NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4568.html

It would appear that if the Freedom of Choice Act were to pass, Catholic hospitals, which currently enjoy exemption from various state laws that allow Catholic hospitals and clinics to refuse to perform abortions, could be forced to perform abortions.

“It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely,” Paprocki said. “It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.”

“I do not think I’m being alarmist in considering such drastic steps,” he said. “We need to respond in a morally appropriate, responsible fashion.”

This means that not only would they close hospitals and clinics, but would not sell the buildings (which they own) to anyone else - tearing the building down sounds like what they're talking about.

They run a substantial number of hospitals and clinics in the US, and also perform a lot of charitable care for people too poor to pay at another hospital.

Would you be willing to let them shut all of their facilities down, and tear them down?

Would you be willing to give them an exemption so that they don't have to perform abortions if they don't want to?

What is the exact status of these hospitals? Are they charities/businesses/etc?

I'm leaning towards ending the exemption, but it'd depend heavily what the hospitals are.

Another disgusting breech on human rights.

Way to go America.

What is the exact status of these hospitals? Are they charities/businesses/etc?

I'm leaning towards ending the exemption, but it'd depend heavily what the hospitals are.

They're all charity organizations (non-profits) run and owned fully by the Catholic Church.

Around 500 hospitals and around 400 clinics, IIRC. Not a small thing.

Another disgusting breech on human rights.

Way to go America.

As I recall, the Catholic Church is not an American organization. Something to do with Europeans, as I recall...

Most of them are charities run by religous organizations. Some of the best ones in my area are run by convents, and they would rather Shut Down than be forced to kill the unborn. I suspect that the Freedom of Choice act would fail constitutional muster simply on the basis of interfering with the free practice clause of the First Amendment.

Worse, this could mean the loss of their Natural Family Planning facilities, which act as the Pro-Life counterpoint to the Abortion Mills called Planned Parenthood. The thought of the loss of Catholic Charities in the medical field makes me sick, quite frankly.

As I recall, the Catholic Church is not an American organization. Something to do with Europeans, as I recall...

But almost 50% of the country is Catholic, and the monks and nuns who run these facilities are American Citizens. And then there are the Protestant Run churches that will do the same.

Catholic Charities may be the biggest name in Religious Medicine, but it is FAR from the only one.

There is no way that a law can force a hospital to provide every possible medical service whether they have people trained to do those procedures or not. Your article sounds like pure fantasy.

Most of them are charities run by religous organizations. Some of the best ones in my area are run by convents, and they would rather Shut Down than be forced to kill the unborn. I suspect that the Freedom of Choice act would fail constitutional muster simply on the basis of interfering with the free practice clause of the First Amendment.

Worse, this could mean the loss of their Natural Family Planning facilities, which act as the Pro-Life counterpoint to the Abortion Mills called Planned Parenthood. The thought of the loss of Catholic Charities in the medical field makes me sick, quite frankly.

There's that word: "unborn". It's not a real word, is it? A rock is unborn. A slab of iron is unborn.

Anyway, I object to the casting of Planned Parenthood as "abortion mills". It'd take centuries upon centuries of statistically average years of abortions to come close to the number of dead killed in the name of Catholicism, so let's just back off the ol' high horse there.

I favor an exemption for religiously affiliated hospitals to the Freedom of Choice Act. If they're not taking tax dollars, what's the harm? If someone wants an abortion and claims that traveling to the nearest non-Catholic provider is too much of a hardship, that's tough. People who want specific procedures have to travel to get them all the time.

Except that the text of the law explicitly states that this only affects the federal and state governments, not private institutions.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) CIVIL ACTION- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:

Except that the text of the law explicitly states that this only affects the federal and state governments, not private institutions.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:

Bingo. I knew there was something I was missing. Thank you. The exemption I favor is, de facto, in the law itself.

Could someone please explain how the Freedom of Choice Act could actually force a hospital or clinic to perform an abortion? I can't seem to find the complete text of it online, but I'm not seeing anything that even suggests that would be the case anywhere but pro-life websites.

Except that the text of the law explicitly states that this only affects the federal and state governments, not private institutions.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:

The problem is that it supersedes and negates all state laws.

Some states have an exemption in their state laws, which would be overturned.

And without those exemptions, some states have laws mandating that you have to provide all services, especially if you're a non-profit.

Just like the Mormons, who have recently caught the ire of man on this forum, we have the right to influence the state as we wish through petitions and advertisements, or in the case of our hospitals, the types of care we do or do not give.

Just as the Mormons have the right to speak out in opposition to Gay Marriage, we Catholics have the right to tell the government to go to hell if they try and force our hospitals to give abortions to those who want them on the basis of our faith.

But almost 50%

I thought it was a lot closer to a quarter.

I thought it was a lot closer to a quarter.

woops, got the US and TAP confused, gomenosai.

But the point still stands, the Catholic Church makes up a significant portion of the population, and the Protestant Churches stand with us on the matter of Abortion, even if some of them don't like us for not living up to their standards :rolleyes:.

The problem is that it supersedes and negates all state laws.

Some states have an exemption in their state laws, which would be overturned.

And without those exemptions, some states have laws mandating that you have to provide all services, especially if you're a non-profit.

You don't understand the law, obviously, as it would be impossible to force hospitals to do abortions under this law. Simple economics dictates that it would be impossible to enforce a law that forced all hospitals to provide all treatments. Nor does this law affect private hospitals, only government ones.

and the Protestant Churches stand with us on the matter of Abortion

They do? They agree women should be denied abortions?

Just like the Mormons, who have recently caught the ire of man on this forum, we have the right to influence the state as we wish through petitions and advertisements, or in the case of our hospitals, the types of care we do or do not give.
I'd argue about whether or not you should but hardly the point here...
Just as the Mormons have the right to speak out in opposition to Gay Marriage, we Catholics have the right to tell the government to go to hell if they try and force our hospitals to give abortions to those who want them on the basis of our faith.
Except apparently that is not what the Freedom of Choice Act is doing, so feel free to hop down off your soap box...

Except apparently that is not what the Freedom of Choice Act is doing, so feel free to hop down off your soap box...

The various state laws about medical care will, since all state laws regarding abortions will be rendered null and void by the act.

In most states, especially if you're a non-profit, you have to provide all services. Catholic churches had an abortion exemption, which will now vanish.

The various state laws about medical care will, since all state laws regarding abortions will be rendered null and void by the act.

In most states, especially if you're a non-profit, you have to provide all services. Catholic churches had an abortion exemption, which will now vanish.Then that's an issue that will have to be resolved in the individual states then, isn't it?

The problem is that it supersedes and negates all state laws.

I personally have seen no indication that it seemly does away with all state laws on the general subject of abortion. To my reading, it only creates a situation in which it details federal supremacy in conditions of conflict.

Since this law deals with only governmental institutions, and since catholic hospitals are private, no such conflict could exist. Hierarchy of laws doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, it only strikes the laws to the extent of the conflict, I've seen nothing that indicates that state abortion laws will be done away with wholesale, and to claim otherwise, without even citing a single line of proposed statutory language is just the same frantic winging we've come to expect from the OP

The various state laws about medical care will, since all state laws regarding abortions will be rendered null and void by the act.

In most states, especially if you're a non-profit, you have to provide all services. Catholic churches had an abortion exemption, which will now vanish.

How about you show me these laws...

The problem is that it supersedes and negates all state laws.
Oh? All speed limits will be overturned as soon as this legislation passes? Cool! [/sarcasm]
some states have laws mandating that you have to provide all services, especially if you're a non-profit.
That's not just false, it's flatly absurd. Every hospital in the state has to be able to do heart transplants, limb reattachments, and conjoined-twin separations?

They do? They agree women should be denied abortions?

According to the Christian Faith (Whether Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Armenian, Chinese House Churches, or any of the other hundreds of flavors whose names I cannot remember) the human has life from the moment of Conception.

And thus, we hold that Abortion is murder. And now, there is a medical textbook that agrees with us on that one. The Developing Human, one of the top textbooks on Pre-Natal care, states that it becomes a human from the moment of fertilization.

We like freedom, it lets us convert people one by one :p, but things like Abortion we outright oppose unless the life of the mother is at stake. One reason we oppose all Partial Birth Abortions.

And thus, we hold that Abortion is murder. And now, there is a medical textbook that agrees with us on that one. The Developing Human, one of the top textbooks on Pre-Natal care, states that it becomes a human from the moment of fertilization.

Your basing your argument on the fact that one source defines the entirely subjective nature of the word "human" in one way?

Piss poor argument that.

According to the Christian Faith (Whether Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Armenian, Chinese House Churches, or any of the other hundreds of flavors whose names I cannot remember) the human has life from the moment of Conception.
Flatly false. There are many Christian denominations which disagree with you.
Abortion we outright oppose unless the life of the mother is at stake. One reason we oppose all Partial Birth Abortions.
You also oppose abortions WHEN the life of the mother is at stake. Your Church has always fought against including any exception for such cases, insisting in effect that the mother must die.

And thus, we hold that Abortion is murder.
So even if it is a cluster of cells with no organs it's still alive?

Flatly false. There are many Christian denominations which disagree with you

Including that there Bible thingy they always mention. :p

Just like the Mormons, who have recently caught the ire of man on this forum, we have the right to influence the state as we wish through petitions and advertisements, or in the case of our hospitals, the types of care we do or do not give.

Just as the Mormons have the right to speak out in opposition to Gay Marriage, we Catholics have the right to tell the government to go to hell if they try and force our hospitals to give abortions to those who want them on the basis of our faith.

Except that they didn't speak. They spent. Big difference. The former is legal, the latter is trickier.

So even if it is a cluster of cells with no organs it's still alive?

No, please no. Let's not take the thread in that direction, I beg of you.

According to the Christian Faith (Whether Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Armenian, Chinese House Churches, or any of the other hundreds of flavors whose names I cannot remember) the human has life from the moment of Conception.

And thus, we hold that Abortion is murder. And now, there is a medical textbook that agrees with us on that one. The Developing Human, one of the top textbooks on Pre-Natal care, states that it becomes a human from the moment of fertilization.

We like freedom, it lets us convert people one by one :p, but things like Abortion we outright oppose unless the life of the mother is at stake. One reason we oppose all Partial Birth Abortions.
Try again

The United Church of Christ (UCC)
has strongly supported the legalization of abortion since 1971. The UCC supported FOCA and strongly opposed the PBA ban to the point of joining the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARRAL) in a statement affirming President Clinton’s veto of the PBA Ban Act in 1996. The UCC has also called for the church to support abortion in any national health care bill.

