DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Birth control rant
Pages:   ... ... [61]
Showing posts 526 - 550 of 1503, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/01/2012 07:23:53 PM · #526
And yanko is a fluke... //blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/10/01/us-religioussecular-abortion-divide-is-stark/
03/01/2012 07:30:43 PM · #527
Originally posted by Kelli:

Religion has no business being in on anyone's health care decisions. The next thing you know all business's will be claiming to be Scientologists so that they don't have to provide any health care at all. Maybe that's why it would be a good idea for government sponsored health care.


No, Government has no business being in religion.

If you have a problem with Catholics or Scientologists, don't work for them. It's that easy. Do you work for a catholic? Does your health coverage cover everything you need? If not, get a new job.
03/01/2012 07:34:50 PM · #528
Here's the link to the NPR article your article referenced. It seemed a bit fuller on the details.

A few thoughts.

First on the story itself:
1) The following two statements seem to be contradictory without clarification:
"The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die."
"But the hospital felt it could proceed because of an exception ΓΆ€” called Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church's ethical guidelines for health care providers ΓΆ€” that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother."

It only took a few seconds to find the directive (don't you love google?): Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

So why would the official church position mandate the solution be to let the mother and child die? I don't understand. Looking a little further I found this in the manual which is Directive 45. "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted." The two seem to lead to a seeming paradox. I think I understand the thinking behind the statement though.

On my opinion:
I think the hospital did the right thing. I cannot understand how two deaths would be better than one if none are avoidable. In the wiki on the case (do they have a wiki for everything?) There is a crucial followup. "As of December 2011 Margaret McBride is in good standing with the church."

03/01/2012 07:40:55 PM · #529
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Here's the link to the NPR article your article referenced. It seemed a bit fuller on the details.

A few thoughts.

First on the story itself:
1) The following two statements seem to be contradictory without clarification:
"The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die."
"But the hospital felt it could proceed because of an exception ΓΆ€” called Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church's ethical guidelines for health care providers ΓΆ€” that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother."

It only took a few seconds to find the directive (don't you love google?): Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

So why would the official church position mandate the solution be to let the mother and child die? I don't understand. Looking a little further I found this in the manual which is Directive 45. "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted." The two seem to lead to a seeming paradox. I think I understand the thinking behind the statement though.

On my opinion:
I think the hospital did the right thing. I cannot understand how two deaths would be better than one if none are avoidable. In the wiki on the case (do they have a wiki for everything?) There is a crucial followup. "As of December 2011 Margaret McBride is in good standing with the church."


Did you see the other link I went and added on? I had lost the link and thought it was the right one when I posted then realized it wasn't. There were other issues in there, such as the investigations into the nuns and stuff I wanted your opinion on.
03/01/2012 07:53:46 PM · #530
No, I hadn't seen it but I just read it. To be fair, it's actually a difficult moral dilemma. Take the following identical thought experiment.

You come across two people who are about to die. You are in the position to kill one which will save the other or you could do nothing and both will die (which would have happened had you not come upon the scene). What is the correct action?

The answer isn't quite as obvious as it seems. On one side the natural course of events will happen and you will not actively kill someone. Everybody is due to die at some point. On the other hand an act which is typically seen as morally wrong would prolong a life.

That's a doozy. But I still stand by my decision that at the least killing one of the two is neither wrong nor the worst choice. On the other hand I might hold my breath and say the exact same about letting them both die.

Message edited by author 2012-03-01 19:54:01.
03/01/2012 08:04:49 PM · #531
I wondered if I could come up with a real-life scenario to match the thought experiment. How's this:

You are mountain climbing and come across a man who's partner has fallen into a large crevasse. He is holding him with the rope tied around his waste. You cannot reach help in time and your own strength cannot raise the fallen man. You have a knife and can cut the rope which will cause the one man to fall to his death but allow the other man to leave. There are no other options other than to leave. What is the correct choice of action?

Message edited by author 2012-03-01 20:06:39.
03/01/2012 08:14:27 PM · #532
Man, was it a slow day at work or what? I posted far too much in this thread today... :)
03/01/2012 08:15:13 PM · #533
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wondered if I could come up with a real-life scenario to match the thought experiment. How's this:

You are mountain climbing and come across a man who's partner has fallen into a large crevasse. He is holding him with the rope tied around his waste. You cannot reach help in time and your own strength cannot raise the fallen man. You have a knife and can cut the rope which will cause the one man to fall to his death but allow the other man to leave. There are no other options other than to leave. What is the correct choice of action?


I don't consider this a fair comparison. This is two people with actual lives (not just the potential). I think a real life, such as a mother that already has 4 kids depending on her, should always take precedence over a potential life.
03/01/2012 08:23:46 PM · #534
And btw - it's always so much easier to deal in absolutes when you have no horse in the race. Ask most men would they prefer their own wife got an abortion or died, I think most would pick the abortion. Sorry honey, but you gotta go just doesn't cut it in today's world.
03/01/2012 08:27:54 PM · #535
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wondered if I could come up with a real-life scenario to match the thought experiment. How's this:

You are mountain climbing and come across a man who's partner has fallen into a large crevasse. He is holding him with the rope tied around his waste. You cannot reach help in time and your own strength cannot raise the fallen man. You have a knife and can cut the rope which will cause the one man to fall to his death but allow the other man to leave. There are no other options other than to leave. What is the correct choice of action?


I don't consider this a fair comparison. This is two people with actual lives (not just the potential). I think a real life, such as a mother that already has 4 kids depending on her, should always take precedence over a potential life.


Oh, and just so you know, I'd hand the knife over to the guy with the rope around his waist. Then I'd tell him I'm going for help, but do what you've gotta do.

eta: I can pretty much guarantee the guy would cut the rope to save himself. ;D

Message edited by author 2012-03-01 20:29:18.
03/01/2012 08:52:38 PM · #536
He actually had a knife, but he can't use it without slipping into the crevasse himself. His grip is that tenuous. :). But trying to find the loophole is not the proper way to view a moral dilemma.

Your view about the real and potential life may help you, but this dilemma is better suited for the catholic view because they were, in their minds, dealing with two real lives.
03/01/2012 08:55:41 PM · #537
Originally posted by Kelli:

And btw - it's always so much easier to deal in absolutes when you have no horse in the race. Ask most men would they prefer their own wife got an abortion or died, I think most would pick the abortion. Sorry honey, but you gotta go just doesn't cut it in today's world.

She's dying of a serious heart ailment, but the doctors think she can live a reasonably normal life if she doesn't have to face the stress of pregnancy, which will probably kill both her and the baby. But amazingly, against all odds, her husband is a perfect histological match and has a heart in perfect condition ... so mister, does she have an abortion, do you let them both die, or do you sacrifice yourself so they both can live?
03/01/2012 09:06:13 PM · #538
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

He actually had a knife, but he can't use it without slipping into the crevasse himself. His grip is that tenuous. :). But trying to find the loophole is not the proper way to view a moral dilemma.

Your view about the real and potential life may help you, but this dilemma is better suited for the catholic view because they were, in their minds, dealing with two real lives.


I wasn't trying to find a loophole. You said I had the knife. My point is, in almost all cases, people try to save themselves first. If you can save others as well, then most will, but not all. And a real world catholic would for sure save themselves before anyone else. The husband just might be all for letting the wife die, but I guarantee the wife isn't fine with it.
03/01/2012 09:37:09 PM · #539
If the choice is between a mother and fetus, I say let the one with agency live.
03/01/2012 09:53:14 PM · #540
I really think most pro choice people are misunderstood. I've never had an abortion, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I believe it's a very hard choice to make. I know people that have had them. None regret it. It was the right decision at the time that they made it. It doesn't mean they didn't have children later in life when things weren't so wrong. I know one person that had one as a result of rape. She said she could never love a child born from violence. And that she'd never be able to get past what happened to her if she had a living breathing reminder. I don't blame her, or any of the others. I'm grateful I haven't been in the position of having to actually choose. But I'm also thankful that I had that option if things were to go wrong.

Message edited by author 2012-03-01 21:55:01.
03/01/2012 10:04:12 PM · #541
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wouldn't consider this a "war on women" and I even don't quite think it's a "war on reproductive rights"


Ask me if I'm surprised.


Why do you think there are women who support this type of legislation if it's really a war on themselves? Are they masochistic? What gives?


I know I'm a bit delayed here since I'm on a different time zone, but come on Doc. Take a broader view on sexism and you'll see women are also involved, almost all of the time. Why? Because it's not about men vs. women, it's a perversion of equality in society. A tipping of the scales of power, and women are a part of it too, they have to be.

For example, in China, foot-binding was done by the mothers. This was one of my first questions as a young and naive feminism student. Why did the mothers do it? Prof told me to think of the consequences: the way society worked, if you didn't bind your daughter's feet, she didn't find a husband, and for that time, that was near a death wish. The mothers had a terrible choice: bind their daughters feet, causing permanent disfigurement, or doom them to possibly never finding their own family.

We humans have a huge desire to fit in and not rock the boat. Those who do often pay. A woman in my class actually was directly going against her whole family to be there. (They were of the Christian sort that believed a woman going to college was a waste of time and money.)

It's not masochism, or stupidity. It's going along with societal expectations, and our society is still male dominated. Some women are trying to fit into that world without even realizing.
03/01/2012 10:20:06 PM · #542
Wow after reading that article it's even more blatantly apparent the message that's sent again and again "You must be born, but once you are, you're on your own!"

Seriously... NO pedophiles have been excommunicated? And we're here splitting hairs over if it's ok to kill a fetus that was going to DIE ANYWAY to save the mom? Yes, excommunicate that nun, who did the right thing and saved a life. Protect the perverted men who destroy hundreds of lives. That's the Catholic way hmmm?

Seriously. Yay faith! Am I converted yet? Where do I sign up?
03/01/2012 10:24:00 PM · #543
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Religion has no business being in on anyone's health care decisions. The next thing you know all business's will be claiming to be Scientologists so that they don't have to provide any health care at all. Maybe that's why it would be a good idea for government sponsored health care.


No, Government has no business being in religion.

If you have a problem with Catholics or Scientologists, don't work for them. It's that easy. Do you work for a catholic? Does your health coverage cover everything you need? If not, get a new job.


You're ability to live in a bubble and totally disregard the realities of the world astound me. You do realize we are in a housing crisis, recession, employment crisis, etc.

My friend has a BA in psychology and 3 years managerial experience and the best she found after months of searching was a job with a grocery store. This grocery store is Christian owned. They probably don't even provide health insurance but for the sake of argument, if they did, she should just "get a new job" if she doesn't like them cherry-picking what gets covered?

Reality is a funny thing. Join us.

03/01/2012 10:52:39 PM · #544
Originally posted by Kelli:

And yanko is a fluke... //blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/10/01/us-religioussecular-abortion-divide-is-stark/


Probably because yankos have better things to do than talk to pollsters. Maybe your argument should be Americans are stupid and shouldn't be procreating in the first place? But that would then make them not stupid and therefore should procreate. Oh never mind, just go back to your war on women vs war on religion battle of the rants or whatever this has turned into.

Message edited by author 2012-03-01 22:54:20.
03/01/2012 11:40:31 PM · #545
Don't worry Richard, I'm not sure Kelli understood the statistics. Of the people against abortion, 47% did not use their faith as the driving factor. 47% is not a fluke...
03/01/2012 11:45:23 PM · #546
Originally posted by escapetooz:

Reality is a funny thing. Join us.

You have too much faith.
03/02/2012 04:10:14 PM · #547
Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Religion has no business being in on anyone's health care decisions. The next thing you know all business's will be claiming to be Scientologists so that they don't have to provide any health care at all. Maybe that's why it would be a good idea for government sponsored health care.


No, Government has no business being in religion.

If you have a problem with Catholics or Scientologists, don't work for them. It's that easy. Do you work for a catholic? Does your health coverage cover everything you need? If not, get a new job.


You're ability to live in a bubble and totally disregard the realities of the world astound me. You do realize we are in a housing crisis, recession, employment crisis, etc.

My friend has a BA in psychology and 3 years managerial experience and the best she found after months of searching was a job with a grocery store. This grocery store is Christian owned. They probably don't even provide health insurance but for the sake of argument, if they did, she should just "get a new job" if she doesn't like them cherry-picking what gets covered?

Reality is a funny thing. Join us.


Exactly, this is the real world. Maybe, if you can't find a job that provides your health needs, you have bigger problems than having sex.

Abortion and birth control is no a natural born right; you can't survive without it.
...that's what i get for editing...
Abortion and birth control is not a natural born right; you can survive without it.

Message edited by author 2012-03-02 17:51:34.
03/02/2012 05:27:54 PM · #548
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by escapetooz:


Reality is a funny thing. Join us.


Exactly, this is the real world. Maybe, if you can't find a job that provides your health needs, you have bigger problems than having sex.


Are you aware that the U.S. is practically the ONLY place where citizens have to rely on their employers to provide them with a health care package? Do you even know how it came about in the first place, that this situation exists?

R.
03/02/2012 05:46:42 PM · #549
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Religion has no business being in on anyone's health care decisions. The next thing you know all business's will be claiming to be Scientologists so that they don't have to provide any health care at all. Maybe that's why it would be a good idea for government sponsored health care.


No, Government has no business being in religion.

If you have a problem with Catholics or Scientologists, don't work for them. It's that easy. Do you work for a catholic? Does your health coverage cover everything you need? If not, get a new job.


How about this my friend... Maybe the church could start paying taxes like the rest of us and get it's nose out of the public trough.

Maybe the catholic church could come clean about some of the illegal activities some of their members have been involved in and stop trying to cover things up like they seemingly attempted in the Boston area.

While you are at it, maybe you could take a peak at what I wrote at Item #420 where I said: "

The really nice thing about where I live is that medical things are covered and luckily for us, the church has nothing to do with the coverage.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-03-02 17:51:35.
03/02/2012 05:57:06 PM · #550
Originally posted by Kelli:

Religion has no business being in on anyone's health care decisions. The next thing you know all business's will be claiming to be Scientologists so that they don't have to provide any health care at all. Maybe that's why it would be a good idea for government sponsored health care.


Originally posted by Nullix:

No, Government has no business being in religion.

And the catholic church has no business being in business!!!

Originally posted by Nullix:

If you have a problem with Catholics or Scientologists, don't work for them. It's that easy. Do you work for a catholic? Does your health coverage cover everything you need? If not, get a new job.


Originally posted by RayEthier:

How about this my friend... Maybe the church could start paying taxes like the rest of us and get it's nose out of the public trough.

There's a good idea!

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Maybe the catholic church could come clean about some of the illegal activities some of their members have been involved in and stop trying to cover things up like they seemingly attempted in the Boston area. Ray


NEVER happen!
Pages:   ... ... [61]
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 07:00:02 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 07:00:02 PM EDT.