Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-02-05 10:48:09
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

Shahter wrote:

Pug wrote:

Shahter wrote:


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.
Arguing this point is a little irrevelant since you clearly understood the meaning of the sentence, but I'll bite.

Catholics follow teachings and create confidence in what they are doing is correct, but in truth they will not know they've been making good decisions until they are judged.  In other words they create the belief (aka faith) that they are making the right decision.

So the actions of the priests and the congregation are directed based on the belief they are following the proper interpretations of the religious tenants.  If this is the case all actions undertaken by Catholics is based on the faith they are doing the right thing.  Like setting up a non-profit organization to manage a hospital, for instance.

The hospitals are owned by corporations and non-profit organizations.  The boards include a mix of priests and professionals.  Specifically they were formed by the church to operated under religious direction.  In other words, a "faith-based" or "faith-directed" organization.  Or more specifically, directed by their faith they are correctly following the teachings of their religion.

Therefore, I would argue that "faith-based" is the correct term.  There is a difference between "faith" and "religion", but to be honest, who gives a shit when we both get the point?



Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

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.
I agree completely.  Hospitals are privately owned, which is why FOCA has some real issues if it is passed. 

If FOCA passes, it will require every hospital to provide for adoptions and abortions.  Why?  Because it is the constitutional right to have the choice available, and the government can stipulate a level of service for public service reasons.  A hospital, being a privately run organization under strict government oversight, is subject to government regulations.  So if the government says you have to do it, you do it...or you don't do the hospital thing anymore.

There really is no arguing with the government once something becomes law.  Constitutionally, the right to choose is guaranteed.  And constitutionally, the right to basic health standards are guaranteed by oversight.  So FOCA would include this as a basic health standard to ensure the right to choose is guaranteed.
2009-02-05 11:28:01
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX

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.
By that logic, you can sue a hospital for not having a cardiac lab; not all of them do, you know.  Or for not having any fill-in-the-blank specialty service.  So, by extension, every hospital will have to have an oncology unit, orthopedics, pediatrics, full radiology (including CAT and MRI), cath lab (cardiac), L&D (inc abortion, which I suppose would make it a general OB/GYN unit), ER, IMC, cyberknife, and radiation therapy, dialysis treatment, as well as out- and in-patient surgical capability.  So, either a hospital has to be an uber-super hospital, or it gets shut down due to liability?  I live in Austin, and I think maybe only our biggest hospital has all of that; maybe (out of 11 hospitals in the area).
2009-02-05 12:12:44
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|6943|Your moms bedroom
If one third of church's are catholic, why does it cost so much to have a fuckin appendix removed?  oh wait, the church's dont run the hospitals, the people who get paid 300,000 a year to sit on their fuckin asses do.

Ill believe it when I see it

Last edited by Locoloki (2009-02-06 06:04:21)

2009-02-06 01:00:43
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6832|Global Command
On the ATG scale of those most deserving painfull death the leaders of the catholic church are number three behind politicians and lawyers liars.
That being given I generally disagree with religious based social decisions.
It's called family planning.
If, by ill luck or bad choices you find yourself pregnant you sill need to take a rational look at your situation and make a plan. Said plan may involve infantcide from some peoples view.

Besides, the less peope there are the less there are on wellfareM
2009-02-06 03:17:05
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,060|7075|PNW

'Pro-choice' down the drain, I guess, only in a different manner.

"Sorry, lady, we can't help you give birth because we have a policy against killing babies."

Yeah...

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

No doctor should be required to perform abortions.
^this, though I suppose they'd just have to hire dedicated 'physicians' for it if the others were unwilling.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-02-06 03:18:50)

2009-02-06 03:39:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX
Its not so complicated, the catholic hospitals put a pamphlet about family planning in the waiting room, problem solved, nowhere needs to close.
Its a shame abortion exists but there it is.