American Baptist Churches
leaves abortion policy to local churches and individuals. A resolution adopted in 1988, updated in 1994 and accepted as current policy, "acknowledges diversity of ... convictions within our fellowship," making no distinction between those who believe that human life begins at conception (with the consequence that abortion is immoral), and those who believe it can be morally acceptable based on "compassion and justice." This relativism gives no protection to the unborn child, and little guidance to women and men who must live with the consequences of their choice.

from here (http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Denominational-stand-on-the-issue-of-abortion.htm)

According to the Christian Faith (Whether Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Armenian, Chinese House Churches, or any of the other hundreds of flavors whose names I cannot remember) the human has life from the moment of Conception.I'm damn sure that St. Thomas Aquinas isn't the only one that disagrees with you on that count.

OK, here's the relevant part, it's been quoted in part already, but I wanted to include it:

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) CIVIL ACTION- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

Here's the part where it supposedly "supersedes and negates all state laws."

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

The act applies to all laws, before or after, but only to the extent of the Act itself. And the act clearly only defines a banning of attempts made by "a government" to limit such rights.

Only "a government" is effected. Be it state, local, federal, or any other government. And just in case we get into back and forth about what "government" means, section 3 of the statute handily defines it for us:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

Since a catholic hospital does not fit any of those definitions, it's not a "government" under the meaning of the statute, and thus, unaffected.

The act (via section 4) only prevents A GOVERNMENT from acting in a way to deny or interfere with a woman's right to do the things listed, and via section 6, strips away any other state, local, municipal, or federal laws that proport to do such a thing. Frantic hand wringing of "IT WILL TAKE AWAY STATE EXEMPTIONS FOR CHURCHES!" is patently false and demonstrably a lie, since state exemptions for churches has nothing to do with the original act, as defined by section 4, and thus, utterly unaffected by the exercise of federal power.

See Kimchi, this is how REAL lawyers work.

No, please no. Let's not take the thread in that direction, I beg of you.

Sorry. :$

OK, here's the relevant part, it's been quoted in part already, but I wanted to include it:



Here's the part where it supposedly "supersedes and negates all state laws."



The act applies to all laws, before or after, but only to the extent of the Act itself. And the act clearly only defines a banning of attempts made by "a government" to limit such rights.

A government. Be it state, local, federal, or any other government. The act (via section 4) only prevents A GOVERNMENT from acting in a way to deny or interfere with a woman's right to do the things listed, and via section 6, strips away any other state, local, municipal, or federal laws that proport to do such a thing. Frantic hand wringing of "IT WILL TAKE AWAY STATE EXEMPTIONS FOR CHURCHES!" is patently false and demonstrably a lie, since state exemptions for churches has nothing to do with the original act, as defined by section 4, and thus, utterly unaffected by the exercise of federal power.

See Kimchi, this is how REAL lawyers work.

Like the Catholic Church doesn't have lawyers...

Like the Catholic Church doesn't have lawyers...

Lolwut?

Sorry. :$

Oh, nothing personal, I assure you. It's just that the only thing more aggravating than two opposing economists debating economics and the whole evolution/creation debate is the details-of-abortion trope. *shudder*

Like the Catholic Church doesn't have lawyers...

I'm sure they do. Lawyers who are kept on payroll to scream bloody murder (literally) any time the government, through any method, tries, in any way, to make abortion easier, cheaper, or safer

I'm sure they do. Lawyers who are kept on payroll to scream bloody murder (literally) any time the government, through any method, tries, in any way, to make abortion easier, cheaper, or safer

Lawyers who successfully got exemptions for the Church put into state laws.

*snip*

Thanks, that's the info I was looking for. I rather suspected that this "it will FORCE Catholics to perform abortions" argument was just as full of shit as the "it will FORCE Catholics to perform gay marriages" argument, but it's good to have that verified. (...well, sort of "good." I'm endlessly depressed by people who think that flagrantly lying about their opponents' position is a morally acceptable way to accomplish their goals.)

Lawyers who successfully got exemptions for the Church put into state laws.

exemptions which, as noted, shall be utterly unaffected should this bill pass, since an exemption allowing churches to not perform abortions does not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to bear a child, terminate a pregnancy prior to viability, or terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

It's a good thing you stopped lying about being a lawyer, because you suck at it.

Like the Catholic Church doesn't have lawyers...

Or perhaps the source "lifenews.com" might exaggerate the already over-the-top fearmongering of some Catholic bishops? That article is full of lies.

If FOCA were to pass, do you reallying think lawyers for the Catholic Church would be unable to argue that it doesn't effect Catholic hospitals?

Regardless, the real story here is not that anyone is threatening to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions (no one is), but that the Catholic Church would threaten to close down all its hospitals rather than allow women freedom of choice.

Lawyers who successfully got exemptions for the Church put into state laws.

Has it not occurred to you that any noises made by the catholic church about this are nothing more than them continuing to try to force their rules onto people who have no reason to care about their rules?

Or perhaps the source "lifenews.com" might exaggerate the already over-the-top fearmongering of some Catholic bishops? That article is full of lies.

If FOCA were to pass, do you reallying think lawyers for the Catholic Church would be unable to argue that it doesn't effect Catholic hospitals?

Regardless, the real story here is not that anyone is threatening to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions (no one is), but that the Catholic Church would threaten to close down all its hospitals rather than allow women freedom of choice.

And what would you do if they did?

Thanks, that's the info I was looking for. I rather suspected that this "it will FORCE Catholics to perform abortions" argument was just as full of shit as the "it will FORCE Catholics to perform gay marriages" argument, but it's good to have that verified. (...well, sort of "good." I'm endlessly depressed by people who think that flagrantly lying about their opponents' position is a morally acceptable way to accomplish their goals.)

I blame Lee Atwater, who taught Karl Rove.

And what would you do if they did?

did what? Decided to shutter their hospitals over protest of a law that doesn't affect them? I would be highly disappointed if they did that, but progress should not be stopped by a bunch of misanthropes who want to take their ball and go home of the government doesn't bow to their demands to strip rights away from fellow human beings.

But that's ok, since they're not going to anyway.

And what would you do if they did?

Interesting question. First, I feel comfortable calling their bluff.

Second, assuming for the sake of argument it isn't a bluff, I wouldn't let blackmail by one organization get in the way of freedom and equality for women. Aye, it would be a high price to pay, but the fault would be on the Catholic Church for taking its marbles and going home, not on those that seek only to protect the right to choose.

And what would you do if they did?Point out that since they weren't being forced to perform abortions, the blame falls entirely on them?

Point out that since they weren't being forced to perform abortions, the blame falls entirely on them?

Call it political pressure. It's certainly what they are broadly hinting at.

They also seem to be more broadly hinting at ejecting certain politicians from the Church.

Call it political pressure. It's certainly what they are broadly hinting at.

They also seem to be more broadly hinting at ejecting certain politicians from the Church.

you know what, I hope they do engage in political pressure, I hope they do target specific politicians for ejection.

The economy is in rough shape and we could use the billions of dollars in tax revenue it would generate once they lose their tax exempt status for engaging in political activities.

you know what, I hope they do engage in political pressure, I hope they do target specific politicians for ejection.

The economy is in rough shape and we could use the billions of dollars in tax revenue it would generate once they lose their tax exempt status for engaging in political activities.

Excommunication for violating a religious precept is not politics.

Neither is closing hospitals.

Call it political pressure. It's certainly what they are broadly hinting at.

They also seem to be more broadly hinting at ejecting certain politicians from the Church.

If the catholic church is willing to stop offering any medical services at all because women will be able to get abortions at publicly funded hospitals then они могут пойти, трахают себя.

Also, if they did it would send a pretty strong message that their real concern is not the well-being of people, but instead trying to maintain / increase their influence (i.e. its all about power)

Excommunication for violating a religious precept is not politics.

Neither is closing hospitals.

Threatening, however, to excommunicate people or close down hospitals unless you do what they want to do is applying political pressure, however.

They are very clearly threatening.

Call it political pressure. It's certainly what they are broadly hinting at.

Excommunication for violating a religious precept is not politics.

Neither is closing hospitals.

Can't make up your mind, can you?

Threatening, however, to excommunicate people or close down hospitals unless you do what they want to do is applying political pressure, however.

They are very clearly threatening.

If I say, "you can't be a Catholic if you're pro-abortion" (which they say), then you have the option to quit yourself, or have them push you out.

It's always been their position, no matter how often Pelosi and Biden try to spin it. I really wonder why they are Catholics at all, or pretend to be. One would think that if they're religious, they could hang out with Unitarians.

Can't make up your mind, can you?

I'm saying they could easily deny it.

If I say, "you can't be a Catholic if you're pro-abortion" (which they say), then you have the option to quit yourself, or have them push you out.

It's always been their position, no matter how often Pelosi and Biden try to spin it. I really wonder why they are Catholics at all, or pretend to be. One would think that if they're religious, they could hang out with Unitarians.

See, it's one thing to say "You can't be catholic if you're pro-abortion" it's another to say:

"We will excommunicate you and close down our hospitals if you OTHER people are pro-abortion"

Because that's what they're saying right now. This law does not affect them, in any way.

Regardless, the real story here is not that anyone is threatening to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions (no one is), but that the Catholic Church would threaten to close down all its hospitals rather than allow women freedom of choice.
This. So much for actually giving a damn about the patients.
And what would you do if they did?

Laugh. Feel bad for those who no longer have easy access to a hospital. Donate money to fix that. Be glad that I live in one of the major centers for healthcare, and that the only hospital we would lose is St. Elizabeths (which I already refuse to attend).

See, it's one thing to say "You can't be catholic if you're pro-abortion" it's another to say:

"We will excommunicate you and close down our hospitals if you OTHER people are pro-abortion"

Because that's what they're saying right now. This law does not affect them, in any way.

Excommunicate and "you can't be catholic" is the same thing.

I'm saying they could easily deny it.
And, as usually happens when people do that, get caught in their own stupidity. Especially when they do things like make public announcements..."Pass this law or we will close" announced to the world is a pretty good way to make it clear exactly what they are doing.

This. So much for actually giving a damn about the patients.
They did a similar thing in Germany. German law requires mandatory counselling before having an abortion. There's secular and protestant counselling groups, but no catholic ones because John Paul II pulled them out of it, much to the chagrin of Cardinal Lehmann (who offered his resignation in response, but was turned down). Benedict XVI said he'd uphold that decision.

Excommunicate and "you can't be catholic" is the same thing.

There is, however, a difference in how they are doing it.

