Ron 10 #201 April 8, 2005 QuoteYes, because the hospital is regulated by the state, not the church. The Church would say they answer to a higher power. But you want to force them to do as you wish. QuoteLike a hospital? Like maybe a non religious hospital."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #202 April 8, 2005 QuoteIt is the same thing. No - the contraceptive morning after pill can prevent fertilization itself. Your medical knowledge is flawed. QuoteSharing that knowledge is against the core Someone told the pope so he could issue his edicts in relation to contraception and abortion. Think that guy's off to hell? Quotesure you do...Its what we have been talking about ah come on man. Don't be so simplistic or antagonistic. We're just having a conversation on the internet. I'm simply doing this to exercise my mind and share my beliefs with others. Sinkster and I had a pleasant and productive chat about this yesterday (about 4/5 pages back). I'm most certainly not going to change the progress of this Bill by anything I post here; if I thought I would I would not be posting. This is purely a mental exercise to me, I do not seek to achieve anything beyond mutual learning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #203 April 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteIts not about religion. Its about minimum standards of care. you're missing the point. catholic facilities maintain that providing information that could result in abortion is NOT PART OF any standard of care, but just the opposite. Actually, you are missing the point because you can't see beyond your personal religious beliefs. When the state medical board turns into the catholic church medical board, I will agree with you. Until that happens, minimum standards of medical care will continue to be decided by the state medical board through the residents of the state. This bill is the will of the people and it will eventually get passed. oh good lord. can't see beyond my own religious beliefs. bet you thought long and hard to come up with that one. you know the will of the people huh? claiming some omnipotent power are we? just b/c a bill is passed does not mean it is the will of the people. that's a nice sentiment, to think that way, but in reality, it is quite different. it's just so damn infuriating that people like you want to impose your will on people like me b/c our beliefs don't correspond to yours. people like you accuse people like me as being myopic, of not being able to see past my religious beliefs. you do to us the very thing you accuse us of doing. so much for choice. so much for tolerence. it's hypocritical at best. bottom line is that a such a bill, if passed, that requires a Catholic medical facility to violate it's ethics and moral doctrine, will not last. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #204 April 8, 2005 QuoteThe morning after pill is legally a contraceptive, not an abortive. Now I know there are arguments about that, but for some people that may well be an important distinction. please substantiate that comment. i was unaware that the morning after pill had a "legal" status. in the pharmacologic literature, it very clearly states it acts as an abortifacent if conception has occurred. that's not an argument, that's a medically verifiable fact. QuoteNo it's not. The church does not believe that the passage of knowledge is evil. well, that's not ENTIRELY true. Passing knowledge of how to commit suicide would be considered wrong and irresponsible. So to w/ providing the information about how to procure an abortion. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #205 April 8, 2005 QuoteNo - the contraceptive morning after pill can prevent fertilization itself. Your medical knowledge is flawed. It makes the lining unable to support a fetalized egg. The egg and sperm have already combined. Your knowledge is off. QuoteSomeone told the pope so he could issue his edicts in relation to contraception and abortion. Think that guy's off to hell? Telling someone how to kill BTW is also against the religion. So if you believe (As most strong Catholics do) that life begins at conception, then advising about an abortion is wrong. Quoteah come on man. Don't be so simplistic or antagonistic This from a guy that has TWICE jumped into a conversation with someone else and tried to claim something else? Reference posts 171, 185. Thats funny. You know what else I find funny? The same types of folks that bitch about religion being involved with politics and want it kept out are the same types that want the Government to dictate to religion what they can an can't do.... I find that really funny."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #206 April 8, 2005 QuoteSinkster and I had a pleasant and productive chat about this yesterday that's SINKER... just trying to be antagonistic and lighten things up a bit. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #207 April 8, 2005 Quote well, that's not ENTIRELY true. Passing knowledge of how to commit suicide would be considered wrong and irresponsible. So to w/ providing the information about how to procure an abortion. So Basically, a doctor saying "There are other options available for your situation, but we cannot provide them here" would be ok, but going into detail (essentially a how-to) wouldn't be? Just looking for clarification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #208 April 8, 2005 Quotethe contraceptive morning after pill can prevent fertilization itself this is true. however, i'm not aware of any technology present today that can determine if, before it's administration, the pill will work as a PREVENTION of fertilization OR as an abortifacient. Now, if THAT were possible, that would really be something, wouldn't it! -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #209 April 8, 2005 Quote it's just so damn infuriating that people like you want to impose your will on people like me b/c our beliefs don't correspond to yours. I don't condone anyone forcing their beliefs on someone else. That is -exactly- what you are condoning. You are just wrapping it in the blanket of religious beliefs. People should be allowed to make their own decisions. If you condone intentionally withholding information from patients, you are, in fact, imposing your views on that patient because the patient may have made a different choice provided they had all the information. Quotepeople like you getting interesting Quoteaccuse people like me as being myopic, of not being able to see past my religious beliefs. Without a doubt, because its not a religious issue. Quoteyou do to us the very thing you accuse us of doing. so much for choice. so much for tolerence. it's hypocritical at best. If ensuring that rape victims are provided with information regarding all their medical options and allowed to make their own decisions is intolerant or hypocritical, where does that put you? Quotebottom line is that a such a bill, if passed, that requires a Catholic medical facility to violate it's ethics and moral doctrine, will not last. Again, you are unable to see past your own personal religious beliefs. The bill has passed both the senate and the house by a wide margin across party lines. Just because you don't agree with it personally doesn't mean it won't get passed. Not everyone is catholic and even some of those who are realize that protecting the minimum standards of healthcare is in their own best interests. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #210 April 8, 2005 QuoteIt makes the lining unable to support a fetalized egg. The egg and sperm have already combined. That is one mechanism. Another is that it prevents fertilization occuring at all. Check your facts. QuoteYour knowledge is off. No it's not. Go look up the chemical used - Levonelle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #211 April 8, 2005 More mental exercise coming up. It's often helpful to take a case to the extreme to see if the overall principal is right or not. I’m gonna attempt that. There’s that church who believe any medical intervention is evil – don’t remember their name, but I’m sure you all know the group I’m referring to. Let’s pretend they open a hospital where all they do is sit round and prey for people. Good on them, they can do anything they like and exercise their religion as they see fit, just as it should be. All the patients are there because they choose to be after all. Say they now want to open up an ER dept. and take random trauma patients; people who aren’t necessarily the same religion but just happened to be inside the hospitals catchment when they were hit by a car. They'll do their standard treatment of kneeling round preying for them. Now of course they need to be licensed to open this ER dept. and the state medical legislature come round and inspect their facilities. No scalpels, just scripture. No ECG machines just knee cushions. “Sorry - you don't get a license” say the state board. “If you want one you have to practice your ER medicine like this [long list of requirements]”. Hospital says - "hey, that's forcing us to go against our religious principals". Medical board says, “ok - just tell your patients that there exists other hospitals where they don't just prey for you, they actually plug the holes too. You can also tell them that if they go there they will be damned to hell for committing such a sin”. Now how is that, in principal, any different to this present situation? Any way peeps, I'm off home. More mental exercise another week. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #212 April 8, 2005 QuoteSo Basically, a doctor saying "There are other options available for your situation, but we cannot provide them here" would be ok, but going into detail (essentially a how-to) wouldn't be? Just looking for clarification. I think that sums up this most unfortunate scenario well. However, if I were the doctor in that situation, I'd first be asking questions about the woman's cycle, how far along is she, any symptoms of ovulation such as Mittelschmerz (one-sided lower-abdominal pain that occurs in women at or around the time of ovulation), birth control status, etc. I'd also be compelled by conscience to say that she may be or may become pregnant as a result of the rape. Given the current climate in our society regarding what one believes re: when life begins, I would further feel compelled to say that if the woman does not wish to continue the pregnancy, should she be preg, no options for terminating are available at this facility and no referring information can be given. If the woman asks how she could obtain such information (about procuring an abortion, should she be pregnant), I'm not sure just what I would say, to be honest. I have to think some more on that. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #213 April 8, 2005 >If you want abortion advice or procedures DON'T GO TO A FUCKING > RELIGIOUS HOSPITAL. Don't expect a RELIGIOUS HOSPITAL to advise on >abortion or perform them, or perscribe the damn Morning after pill. In the case of someone who discovers they are pregnant - I agree. They should choose a different hospital. But for emergency care, where an ambulance delivers an injured patient to a facility, it is unreasonable to expect the patient to inquire as to the religious affiliation of the hospital, and then change the ambulance's destination to one that will give her what she considers good emergency care. In such cases, doctors have a responsibility to act as advocate for the patient, and advise her of her medical options. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #214 April 8, 2005 >The bill is telling a religious hospital that they have to tell someone how >to take a babies life....A directive directly against the Religions core beliefs. And saving a homosexual's life is directly in contradiction with Old Testament teachings. Yet we'd expect even a jewish hospital ER to care for a gay man who was gravely injured. Sometimes basic human values trump religious standards. >The person can get the information form someplace other than a church. Agreed. Fortunately, a hospital is not a church. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #215 April 8, 2005 yes, it's "getting interesting" b/c you are accusing me of things that I don't think are true. You say I can't see past my religious beliefs as if that is a bad thing. My religious beliefs influence EVERYTHING I see, b/c w/i those beliefs I have found a unifying philosophy that makes very good sense. In that system of belief comes the notion that all human life is sacred and deserving of protection, from conception to natural death. Why does it seem so wrong to you that such a world view would NATURALLY and LOGICALLY influence the type of health care that Catholic hospitals provide? No law can oblige someone (in this case doctors and policy makers w/i a hospital system) to violate their consciences. If such a law were to be passed, it would be an unjust law and need not be followed. You say that providing info about how to procure an abortion is "good medical practice." "Minimum standard of health care" you say. I say it's not. Many agree w/ you, many agree w/ me. It's amazing to me that you cannot/will not see that a law mandating that a Catholic hospital provide information on how to procure an abortion is simply wrong. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #216 April 8, 2005 QuoteIn the case of someone who discovers they are pregnant - I agree. They should choose a different hospital. But for emergency care, where an ambulance delivers an injured patient to a facility, it is unreasonable to expect the patient to inquire as to the religious affiliation of the hospital, and then change the ambulance's destination to one that will give her what she considers good emergency care. In such cases, doctors have a responsibility to act as advocate for the patient, and advise her of her medical options. The Dr's have a responsability to provide LIFE SAVING care. Thats kind the opposite of an abortion. The hospital can refuse to allow an abortion, and then the person can simply go have it done someplace else."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #217 April 8, 2005 One thing that I think is being overlooked here is the trauma of an ACTUAL ABORTION compared to taking the morning after pill. Someone has been raped and is already traumatized . . . why not inform them of their option to prevent further trauma? I would never have an abortion (unless I was raped- but then I'd just take the pill, anyway), due in large part to the fact that I know it would traumatize me. Saying, "Well, if they miss their window to take the morning after pill because no one told them about it, they can just get an abortion" is NOT fair or ever remotely the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #218 April 8, 2005 Quote>If you want abortion advice or procedures DON'T GO TO A FUCKING > RELIGIOUS HOSPITAL. Don't expect a RELIGIOUS HOSPITAL to advise on >abortion or perform them, or perscribe the damn Morning after pill. In the case of someone who discovers they are pregnant - I agree. They should choose a different hospital. But for emergency care, where an ambulance delivers an injured patient to a facility, it is unreasonable to expect the patient to inquire as to the religious affiliation of the hospital, and then change the ambulance's destination to one that will give her what she considers good emergency care. In such cases, doctors have a responsibility to act as advocate for the patient, and advise her of her medical options. Providing an abortifacient or information on how to procure an abortion IS NOT EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE!!! The woman is not at risk of loosing life or limb w/o it!!! -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #219 April 8, 2005 Quote>The bill is telling a religious hospital that they have to tell someone how >to take a babies life....A directive directly against the Religions core beliefs. And saving a homosexual's life is directly in contradiction with Old Testament teachings. Yet we'd expect even a jewish hospital ER to care for a gay man who was gravely injured. Sometimes basic human values trump religious standards. For saving a life in an emergency, not taking a life that is NOT an Emergency. Quote>The person can get the information form someplace other than a church. Agreed. Fortunately, a hospital is not a church. It is a Religious hospital...they need to help save lives, but that does not mean they should be forced to take them."