And I agree, there is nothing useful to the world in the Catholic church.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-06 03:48:02)

Fuck Israel
2009-02-06 05:58:13
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

imortal 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.
By that logic, you can sue a hospital for not having a cardiac lab; not all of them do, you know.  Or for not having any fill-in-the-blank specialty service.  So, by extension, every hospital will have to have an oncology unit, orthopedics, pediatrics, full radiology (including CAT and MRI), cath lab (cardiac), L&D (inc abortion, which I suppose would make it a general OB/GYN unit), ER, IMC, cyberknife, and radiation therapy, dialysis treatment, as well as out- and in-patient surgical capability.  So, either a hospital has to be an uber-super hospital, or it gets shut down due to liability?  I live in Austin, and I think maybe only our biggest hospital has all of that; maybe (out of 11 hospitals in the area).
Well, if the government legislates that a hospital is required to have a cardiac lab, oncology unit, etc, then yes, you could sue.  But for some reason legislation isn't being proposed to make this happen.

BTW "oncology" - I never understand why docs have to make up names.

To be clear, I am not Catholic - I see this issue as pseudo-scare tactic by both sides.  There's no reason why people can't figure this one out.
2009-02-06 06:51:50
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7079|Moscow, Russia

Pug wrote:

Shahter wrote:

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.
Arguing this point is a little irrevelant since you clearly understood the meaning of the sentence, but I'll bite.

Catholics follow teachings and create confidence in what they are doing is correct, but in truth they will not know they've been making good decisions until they are judged.  In other words they create the belief (aka faith) that they are making the right decision.

So the actions of the priests and the congregation are directed based on the belief they are following the proper interpretations of the religious tenants.  If this is the case all actions undertaken by Catholics is based on the faith they are doing the right thing.  Like setting up a non-profit organization to manage a hospital, for instance.

The hospitals are owned by corporations and non-profit organizations.  The boards include a mix of priests and professionals.  Specifically they were formed by the church to operated under religious direction.  In other words, a "faith-based" or "faith-directed" organization.  Or more specifically, directed by their faith they are correctly following the teachings of their religion.

Therefore, I would argue that "faith-based" is the correct term.  There is a difference between "faith" and "religion", but to be honest, who gives a shit when we both get the point?
you get the point, huh? it's precisely because you and a lot of other people DON'T get the point this issue with abortions has arisen.

catholic chirch is one of the most successful corporations in the world (probably THE most successful, billy and larry are squibs compared to pope), and it is in it for power, influence AND profit just as much as any other corporation. non-fuckin'profit organization my butt - there's no such thing on earth and never been. those priests you mentioned are simple managers and act as such, and faith has nothing whatsoever to do with their motivations.

let me put it this way:

when a certain doctor refuses to perform abortions because it goes against his/her personal faith - religious or any other, doesn't matter - it's fine, that person should be absolutely allowed to make judgements based on those principals... and find a job that has nothing to do with abortions or whatever's wrong acoording to his/her faith. that's freedom of personal faith and it should be upheld, no question about that.

but when a state approved and licensed medical institution denies its patients a certain service because it goes against some religious dogma - you understand the difference between personal convictions aka "faith" and religious dogma, don't you? - that's when you got a problem.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-02-06 07:13:02
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France
We both said the same thing, so I'm not sure how I'm not getting the point. 

If the FOCA passed, these Catholic hospitals have to make a decision on whether they want to stay in the hospital business.  They aren't breaking the law until it becomes law.
2009-02-06 07:43:49
OrangeHound
Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...
+1,335|6953|Washington DC

Dilbert_X wrote:

And I agree, there is nothing useful to the world in the Catholic church.
If that is your opinion, then you are not familiar with the Catholic church ... Catholic charities, for example, helps tens of thousands every year.  Throughout the world, Catholic groups help orphans, the homeless, the sick and the crippled.


* I'm not Catholic.
2009-02-06 07:48:44
Zefar
Member
+116|6953|Sweden
I'm for Pro choice because women should have the full right of their own body when it comes to getting kids.

Religion should not be able to change that. Btw people who are against abortion PROBABLY don't even care what happens to child AFTER it's born.

Because all they care about is that that kid is gonna have a go at life. No matter how bad it might end up. Like directly to adoption or left in the care of the government or something.
Maybe the mother was raped by an psychopath and can't get an abortion due to that so now she will have the child of a sick killer.