It's one thing to just have a broad policy. It's another to say "If You do this, we will do this in retaliation."

They are acting in a threatening manner.

To whoever called abortion murder: murder is an "unlawful killing" if you can legally get an abortion then it can't be murder.

Secondly, there is no way that all hospitals can provide all services. It is just impossible. Especially if you are in the priate sector where there are hospitals for specific areas

Excommunicate and "you can't be catholic" is the same thing.'cept that "you can't be catholic" is a pretty hollow phrase. At least the catholic atheist Irishwoman I slept with a while back said so.

If I say, "you can't be a Catholic if you're pro-abortion" (which they say), then you have the option to quit yourself, or have them push you out.

It's always been their position, no matter how often Pelosi and Biden try to spin it. I really wonder why they are Catholics at all, or pretend to be. One would think that if they're religious, they could hang out with Unitarians.

...possibly because being anti-choice is, in fact, not a major tenet of Catholicism, by a long shot? I recited the Apostle's Creed about a million times in Catholic school, and unless they've changed it in the last few years, it doesn't go, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and the fact that abortion is totally evil and should be outlawed in the United States."

...unless they've changed it in the last few years,...
You prove they didn't! =P

...possibly because being anti-choice is, in fact, not a major tenet of Catholicism, by a long shot? I recited the Apostle's Creed about a million times in Catholic school, and unless they've changed it in the last few years, it doesn't go, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and the fact that abortion is totally evil and should be outlawed in the United States."

filthy liberal.

filthy liberal.

Damn straight. :tongue:

If I say, "you can't be a Catholic if you're pro-abortion" (which they say), then you have the option to quit yourself, or have them push you out.

It's always been their position, no matter how often Pelosi and Biden try to spin it. I really wonder why they are Catholics at all, or pretend to be. One would think that if they're religious, they could hang out with Unitarians.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/ourwork/default.asp

Catholics for Choice shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well-being and respect and affirm the capacity of women and men to make moral decisions about their lives.

Apparently, one can be Catholic and be pro-choice.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/ourwork/default.asp

Apparently, one can be Catholic and be pro-choice.

They're not an official Catholic organization. It's outside the Church.

The position of the Church seems to be getting more and more strident about abortion (probably coming from the Pope).

I'm waiting for the Church to do something like excommunicating large numbers of people.

I was raised Catholic and that's my favourite Devo song.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4568.html

It would appear that if the Freedom of Choice Act were to pass, Catholic hospitals, which currently enjoy exemption from various state laws that allow Catholic hospitals and clinics to refuse to perform abortions, could be forced to perform abortions.



This means that not only would they close hospitals and clinics, but would not sell the buildings (which they own) to anyone else - tearing the building down sounds like what they're talking about.

They run a substantial number of hospitals and clinics in the US, and also perform a lot of charitable care for people too poor to pay at another hospital.

Would you be willing to let them shut all of their facilities down, and tear them down?

Would you be willing to give them an exemption so that they don't have to perform abortions if they don't want to?
Of course. People shouldn't be forced to perform operations they disagree with, as long as the nature of the hospital makes it abundantly clear long beforehand that they aren't going to perform them, at least.

And in case anyone thinks that would contradict my belief that embryonic stem cell research is a justified use of tax dollars, having a fraction of the taxes one pays going to a form of scientific research some people object to isn't on the same level of coerciveness as being personally forced to perform operations one personally objects to.

According to the Christian Faith (Whether Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Armenian, Chinese House Churches, or any of the other hundreds of flavors whose names I cannot remember) the human has life from the moment of Conception.

Of course, the Bible (you know that book I assume ?) clearly states a few dozen times that it is perfectly fine to kill women who may be pregnant for a wide variety of reasons without giving a damn about any unborn inside them.

Maybe we could offer the hospitals that way out ? Kill the embryo/fetus AND mother ?

They're not an official Catholic organization. It's outside the Church.

The position of the Church seems to be getting more and more strident about abortion (probably coming from the Pope).

I'm waiting for the Church to do something like excommunicating large numbers of people.

As long as we agree that you were wrong about not being able to be both Catholic and pro-choice.

And it seems to be the position of the church bishops in the USA that is getting more strident. Catholics in general are becoming more and more supportive of abortion rights, as evidenced by their record support for Obama. Consequently, wholesale excommunication of parishioners who accept abortion would only result in massive losses to church memberships, which would then affect the Church's income. And we all know what's really important to the Catholic hierarchy.

As long as we agree that you were wrong about not being able to be both Catholic and pro-choice.

And it seems to be the position of the church bishops in the USA that is getting more strident. Catholics in general are becoming more and more supportive of abortion rights, as evidenced by their record support for Obama. Consequently, wholesale excommunication of parishioners who accept abortion would only result in massive losses to church memberships, which would then affect the Church's income. And we all know what's really important to the Catholic hierarchy.

Most of their membership is outside of the US (in fact, nowadays, most Christian denominations are on the decline in the US, and literally exploding in less developed countries).

The Catholic Church is already massively rich. Losing Americans won't make much difference in the long run.

Non-issue. Give them an exemption. Want an abortion? Go somewhere that gives them.

As long as we agree that you were wrong about not being able to be both Catholic and pro-choice.

And it seems to be the position of the church bishops in the USA that is getting more strident. Catholics in general are becoming more and more supportive of abortion rights, as evidenced by their record support for Obama. Consequently, wholesale excommunication of parishioners who accept abortion would only result in massive losses to church memberships, which would then affect the Church's income. And we all know what's really important to the Catholic hierarchy.

Oh, and this too^

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4568.html

It would appear that if the Freedom of Choice Act were to pass, Catholic hospitals, which currently enjoy exemption from various state laws that allow Catholic hospitals and clinics to refuse to perform abortions, could be forced to perform abortions.

I'm not seeing that in the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:

Oh, I just realised what the source is, rofl.

Most of their membership is outside of the US (in fact, nowadays, most Christian denominations are on the decline in the US, and literally exploding in less developed countries).

The Catholic Church is already massively rich. Losing Americans won't make much difference in the long run.

The Catholic Church will not excommunicate a high percentage of their richest parishioners. Especially if it would alienate otherwise sympathetic politicians like Biden. Get a grip.

Why do you guys still rely on Churches and charities to provide health-care to everyone again?

Go get yourself universal health-care like all the rest of the G8 already did decades ago, you slackers.

Why do you guys still rely on Churches and charities to provide health-care to everyone again?

Go get yourself universal health-care like all the rest of the G8 already did decades ago, you slackers.

How's that working for you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/7709342.stm

No, please no. Let's not take the thread in that direction, I beg of you.

It was too late the moment DK hit send.

Oh, nothing personal, I assure you. It's just that the only thing more aggravating than two opposing economists debating economics and the whole evolution/creation debate is...
... two economists debating evolution and creation (neither of them knowing one blessed thing about either biology or the Bible), which is sort of what this thread is like. Hotwife, either get clue one about how the law actually works, or else at least develop some willingness to listen to people who do it for a living and do have a clue.
Originally Posted by Skaladora
Go get yourself universal health-care like all the rest of the G8 already did decades ago, you slackers.

How's that working for you?
They all have longer life-spans, lower infant mortality, and fewer chronic diseases than we do. The US ranks in between Cuba and Guatemala.

How's that working for you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/7709342.stm

I'm sure everyone will agree that it's better to let 25% of a population die in the gutter, lacking the proper medical care they might need because they don't have any insurance, than take the chance of having someone screwing up once every few thousand treated patients in an universal system.

Because we all know the private industry and/or privately owned medical practitioners and facilities have never been target of a lawsuits fo neglect. :rolleyes:

Get real. Screw-ups will happen, whether health care is privately-funded, state-funded, or charity-funded. This linked article is irrelevant.

How's that working for you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/7709342.stm
... you blame public healthcare for failure to save someone's life? What makes you think this is inherent in public healthcare? Canada's public healthcare saved mine...

How's that working for you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/7709342.stm

I would not try to use one preventable death as a criticism of the NHS system when the US system leads the world in number of preventable deaths due to the medical system.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/08/6251

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

How's that working for you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/7709342.stm

Pfft, well done. Do we really have to go trawling through American news to find the thousands of failures?

... you blame public healthcare for failure to save someone's life? What makes you think this is inherent in public healthcare? Canada's public healthcare saved mine...

And New Zealand's saved mine. :fluffle:

Thank you public healthcare!

How's that working for you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/7709342.stm

And that never happens in America, does it DK?

... you blame public healthcare for failure to save someone's life? What makes you think this is inherent in public healthcare? Canada's public healthcare saved mine...

That's okay, we won't hold it against them...
;)

они могут пойти, трахают себя.

should be они могут пойти и трахать себя

So now that we've established that, I ask again:

Why are you guys relying on charities who threaten to throw a fit and close hospitals if they don't get to shove their religious values down everyone else's throat instead of paying yourselves a universal health system of your own?

It's not as if you can't afford. What with being the richest country in the world and all. Also, it's cheaper than a war, and won't bring Muslim mujaheddin in a berserk rage wanting to blow you all up.

This thread becomes irrelevant if you actually bothered supplying decent health care to everyone regardless of income.

So now that we've established that, I ask again:

Why are you guys relying on charities who threaten to throw a fit and close hospitals if they don't get to shove their religious values down everyone else's throat instead of paying yourselves a universal health system of your own?

It's not as if you can't afford. What with being the richest country in the world and all. Also, it's cheaper than a war, and won't bring Muslim mujaheddin in a berserk rage wanting to blow you all up.

This thread becomes irrelevant if you actually bothered supplying decent health care to everyone regardless of income.

Then they would lose their patent on Rugged Individualism.

So... What's the matter with the Catholics? Did they get worried the Mormons were getting too much attention, so now they have to find some bullshit paranoia to wave while shouting, "Hey, look at us!"?

1) Just like the Mormons with CA's gay marriage law, the Catholics are bitching about a law that does not affect them in any way at all.

2) Just like the Mormons, the Catholics are telling outright and outrageous lies about said law.

3) Just like the Mormons, the Catholics are proposing to exert political pressure in a way that would -- if they are stupid enough to go through with it -- exceed the limits of permissible political action by religious organizations, and put their tax exemptions at risk. Ka-ching! to the federal government.

4) The Catholics are putting their own special stamp on this bullshit by topping it all off with their traditional blackmail and extortion threats.

