erin

 

[chobie]

You are honestly clueless. A Catholic hospital cannot provide a service it feels is a sin. That is free will. A person has the free will to choose where to be treated. The government DOES NOT have free will to override religious freedom. Give the Constitution a gander - it's great reading!

Erin

No, a rape victim does not always have a choice as to where she is brought for treatment.

 

[froglady]

Why? If they treat a homosexual for venereal disease isn't that facilitating their sin as well?

No, treating a DISEASE to save someone's life, regardless of how he got the disease is not facilitating his lifestyle. A surgeon may remove a smoker's cancerous lung knowing the smoker may go out and smoke again, but the doctor hasn't facilitated his smoking unless he gives him a cigarette.

 

[mrsltg]

The victim still must consent to treatment. So in essence and legal-ese, yes, she does have a choice. You may not like the choice, but it is a choice just the same.

Erin

 

[Toby'sFriend]

No? No sin in having extramarital intercourse?

So exactly how is a Doctor providing treatment to a patient with STDs relevent to that? The Catholics are not saying that it is a sin to treat people who HAVE sinned. They don't place a confession booth at the door and require that everybody have a clean soul before they are allowed to enter.

Mrsltg is saying that there is no sin involved in giving them the drugs to treat STDs or in providing them with other medical care. It is not sinful to treat somebody because they are a homosexual either.

You are very much twisting her words.

The sin involved in the Morning After Pill is that it is possibly ending what they consider to be life, or preventing a life. Even though it is a choice of the patient to take the pill, providing them with the avenue to obtain the pill is a facilitator.

In their eyes it is like having somebody walk into your office, announce to you that they want to kill their spouse, and then requiring you to pull a handgun out of your closet and give it them.

 

[simpilotswife]

You are honestly clueless. A Catholic hospital cannot provide a service it feels is a sin. That is free will.

Then it shouldn't be treating single people or homosexuals for venereal disease since they're probably just gonna go out and sin again.

A person has the free will to choose where to be treated.

Tell that to the ambulance drivers who are required by law to take someone to the nearest hospital, not where they want to go.

The government DOES NOT have free will to override religious freedom. Give the Constitution a gander - it's great reading!

I don't think that there is anywhere in the constitution that gives religion the right to impose their beliefs on others.

Having the right to make a choice as to whether they will sin is something God gave man, what gives the Catholic church the right to take that away?

 

[froglady]

No, a rape victim does not always have a choice as to where she is brought for treatment.

Catholics do NOT believe that pregnancy, or even the chance of pregnancy, is a disease to be treated. The rape victim can be treated for venereal disease, contusions, lacerations, etc but will not be given anything to prevent pregnancy, because that would be against religious belief. The hospital does not (or not until they're forced to do so by law, or close) even have any contraceptives available to give. Just as a patient with a head injury would be treated for obvious bleeding, etc but would be transferred ASAP to a hospital that is able to provide the needed treatment. The hospital does not have a neurosurgeon.

One choice was based on economics, the other on religious belief.