People will say "Oh that's rare" SOOO? It's STILL horrible when it happens. Not to mention the kid might grow up bad to because mother doesn't like him. Or because he was left on an orphan place. Not to mention there are quite a lot of rapes in the USA. Most of them are bound to end up pregnant.

Most people will probably hit a economical crisis and other things.

The fetus in the stomach don't even have any brain activity for quite some time to. So all you are doing is getting rid of an empty vessel.

I think Doctors can look it at like this when they do an abortion. They save the MOTHERS life.
2009-02-06 07:57:26
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6749|The Land of Scott Walker
Have you attending biology yet?  The baby is not growing in his/her mother's stomach, nor is he/she an empty vessel.  Go to a couple pregnancy checkups and look at the ultrasound or check out this website. 

http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info … _Intro.htm

You can call him/her a fetus, a mass of tissue, and empty vessel if you want, but you'll never find a mother that will do so. 

The vast majority are for convenience because of not using contraceptives responsibly.  Don't give me this bs that it's saving the mother's life. 
2009-02-06 08:28:19
Zefar
Member
+116|6953|Sweden

Stingray24 wrote:

Have you attending biology yet?  The baby is not growing in his/her mother's stomach, nor is he/she an empty vessel.  Go to a couple pregnancy checkups and look at the ultrasound or check out this website. 

http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info … _Intro.htm

You can call him/her a fetus, a mass of tissue, and empty vessel if you want, but you'll never find a mother that will do so. 

The vast majority are for convenience because of not using contraceptives responsibly.  Don't give me this bs that it's saving the mother's life. 
Saving her life as in.

Not make her take care of a baby so that she can have her job.
Not make her spend $1000 or more per year on the baby alone.
Not giving the mental damage from having a baby from a rapist.
Not making her go up every night to feed the child because it gets hungry.
Might actually save her economical.
Save her from ALL the stress related for taking care of a baby alone.

So they can save her in quite a lot of ways.

Btw people if you are against abortion you should adopt a baby/kid because otherwise you would be no worse than the mother. Just leaving those kids there.

Why? Well maybe because if you care so much about life you should try to make the world a better place for those who don't have a mom.
2009-02-06 08:46:10
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

Zefar wrote:

Saving her life as in.

Not make her take care of a baby so that she can have her job.
Not make her spend $1000 or more per year on the baby alone.
Not giving the mental damage from having a baby from a rapist.
Not making her go up every night to feed the child because it gets hungry.
Might actually save her economical.
Save her from ALL the stress related for taking care of a baby alone.

So they can save her in quite a lot of ways.

Btw people if you are against abortion you should adopt a baby/kid because otherwise you would be no worse than the mother. Just leaving those kids there.

Why? Well maybe because if you care so much about life you should try to make the world a better place for those who don't have a mom.
My response:
Doesn't adoption serve as a solution for all the problems you note? (except for the rapist thing)

Note that there are charities which will pay for all the extra expenses to carry the child as well as the hospital expenses.

Aka a choice.
2009-02-06 09:34:27
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7020

Pug wrote:

Zefar wrote:

Saving her life as in.

Not make her take care of a baby so that she can have her job.
Not make her spend $1000 or more per year on the baby alone.
Not giving the mental damage from having a baby from a rapist.
Not making her go up every night to feed the child because it gets hungry.
Might actually save her economical.
Save her from ALL the stress related for taking care of a baby alone.

So they can save her in quite a lot of ways.

Btw people if you are against abortion you should adopt a baby/kid because otherwise you would be no worse than the mother. Just leaving those kids there.

Why? Well maybe because if you care so much about life you should try to make the world a better place for those who don't have a mom.
My response:
Doesn't adoption serve as a solution for all the problems you note? (except for the rapist thing)

Note that there are charities which will pay for all the extra expenses to carry the child as well as the hospital expenses.

Aka a choice.
How many people do you think get charity money. Almost nil.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-02-06 09:50:10
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7020

Zefar wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Have you attending biology yet?  The baby is not growing in his/her mother's stomach, nor is he/she an empty vessel.  Go to a couple pregnancy checkups and look at the ultrasound or check out this website. 

http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info … _Intro.htm

You can call him/her a fetus, a mass of tissue, and empty vessel if you want, but you'll never find a mother that will do so. 

The vast majority are for convenience because of not using contraceptives responsibly.  Don't give me this bs that it's saving the mother's life. 
Saving her life as in.

Not make her take care of a baby so that she can have her job.
Not make her spend $1000 or more per year on the baby alone.
Not giving the mental damage from having a baby from a rapist.
Not making her go up every night to feed the child because it gets hungry.
Might actually save her economical.
Save her from ALL the stress related for taking care of a baby alone.

So they can save her in quite a lot of ways.

Btw people if you are against abortion you should adopt a baby/kid because otherwise you would be no worse than the mother. Just leaving those kids there.

Why? Well maybe because if you care so much about life you should try to make the world a better place for those who don't have a mom.
maybe the woman could use contraception or not have sex... problem solved for unwanted pregnancy
for rapes... i think abortion is ok... for reason you stated...
Love is the answer
2009-02-06 10:13:52
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6985|Disaster Free Zone
Abortion is the only 100% effective form of contraception. Should be legal and freely available to all until.... 5 months.

Maybe the women should have done this or that, maybe they did but it didn't work and maybe it just shouldn't matter, because abortions solves problems.
2009-02-06 10:24:09
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7020
why 5 months?    abortions are a bad solution to irresponsible peoples problems.... you are correct
Love is the answer
2009-02-06 10:42:01
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

Cybargs wrote:

How many people do you think get charity money. Almost nil.
Based on the fact that I provide free accounting services to three charities servicing this niche in very a small city, you're assumption is completely baseless.  The caveat is they push adoption over abortion, although there's no guarantee each pregnancy will carry to term.
2009-02-06 10:48:23
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6985|Disaster Free Zone

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

why 5 months?    abortions are a bad solution to irresponsible peoples problems.... you are correct
IDK, keep some whinging bitches at least a little happy, I wouldn't be against killing the little fuckers at birth...

Do you even know whats involved in an abortion? It's not like going down to get a flue shot, it's and incredible invasive and traumatic experience that no one would make the decision to get lightly. If anyone's going to go through that they are damn sure they don't want the kid and more then likely are not ready to raise one, especially considering biology produces hormones which makes mother more protective of their children making the decision that much harder. But at least if it is legal they get to make that decision no matter how tough. I also can't see anyone opting to use abortions as a replacement to the pill or condoms because it's is just that unpleasant.
2009-02-06 11:07:42
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7020
it looks like abortions aren't fun... i still think the little fuckers as you say... deserve to live....
or at least have the mom not get pregnant if she isn't prepared...   no penis in the vagina... no pregnancy...
Love is the answer
2009-02-06 11:20:47
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6950

Zefar wrote:

Religion should not be able to change that.
Why do people always bring that up? I don't believe in abortion and I'm not religious. It's like telling someone they aren't allowed a voice.
2009-02-06 12:03:07
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6594|Éire
Catholic fucking hospitals? What will they think of next?

Religion has no place in medicine, education or politics... it's too fucking messy (not to mention that religion is a stinking crock of shit for weak minded humans who can't get their head around the idea that they're all alone in this big bad world... but each to their own).

Last edited by Braddock (2009-02-06 12:03:26)

2009-02-06 12:08:15
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6988|United States of America
I love how "religion" hasn't evolved at all in some people's minds despite being drastically different than it was even a hundred years ago. Apparently some (^^^^^^^that guy^^^^) still think it's just a tool to explain the unknown, i.e. "God did it".
2009-02-06 12:13:14
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

Braddock wrote:

Catholic fucking hospitals? What will they think of next?

Religion has no place in medicine, education or politics... it's too fucking messy (not to mention that religion is a stinking crock of shit for weak minded humans who can't get their head around the idea that they're all alone in this big bad world... but each to their own).
Based on the fact that most of the Catholic hospitals are run as non-profit organizations in order to provide a service to the community...

...oh how evil.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard