Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-02-04 09:11:32
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/ … 7890.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act

Okay, without getting too much into the Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life debate here's something of note.  The wiki for once shows enough about the issue.

Facts:
-1/3 of US hospitals are Catholic
-Obama supports FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act, and has said "The first thing that I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act"
-There are many abortion clinics where access to an abortion can be sought outside of a hospital.  However, the FOCA would require hospitals, that if they provide birthing services to equally support adoption and abortion options.
-Catholics see abortions as an "unpardonable".  Whatever that means.  But based on this, Catholic hospitals would either have to: 1) close, 2) discontinue birth services (if it is possible for a hospital not to have birthing services).

So debate.

It makes sense to offer a choice at the hospital.  However, a faith based organization provides hospital services as a component of their services/outreach.

I'm Pro-Choice in that I think people should choose, but I am strongly against abortions.  IMHO, congress needs to be very careful on how this is approached.
2009-02-04 10:40:20
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6993|Tampa Bay Florida
One part of me says that doctors an nurses should know what they're getting into when they sign up for the job... and if you allow someone to not give abortions based on their religious beliefs, where does it stop?  Some whacked out religions don't allow people to use certain medicines and what not.

Another part of me says that people shouldn't be forced to give abortions... or they should have the right to refuse but have a backup doctor or something. 

Another problem is distinguishing between medical emergencies and just a choice.  A lot of people who are "pro life" seem to me anyway to also be against it in a lot of scenarios other than just a pregnant woman wanting to get one.
2009-02-04 10:53:09
OrangeHound
Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...
+1,335|6953|Washington DC

Hype.  Politics.  Scare tactics.  Not reality.

The only threat might be if a hospital were to be given the choice of "do abortions" or "we will pull away public funding".   And, frankly, if a hospital decides that the source of its existence is from the government rather than God (their funding is from government rather than the church), then their god is the government and they become what they eat.
2009-02-04 11:58:05
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6935|949

Perhaps the Catholic directors should look at the statistics for abortions and realize that Catholics are just as likely to have abortions as anyone else.

If they are receiving government money and/or regulated by the government they have no choice but to comply.
2009-02-04 12:03:19
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6803|so randum
This ties into that thread ATG (i think posted) about religion and medicine.

IMHO, they shouldn't mix
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-02-04 12:06:14
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7113|Nårvei

Both hospitals and the women should have the right to make that decission themselves tbh ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-04 12:08:53
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7020

FatherTed wrote:

This ties into that thread ATG (i think posted) about religion and medicine.

IMHO, they shouldn't mix
Depends how much "faith" in god they have. Doubt many of the doctors working there in the first place won't provide medicine etc, since 1/3 is a large amount.

It's not about religion, it's more about extremism imo.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-02-04 12:10:14
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6924|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

If they are receiving government money and/or regulated by the government they have no choice but to comply.
And what if they're not? According to the OP they have the option of doing what the fed says, closing or stopping birth services and it looks like that's regardless of whether they receive govt funding or not. Although naturally if they were, from a normal/logical point of view it would make sense to comply with your sugar daddy and shut up.

Personally I think it's dangerous that the US has allowed religion to infiltrate the healthcare system in such a big way like this, I mean yeah that's freedom for you and it's all nice and well from that standpoint but you'll probably now have to reap what you sow eventually
2009-02-04 16:48:36
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6298|Truthistan
Health care professionals are supposed to be professional and hospitals with "missions" are ridiculous. Hospitals are in it for profit and to have a thin religiosity veneer that they refuse to do certain procedures is ridiculous. Most people working in these hospitals don't belong to the religion of the hospital anyway.

I know that certain "Catholic" hospital systems have limitations of the health insurance of their employees that denies coverage for tubaligation. While at the same time they have coverage for Viagra. Now if that isn't sexual discrimination I don't know what is.

The feds should step in and equalize the field for patients. Some hospitals may close, but they open and close all the time, someone will buy the building and start it up again, so I wouldn't pay any heed to that threat.

