It’s funny how even catholic views are considered unacceptable now by the liberal society. This is the paradox of your tolerance: you want to accept all kinds of different people for as long as they are the same in what they believe.
I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral, I don’t personally, but so what of it, they should not be forced to do it.
It seems that in the US, people are taking more radical and unreasonable attitudes towards abortions(that applies to both sides). Some people may feel the need to defend abortions from anything. But I believe that tolerance should not be cast away for zealotry.
Okay but what happens if a pregnant person gets brought into the ER of a Catholic hospital and they need an immediate abortion or they die. The hospital doesn’t want to perform it because of religion. Should the hospital just let the patient die against the patient’s will? The patient didn’t had a choice into which hospital they were brought in. And this isn’t just a hypothetical this situation has played out in real life. Just look at Ireland.
I do believe that in the case of emergencies, if the threat of death is certain, catholic hospitals should always save the mother and I suspect many catholics would agree, but I would still say that they should not have to perform abortions and prescribe contraceptive treatment generally.
If the threat of death is certain, it does not mean that death is. I meant it in a way that if it is certain there is a risk of death, the woman should be saved.
Though I believe catholics would want to try, when possible, to save the child as well, and would use abortion as a last resort. I have no problem with that, for as long as they do abortions when there is no option that would avoid it while not putting the life of a mother under significant risk.
I misread your comment, I now better understand what you were saying, and I apologize for being so hostile.
With that said, pregnancy inherently brings with it the threat of death. All pregnancies have a chance (and therefore threat) of death. So regulating them such that they must perform abortion services when there is a threat of death would be a regulation that would force them to abort 100% of requested pregnancies.
I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral
If they let their backwards sexist standards for what is “immoral” get in the way of medical services, they shouldn’t fraudulently call their facility a hospital.
Opposition to abortion is not necessarily motivated by sexism. There is no reason why a hospital has to have principles that are in accord with yours to call itself a hospital. In fact, for most of history, hospitals and medical practitioners did not share your beliefs.
There are a lot of catholics in the world, and a lot of them are in the west. In the USA they might be a minority, but it is still weird how hostile people are to this rather popular church that has always been very influential culturally in the west.
The problem is that in many areas there are no alternative institutions for someone to receive care. Choosing to go to another non-religious hospital is often not an option in many places. I live in a major metro and the majority of hospitals here are religiously affiliated. It’s not a matter of allowing a few random institutions to uphold their beliefs, it’s an institutional problem when a person cannot receive valid medical care because of the objections of a religion. If you live in a small town with a single hospital, and the next closest one is an 8 hour drive away, then that hospital should be required to provide all FDA approved treatments the doctors are physically capable of administering.
I’m all for allowing people to practice their religion however it best suits them to do so, until it negatively interferes with the lives of others. When your religion starts preventing people from accessing widely approved and safe healthcare, then your beliefs should not be protected. I don’t care if you’re Catholic, Muslim, or Pastafarian - you have no right to prevent someone from accessing healthcare because of your beliefs.
This situation is unfortunate, I suppose, but your government is not preventing anyone from getting these services in many states, and as of now, it does not have to provide all procedures to all the people. If you want your government to ensure that all approved procedures are easily accessible, and not leave it to the free market, it should actually manage it’s own hospitals, rather than force catholic ones to do abortions, which to me seems like too much to ask from a religious institution.
The irony is the state government in many instances has defacto prevented it in many states, even before the overturning of Roe. In a lot of states the governments passed laws making it so egregiously difficult, both logistically and financially, for small clinics to provide even simple abortion pill services, that every clinic was forced to close. This leaves only the larger hospitals, which are, you guessed it, religious institutions.
The long and short is, our country is a shit show. That said, I still do not think people should be able to deny medical care or government services (like marriage licenses) to others based on religious beliefs unless there is someone else immediately available to provide them instead.
The “unless someone else can provide them” part is unrealistic and unenforceable. I sympathise with you, but you should really just get your shit together first. Catholic hospitals are a drop in the ocean.
They’re not a “drop in the ocean” - they’re prolific and everywhere. This is especially a problem in rural locations where they are the ONLY hospital. Even places that are metropolitan outliers, like a place I lived in high school, have issues because it may be a 30-45min drive to another hospital, that may or may not be covered by your insurance.
You think you understand the problem, but it’s way bigger than you realize.
I mean, you’re either a medical institution, and then you do whatever is legal to help the patient, or you’re a sect, and then you tell ppl how they should live their lives according to a bunch of long-dead dudes. Not both.
I would say, morality always comes into play when you decide which actions are permissible and which are not when it comes to healthcare, from designing legislation and hospital policy, to decisions doctors take on the spot, whether it is secular morality or religious(for example, many people oppose euthanasia, and not necessarily for religious reasons). I see no reason to discredit catholics and their moral views, I respect them, and see the appeal and logic of condemning abortion, even if personally I am not a catholic.
What makes your morality better than religious morality?
Only the laws of a secular, liberal democratic and pluralistic state, with rule of law and universal respect for human rights are allowed to interfere with people’s lives, to the extent that said interference adheres to the social contract.
If you think this makes me somehow a hypocrite, go cry me a river.
But how can you not interfere with the lives of other people? Shold I go live in the woods? If I am a private company, how much agency do I need to have to avoid interfering with the lives of other people?
Interesting word you have there, “pluralistic”. Do you reckon catholics will have a say in what laws are passed?
There is a difference between accepting the results of a democratic process(which they do, I suppose) and doing abortions yourself even though you don’t legally have to and believe it to be immoral. Your judgmental attitude is misplaced.
But how can you not interfere with the lives of other people? Shold I go live in the woods? If I am a private company, how much agency do I need to have to avoid interfering with the lives of other people?
Follow the law.
Interesting word you have there, “pluralistic”. Do you reckon catholics will have a say in what laws are passed?
I’d say it’s more about letting ppl choose what they do with their body and their lives in general, as long as it doesn’t hurt the others. I can be against abortions or euthanasia, yet it’s not me who’s going to suffer the childbirth/dementia/terminal cancer/etc.
I agree, but I would rather catholic institutions are not forced to act in accordance with a moral system they do not believe in. Since your country leaves healthcare up to the free market, it is not commited to make sure everyone gets all the services the could possibly want, but it is not preventing it either. You can open an abortion clinic near a catholic hospital if there is demand. The solution to this should not be forcing catholics to do abortions.
I do not doubt your experience, it sucks, I suppose but in my opinion it depends on the country and culture. A lot of christians(hardcore christians) are quite intense, let’s say, but a lot of them are pretty chill, in my experience, at least. I would say, some protestant denominations are the worst in that regard.
Protestants are less awful imo. At least the two people I got to know, keep their opinions mostly to themselves. So maybe that’s why they seem more upstanding.
Though one of them expressed that he does believe his gay friend will go to hell.
Catholics are much more rule-bent in my experience and far less tolerant.
They are more rule-bent, but a hardcore protestant is a lot more fanatical than a deboted catholic in my opinion. But with protestants it differs a lot between confessions.
It’s funnier how the catholic church defends pedophilia on an institutional level, but you “think of the children” types don’t seem to care.
Fun fact, the tolerance paradox isn’t a paradox. It’s a social contract. The contract is to be tolerant. Catholics are intolerant of anything they disagree with. They don’t abide by the contract, therefore we aren’t obligated to tolerate their bullshit.
Even more fun facts, the late term abortions catholics LOVE to hate-monger about (I went to the march for life I know first hand) make up a tiny fraction of total abortions, and they are almost always emergency situations, or discovered fetus conditions incompatible with life. Any arbitrary ban WILL kill women, and disproportionately kill women who actually want children. Three women died in Texas in November alone due to abortion laws.
I’m sure there can be some reasonable agreement that gives doctors greater discretion while not allowing elective late term abortions or whatever you think is happening, but for right now, you’re killing actual people.
I am not opposed to abortion, personally, nor is it banned anywhere in my country. I also have not killed anyone yet, but I’ll yet you know if anything changes. However, I am not particularly interested in forcing chrstians to accept secular morality.
The paradox I am referring to, is not in the fact that people that preach tolerance should be tolerant to everyone. I am instead pointing out the fact that western progressive culture, while preaching diversity, do not actually accept people that disagree with them, so inclusivity is contingent on acceptance of certain views, in that sense, this “diversity” is skin deep, we only accept you if you already agree with us.
This is similar to how christians have historically thought, ironically. So while blaming catholics of being intolerant of everything they disagree with, it seems like you are doing exactly that.
I don’t think you did address it.
What do you mean women shouldn’t have rights? There are more rights than right to abortion, and you don’t have to be dogmatic about it.
It’s funny how even catholic views are considered unacceptable now by the liberal society. This is the paradox of your tolerance: you want to accept all kinds of different people for as long as they are the same in what they believe.
I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral, I don’t personally, but so what of it, they should not be forced to do it.
It seems that in the US, people are taking more radical and unreasonable attitudes towards abortions(that applies to both sides). Some people may feel the need to defend abortions from anything. But I believe that tolerance should not be cast away for zealotry.
Okay but what happens if a pregnant person gets brought into the ER of a Catholic hospital and they need an immediate abortion or they die. The hospital doesn’t want to perform it because of religion. Should the hospital just let the patient die against the patient’s will? The patient didn’t had a choice into which hospital they were brought in. And this isn’t just a hypothetical this situation has played out in real life. Just look at Ireland.
I do believe that in the case of emergencies, if the threat of death is certain, catholic hospitals should always save the mother and I suspect many catholics would agree, but I would still say that they should not have to perform abortions and prescribe contraceptive treatment generally.
Nice little carve out to allow them to sit by and watch women die under the pretense of uncertainty. Fuck off with this death cult bullshit.
If the threat of death is certain, it does not mean that death is. I meant it in a way that if it is certain there is a risk of death, the woman should be saved.
Though I believe catholics would want to try, when possible, to save the child as well, and would use abortion as a last resort. I have no problem with that, for as long as they do abortions when there is no option that would avoid it while not putting the life of a mother under significant risk.
I misread your comment, I now better understand what you were saying, and I apologize for being so hostile.
With that said, pregnancy inherently brings with it the threat of death. All pregnancies have a chance (and therefore threat) of death. So regulating them such that they must perform abortion services when there is a threat of death would be a regulation that would force them to abort 100% of requested pregnancies.
Yes. This is why I said “significant threat” in the previous comment.
Ok, now we’re back to arbitrary carvouts that lead to women dying of preventable issues, so I was right the first time.
If they let their backwards sexist standards for what is “immoral” get in the way of medical services, they shouldn’t fraudulently call their facility a hospital.
Opposition to abortion is not necessarily motivated by sexism. There is no reason why a hospital has to have principles that are in accord with yours to call itself a hospital. In fact, for most of history, hospitals and medical practitioners did not share your beliefs.
Yeah, and then we abandoned the barbarism that insecure men who want to control women still cling to.
Religion and healthcare do not mix. Very simple.
Judging by the amount of catholic hospitals in the world, it would appear like they do.
what do you mean by “even” catholic views?
There are a lot of catholics in the world, and a lot of them are in the west. In the USA they might be a minority, but it is still weird how hostile people are to this rather popular church that has always been very influential culturally in the west.
So up until recently Catholic views were accepted by “liberal” society?
Stop it.
The problem is that in many areas there are no alternative institutions for someone to receive care. Choosing to go to another non-religious hospital is often not an option in many places. I live in a major metro and the majority of hospitals here are religiously affiliated. It’s not a matter of allowing a few random institutions to uphold their beliefs, it’s an institutional problem when a person cannot receive valid medical care because of the objections of a religion. If you live in a small town with a single hospital, and the next closest one is an 8 hour drive away, then that hospital should be required to provide all FDA approved treatments the doctors are physically capable of administering.
I’m all for allowing people to practice their religion however it best suits them to do so, until it negatively interferes with the lives of others. When your religion starts preventing people from accessing widely approved and safe healthcare, then your beliefs should not be protected. I don’t care if you’re Catholic, Muslim, or Pastafarian - you have no right to prevent someone from accessing healthcare because of your beliefs.
This situation is unfortunate, I suppose, but your government is not preventing anyone from getting these services in many states, and as of now, it does not have to provide all procedures to all the people. If you want your government to ensure that all approved procedures are easily accessible, and not leave it to the free market, it should actually manage it’s own hospitals, rather than force catholic ones to do abortions, which to me seems like too much to ask from a religious institution.
The irony is the state government in many instances has defacto prevented it in many states, even before the overturning of Roe. In a lot of states the governments passed laws making it so egregiously difficult, both logistically and financially, for small clinics to provide even simple abortion pill services, that every clinic was forced to close. This leaves only the larger hospitals, which are, you guessed it, religious institutions.
The long and short is, our country is a shit show. That said, I still do not think people should be able to deny medical care or government services (like marriage licenses) to others based on religious beliefs unless there is someone else immediately available to provide them instead.
The “unless someone else can provide them” part is unrealistic and unenforceable. I sympathise with you, but you should really just get your shit together first. Catholic hospitals are a drop in the ocean.
Boy would I like to live in the America that you think exists lol. Nearly 20% of US Hospital beds are at religiously affiliated hospitals. According to the Catholic Health Association 1 in 7 patients in the US are cared for in a Catholic hospital
They’re not a “drop in the ocean” - they’re prolific and everywhere. This is especially a problem in rural locations where they are the ONLY hospital. Even places that are metropolitan outliers, like a place I lived in high school, have issues because it may be a 30-45min drive to another hospital, that may or may not be covered by your insurance.
You think you understand the problem, but it’s way bigger than you realize.
I meant it in a way that this is a very minor issue overall that is a direct consequence of your general approach to healthcare.
What’s next, jehovian hospitals that’ll refuse ppl blood transfusions? Maybe amish hospitals that’ll treat 'em with 100% organic snake oil?
I mean, you’re either a medical institution, and then you do whatever is legal to help the patient, or you’re a sect, and then you tell ppl how they should live their lives according to a bunch of long-dead dudes. Not both.
I would say, morality always comes into play when you decide which actions are permissible and which are not when it comes to healthcare, from designing legislation and hospital policy, to decisions doctors take on the spot, whether it is secular morality or religious(for example, many people oppose euthanasia, and not necessarily for religious reasons). I see no reason to discredit catholics and their moral views, I respect them, and see the appeal and logic of condemning abortion, even if personally I am not a catholic.
What makes your morality better than religious morality?
Catholics and their views are perfectly fine so long as they don’t interfere with other people’s lives. Simple as.
Only your views are allowed to interfere with other’s lives?
Only the laws of a secular, liberal democratic and pluralistic state, with rule of law and universal respect for human rights are allowed to interfere with people’s lives, to the extent that said interference adheres to the social contract.
If you think this makes me somehow a hypocrite, go cry me a river.
But how can you not interfere with the lives of other people? Shold I go live in the woods? If I am a private company, how much agency do I need to have to avoid interfering with the lives of other people?
Interesting word you have there, “pluralistic”. Do you reckon catholics will have a say in what laws are passed?
Catholics do have a say in what laws are passed, tho. And it’s kinda intended.
Basically, they’re outnumbered by those who think abortions are ok, yet it’s not good enough for them.
There is a difference between accepting the results of a democratic process(which they do, I suppose) and doing abortions yourself even though you don’t legally have to and believe it to be immoral. Your judgmental attitude is misplaced.
Follow the law.
Democracy means democracy.
I’d say it’s more about letting ppl choose what they do with their body and their lives in general, as long as it doesn’t hurt the others. I can be against abortions or euthanasia, yet it’s not me who’s going to suffer the childbirth/dementia/terminal cancer/etc.
I agree, but I would rather catholic institutions are not forced to act in accordance with a moral system they do not believe in. Since your country leaves healthcare up to the free market, it is not commited to make sure everyone gets all the services the could possibly want, but it is not preventing it either. You can open an abortion clinic near a catholic hospital if there is demand. The solution to this should not be forcing catholics to do abortions.
No one’s forcing them to practice medicine, then.
My morality doesn’t involve covering up sexual abuse of minors, for one.
Christian morality quite clearly does not involve that.
Not officially, no. But it sure seems to happen a lot for people who want to police how others have sex.
Because catholics are known for their tolerance.
Compared to most the protestant sects today they are pretty tolerant.
Catholics are very tolerant, although in the same way liberals and progressives are - for as long as you agree with them.
But to be fair, a lot of them are actually tolerant, they are people too, believe it or not.
Not in my experience.
I do not doubt your experience, it sucks, I suppose but in my opinion it depends on the country and culture. A lot of christians(hardcore christians) are quite intense, let’s say, but a lot of them are pretty chill, in my experience, at least. I would say, some protestant denominations are the worst in that regard.
Protestants are less awful imo. At least the two people I got to know, keep their opinions mostly to themselves. So maybe that’s why they seem more upstanding.
Though one of them expressed that he does believe his gay friend will go to hell.
Catholics are much more rule-bent in my experience and far less tolerant.
They are more rule-bent, but a hardcore protestant is a lot more fanatical than a deboted catholic in my opinion. But with protestants it differs a lot between confessions.
It’s funnier how the catholic church defends pedophilia on an institutional level, but you “think of the children” types don’t seem to care.
Fun fact, the tolerance paradox isn’t a paradox. It’s a social contract. The contract is to be tolerant. Catholics are intolerant of anything they disagree with. They don’t abide by the contract, therefore we aren’t obligated to tolerate their bullshit.
Even more fun facts, the late term abortions catholics LOVE to hate-monger about (I went to the march for life I know first hand) make up a tiny fraction of total abortions, and they are almost always emergency situations, or discovered fetus conditions incompatible with life. Any arbitrary ban WILL kill women, and disproportionately kill women who actually want children. Three women died in Texas in November alone due to abortion laws.
I’m sure there can be some reasonable agreement that gives doctors greater discretion while not allowing elective late term abortions or whatever you think is happening, but for right now, you’re killing actual people.
I am not opposed to abortion, personally, nor is it banned anywhere in my country. I also have not killed anyone yet, but I’ll yet you know if anything changes. However, I am not particularly interested in forcing chrstians to accept secular morality.
The paradox I am referring to, is not in the fact that people that preach tolerance should be tolerant to everyone. I am instead pointing out the fact that western progressive culture, while preaching diversity, do not actually accept people that disagree with them, so inclusivity is contingent on acceptance of certain views, in that sense, this “diversity” is skin deep, we only accept you if you already agree with us.
This is similar to how christians have historically thought, ironically. So while blaming catholics of being intolerant of everything they disagree with, it seems like you are doing exactly that.
I already addressed the point in your second paragraph directly.
“I don’t think women should have rights” is not a differing opinion worthy of consideration.
I don’t think you did address it. What do you mean women shouldn’t have rights? There are more rights than right to abortion, and you don’t have to be dogmatic about it.
Catholic priests raps kids for centuries. Fuck em.