February 6, 201214 yr Fair. Although I'm still not sure by what I've read that ST E has to start providing abortions in their hospitals. All I've read is that their employees are required to have it covered should they pursue it. IF it's the former then part of my argument is weakened and would be changed. If it's the latter then I would argue that the Church needs to do a better job with the flock. I don't believe anyone is forcing Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions (with the exception of a life or death decision on the mother possibly) What the law is forcing is Catholic hospitals, schools and daycare's etc. to PAY for it. Again since many of the employee's of those institutions are not Catholic, it doesn't matter if 100% of the Catholic members believed and did not request such a service. The Church is being forced to PAY for those employees who do request it, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic etc. It is forcing the Church to PAY for services it fundamentally disagree's with. The Church believes these decision to be of a Religious Nature and not a constitutional right of U.S. Citizens. The Government acts as if these services are a constitutional Right of it's Citizens, that makes no sense to me either as Catholic or as Conservative who believes Government has not right in such matters. Let Free market decide. If it is that big of an issue for people, the will refuse to work for institutions that don't have the coverage.
February 6, 201214 yr Author I am one of the few who does not believe that just because "most" think one thing, then it should be so. Obviously, you are preaching to the choir. However, I think my point is correct.
February 6, 201214 yr Author Are you asking whether the Church would fire that doctor after the fact or whether the Church's policy before-hand is that no such terminations should take place? If we assume these life-saving actions on behalf of the mother do take place doesn't that go against the teaching of the Church? If so, how does the Church rationalize it?
February 6, 201214 yr Author I don't believe anyone is forcing Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions (with the exception of a life or death decision on the mother possibly) What the law is forcing is Catholic hospitals, schools and daycare's etc. to PAY for it. Again since many of the employee's of those institutions are not Catholic, it doesn't matter if 100% of the Catholic members believed and did not request such a service. The Church is being forced to PAY for those employees who do request it, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic etc. It is forcing the Church to PAY for services it fundamentally disagree's with. The Church believes these decision to be of a Religious Nature and not a constitutional right of U.S. Citizens. The Government acts as if these services are a constitutional Right of it's Citizens, that makes no sense to me either as Catholic or as Conservative who believes Government has not right in such matters. Let Free market decide. If it is that big of an issue for people, the will refuse to work for institutions that don't have the coverage. Do you think it's inconsistent for the Church to say that its employees cannot have coverage through insurance for certain procedures while at the same time funding those same insurance companies that do indeed cover it and pay for it elsewhere? My argument is inconsistency (see this argument, see letting doctors end a pregnancy in the name of saving the mother). I get but do not fully agree with the argument about the slippery slope.
February 6, 201214 yr Obviously, you are preaching to the choir. However, I think my point is correct. You may well be right about that.
February 6, 201214 yr The Church's official stance, were it to come down to it, would to be to save the child. The idea behind that being, very basically, that the mother has had opportunity at life and the child has not yet had that opportunity.Interesting. I can "sort of" see the logic here. But, if terminating the pregnancy puts the mother at "no risk" but proceeding puts both mother and child at risk, termination still seems like the correct route.
February 7, 201214 yr Do you think it's inconsistent for the Church to say that its employees cannot have coverage through insurance for certain procedures while at the same time funding those same insurance companies that do indeed cover it and pay for it elsewhere? My argument is inconsistency (see this argument, see letting doctors end a pregnancy in the name of saving the mother). I get but do not fully agree with the argument about the slippery slope. Sure it's inconsistent but they really have no choice in that matter, do they? Seems to me their options are to go without insurance which would leave them with no employees or self insure which could be much much more risk than is advisable. I believe they have a good stance-not to pay for the offending procedures directly. Kind of like shoping Walmart but not buying their produce.
February 7, 201214 yr Author Sure it's inconsistent but they really have no choice in that matter, do they? Seems to me their options are to go without insurance which would leave them with no employees or self insure which could be much much more risk than is advisable. I believe they have a good stance-not to pay for the offending procedures directly. Kind of like shoping Walmart but not buying their produce. Except no one bases their beliefs on Wal-Mart produce. However, I hear you.
February 7, 201214 yr No insurance company or business should be forced to pay for an abortion. Period. Outside of very rare instances, it is a personal choice to have an abortion. Just like it's a personal choice to get caps on your teeth, gastric bypass surgery, a nose job, liposuction, etc. Should businesses and insurance companies be required to pay for those procedures.
February 7, 201214 yr Except no one bases their beliefs on Wal-Mart produce. However, I hear you. I would not dismiss that somewhere out there a person feels so strongly about Wally World's produce that they have crafted their belief system around it.
February 7, 201214 yr No insurance company or business should be forced to pay for an abortion. Period. Outside of very rare instances, it is a personal choice to have an abortion. Just like it's a personal choice to get caps on your teeth, gastric bypass surgery, a nose job, liposuction, etc. Should businesses and insurance companies be required to pay for those procedures. What if something is going wrong with the pregnancy and it is a life-saving decision for the mother to terminate the pregnancy? Is this still a personal choice?
February 7, 201214 yr What if something is going wrong with the pregnancy and it is a life-saving decision for the mother to terminate the pregnancy? Is this still a personal choice? That would fall under the very rare incidents category.
February 8, 201214 yr It is forcing the Church to PAY for services it fundamentally disagree's with. That right there is my road block.....
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.