Religion has no place in healthcare unless the individual patient invites it in.
2009-02-04 17:41:54
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6988|United States of America
I know hospitals have names like St. Mary, St. Margaret, etc. but are they really Catholic? As in, do they really operate based on those principles? I'm sure that Catholics do not make up the entire staff, and I'm equally certain that not all Catholics are pro-life.
2009-02-04 19:40:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

OrangeHound wrote:

And, frankly, if a hospital decides that the source of its existence is from the government rather than God (their funding is from government rather than the church), then their god is the government and they become what they eat.
Amen to that.
2009-02-04 19:52:22
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|6005|College Park, MD

DesertFox- wrote:

I know hospitals have names like St. Mary, St. Margaret, etc. but are they really Catholic? As in, do they really operate based on those principles? I'm sure that Catholics do not make up the entire staff, and I'm equally certain that not all Catholics are pro-life.
Never could figure that one out. Thankfully around here we've got places like Suburban Hospital, GWU Hospital, and Johns Hopkins Hospital
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2009-02-04 20:09:07
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6985|Disaster Free Zone

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Hospitals are in it for profit
Well there's your problem.
2009-02-05 06:10:02
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

DesertFox- wrote:

I know hospitals have names like St. Mary, St. Margaret, etc. but are they really Catholic? As in, do they really operate based on those principles? I'm sure that Catholics do not make up the entire staff, and I'm equally certain that not all Catholics are pro-life.
The hospitals are governed by priests, although managed by the hired help.
2009-02-05 06:14:15
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Perhaps the Catholic directors should look at the statistics for abortions and realize that Catholics are just as likely to have abortions as anyone else.

If they are receiving government money and/or regulated by the government they have no choice but to comply.
The FOCA goes a step further and says hospitals are required to perform abortions.  The argument is - you can get an abortion anywhere.  Why can't you just have people go get them there instead?
2009-02-05 06:46:25
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950
It doesn't seem very pro choice to force a hospital to do the procedure or lose funding. Pregnancy isn't a disease so there's no reason they should be forced to do it.
2009-02-05 07:11:37
PureFodder
Member
+225|6589

Pug wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Perhaps the Catholic directors should look at the statistics for abortions and realize that Catholics are just as likely to have abortions as anyone else.

If they are receiving government money and/or regulated by the government they have no choice but to comply.
The FOCA goes a step further and says hospitals are required to perform abortions.  The argument is - you can get an abortion anywhere.  Why can't you just have people go get them there instead?
If you live in the middle of a city, fair enough. Just go to the next hospital.

Unfortunately in a lot of rural areas there are very few accessible healthcare services, especially if you are poor and rely on public transportation. If the one that you can get to won't do the operation you are effectively unable to get an abortion.
2009-02-05 07:42:15
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

PureFodder wrote:

If you live in the middle of a city, fair enough. Just go to the next hospital.

Unfortunately in a lot of rural areas there are very few accessible healthcare services, especially if you are poor and rely on public transportation. If the one that you can get to won't do the operation you are effectively unable to get an abortion.
Okay, this is interesting I think.

You are correct in that they would be lacking in the right to choose in that case.  The loophole is that if indeed the local hospital has to shut down, shouldn't the government then establish an abortion clinic next to it?  Or perhaps to government will need to provide transportation?  There's still some wiggle room in there.

I honestly believe that if forced on this issue, some hospitals will be sold, some will close if Congress doesn't pay attention to the issue.
2009-02-05 07:44:37
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

It doesn't seem very pro choice to force a hospital to do the procedure or lose funding. Pregnancy isn't a disease so there's no reason they should be forced to do it.
Actually there's a very good argument in constitutional law from the patient's point of view.  The patient has the right to choose.  If options are limited, they have not been extended that right.  Fodder's point illustrates this.
2009-02-05 08:03:10
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7079|Moscow, Russia

Pug wrote:

a faith based organization
this is nonsence: organizations by default cannot be based of faith. on religion - yes, but never on faith. interested topic, btw, but i had to point this misconception out.