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #220 April 8, 2005 QuoteSaying, "Well, if they miss their window to take the morning after pill because no one told them about it, they can just get an abortion" is NOT fair or ever remotely the same. It is also not the religious organizations responsability to provide the means of the death of a child. An abortion is NOT Emergency care. The Morning after pill is NOT Emergency medicine. Therfore the Religious hospital should be allowed to decide what they will or will not do in this case."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #221 April 8, 2005 QuoteMore mental exercise coming up. It's often helpful to take a case to the extreme to see if the overall principal is right or not. I’m gonna attempt that. I like your thinking. Interesting scenario. In that situation, the state board should not grant the license to provide emergency care. NOT allowing something to happen is not a violation of that groups religious beliefs in this situation. That denomination does not have as one of it's mandates or doctrines that it must provide emergency care. Neither does a Catholic hospital for that matter. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #222 April 8, 2005 And saving a homosexual's life is directly in contradiction with Old Testament teachings*** really? that's a new one on me, but I'm not expert w/ the OT. However, as a Catholic, letting someone die if I have the direct ability and authority to save them (i.e. by being a doctor), I'm bound by conscience (and NT teaching) to try and save them, regardless if they were gay or not.. I've done that very thing by performing CPR on a gay man who was in a bad car accident. I'm not tooting my horn or anything, but I try to live according to my beliefs. It's the whole Good Samaritan story. Unfortunately, the man died. It was very tragic. Jesus wasn't always keen on how people in the OT acted. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #223 April 8, 2005 Quoteyes, it's "getting interesting" b/c you are accusing me of things that I don't think are true. You say I can't see past my religious beliefs as if that is a bad thing. My religious beliefs influence EVERYTHING I see, b/c w/i those beliefs I have found a unifying philosophy that makes very good sense. In that system of belief comes the notion that all human life is sacred and deserving of protection, from conception to natural death. Why does it seem so wrong to you that such a world view would NATURALLY and LOGICALLY influence the type of health care that Catholic hospitals provide? No law can oblige someone (in this case doctors and policy makers w/i a hospital system) to violate their consciences. If such a law were to be passed, it would be an unjust law and need not be followed. You say that providing info about how to procure an abortion is "good medical practice." "Minimum standard of health care" you say. I say it's not. Many agree w/ you, many agree w/ me. It's amazing to me that you cannot/will not see that a law mandating that a Catholic hospital provide information on how to procure an abortion is simply wrong. And you make my point exactly. You can -only- see this as a religious issue, which it is not. You think its wrong based on your own personal religious beliefs and you would seek to impose those beliefs on people regardless of what they may believe. I think the opposite. All people should be allowed to choose for themselves. If the catholic church has a problem with that, (and they obviously do) they should not be in the business of public healthcare. Side thought - how do you justify catholics being police officers or soldiers? The police officer may have to use his weapon - in self defense - which may or may not be a violation of one of the commandments. The soldier's job is to actively seek out and kill, which is certainly a violation of one of the commandments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #224 April 8, 2005 >Providing an abortifacient or information on how to procure an abortion >IS NOT EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE!!! If it prevents a potentially dangerous condition as a result of an assault, and the decision must be made in X hours - it sure as heck is emergency medical care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #225 April 8, 2005 Quote>Providing an abortifacient or information on how to procure an abortion >IS NOT EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE!!! If it prevents a potentially dangerous condition as a result of an assault, and the decision must be made in X hours - it sure as heck is emergency medical care. and just how exactly is conception a potentially dangerous condition? and don't give me that crap about "some women die during pregnancy." while that is true, it is so entirely rare that you can't ipso facto assume that b/c a rape victim has conceived, she's at risk of death and must therefore be given an abortifacient. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