5) And just like the Mormons again, the Catholics are being unbelievably petty and destructive to the fabric of society in their petulant tantrum. Like the Mormons helping to strip civil rights away from US citizens in order feed their superiority jones, so the Catholics want to childishly punish everyone, no matter what their needs, because the federal government seeks to run its own affairs without consulting them. I guess the one way they might out-asshole the Mormons that the Mormons only destroyed people's rights. The Catholics are proposing to try to destroy people's lives, just so they can get their own way.

Heh, monkey see, monkey do, much at all?

So... What's the matter with the Catholics? Did they get worried the Mormons were getting too much attention, so now they have to find some bullshit paranoia to wave while shouting, "Hey, look at us!"?

1) Just like the Mormons with CA's gay marriage law, the Catholics are bitching about a law that does not affect them in any way at all.

2) Just like the Mormons, the Catholics are telling outright and outrageous lies about said law.

3) Just like the Mormons, the Catholics are proposing to exert political pressure in a way that would -- if they are stupid enough to go through with it -- exceed the limits of permissible political action by religious organizations, and put their tax exemptions at risk. Ka-ching! to the federal government.

4) The Catholics are putting their own special stamp on this bullshit by topping it all off with their traditional blackmail and extortion threats.

5) And just like the Mormons again, the Catholics are being unbelievably petty and destructive to the fabric of society in their petulant tantrum. Like the Mormons helping to strip civil rights away from US citizens in order feed their superiority jones, so the Catholics want to childishly punish everyone, no matter what their needs, because the federal government seeks to run its own affairs without consulting them. I guess the one way they might out-asshole the Mormons that the Mormons only destroyed people's rights. The Catholics are proposing to try to destroy people's lives, just so they can get their own way.

Heh, monkey see, monkey do, much at all?

Are the Catholics behind the funding for the a law to go through? No. Difference.

Why on earth should Catholic churches offer abortion in the first place? Next they'll have to do nose jobs and liposuction.. Ridiculous.

should be они могут пойти и трахать себя

Well, I'm entirely self-taught in Russian, so my grammar sucks at times...
:(

Why on earth should Catholic churches offer abortion in the first place? Next they'll have to do nose jobs and liposuction.. Ridiculous.

We aren't talking about the church itself - we're talking about church-owed hospitals.

Personally, I think any licensed hospital should be required to perform medically indicated abortions. Elective abortions, on the other hand, could be voluntarily offered.

We aren't talking about the church itself - we're talking about church-owed hospitals.

Personally, I think any licensed hospital should be required to perform medically indicated abortions. Elective abortions, on the other hand, could be voluntarily offered.

A good stance. I wouldn't classify an elective abortion as a necessary medical procedure.

We aren't talking about the church itself - we're talking about church-owed hospitals.

Personally, I think any licensed hospital should be required to perform medically indicated abortions. Elective abortions, on the other hand, could be voluntarily offered.

Isn't this the key point? The church owns the hospital, shouldn't they be free to do whatever they wish?

Isn't this the key point? The church owns the hospital, shouldn't they be free to do whatever they wish?

Not really. You could be the private owner of a hospital, but that doesn't mean you necessarily have full rights to do what you want with the place. There are limitations on the amount of freedom you have to determine what procedures your hospital will perform, and who they will be performed on.

A good stance. I wouldn't classify an elective abortion as a necessary medical procedure.

Blood Bowl...isn't that the 40k football game?

Thank God(joking) that we have government hospitals in Canada

Isn't this the key point? The church owns the hospital, shouldn't they be free to do whatever they wish?

No. They perform a critical service - one that can mean the difference between life and death - and thus can be heavily regulated by the government.

Not really. You could be the private owner of a hospital, but that doesn't mean you necessarily have full rights to do what you want with the place. There are limitations on the amount of freedom you have to determine what procedures your hospital will perform, and who they will be performed on.

It's like walking in to an Sony store and expecting to be sold an iPod. Just like the Sony store has rights not to sell Apple stuff, Catholic hospitals should have rights not to perform uncathlolic stuff.

No. They perform a critical service - one that can mean the difference between life and death - and thus can be heavily regulated by the government.

Hmm, okay. I'm sensing there is a bit of difference in what we're thinking here.

Are these emergency abortions we're talking about?

It's like walking in to an Sony store and expecting to be sold an iPod. Just like the Sony store has rights not to sell Apple stuff, Catholic hospitals should have rights not to perform uncathlolic stuff.

Which is fine and dandy in the case of an elective procedure, like buying an iPod or getting an elective abortion.

However in the case of medically necessary procedures, that just doesn't make any practical sense.

Hmm, okay. I'm sensing there is a bit of difference in what we're thinking here.

Are these emergency abortions we're talking about?

I think we are. I'm also fairly sure she said so in the initial post of hers you quoted.

We aren't talking about the church itself - we're talking about church-owed hospitals.

Personally, I think any licensed hospital should be required to perform medically indicated abortions. Elective abortions, on the other hand, could be voluntarily offered.

Which is fine and dandy in the case of an elective procedure, like buying an iPod or getting an elective abortion.

However in the case of medically necessary procedures, that just doesn't make any practical sense.

Okay so these abortions are 'medically necessary', right? Why can't the patient be transferred when it becomes clear an abortion is what's needed?

Surely Catholic hospitals aren't the only hospital in every town.

Okay so these abortions are 'medically necessary', right? Why can't the patient be transferred when it becomes clear an abortion is what's needed?

Surely Catholic hospitals aren't the only hospital in every town.

For the same reason you don't send someone who is already at the hospital off to another hospital for an emergency appendectomy.

Are the Catholics behind the funding for the a law to go through? No. Difference.

Why on earth should Catholic churches offer abortion in the first place? Next they'll have to do nose jobs and liposuction.. Ridiculous.
Do some people choose not to read threads at all, or are they really not capable of doing it?

Read the thread and learn this: THE CATHOLICS ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO DO ABORTIONS AT ALL. In caps so you can't miss it this time.

FOCA applies ONLY to government and public facilities/offices/services. NOT to Catholic ones, which are all private.

Also, the Catholics are not Mormons. There's another difference. Wow, you really are on top of this topic, aren't you? Super focused.

For the same reason you don't send someone who is already at the hospital off to another hospital for an emergency appendectomy.

If a woman is having problems with birth, where an abortion could be needed, why send her to a Catholic hospital in the first place?

Do some people choose not to read threads at all, or are they really not capable of doing it?

Read the thread and learn this: THE CATHOLICS ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO DO ABORTIONS AT ALL. In caps so you can't miss it this time.

FOCA applies ONLY to government facilities/offices/services. NOT to Catholic ones, which are all private.

Also, the Catholics are not Mormons. There's another difference. Wow, you really are on top of this topic, aren't you? Super focused.

I chose not to.

In which case, this is a non-issue. If the law does not apply to Catholics, what do you think the chances of them really closing their hospitals is? Common sense may prevail, wouldn't you like to think?

I chose not to.

In which case, this is a non-issue. If the law does not apply to Catholics, what do you think the chances of them really closing their hospitals is? Common sense may prevail, wouldn't you like to think?
If you'd read the thread, you'd know the answer to that one, too.

If you'd read the thread, you'd know the answer to that one, too.

As I said, I chose not to. :)

As I said, I chose not to. :)
Well, I'm not going to tell you things you're too lazy to look up yourself. It's not my job to bring you up to speed.

Hmm, okay. I'm sensing there is a bit of difference in what we're thinking here.

Are these emergency abortions we're talking about?

Go back and read what I wrote - which you responded to.


Personally, I think any licensed hospital should be required to perform medically indicated abortions. Elective abortions, on the other hand, could be voluntarily offered.

I believe the church-owned hospitals can and should be required to perform medically necessary abortions. I do not believe they should be required to perform elective abortions.

Of course, as far as I can tell, the legislation in question wouldn't require anything of such churches that isn't already required. My comments about what should be required were my own opinion on the matter.

Okay so these abortions are 'medically necessary', right? Why can't the patient be transferred when it becomes clear an abortion is what's needed?

Transfer could be dangerous and/or cost prohibitive.

Surely Catholic hospitals aren't the only hospital in every town.

Sometimes they are.

Go back and read what I wrote - which you responded to.



I believe the church-owned hospitals can and should be required to perform medically necessary abortions. I do not believe they should be required to perform elective abortions.

Sorry, I missed that, stupidly.
Of course, as far as I can tell, the legislation in question wouldn't require anything of such churches that isn't already required. My comments about what should be required were my own opinion on the matter.



Transfer could be dangerous and/or cost prohibitive.



Sometimes they are.

Maybe as Muravyets said I should read up on this more. But from the first page and the last couple, I didn't see any major issue. If the legislation is not going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, emergency or elective, they won't close. If they do, then perhaps they will.. And perhaps that's to be expected.

I chose not to.

In which case, this is a non-issue. If the law does not apply to Catholics, what do you think the chances of them really closing their hospitals is? Common sense may prevail, wouldn't you like to think?

Oh, I would SO love to think that and not laugh ruefully inside my head. We shall see, I suppose.

Oh, I would SO love to think that and not laugh ruefully inside my head. We shall see, I suppose.

Uh huh. I would like to have a little bit more faith in the Catholic Church as opposed to the Mormons.

Uh huh. I would like to have a little bit more faith in the Catholic Church as opposed to the Mormons.

Well yeah, but longevity isn't always a sign of wisdom.

Thou shalt not kill. It's one of the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not kill. It's one of the Ten Commandments.

That is why David was universally regarded as a villain when he slew Goliath.

Thou shalt not kill. It's one of the Ten Commandments.

And now:

GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
from "Complaints and Grievances"

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? Strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS

This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed.

So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

AND

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF.

God, I love Carlin.

Okay so these abortions are 'medically necessary', right? Why can't the patient be transferred when it becomes clear an abortion is what's needed?

Surely Catholic hospitals aren't the only hospital in every town.

They are in some towns though. Our local (secular) hospital recently merged with a Catholic hospital and the Catholic one came out on top.

They are in some towns though. Our local (secular) hospital recently merged with a Catholic hospital and the Catholic one came out on top.

Craziness. I'm just used to a comprehensive public health system.

They are in some towns though. Our local (secular) hospital recently merged with a Catholic hospital and the Catholic one came out on top.

That's why they call it the "missionary position".

Wait, what?

So even if it is a cluster of cells with no organs it's still alive?

Are jellyfish considered alive? They have no "organs", appendages yes, but not organs

That's why they call it the "missionary position".

Wait, what?

*rimshot*

Originally Posted by The American Privateer
But almost 50%

Statistics for the Demographic Breakdown of Religions in the United States
Religion 1990 2001
Catholic 26.8% 25.9%

*rimshot*

Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week; be sure to tip your servers and please, try the veal.