DrunkFace wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Hospitals are in it for profit
Well there's your problem.
all parties involved in this are in it for profit, including catholic church. so what's your point?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-02-05 08:30:13
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

Shahter wrote:

Pug wrote:

a faith based organization
this is nonsence: organizations by default cannot be based of faith. on religion - yes, but never on faith. interested topic, btw, but i had to point this misconception out.
Sure.  I also know that my office is not 2.75 miles from my house.  It's actually 2.75000034023050987 miles from my house.

***slits wrists***
2009-02-05 08:36:26
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

Pug wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

It doesn't seem very pro choice to force a hospital to do the procedure or lose funding. Pregnancy isn't a disease so there's no reason they should be forced to do it.
Actually there's a very good argument in constitutional law from the patient's point of view.  The patient has the right to choose.  If options are limited, they have not been extended that right.  Fodder's point illustrates this.
Pregnancy is not a disease. Are we now going to require that all doctors know how to and are required to perform abortions or risk losing their license?
2009-02-05 08:47:36
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Pug wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

It doesn't seem very pro choice to force a hospital to do the procedure or lose funding. Pregnancy isn't a disease so there's no reason they should be forced to do it.
Actually there's a very good argument in constitutional law from the patient's point of view.  The patient has the right to choose.  If options are limited, they have not been extended that right.  Fodder's point illustrates this.
Pregnancy is not a disease. Are we now going to require that all doctors know how to and are required to perform abortions or risk losing their license?
Well first, doctors are required to know how to perform an abortion.  It's part of their training.

But...the point is: Roe vs Wade - a woman has a right to choose.  If FOCA federally says its a requirement, this means that patients have the RIGHT to choose.  If you are in a situation where the only healthcare facility in town doesn't perform abortions...and there is no easy alternative facility that allows you to get an abortion...effectively your RIGHT to an abortion has been violated.

This is one of the basic tenets of why FOCA is being pushed - people have the RIGHT to abortion.

I am against abortions.  If a pregnant lady wanted to debate this issue, I would.  But I would not force my view on anyone, as I support people's right to choose...although I think its a terrible thing to do.
2009-02-05 09:03:25
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7079|Moscow, Russia

Pug wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Pug wrote:

a faith based organization
this is nonsence: organizations by default cannot be based of faith. on religion - yes, but never on faith. interested topic, btw, but i had to point this misconception out.
Sure.  I also know that my office is not 2.75 miles from my house.  It's actually 2.75000034023050987 miles from my house.

***slits wrists***
there's HUGE difference between faith and religion. these two concepts are so bloody different, that saying that certain oranization is based on faith is like saying that book is based on alphabet.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-02-05 09:15:15
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

Pug wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Pug wrote:


Actually there's a very good argument in constitutional law from the patient's point of view.  The patient has the right to choose.  If options are limited, they have not been extended that right.  Fodder's point illustrates this.
Pregnancy is not a disease. Are we now going to require that all doctors know how to and are required to perform abortions or risk losing their license?
Well first, doctors are required to know how to perform an abortion.  It's part of their training.

But...the point is: Roe vs Wade - a woman has a right to choose.  If FOCA federally says its a requirement, this means that patients have the RIGHT to choose.  If you are in a situation where the only healthcare facility in town doesn't perform abortions...and there is no easy alternative facility that allows you to get an abortion...effectively your RIGHT to an abortion has been violated.

This is one of the basic tenets of why FOCA is being pushed - people have the RIGHT to abortion.

I am against abortions.  If a pregnant lady wanted to debate this issue, I would.  But I would not force my view on anyone, as I support people's right to choose...although I think its a terrible thing to do.
Fuck that. Doctors should be required to heal and thats it. No doctor should be required to perform abortions. Isn't it a little ironic for the pro-choice crowd to force this decision on doctors. Where's their choice?

Also, I wouldn't call anything a right unless you're able to do it yourself. If you require someone else it's called a privilege.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard