|
| Thread: Catholicism's Official Stance on Contraception |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
posted February 12, 2012 10:45 PM |
|
|
He's only doing it for the perks, damn satanists.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2012 10:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In practise, there is no difference, whether children die because their parents don't BOTHER to provide medical care for their sick children, or whether they avoid it due to SUPERSTITION (because that's what it is).
Prove that the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are superstitions, JJ. You can't. You simply state that the superstitions of atheists are the truth. Most everyone who has ever lived has rejected the silly religion of atheism yet you want to foist it off as fact.
Break of CoC: "Silly religion" is a no-no, I think. Or are we now ok with calling religions names?
In any case you can write another novel about this - you have no point. You can believe that it's bad luck to go under a latter, but if you shove your child to avoid the child doing that, and you shoved it before a car, you killed the child.
Which is the point. Teach your children whatever you want, but if your children are supposed to die because of your belief, superstitious or not, you can just as well pull the trigger.
Quote:
You can teach your children the destructive and delusional belief that Jesus is a fairy tale and that the State is supreme... You teach your children to have as much sex as they want with everything that moves but to always use contraception.
I'd be thankful, if you'd stop making assumptions about what I teach my children, and be it just to keep me from making assumptions about how and what your parents have taught you.
And a PS to Forfy:
Bak is no atheist, he has made no secret about it.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 12, 2012 11:07 PM |
|
|
So "silly religion of atheism" is a break of CoC, while "Atheists should stop trying to trample on everyone else's rights" isn't?
The first citation talks about a belief system while the other talks about people (among which users on HC might identify themselves with).
Quote:
Bak is no atheist, he has made no secret about it.
I know. Just trying to make the thread a bit more fun to read.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 09:25 AM |
|
|
I just note the following (and not for the first time):
1) atheism is called a religion
2) it is called a SILLY religion.
Now, it seems that kind of phrasing would give anyone else reason to counter this with
1) Pentecostalism is a superstition
2) It is a STUPID superstition
and follow-up with ramblings about people who indulge in silly superstitious rituals and whatnot, and it's easy to see where that leads.
I mean - it's fairly obvious, that these last weeks Elodin isn't even trying anymore. He's just spewing forth the hate propaganda against "atheists", "anti-theists" and "marxists", with Obama being high up on every imaginable list and everyone else as well who dares to speak a word against the unlimited freedom of people to follow their religion in word and deed and to teach their children whatever they may find appropriate.
It's not that a discussion would make a lot of sense even in the best of times, but the current situation seems to be escalating a bit.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 11:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There was a discussion about that around here already, if I remember right. Similar to the one about circumcision. Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to deny their children blood transfusions for religious reasons.
Yes I know, but which law do they break with that ideology?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 11:24 AM |
|
|
|
I'm no lawyer but if I'm not mistaken, in my country this could constitute a murder by inaction (or preventive action).
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 01:03 PM |
|
|
I thought this thread was about contraception, but apparently it has evolved into a mutual mud-slinging competition between JJ and Elodin with the latter accusing the former of being an abrasive, offensive atheist, who retaliates with hyperserious arguments pointing out the latter's hypocricies rather than dropping the entire (Off-Topic) issue?
Colour me unsurprised.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 01:53 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:54, 13 Feb 2012.
|
"Allowed to break a law" is a contradiction in itself, because if it's legal for you to break a law, then you're not really breaking the law are you.
However, arbitrarily denying crucial medical treatment for your child, as Zeno said, is illegal in most countries and in most cases, and I always liked to think it's like that in America too, so I took that as an example of "breaking a law".
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 02:03 PM |
|
|
Ok, Lexxan, maybe the connection to Catholics and contraception becomes more apparemnt when you ask the following question:
Imagine a hospital run by the JW's. Would it be ok, if an ambulance came up to them, and they would say, no, in this hospital transfusions are off limits, and won't be done? Would it be ok, if a JW surgeon in a regular hospital wouldn't due them, because of fear to irrevocably "damage" the patient's soul?
Now, about Catholics. Obviously it is completely ok for Catholics to deal with contraception any way they want FOR THEMSELVES. But when they run a public hospital, shouldn't they then do what is called for them by the ethics and laws of their pofession and society, which is to HELP patients as best as possible, and not by the moral judgements of their personal belief or those of the head of their religion, respectively?
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 02:34 PM |
|
|
I am going to have to step in here, because I can see where this is going. I am both Catholic and I've worked in the health industry (well still do). When working in a busy London hospital, I worked for the local borough's Children & Families Social Work Department, and one of my duties was as liaison with the Catholic Charities and agencies (adoption etc). I can assure you JJ that Catholic agencies whether they be hospitals or other groups do not turn people away they way you like to think. In terms of Catholic Hospitals just turning their backs on patients who wish for contraception is not correct.
They do what they did with my department, they refer people onto other agencies, who can help, where they cannot because of belief.
Your example above is silly. An ambulance wouldn't rush someone to a Jehovah Witness hospital, if one of their basic tenets is to refuse blood transfusions. Not to mention that you have a choice of where you go.
Its almost like you would take offense at a Jewish or Muslim person refusing to eat pork because you think that is stupid, as you love pork.
People have their belief's, they are entitled to them. You are entitled to not believe and we are entitled to our belief's.
There are rights and wrongs with every hospital and health authority, whether they be faith based or general. Underfunding, overcrowding, stressed doctors and medical staff. These are far more worrying than .... lets find ways to MAKE Catholic Hospitals hand out free contraception.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 03:22 PM |
|
|
You miss the point.
Since you mention eating pork: Could a muslim work in a shop that sells pork (or alcohol for that matter)?
Could a JW doctor do a blood transfusion for someone else or not?
Could a Catholic DOCTOR prescribe or administer contraception FOR OTHERS, if they would wish for them?
You can ask more general questions: should a doctor withhold a treatment he was not ok with for exclusively PERSONAL reasons, if the patient wished for that treatment and there was nothing wrong with it in a medical sense?
Would it be okay for pain therapy, if a doctor wouldn't prescribe certain pain-relieving drugs because of a religious belief?
Again: Doctors are supposed to HELP. I think, in Britain so-called emergency contraceptives (pills you take after having sex) need no prescription. That is, in Britain, the Docs/Hospitals have no power anyway with contraception - people are not dependent on them for help.
In the US, however, you need a prescription, if you are younger than 17.
So what happens, in the US of A, when a 16-year-old stumbles into a Catholic hospital on a Saturday and admits to the doctor that she was raped, that she doesn't know who it was, that she doesn't want any police, that she doesn't want her parents to know and that she needs an emergency contraceptive IMMEDIATELY.
You may see it that way, that the Doctor may tell her, "sorry, we cannot help you here", but in my opinion at this point he's not acting like a doctor, but like a priest, and he's just broken his professional oath.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 03:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Since you mention eating pork: Could a muslim work in a shop that sells pork (or alcohol for that matter)?
I'm sure eating/drinking the goods that you're trying to sell is an effective way to get fired.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 03:32 PM |
|
|
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 04:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Since you mention eating pork: Could a muslim work in a shop that sells pork (or alcohol for that matter)?
Of course,but then he would be no muslim strictly speaking.
A "Real" or fundaMental one would not work for that shop though.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 04:13 PM |
|
|
The blood transfusion counts for Jehova's witnesses ONLY, not for others. It is about THEIR blood.
So why should a doctor, who is a JW, refuse to do a transfusion for others when he knows the "victim" is no JW??
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 04:27 PM |
|
|
Because they believe that it doesn't depend on whether you're a JW - your soul is in your blood and it's an abomination for anyone to do a transfusion. They won't ban others from doing it, but they can't bring themselves to do it personally to someone else either, since they consider it wrong.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 04:33 PM |
|
|
How do you know that?
Someone in need of a blood transfusion cannot be asked after his religion? And what if the victim WAS a JW - but STILL wanted a blood transfusion?
Similarly, if you would transfer this to Catholic doctors, would you say that they should hand out contraceptives, but only to non-Catholics? And what if the Catholic wouldn't care about the mortal sin and STILL wanted them, Catholic or not?
I mean, for a doctor, the religion of a patient shouldn't be relevant, right? Otherwise - what if a shiit doctor has to treat a sunnit and doesn't want to?
On the other hand the religion of the doctor shouldn't be relevant either. Many religions have curious ideas of who can see what parts of the human body...
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 05:36 PM |
|
|
In response to JJ.
I think you miss the point and its obvious you haven't paid any attention to what I posted earlier. What is this urge to try and have everything in black and white, when quite simply the world isn't. People have to make compromises constantly. What is this crazy attitude to trying to prove the absolute when there isn't an absolute.
Okay lets take your scenario. A young rape victim goes to a Catholic hospital, she doesn't want the police (you say) and doesn't want her parents to know, but she wants emergency contraception. I will tell you what they would do. They would immediately treat her physical injuries etc. A rape unit/counsellor would be contacted immediately. A social worker would be called out who would talk the victim through things too and legal issues. And after that, if she requires or wants emergency contraception the counsellor/social worker would arrange it for her without any interference/input from the hospital. Please try to understand that answer. There is no black and white to it at all. A situation like that takes the involvement of many agencies, the hospital being just the first port of call.
Just as with a general hospital or even a clinic. She might need to be referred to any number of different agencies for support. A Catholic Hospital, just as a General Hospital or the Hospital of the Jolly Green Giant are not the 'be all and end all' of treatment. Many hospitals have to refer patients to outreach or other clinics for specialist treatment. How is this any different?
Emergency contraception, the type you are referring too doesn't have to be taken immediately after, it can be taken up to a week after intercourse. Contraception like that is not a matter of life a death to the woman. There is no immediate panic. Your scenario doesn't bare up to honest scrutiny.
Also your doctor scenario is just downright insulting. I know many doctors of many different faiths, and regardless of the issues even when they go against their own beliefs, they act professionally and always with caring. They simply refer their patient on to someone who can help, they step aside and allow a colleague to take over. This happens constantly. This attitude is common knowledge and totally usual in the medical service. This argument is just getting downright silly.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 06:36 PM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 18:37, 13 Feb 2012.
|
As far as the law goes, it cuts the Catholic hospitals, universities, etc, out of the loop. They do not have to provide plans that cover contraception at all. They are not forced to do a thing. Instead Insurance companies reach out to the people who work there and offer them a plan covering only contraceptives, and paid for by that insurance company. So there isn't even any sort of foul government boot on these organization's necks so to speak. The only thing that people can complain about is if they honestly believe nobody who works for a catholic organization should ever have contraceptives covered by anybody. Despite nearly 90% of Catholics in the west using contraceptives on their own regardless.
Quote:
Over the last 25 years, surveys by sociologists at Catholic University have shown that only a small percentage of Catholics — 10 percent to 13 percent was the range since 1987 — grant the church moral authority on birth control.
Which is why many Catholics viewed the controversy over federal law, health insurance and contraceptives as church leadership out of step with most of its members. (Editor’s note: The Obama administration on Friday announced an “accommodation” that requires birth-control coverage be available directly from insurance companies if employers object to birth control on religious grounds.) Most American Catholics will see this issue as a matter of public health and personal choice; we’ll disagree with the hierarchy and go about being Catholic. Some 86 percent of us, according to a survey published last fall, think “you can disagree with aspects of church teachings and still remain loyal to the church.”
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 13, 2012 07:06 PM |
|
|
In response to Meroe:
Let's see:Quote:
Emergency contraception, the type you are referring too doesn't have to be taken immediately after, it can be taken up to a week after intercourse. Contraception like that is not a matter of life a death to the woman. There is no immediate panic. Your scenario doesn't bare up to honest scrutiny.
It's fine that you know how panicky a 16-year-old rape victim may be, but for all I read you are dead wrong. There are different methods/pills, and the longest time span is 120 hours or 5 days, not 7. Also, and that is quite IMPORTANT, studies how, that the chances of success, which are 75% on average are of course all the better, the earlier the pill is taken - so, yes, contraception in this case has to happen ASAP to maximize the chances of success.
What you wre writing here, is DANGEROUSLY and ARROGANTLY off the known facts.
Quote:
Okay lets take your scenario. A young rape victim goes to a Catholic hospital, she doesn't want the police (you say) and doesn't want her parents to know, but she wants emergency contraception. I will tell you what they would do.
I don't think that you know what they would do, because in Britain 16-year-olds get EC free of charge and without prescription, but let's see: Quote:
They would immediately treat her physical injuries etc. A rape unit/counsellor would be contacted immediately. A social worker would be called out who would talk the victim through things too and legal issues. And after that, if she requires or wants emergency contraception the counsellor/social worker would arrange it for her without any interference/input from the hospital. Please try to understand that answer.
I try - and I fail. What happened to doctor-patient confidentiality???? Rape unit/counsellor? A sociaö worker? Legal issues? What the hell?
In Britain a 16-year-old can get EC free of crage and without prescription - such is the law. So what the hell is the hospital doing there? It's wasting time that may be crucial, it screws d-p-confidentiality - in short it does nothing the "patient" wants - and what she can legally get without having to undergo all this trouble or at least BEFORE THAT.
Quote:
Just as with a general hospital or even a clinic. She might need to be referred to any number of different agencies for support. A Catholic Hospital, just as a General Hospital or the Hospital of the Jolly Green Giant are not the 'be all and end all' of treatment. Many hospitals have to refer patients to outreach or other clinics for specialist treatment. How is this any different?
Not in Britain. In Britain it SHOULD NOT BE that way. Even in CATHOLIC IRELAND EC is available over the counter. In the US she needs a prescription - and even with a prescription, in the US a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription... (which calls for the question why you are a pharmacist if you refuse to hand out prescribed drugs that you have available).
In any case - "she might be refferred to any number of different agencies" is again something your patient doesn't want. YOur patient wants immediate HELP, and that help is available in every drugstore, so what she needs most is a prescription and not a referrence to a dozen agencies and institutions.
Quote:
Also your doctor scenario is just downright insulting. I know many doctors of many different faiths, and regardless of the issues even when they go against their own beliefs, they act professionally and always with caring. They simply refer their patient on to someone who can help, they step aside and allow a colleague to take over. This happens constantly. This attitude is common knowledge and totally usual in the medical service. This argument is just getting downright silly.
And your answer us downright insulting with regard to the patient. Of course doctors refer patients - if the patient has an ailment that needs examination by a SPECIALIST. Writing a prescription is something every doctor can do, though. Aside of the fact that doctors are not acting PROFESSIONALLY when they don't help their patients, although they could.
If everyone had followed the Catholic Church there wouldn't even be medicine as we know it, since, remember, the study of bodies to get a clearer picture of the human body and functioning was just as forbidden as contraceptives are now.
So, YES, it is silly.
And since you are a Catholic, Meroe, I'm sure you can tell me exactly what Bible passages can be interpreted or ARE interpreted as a will of God to forbid any form of contraception except abstinence, right?
|
| |
|
|