Are jellyfish considered alive? They have no "organs", appendages yes, but not organs

Jellyfish are, however, self aware.

Thou shalt not kill. It's one of the Ten Commandments.

Now read the rest of the Bible as well. It is FULL of killing. Including the killing of, as I mentioned before, women who could very well be pregnant without any regard for the possible unborn.

As I recall, the Catholic Church is not an American organization. Something to do with Europeans, as I recall...

You don't understand what I meant. I said "Way to go America" because I though this law was to be enacted in America, and therefore by American officials. I meant it sarcastically because I'm dissapointed with the forced abortion idea.

You don't understand what I meant. I said "Way to go America" because I though this law was to be enacted in America, and therefore by American officials. I meant it sarcastically because I'm dissapointed with the forced abortion idea.

Then you're fine with the Freedom of Choice Act. It doesn't force anyone to abort anything. Read the thread, and you'll see that, over and over again.

Then you're fine with the Freedom of Choice Act. It doesn't force anyone to abort anything. Read the thread, and you'll see that, over and over again.

But that might force him to be rational.

According to the Christian Faith (Whether Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Armenian, Chinese House Churches, or any of the other hundreds of flavors whose names I cannot remember) the human has life from the moment of Conception.

This is incorrect. There is no mention of abortion being murder in scripture, and several prominent Christians, including Augustine of Hippo, Thoma Aquinas, and Pope Innocent III, held that only aborting a fetus animatus was murder.

But that might force him to be rational.

Ah yes. We can't have that, now can we?

God, I love Carlin.

Except he is an angry old man and that makes all of his jokes (well they are more rants) not funny. Oh and he is wrong about the commandements too, if you want to pay them out that's fine but at least have the correct info.

That's why they call it the "missionary position".

Wait, what?

Damn beat me to it.

Except he is an angry old man and that makes all of his jokes (well they are more rants) not funny. Oh and he is wrong about the commandements too, if you want to pay them out that's fine but at least have the correct info.

Translation: I dont think Carlin's funny because he pokes fun at my beliefs and that hurts my feelings.

Now read the rest of the Bible as well. It is FULL of killing. Including the killing of, as I mentioned before, women who could very well be pregnant without any regard for the possible unborn.

Does that make it right? It is similar to me saying that lying is wrong and then when I go do it makes it right. It doesn't mean what I did was right I still did the wrong thing by lying.

Except he is an angry old man and that makes all of his jokes (well they are more rants) not funny. Oh and he is wrong about the commandements too, if you want to pay them out that's fine but at least have the correct info.

You really just said he was wrong without showing how? Are you really that simple?

I don't care if Carlin isn't your cup of tea, but just parading around saying "nuh-UH" is not terribly convincing. How is his condensing and re-casting of the Commandments into positive language instead of negative wrong? Just because you say it is? Please.

Translation: I dont think Carlin's funny because he pokes fun at my beliefs and that hurts my feelings.

LOL, now that is funny, yet I laugh at plenty of other comedians who poke fun at my beliefs.

And yet somehow I didn't find him funny when he was ragging on red neck amwericans despite me laughing at other comedians when they do the same thing.

You really just said he was wrong without showing how? Are you really that simple?

I don't care if Carlin isn't your cup of tea, but just parading around saying "nuh-UH" is not terribly convincing. How is his condensing and re-casting of the Commandments into positive language instead of negative wrong? Just because you say it is? Please.

Watch this space I will get around to it. Do you really care if I show a few things he is wrong with? Will it change your opinion?

LOL, now that is funny, yet I laugh at plenty of other comedians who poke fun at my beliefs.

And yet somehow I didn't find him funny when he was ragging on red neck amwericans despite me laughing at other comedians when they do the same thing.

Again, no arguing taste. You've not answered my question, though.

Watch this space I will get around to it. Do you really care if I show a few things he is wrong with? Will it change your opinion?

I'd just like to see if you CAN, is all. I don't think you can. I'm calling your bluff.

Watch this space I will get around to it. Do you really care if I show a few things he is wrong with? Will it change your opinion?

Not only that, but who said this was about changing anyone's opinion? I know I'm not going to change yours. I used to work with stone, I know better.

Again, no arguing taste. You've not answered my question, though.

Well KoL seems to think I don't like Carlin because I he is making fun of the teh Commandments.

Now I stated that this is untrue as I have laughed at other comedians who have made fun of my beliefs as well. Why did I laugh with their jokes and not Carlin's? Well for starters their jokes were actually funny.

Now for your questions.

Q: Are you really that simple? A: No, but as I said I will get around to it
Q: Just because you say it is? A: No I just gave my opinion on Carlin.

Not only that, but who said this was about changing anyone's opinion? I know I'm not going to change yours. I used to work with stone, I know better.

So is there any point in me showing how he is wrong in it? If you are just going to turn around and go. But yes I will show you.

And no you won't change my opinion on Carlin, I never have found him funny and probably never will find him funny.

But I suppose that's the thing about humour it is objective what is funny to someone isn't funny to someone else.

Well KoL seems to think I don't like Carlin because I he is making fun of the teh Commandments.

Now I stated that this is untrue as I have laughed at other comedians who have made fun of my beliefs as well. Why did I laugh with their jokes and not Carlin's? Well for starters their jokes were actually funny.

Now for your questions.

Q: Are you really that simple? A: No, but as I said I will get around to it
Q: Just because you say it is? A: No I just gave my opinion on Carlin.

Okay, one more time -- no arguing taste. I can't fault you for not finding something funny.

I can fault you for stalling on your assignment -- one you gave yourself.

So is there any point in me showing how he is wrong in it? If you are just going to turn around and go. But yes I will show you.

Look, pal, I've been here since April of 2005. I'm a regular. I'm waiting. Put up or for the love of all that's holy, shut up.

I thought it was a lot closer to a quarter.

I thought it was too, a large body of American citizens are more Protestant. But regardless, this does seem to be a very big issue for all of the Catholic hospitals.

Freedom of Choice Act
Kinda Ironic if hospitals are forced to give abortions, eh? lol

Freedom of Choice Act
Kinda Ironic if hospitals are forced to give abortions, eh? lol

Yeah, see in America we try to make it a habit of not letting people enforce their choice on someone else.

Yeah, see in America we try to make it a habit of not letting people enforce their choice on someone else.

Sorry, did my "eh?" seem as if I were Canadian?

Sorry, did my "eh?" seem as if I were Canadian?

No, I was just making a general statement. I use "eh" all the time as well.

But almost 50% of the country is Catholic,
Source? I think you're seriously overestimating the number of Catholics in the US -- and I am one.

Another disgusting breech on human rights.

Way to go America.

What you mean allowing people to run their own hospitals is a good idea? I don't care the religon of the person running it abortion is legal and therefore all places should have to offer it if they want to be allowed to have a medical liscence

Source? I think you're seriously overestimating the number of Catholics in the US -- and I am one.

Yes, I think someone's already corrected that assertion. It's about a quarter.

Freedom of Choice Act
Kinda Ironic if hospitals are forced to give abortions, eh? lol
Hilariously ironic if hospitals that are public facilities funded by taxes have to abide by the rules of the government.

Even more outrageously ironic when you take into account that Catholic hospitals, which are private organizations, are not affected by this law.

Whee! Look at that force! :rolleyes:

Hilariously ironic if hospitals that are public facilities funded by taxes have to abide by the rules of the government.

Even more outrageously ironic when you take into account that Catholic hospitals, which are private organizations, are not affected by this law.

Whee! Look at that force! :rolleyes:

It's almost like...*gasp*...it's almost like the government's doing what it's supposed to be doing.

My, what a novel concept.

If a woman is having problems with birth, where an abortion could be needed, why send her to a Catholic hospital in the first place?
Maybe it's the closest hospital.... and what? If a woman is having problems giving birth, you don't give her an abortion -- you might give her a caesarian to deliver the baby....

Not constitutional. Interferes with states rights to regulate 2nd trimester. So i find this bill against Roe V wade.

What you mean allowing people to run their own hospitals is a good idea? I don't care the religon of the person running it abortion is legal and therefore all places should have to offer it if they want to be allowed to have a medical liscence

There are plenty of surgeries and treatments that are legal and not offered at every single hospital. That can not be a criterion in the evaluation of whether a place should or should not be permitted to function.

Would it be reasonable for Jehovah's Witnesses to
1. buy out 10% of American hospitals
2. purge all medical services from them that involve allogeneic blood, and then
3. threaten to demolish them entirely if laws were passed that required the availability of blood transfusions in other hospitals?
Hell no.

Hilariously ironic if hospitals that are public facilities funded by taxes have to abide by the rules of the government.

Even more outrageously ironic when you take into account that Catholic hospitals, which are private organizations, are not affected by this law.

Whee! Look at that force! :rolleyes:

except this bill forces states to spend money against the will of tax payers in that state.

the right of states in regards to funding has already been ruled on by the supreme court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 1989.

This bill is unconstitutional and conflicts with past rulings of SCOTUS.

If they wish to repeal the silly bans passed by the republicans then do so, but if they wish to affect state tax payer money they need to win election in the state assemblies.

So is there any point in me showing how he is wrong in it? If you are just going to turn around and go. But yes I will show you.

Why do I get the feeling this is not going to happen?

except this bill forces states to spend money against the will of tax payers in that state.


Really? Can you quote the language specifically?

except this bill forces states to spend money against the will of tax payers in that state.

the right of states in regards to funding has already been ruled on by the supreme court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 1989.

This bill is unconstitutional and conflicts with past rulings of SCOTUS.

If they wish to repeal the silly bans passed by the republicans then do so, but if they wish to affect state tax payer money they need to win election in the state assemblies.
It forces states to conform to federal law, which they have to do anyway, under the Constitution. So what?

Maybe it's the closest hospital.... and what? If a woman is having problems giving birth, you don't give her an abortion -- you might give her a caesarian to deliver the baby....

Closest =/= best or most appropriate.
That's why I said where an abortion could be needed.... Didn't say it was the only choice.

Closest =/= best or most appropriate.
That's why I said where an abortion could be needed.... Didn't say it was the only choice.
Um... If a woman is having trouble "giving birth" it's too late for an abortion. Think about it. Think hard, think slow, think thorough.

Um... If a woman is having trouble "giving birth" it's too late for an abortion. Think about it. Think hard, think slow, think thorough.

Well done. Picked up another thing I misread. You want a prize or something?

I had thought we were still on the topic of troubled pregnancy and didn't realise Kat was talking about giving birth.

Oh, and an attempted condescending tone doesn't work on NSG.

except this bill forces states to spend money against the will of tax payers in that state.

the right of states in regards to funding has already been ruled on by the supreme court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 1989.

This bill is unconstitutional and conflicts with past rulings of SCOTUS

I don't think that's necessarily true. Just because states have the right to restrict abortions does not mean that the federal government cannot legislate in that area. Especially if the states' restrictions can be construed as placing on undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion.

Well done. Picked up another thing I misread. You want a prize or something?

I had thought we were still on the topic of troubled pregnancy and didn't realise Kat was talking about giving birth.

Oh, and an attempted condescending tone doesn't work on NSG.
1) She was using your word. Here you are (emphasis added):

If a woman is having problems with birth, where an abortion could be needed, why send her to a Catholic hospital in the first place?

2) No prize needed. Your pique is reward enough.

1) She was using your word. Here you are (emphasis added):



2) No prize needed. Your pique is reward enough.

When would you say the process of 'birth', and all that entails, begins?

Oh, and you also failed to bold the part where I said, "where an abortion could be needed", but hey, whatevers easier for you.

When would you say the process of 'birth', and all that entails, begins?

The stages of birth are clearly medically defined, it neither requires the question, nor the unusually placed quotation marks around the word birth.

Well done. Picked up another thing I misread. You want a prize or something?

I had thought we were still on the topic of troubled pregnancy and didn't realise Kat was talking about giving birth.

Oh, and an attempted condescending tone doesn't work on NSG.

It doesn't? What NSG are you logged into?

When would you say the process of 'birth', and all that entails, begins?

Oh, and you also failed to bold the part where I said, "where an abortion could be needed", but hey, whatevers easier for you.
With the onset of labor.

Oh and I didn't bold the other part because I didn't think it would be nice to point out your mistake yet again, but since you mention it, yes, that is where you went wrong -- right from word one.

When would you say the process of 'birth', and all that entails, begins?


Um, when you go into labor. Duh. If you are seriously trying to argue that "birth" begins when a woman gets pregnant, then I hope you also consider that "death" begins nine months before you get run over by a bus, because that makes just about as much sense.

Um, when you go into labor. Duh. If you are seriously trying to argue that "birth" begins when a woman gets pregnant, then I hope you also consider that "death" begins nine months before you get run over by a bus, because that makes just about as much sense.
Actually and literally l.o.l. :D

It forces states to conform to federal law, which they have to do anyway, under the Constitution. So what?

No. the Constitution is explicit that a state can not be forced to spend money by the federal government. and the SCOTUS has ruled this applies specifically in the case of abortion.
also Federal law currently is more restrictive then any state law except South Dakota.
the entire history of federalism is states having to be bribed to get them to go along with federal laws. Most common is state minimum drinking age laws being bribed with highway funds.

Actually and literally l.o.l. :D

:D white text because of the stupid character limit

No. the Constitution is explicit that a state can not be forced to spend money by the federal government. and the SCOTUS has ruled this applies specifically in the case of abortion.
also Federal law currently is more restrictive then any state law except South Dakota.
the entire history of federalism is states having to be bribed to get them to go along with federal laws. Most common is state minimum drinking age laws being bribed with highway funds.
Sigh. I'll wait until an actual argument forms out of that.

No. the Constitution is explicit that a state can not be forced to spend money by the federal government. and the SCOTUS has ruled this applies specifically in the case of abortion.
also Federal law currently is more restrictive then any state law except South Dakota.
the entire history of federalism is states having to be bribed to get them to go along with federal laws. Most common is state minimum drinking age laws being bribed with highway funds.

That doesn't mean that states can disregard any federal law that would require money to enforce. The Freedom of Choice Act does not directly control how states spend their money. It only prevents states from interfering with a woman's right to choose.

That doesn't mean that states can disregard any federal law that would require money to enforce. The Freedom of Choice Act does not directly control how states spend their money. It only prevents states from interfering with a woman's right to choose.

Sec 4 paragraph 2
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

That pretty much reads states have to provide money as they would other health services.
And reads pretty much against Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,
Which upheld the Missouri law that restricted state funds, facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions.
This is against previous SCOTUS rulings and is a waste of time.
also is against United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) that the law actually be related to interstate commerce for the federal government to issue a directive toward the state.

I don't see how this act is fundamentally different from the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which required states to provide emergency medical care regardless of citizenship or ability to pay. Unless it applies to hospitals that don't accept Medicare funds. Does it? I'll have to read the text more closely.

also is against United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) that the law actually be related to interstate commerce for the federal government to issue a directive toward the state.

Sec. 2 (15):
15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;
(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and
(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

I don't see how this act is fundamentally different from the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which required states to provide emergency medical care regardless of citizenship or ability to pay. Unless it applies to hospitals that don't accept Medicare funds. Does it? I'll have to read the text more closely.

Abortion is not an emergency medical procedure most of the time. I do not know of a state that restricts funds to emergency medical abortions when it is to save the woman's life.

Abortion is not an emergency medical procedure most of the time. I do not know of a state that restricts funds to emergency medical abortions when it is to save the woman's life.

That wasn't my point. Emergency abortions would already be covered by the Emergency Medical Treatment Act. My point is that Congress can mandate that states provide things that require money, like emergency medical care. So the fact that abortions require money doesn't render the Freedom of Choice Act unconstitutional.

That wasn't my point. Emergency abortions would already be covered by the Emergency Medical Treatment Act. My point is that Congress can mandate that states provide things that require money, like emergency medical care. So the fact that abortions require money doesn't render the Freedom of Choice Act unconstitutional.

Law is not specifying emergency care. it is specifying equal access to state funding. You receive state help with medical bills, the state can now be forced to pay for it, if they cover any elective/preventive surgery.
More over state employees are now forced to provide counseling on abortion. Even if the tax payer in those states does not want such services rendered.

Law is not specifying emergency care. it is specifying equal access to state funding. You receive state help with medical bills, the state can now be forced to pay for it, if they cover any elective/preventive surgery.
More over state employees are now forced to provide counseling on abortion. Even if the tax payer in those states does not want such services rendered.

The Act is constitutional if mandating equal access is the only way to ensure protection of Roe v. Wade abortion rights, i.e. if restricting funding places an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion. Regardless, it will undoubtedly go to court if it is passed.

No. the Constitution is explicit that a state can not be forced to spend money by the federal government

welllll


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

. . . .

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

also is against United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) that the law actually be related to interstate commerce for the federal government to issue a directive toward the state.

Lopez dealt with the commerce clause. A far better argument is that this law deals with powers of Congress arising from Sec 5 of the 14th amendment, making Lopez irrelevant

welllll

Ah, yes. That's the argument I was trying to make. The legislation is constitutional if it's necessary to protect Roe v. Wade rights. So as I see it, it comes down to whether the restrictions negated by the Freedom of Choice Act place an undue burden on women attempting to exercise those rights.

Um, when you go into labor. Duh. If you are seriously trying to argue that "birth" begins when a woman gets pregnant, then I hope you also consider that "death" begins nine months before you get run over by a bus, because that makes just about as much sense.

I would say death begins the day you're born.

I would say death begins the day you're born.

In that case, preventing a child from being born is stopping it from dying.

In that case, preventing a child from being born is stopping it from dying.

Yup, makes sense.

Yup, makes sense.

So the "pro-life" position should really be mandatory abortions for everyone. I approve this redefinition.

So the "pro-life" position should really be mandatory abortions for everyone. I approve this redefinition.

Or should that be pro-death? I dunno, heh.

So the "pro-life" position should really be mandatory abortions for everyone. I approve this redefinition.

Think of all the arguments that would stop.

Does that make it right? It is similar to me saying that lying is wrong and then when I go do it makes it right. It doesn't mean what I did was right I still did the wrong thing by lying.

According to the Bible those brutal slaughters of possibly pregnant women are not only justified - they are ordered by God. Does that make them right ?

Oh, nothing personal, I assure you. It's just that the only thing more aggravating than two opposing economists debating economics and the whole evolution/creation debate is the details-of-abortion trope. *shudder*

Can we talk about different economic models for abortion? :p

And New Zealand's saved mine. :fluffle:

Thank you public healthcare!

Australia's saved mine!

*Joins the bandwagon*

Why do I get the feeling this is not going to happen?

Because you are an impatient man, as you said I set this assignment myself and I will decide when I will do it. I have better things to do than sit on NSG all day.

But here goes.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

Now this isn't one and the same thing coveting which is longing for something someone else's possess so in this case lusting for someone else wife, is not the same as committing adultery. Lusting after someone else's wife and not acting on those thoughts is not the same as acting on those thoughts. And really one does not have to have sex with a married woman to commit adultery

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS

This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone.

Well, lusting again and wanting it is what makes the world go around, there is another name for this covet of your neighbour's goods it is known as greed. Trying to keep up with the Jones' and is why so many people are in large amounts of debt right now and why we are currently going through this economic crisis. Maybe the ancient Jews were on to something with trying to live a more simple life.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed.

See this makes no sense just because someone does something doesn't make it right. I may say lying is wrong yet if I go and lie why does that automatically make it right? Now I know what he is getting at but that doesn't make and right. And remember You should not judge the faith by the actions of the supposedly faithful.

Now there would have been more but I noticed when going over it that he did say the Roman Catholic version and that chucked a spanner in the works.

So there you go make of it what you will. I am sure you disagree with it but yeah.

As I say I have never found Carlin funny in everything I have heard him on. I always find him to go into an angry rant that when every I hear comedians do this I instantly just shut down to them I don't care what the subject is, just don't go into an angry rant and it would be better. And unlike what people like KoL thinks it has nothing to do because it attacks my beliefs I have seen Carlin on many other issues and I never have laughed, but yes I know that is just my opinion.

According to the Bible those brutal slaughters of possibly pregnant women are not only justified - they are ordered by God. Does that make them right ?

No it doesn't and how does that answer my question?

If you analyze jokes like that I'm surprised you find anything funny at all.

Freedom of Choice'Freedom of Choice'. The politically correct term for 'It's perfectly okay to murder fetuses because condoms & the pill are clearly far too difficult to use, and 'Financial Difficulties' are clearly a perfectly valid reason for abortions when living in some of the richest societies on Earth, usually covered more than decently by public assets of both, financial and personal (I.e. Kindergarten) nature.'

Carry on.

'Freedom of Choice'. The politically correct term for 'It's perfectly okay to murder fetuses because condoms & the pill are clearly far too difficult to use, and 'Financial Difficulties' are clearly a perfectly valid reason for abortions when living in some of the richest societies on Earth, usually covered more than decently by public assets of both, financial and personal (I.e. Kindergarten) nature.'

Carry on.

I'm sure there must be a point in there somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

'Freedom of Choice'. The politically correct term for 'It's perfectly okay to murder fetuses because condoms & the pill are clearly far too difficult to use, and 'Financial Difficulties' are clearly a perfectly valid reason for abortions when living in some of the richest societies on Earth, usually covered more than decently by public assets of both, financial and personal (I.e. Kindergarten) nature.'

Carry on.

Are you seriously suggesting that in every first-world society there are no people who are so poor as to have difficulty supporting children?

Magical Fairytopia is that way, sah.

Are you seriously suggesting that in every first-world society there are no people who are so poor as to have difficulty supporting children?Are you saying that all abortions are performed on homeless beggars?

Are you saying that all abortions are performed on homeless beggars?

Are you saying that no one other than homeless beggars has reason to not want a child?

No it doesn't and how does that answer my question?

We are in a thread about Catholics and refusal of abortion. For most Christians, what is or isn't morally just is defined by God. If God says lying is bad except in case X,Y,Z than that is what some Believers think right.

By the same token - if God says that "thou shallst not kill"and then proceeds to give a long, long, long list of offences for which people can in fact be killed -that is what some Believers thinks right. God after all defines morals in their view. Possibly based on some deeper reasoning we as mere humans cannot grasp.

I referenced the list of killings since they include many instances of when it is ok to kill women without any regard for unborn children. For instance when she is raped within a city. If God does not give a (censored) about the unborn, saying he opposes abortions is a tad bit.. odd.

Are you saying that all abortions are performed on homeless beggars?

Not at all, but you seem to be saying that 'financial difficulties' are not a valid reason for abortion, as pretty much everybody in the West is wealthy enough to properly support a child. Unless all abortions are performed on the upper class, this is absurd.

We are in a thread about Catholics and refusal of abortion. For most Christians, what is or isn't morally just is defined by God. If God says lying is bad except in case X,Y,Z than that is what some Believers think right.

Well yes but that's not what I said. I said if I thought and said that it is wrong to lie and then I went ahead and lied how does that make it right? Just because I do something doesn't automatically mean it was right for me to do.

By the same token - if God says that "thou shallst not kill"and then proceeds to give a long, long, long list of offences for which people can in fact be killed -that is what some Believers thinks right. God after all defines morals in their view. Possibly based on some deeper reasoning we as mere humans cannot grasp.

I referenced the list of killings since they include many instances of when it is ok to kill women without any regard for unborn children. For instance when she is raped within a city. If God does not give a (censored) about the unborn, saying he opposes abortions is a tad bit.. odd.

I missed this list.

I missed this list.

As I understand it Leviticus is basically a big list of what you can't do, and the punishment for doing some of those things is death. Not that I've read it, but that's what I've heard.

As I understand it Leviticus is basically a big list of what you can't do, and the punishment for doing some of those things is death. Not that I've read it, but that's what I've heard.

One example: Leviticus 20: 10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."

One of my favorite killings is this one:
2 Kings 2:
23 Elijah went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" 24And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
That's friggin' awesome. Elijah summons bears! He's like a 20th level druid. Not only that, but he stopped to count and record how many boys he had killed with his Summon Nature's Ally spell.

As I understand it Leviticus is basically a big list of what you can't do, and the punishment for doing some of those things is death. Not that I've read it, but that's what I've heard.

I meant I missed the list that Alma Mater said the she posted.

But yes Leviticus pretty much comprises the laws of the Jewish nation.

Well yes but that's not what I said. I said if I thought and said that it is wrong to lie and then I went ahead and lied how does that make it right? Just because I do something doesn't automatically mean it was right for me to do.

Ah - fair enough. That is more a question for the mormon thread- "if you believe lying is bad, why did you do it". Usually people do not admit hypocrisy, but cite "a greater good" as reason.


I missed this list.
It is called the Bible ;)

Ok it is more accurate to state that throughout the Bible, in many different places, killing someone is stated to be justified under several conditions. When specifically focussing on women, the trend seems to be they are fair game if they carry the child of someone other than their husband or are married to "enemies of the faith".

An intruiging possible interpretation that actually seems to be somewhat consistent with the whole book is that the husband is the one who determines if an unborn child has value or not. Which means abortions are ok if he says so.

One of my favorite killings is this one:
2 Kings 2:

That's friggin' awesome. Elijah summons bears! He's like a 20th level druid. Not only that, but he stopped to count and record how many boys he had killed with his Summon Nature's Ally spell.

Well that's what happens when you disrespect your elders.

Nowadays they just use guns instead of bears when the local kids go on the lawn.

It is called the Bible ;)

Ok it is more accurate to state that throughout the Bible, in many different places, killing someone is stated to be justified under several conditions. When specifically focussing on women, the trend seems to be they are fair game if they carry the child of someone other than their husband or are married to "enemies of the faith".

An intruiging possible interpretation that actually seems to be somewhat consistent with the whole book is that the husband is the one who determines if an unborn child has value or not. Which means abortions are ok if he says so.

I'm not saying it isn't in there but what passage is this?

And yes just like in secular life where killing is illegal it is allowed under special circumstances.

Well, there's this passage in Exodus 22:

22"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and(O) he shall pay as the(P) judges determine. 23But if there is harm,[c] then you shall pay(Q) life for life, 24(R) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So if a man hits a pregnant woman and causes an abortion, but doesn't hurt the woman, he gets fined. If abortion were murder, wouldn't he be put to death, since the penalty for murder is death?

Well, there's this passage in Exodus 22:



So if a man hits a pregnant woman and causes an abortion, but doesn't hurt the woman, he gets fined. If abortion were murder, wouldn't he be put to death, since the penalty for murder is death?

Well that's one to store away next time we have an abortion thread.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4568.html

It would appear that if the Freedom of Choice Act were to pass, Catholic hospitals, which currently enjoy exemption from various state laws that allow Catholic hospitals and clinics to refuse to perform abortions, could be forced to perform abortions.



This means that not only would they close hospitals and clinics, but would not sell the buildings (which they own) to anyone else - tearing the building down sounds like what they're talking about.

They run a substantial number of hospitals and clinics in the US, and also perform a lot of charitable care for people too poor to pay at another hospital.

Would you be willing to let them shut all of their facilities down, and tear them down?

Would you be willing to give them an exemption so that they don't have to perform abortions if they don't want to?

Meh it don't really matter. Like the thing over here a while back about Christian adoption agenceys not being excempt from letting gay couples adopt.

We call this type of behaviour 'cutting your nose off to spite your face'. Let them go ahead with it, just another nail in coffin of the Catholic church.

Let people witness their pettyness, I'm sure it would cause many conferts to the faith.

And now we have a Christian social networking site ad.

I would say death begins the day you're born.
Uh-huh. In other words, you don't apply serious thought to the question at all. Well, that clears up a lot.

Well yes but that's not what I said. I said if God thought and said that it is wrong to lie and then God went ahead and lied how does that make it right? Just because God does something doesn't automatically mean it was right for God to do.

Fixed.

Well, there's this passage in Exodus 22:

So if a man hits a pregnant woman and causes an abortion, but doesn't hurt the woman, he gets fined. If abortion were murder, wouldn't he be put to death, since the penalty for murder is death?

Unfortunately there are multiple translations of that passage. The more popular one amongst the "pro-life" people is that the "no harm" refers to the child, not the woman.

But as indicated, I do not think that fits the rest of the Bible very well. Unfortunately reading the whole book and looking for consistency seems to be very unpopular amongst the more vocal believers :(

Fixed.

No not fixed. I didn't say that at all. Perhaps you should go back through the thread and read it properly.

Fuck it here you go: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14204646&postcount=142

No not fixed. I didn't say that at all.
Of course you didn't. It's what you should have said :)

And now we have a Christian social networking site ad.

I even see more:

Pregnancy From A to Z
Everything You Need to Know About Pregnancy But Were Afraid to Ask!
(link removed)

Saliva Ovulation Test
Eva-Test® home kit, can help you - only €149. Use it Forever!
(link removed)

Your Biological Clock
Read how six singles are handling the constant ticking of the clock.
(link removed)

Aaah, targeted advertisements. How I love thee.

All I get is MMORPG ads...

I even see more:

Pregnancy From A to Z
Everything You Need to Know About Pregnancy But Were Afraid to Ask!
(link removed)

Saliva Ovulation Test
Eva-Test® home kit, can help you - only €149. Use it Forever!
(link removed)

Your Biological Clock
Read how six singles are handling the constant ticking of the clock.
(link removed)

Aaah, targeted advertisements. How I love thee.

Mine's about gay marriage, for some reason.

I even see more:

Pregnancy From A to Z
Everything You Need to Know About Pregnancy But Were Afraid to Ask!
(link removed)

Saliva Ovulation Test
Eva-Test® home kit, can help you - only €149. Use it Forever!
(link removed)

Your Biological Clock
Read how six singles are handling the constant ticking of the clock.
(link removed)

Aaah, targeted advertisements. How I love thee.

And now I am getting Natural birth ads as well. I would like one ad to not be targeted and when I open up a thread on abortion I see an ad that is selling Sony TV's

'Dedicated Servers', 'Server Solutions' and 'I Kissed A Girl' now...

Hilariously ironic if hospitals that are public facilities funded by taxes have to abide by the rules of the government.

Even more outrageously ironic when you take into account that Catholic hospitals, which are private organizations, are not affected by this law.

Whee! Look at that force! :rolleyes:

To be fair, I think that some Catholic hospitals do receive government funds - often because they are the only hospital in the area.


There are plenty of surgeries and treatments that are legal and not offered at every single hospital. That can not be a criterion in the evaluation of whether a place should or should not be permitted to function.

You certainly couldn't expect every hospital to offer every possible treatment. But the government certainly can have a list of minimum requirements that would include certain treatments.

To be fair, I think that some Catholic hospitals do receive government funds - often because they are the only hospital in the area.



You certainly couldn't expect every hospital to offer every possible treatment. But the government certainly can have a list of minimum requirements that would include certain treatments.
Government money = government rules. The Catholic church has its choice before it -- accept public funds and follow public rules, or pay for its own hospitals and follow its own rules. They shouldn't get to have it both ways.

(and as a personal aside, if we had universal health care, it might be easier to stop them holding a monopoly on health services in some places.)

All I get is MMORPG ads...
I got the saliva ovulation test too, but now it's just free powerpoint templates.

Lopez dealt with the commerce clause. A far better argument is that this law deals with powers of Congress arising from Sec 5 of the 14th amendment, making Lopez irrelevant

Interestingly enough, this is covered within the findings of the bill:

(15) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(16) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

Now, I suppose one could argue that this is not sufficient, and that may or may not pass muster in a court.

Interestingly enough, this is covered within the findings of the bill:

(15) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(16) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

Now, I suppose one could argue that this is not sufficient, and that may or may not pass muster in a court.

Yeah, hence my point. I did read the thing you know :p That's why I said what I said. Almost every single bill proposed in Congress contains a "findings" section which states under which part of the constitution they draw the power to pass the legislation they are passing. IN this case, it's Amendment 14, sec 5, NOT Art 1 Sec. 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause)

the Lopez case dealt with Congress' exercise of it's power to regulate interstate commerce. This bill pro ports to use Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th amendment which grants it the ability to enforce that amendment. Since this bill uses an entirely separate and distinct source of Congressional power than the commerce clause, the limits placed on Congressional use of the commerce clause in Lopez are of absolutely no relevance here.

Now again, that may, or may not be sufficient, but Lopez is no guidance here. Lopez, if memory serves, involved a federally mandated "gun free zone" around all schools. Congress argued that gun violence in schools intimidates students, harms educational missions, and causes a net loss, in dollar amounts to the economy, thus affecting interstate commerce. The Court found that insufficient, and to regulate wholey non economic activities under the Commerce Clause, you can't do so merely by showing an aggregate effect.

But again, THIS is not a commerce clause issue, it's a section 5 of the 14th amendment issue, and Lopez has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Now this isn't one and the same thing coveting which is longing for something someone else's possess so in this case lusting for someone else wife, is not the same as committing adultery. Lusting after someone else's wife and not acting on those thoughts is not the same as acting on those thoughts. And really one does not have to have sex with a married woman to commit adultery

It is according to Jesus.

=)

Mine's about gay marriage, for some reason.

Mine's about credit scores. ??


Yeah, hence my point. I did read the thing you know That's why I said what I said.

I figured you had. I was just quoting it for the people who so clearly haven't. =)

Almost every single bill proposed in Congress contains a "findings" section which states under which part of the constitution they draw the power to pass the legislation they are passing. IN this case, it's Amendment 14, sec 5, NOT Art 1 Sec. 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause)

They appear to be saying that it is both, and providing support in that quote specifically for the commerce clause.

No it doesn't and how does that answer my question?

So you're saying Jehovah actually told them to do something wrong?

Well, there's this passage in Exodus 22:


22"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and(O) he shall pay as the(P) judges determine. 23But if there is harm,[c] then you shall pay(Q) life for life, 24(R) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So if a man hits a pregnant woman and causes an abortion, but doesn't hurt the woman, he gets fined. If abortion were murder, wouldn't he be put to death, since the penalty for murder is death?

<files down horns, replaces with halo>

Odd position here . . . I find myself playing the CHRISTIANS advocate. :p

That COULD be taken as a reference to the attack resulting in premature labor with no harm to the child rather than miscarriage. Although during the time period she'd have to be almost done with her term for the child to live . . .

Speaking of targeted ads, this one seemed rather unintentionally appropriate: "2 Rules for Stomach Fat - Obey these 2 Easy Rules & Drop 9 lbs Effortlessly!" :tongue:

<files down horns, replaces with halo>

Odd position here . . . I find myself playing the CHRISTIANS advocate. :p

That COULD be taken as a reference to the attack resulting in premature labor with no harm to the child rather than miscarriage. Although during the time period she'd have to be almost done with her term for the child to live . . .

This is one of those things that is different in different translations and interpretations.

Personally, I think it was likely a reference to miscarriage. Giving birth prematurely with no further harm wouldn't matter, and they probably wouldn't really know to link it to the harm done to the woman anyways.

Add on to that the fact that the Bible actually instructs priests at times to use poisons that are natural abortificants on women accused of adultery and the lack of consideration for a woman's pregnant or not-pregnant status when executing her, and it would appear that the ancient Hebrews didn't really place the same status on embryos/fetuses as some would today.

That doesn't necessarily mean that valuing a fetus is wrong, of course, but it does put a damper on the idea that Abrahamic religious have always done so.

My ad is now for Pizza and how I can order it online. The forums must know I am hungry but as I refuse to use this particular Pizza chain I will just go and reheat yesterday's leftover pizza.

So you're saying Jehovah actually told them to do something wrong?

Umm, no that's not what I said at all.

Because you are an impatient man, as you said I set this assignment myself and I will decide when I will do it. I have better things to do than sit on NSG all day.

But here goes.

Nice attitude. You bragged about what you could do, not I.

Now this isn't one and the same thing coveting which is longing for something someone else's possess so in this case lusting for someone else wife, is not the same as committing adultery. Lusting after someone else's wife and not acting on those thoughts is not the same as acting on those thoughts. And really one does not have to have sex with a married woman to commit adultery

This in no way addresses the ability to combine the honesty and fidelity commandments into one and re-casting it in positive language. It's all the same value. Strike one. And strike one-and-a-half for editing out text from my post and only quoting what you want seen in your attempt to debunk.

Well, lusting again and wanting it is what makes the world go around, there is another name for this covet of your neighbour's goods it is known as greed. Trying to keep up with the Jones' and is why so many people are in large amounts of debt right now and why we are currently going through this economic crisis. Maybe the ancient Jews were on to something with trying to live a more simple life.

What? You're making lovely homilies here, but not even touching Carlin's combining commandments. You said you could show how the combinations don't work. So far, you've just waxed eloquent about what lust is and where it happens.

See this makes no sense just because someone does something doesn't make it right. I may say lying is wrong yet if I go and lie why does that automatically make it right? Now I know what he is getting at but that doesn't make and right. And remember You should not judge the faith by the actions of the supposedly faithful.

You defeat your own argument here. You saying that doesn't make it true, either. That's getting kinda circular.

Now there would have been more but I noticed when going over it that he did say the Roman Catholic version and that chucked a spanner in the works.

Long story short, you've failed to do what you said you would do. No problem. I've not come away from every NSG debate on top myself.

So there you go make of it what you will. I am sure you disagree with it but yeah.

It's not a matter of disagreeing. It's a matter of you not even really addressing Carlin's compression of the commandments. You picked and chose, and didn't include the text of some of the ones you did bother to quote. That's a bit disingenuous. Not surprising, but disingenuous.

As I say I have never found Carlin funny in everything I have heard him on.

Neither have I. His stuff on religion, however, has been largely on target. Especially in demanding we keep it to ourselves.

I always find him to go into an angry rant that when every I hear comedians do this I instantly just shut down to them I don't care what the subject is, just don't go into an angry rant and it would be better.

That's fine, but then you can't say you know what that comedian is talking about, then, can you? The angry rant is part of the comedy. I don't care if you don't like it and don't listen, but don't try to come off as superior to the comedian if you're not actually listening to his words.

And unlike what people like KoL thinks it has nothing to do because it attacks my beliefs I have seen Carlin on many other issues and I never have laughed, but yes I know that is just my opinion.

You've never laughed at Carlin? Ever? Well, like I've said about five times, there's no accounting for taste. Your opinion is perfectly valid.

I think he's hilarious about 90-95% of the time. Perhaps if you don't like it and don't actually listen to it, when it comes up, you might just let it go? You've proven that you can't refute the premise at hand. I don't know about you, but I try to avoid posting in topics I know little about unless it's to ask about that topic. I certainly wouldn't go into a thread on, say, bioengineering and claim I could disprove some guy's theory if I didn't know the subject well. Just a thought.

Nice attitude. You bragged about what you could do, not I.

You were the one implying that I would not even bother posting anything on it, something I resented but, yeah, whatever.

This in no way addresses the ability to combine the honesty and fidelity commandments into one and re-casting it in positive language. It's all the same value. Strike one. And strike one-and-a-half for editing out text from my post and only quoting what you want seen in your attempt to debunk.

What? You're making lovely homilies here, but not even touching Carlin's combining commandments. You said you could show how the combinations don't work. So far, you've just waxed eloquent about what lust is and where it happens.[/QUOTE[

What? I showed how they cannot be one and the same thing, therefore, how can they be combined? Plus you either missed or deliberately ignored the entire part on greed which did counter Carlin's little argument.

[QUOTE]You defeat your own argument here. You saying that doesn't make it true, either. That's getting kinda circular.

Well no, because I would agree with you that just because I say something is right doesn't make it true. But surely you can see how me saying something is wrong and then turing around and doing it doesn't automatically make it right.

Long story short, you've failed to do what you said you would do. No problem. I've not come away from every NSG debate on top myself.

If you say so

It's not a matter of disagreeing. It's a matter of you not even really addressing Carlin's compression of the commandments. You picked and chose, and didn't include the text of some of the ones you did bother to quote. That's a bit disingenuous. Not surprising, but disingenuous.

I picked the ones that I said he was wrong with, I never said I was going to break down every little thing he said. And the text that I didn't bother to quote was I felt not needed at all.

Neither have I. His stuff on religion, however, has been largely on target. Especially in demanding we keep it to ourselves.

Well I was arguing about that little issue.

That's fine, but then you can't say you know what that comedian is talking about, then, can you? The angry rant is part of the comedy. I don't care if you don't like it and don't listen, but don't try to come off as superior to the comedian if you're not actually listening to his words.

Hang on, perhaps I made myself unclear, when saying I shut down and it was a poor choice of words. I do listen to what the comedian says I just don't find it funny when a comedian goes into an angry rant about any issue.

You've never laughed at Carlin? Ever? Well, like I've said about five times, there's no accounting for taste. Your opinion is perfectly valid.

I think he's hilarious about 90-95% of the time. Perhaps if you don't like it and don't actually listen to it, when it comes up, you might just let it go? You've proven that you can't refute the premise at hand. I don't know about you, but I try to avoid posting in topics I know little about unless it's to ask about that topic. I certainly wouldn't go into a thread on, say, bioengineering and claim I could disprove some guy's theory if I didn't know the subject well. Just a thought.

Well as you say there is no accounting for taste.

What? I showed how they cannot be one and the same thing, therefore, how can they be combined? Plus you either missed or deliberately ignored the entire part on greed which did counter Carlin's little argument.

Nope. They don't have to be the same thing to be combined. Stealing and lying are part of the same overall value. Honesty.

Adultery and covetousness are transgressions against another overall value. Fidelity.

Combination is easy. You failed to show how they cannot be combined.

My ad is now for Pizza and how I can order it online.
Can you download it? That would be cool!