| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2012 07:25:21 PM · #1201 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are confusing many subjects Ray. There are many not for profit hospitals that enjoy tax benefits that are not Catholic. The hospitals in the US are not government entities. Sewer systems, roads, etc are very different and those have traditionally been governmental responsibilities. |
There are city- and county-owned hospitals in the U.S., are there not? And some state-owned hospitals as well, such as teaching hospitals that are affiliated with state universities. |
Certainly. And I agree those hospitals shouldn't have a sect dictate how they run. |
|
|
|
05/05/2012 08:06:01 PM · #1202 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why are we bellyaching at the Catholics? Are they the only people capable of running a hospital? You don't like it, build your own hospital and put them out of business instead of telling them how to run theirs. That would be the real American way of doing things. |
Rather than take issue with priests and bureaucrats telling doctors how to practice medicine, you suggest building competing multi-million dollar hospitals in every community so that one of them might allow a patient to get a life saving procedure if the others don't... assuming they will treat "your kind" at all. Was that supposed to be a joke? |
|
|
|
05/05/2012 11:16:21 PM · #1203 |
Ya, it is kinda crazy because most people seem pretty happy with the hospitals they got.
Here's the way I see it. If it's a large problem then market forces are poised to take advantage. That's what market forces do. If it's not a large problem then we're all moaning about a small problem.
Message edited by author 2012-05-05 23:47:36. |
|
|
|
05/05/2012 11:50:04 PM · #1204 |
| Most people aren't affected by priests telling doctors how to do their jobs. I seriously doubt patients who have treatment withheld by order of someone with no medical training are pretty happy about it. |
|
|
|
05/06/2012 12:35:46 AM · #1205 |
| And here's the way I see it: You're advocating the forfeiture of ethics, morality, professional integrity and the life of a patient to defend the opinion of a bishop regarding a medical emergency on the justification that if enough people die under your care the market will demand change. |
|
|
|
05/06/2012 11:05:58 AM · #1206 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Nullix, my brother and father have both received vasectomies, after having two kids each.
Are you suggesting they have not treated their bodies? with respect? Are you denigrating my family's ability to decide what is proper for itself? |
Why does it matter what I think? If I believed in not eating meat and you told me your family does.
What does it matter. Just don't force me to provide you meat. |
So first it's a blanket statement about the integrity of doctors, now it's merely a personal choice. I call BS on your pivot.
But I'll certainly stop 'forcing you' when we all stop:
- Forcing me to pay fore the education of children I don't have
- Forcing me to pay taxes in support of two wars I don't approve of
- Forcing me to subsidize gasoline, corn, and other wasteful industries that don't need govt. handouts
- Forcing me to pay taxes used to support a bureaucracy that provides heterosexual couples benefits that same-sex couples don't get
- Forcing me to pay for the defense of DOMA by Bohner & crew
- Forcing me to pay any tax or fees for any services I do not use or approve of, etc.
And, again, the point has been made many times: Contraception reduces overall healthcare costs. Only an idiot would chose small a short-term gain over a much larger long-term gain, IMO. That's why a $7000 rebate for a $500K mortgage at 4.125% is a stupid choice compared to getting no rebate for the same size mortgage at $3.9%. Only a chump takes the $7000. If you're worried about the short term impact of that $7000, you shouldn't be buying a $500K house.
If you don't want to 'pay for' others' contraception, get ready to 'pay for' other' pregnancies, complications, schools, roads, etc.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2012 11:55:57 AM · #1207 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
And here's the way I see it: You're advocating the forfeiture of ethics, morality, professional integrity and the life of a patient to defend the opinion of a bishop regarding a medical emergency on the justification that if enough people die under your care the market will demand change. |
Naw. I think that decision was wrong and I suspect, in retrospect, so do they since the sister has been brought back. You don't have to paint my opinion in the most extreme possible since its hardly that.
There seems tobe plenty of room for a position that doesn't force the Catholics to do things they object to while protecting the lives of patients under emergency situations.
Message edited by author 2012-05-06 12:04:30. |
|
|
|
05/06/2012 06:37:57 PM · #1208 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The second point is ireelelvant because the analogy doesn't hold. I agree, if everybody paid for the hospital and paid for running it, then I don't think a group of people could say how it operates. But that's not the case and that's not the way things run in the US. I think your recall of the US medical system is as rusty as your Jesuit training. :P |
\
Touché my learned friend... but you do have to take into consideration the fact that all the masses were in Latin way back then and that it was also a compulsory course.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Non-profit and Not-for-profit are the same with regards to hospitals, at least according to wiki. I was under the impression there was a difference as well. I guess there isn't. |
I am quite surprised by this one since legally and fiscally they are not remotely close to each other... at least in Canada and as such I am not in a position to debate the issue.
I will say this though... I find it hard to comprehend that a hospital that can avail itself of services such as roads and sewers and such, (which are paid by the collective) can deny services to some simply because they don't agree with their lifestyle.. but that's just me.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/06/2012 08:02:15 PM · #1209 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I find it hard to comprehend that a hospital that can avail itself of services such as roads and sewers and such, (which are paid by the collective) can deny services to some simply because they don't agree with their lifestyle... |
Any hospital that accepts Federal grants, Medicare and Medicaid is at least partly funded by the public. As a side note, a Pew research poll conducted in February found that 85% of Americans believe that using contraceptives is either morally acceptable or not a moral issue at all. A mere 8% thought it was morally wrong. |
|
|
|
05/06/2012 08:37:59 PM · #1210 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
.
I will say this though... I find it hard to comprehend that a hospital that can avail itself of services such as roads and sewers and such, (which are paid by the collective) can deny services to some simply because they don't agree with their lifestyle.. but that's just me.
Ray |
Such is life. I can't work out at the all-women gym and I can't golf on the private course unless I pay them a bunch of money. Of course the Catholic hospital isn't turning anybody away, they are just saying they are limited in the services they provide. |
|
|
|
05/06/2012 09:03:32 PM · #1211 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can't work out at the all-women gym and I can't golf on the private course unless I pay them a bunch of money. Of course the Catholic hospital isn't turning anybody away, they are just saying they are limited in the services they provide. |
The all-women gym isn't usually the only local facility, you won't die if you can't play golf, and neither of those use public funds. Despite the previous backpedal, you are reiterating a vile disregard for patient lives.
Message edited by author 2012-05-06 21:41:00. |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 12:10:04 AM · #1212 |
Please spare the histrionics Shannon (pun intended). We have a single instance we're talking about. In that instance, the right thing was done despite the contradictory and confusing policy rules. I have stated for the record that I think the right thing to do was save the mother's life. And how is all this a vile disregard for patient lives? Good grief.
There is a wide gulf between not performing a surgery which will cause a death if not done and to doing tubal ligations. I personally have no problems with birth control or methods of sterilization, but I understand how our country works and think the precedent set by forcing the Catholics to do as such is a far larger evil. Why don't we just make the sisters perform abortions while we're at it? That ought to learn them.
Market forces exist which could easily fix the problem (if we even have a problem outside y'all's little whine session.). The Catholics have no monopoly on hospitals.
Message edited by author 2012-05-07 00:13:09. |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 10:36:54 AM · #1213 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
If you don't want to 'pay for' others' contraception, get ready to 'pay for' other' pregnancies, complications, schools, roads, etc. |
I'd rather pay for life than pay for death. |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 11:40:18 AM · #1214 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Mousie:
If you don't want to 'pay for' others' contraception, get ready to 'pay for' other' pregnancies, complications, schools, roads, etc. |
I'd rather pay for life than pay for death. |
So that would be moving the goalposts again, then? First it's not wanting doctors to 'disrespect bodies', then it's not paying for things you don't support, now it's not paying for things you don't support that can lead to death (conveniently leaving out my example of the two wars we're paying for). Perhaps you'll keep on moving them to avoid addressing the simple points that are being made by multiple people. Unfortunately for you, you've pivoted yourself so far down this path that you aren't even able to present a logical response anymore. Your last statement is ludicrously irrelevant. It is an empty, pointless platitude.
As has been addressed again and again, contraception reduces death by preventing unwanted pregnancies. But you and I are not just discussing any old contraception like the pill, or RU486. Please explain to me how a VASECTOMY or a TUBAL LIGATION is causing ANY more deaths. They are 100% preventative procedures. No sperm is released, no eggs get fertilized, no pregnancy occurs. There is no life to end. To equate paying for either as paying for death is absurd.
Using your logic, masturbation is death. All that murdered potential spunking up the place. If I had to bet, I'd put good money on you being an executioner many times over.
Using your logic, I shouldn't have to pay for heath insurance that's used to circumcise baby boys, an elective surgery.
So, a recap:
- You suggest that a doctor performing preventative surgical birth control is disrespecting bodies
- I point out that you're the one disrespecting the decisions of people who desire those procedures as if you know better than them what they should do with their own bodies, which is kind of the point of Kelli's complaint. Ironic, no?
- You shift to claim it's just about your having to pay for those decisions, because you personally disagree with them
- People point out that is the price you pay as a member of a society containing people that hold many conflicting viewpoints. Sometimes you have to pay for things you don't agree with. Examples are given. Reality is not suspended.
- You shift to claim it's just about your having to pay for things that lead to death, despite vasectomies and tubal ligations having nothing to do with death, and everything to do with preventing it. Despite your current practice of paying for many, many things that can lead to death, even now.
But go ahead, keep on substituting sound bites for rational discourse. Platitudes are just so darn agreeable! Maybe by hiding behind them you can avoid thinking too hard about the implications of your position. I mean, after all, who doesn't prefer paying for life over death? I sure do. It's such an easy thing to get behind, I doubt you'll find a single person here who'd disagree.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean you're saying anything useful.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2012 12:29:08 PM · #1215 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
So that would be moving the goalposts again, then? First it's not wanting doctors to 'disrespect bodies', then it's not paying for things you don't support, now it's not paying for things you don't support that can lead to death (conveniently leaving out my example of the two wars we're paying for). Perhaps you'll keep on moving them to avoid addressing the simple points that are being made by multiple people. Unfortunately for you, you've pivoted yourself so far down this path that you aren't even able to present a logical response anymore. |
Ya, I'm not as eloquent as others here.
No matter what Shannon claims, we as Catholics have been able exercise our religion and consciences in the USA. The government has made rules, but there have been exceptions for religious/conscience rights.
Now, the government wants removed those exceptions and force me to act against my conscience.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2012 12:34:03 PM · #1216 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Mousie:
So that would be moving the goalposts again, then? First it's not wanting doctors to 'disrespect bodies', then it's not paying for things you don't support, now it's not paying for things you don't support that can lead to death (conveniently leaving out my example of the two wars we're paying for). Perhaps you'll keep on moving them to avoid addressing the simple points that are being made by multiple people. Unfortunately for you, you've pivoted yourself so far down this path that you aren't even able to present a logical response anymore. |
Ya, I'm not as eloquent as others here.
No matter what Shannon claims, we as Catholics have been able exercise our religion and consciences in the USA. The government has made rules, but there have been exceptions for religious/conscience rights.
Now, the government wants removed those exceptions and force me to act against my conscience. |
This has nothing to do with your eloquence or lack thereof, it is about your logic. You can express sound logic inarticulately. You do not get a pass.
Tell me why paying for vasectomies is equivalent to paying for death, or admit you're just spouting off irrelevancies for no good reason.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2012 12:39:18 PM · #1217 |
DrAchoo, can I ask a favor?
It is my perception that your position regarding contraception is significantly more nuanced than the one expressed by Nullix. How about you take a break from battling the progressives for a moment to address his claims, giving your take on them. Since you're both basically representing the same side of this ongoing, multifaceted debate, and I feel his assertions are doing an active disservice to the conservative position, perhaps you could refute the more problematic ones yourself, build some common ground, and use the effort as a springboard to highlight some more reasonable arguments by pointing out the discrepancies.
Otherwise, it's likely your arguments are going to get lumped in with each other. That's pretty much how it works.
To explain what I mean by that, here's an example: Again and again, in the last few years conservatives have claimed that preventing gays from getting married is only about protecting the definition of a word, and they they 'love the sin and hate the sinner'. It's not about animus, supposedly. However, right now in North Carolina, they are trying to ban legal recognition of ANY domestic relationship between unmarried couples, not just marriage. And worse, their true rationales are coming to light as conservatives get more desperate in an attempt to rile up support.
Ron Baity, a pastor who's a major player in support of Amenedment 1, has suggested in the last week alone that America has become so 'dumb' that we don't prosecute homosexuals for merely existing anymore, that gays are signing America's death warrant, that gays recruit children, and allowing gays to marry will cause pedophilia. Pastor Jeff Long suggest that allowing gays to marry will lead to anarchy or a new Hitler and a second holocaust. Others have suggested that gay rights will be worse for America than a nuclear bomb going off. A pastor even claimed that anyone who doesn't vote for Amendment 1 is going to hell. Pure, unadulterated animus. The disrespect on display is staggering.
What I do not hear is a denouncement of these people by their peers, nor from conservatives in office. There is little nuanced position being expressed by the right. Mitt Romney won't even denounce the overt, documented race baiting of NOM!
Because of this, I can't see any effort to prevent me from receiving my rights as anything but animus. I see the 'loving, respectful' justifications we see today as the position of a party that has lost the ability to use vitriolic prejudice to accomplish the same goals it has in the past. The right has been beaten back to this stance by repeatedly losing out to reality, not because they suddenly volunteered to be nicer. And when squeezed, the same old hateful rhetoric comes spilling back out.
Show me you're not Nullix. I'd love to see you dismantle his position by pointing out where you disagree, making your position more reasonable by way of comparison.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2012 12:53:33 PM · #1218 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
DrAchoo, can I ask a favor?....Show me you're not Nullix. I'd love to see you dismantle his position by pointing out where you disagree, making your position more reasonable by way of comparison. |
I'd love to see this too... Go for it, Doc!
R.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2012 05:04:50 PM · #1219 |
Mmmm, I stand for unity of Christian brothers and sisters. I do disagree with the Catholic position regarding birth control, but that would be a private argument for Nullix and myself. I also believe it's rises to the level of personal conscience rather than doctrinal orthodoxy and so is not particularly critical. Finally, the language of the argument may be incomprehensible as it would be between two people with a common worldview (Nullix and me) versus two people with conflicting worldviews (Nullix and you).
Sorry. :)
Message edited by author 2012-05-07 17:06:25. |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 05:32:54 PM · #1220 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mmmm, I stand for unity of Christian brothers and sisters.... Finally, the language of the argument may be incomprehensible as it would be between two people with a common worldview (Nullix and me) versus two people with conflicting worldviews (Nullix and you).
Sorry. :) |
Christian unity... when did this happen?
I seriously doubt that the language would be incomprehensible ... a bit over the top maybe, but incomprehensible, surely you don't believe this.
Lastly, I somehow doubt that you and  Nullix share a common worldview... I may not agree with what some of your perceptions regarding society, religion and a myriad of other things, but can assure you that from this end you are nothing like Nullix.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 05:35:45 PM · #1221 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I also believe it's rises to the level of personal conscience rather than doctrinal orthodoxy and so is not particularly critical. |
Goodness, the Catholic church changed the rules did they... so adherence is now a matter of personal conscience. My Catholic friends will be pleased to know this. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 05:41:40 PM · #1222 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mmmm, I stand for unity of Christian brothers and sisters. I do disagree with the Catholic position regarding birth control, but that would be a private argument for Nullix and myself. I also believe it's rises to the level of personal conscience rather than doctrinal orthodoxy and so is not particularly critical. Finally, the language of the argument may be incomprehensible as it would be between two people with a common worldview (Nullix and me) versus two people with conflicting worldviews (Nullix and you).
Sorry. :) |
Good thing you weren't around during the Inquisition and Nullix wasn't around during the reign of Henry the VIII or any of the other times different brands of "Christians" were at each others throats for their differences. We're much more civilized now, aren't we? Some brands of Christianity still do think that the supposedly "Christians" who don't believe exactly the way they do will go to "hell in a hand-basket", even now. :-D |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 07:31:29 PM · #1223 |
DrAchoo, I'm kind of shocked that you're unwilling to take Nullix to task for his logic.
To me it seems pretty darn clear that elective medical decisions aren't always about respecting your body or not, and that vasectomies/tubal ligations prevent deaths. This is a logical issue, not a matter of faith.
Your solidarity in the face of this is somewhat disturbing. It is precisely this that is a major issue with political discourse these days, in my opinion. Moderates are unwilling to stand against the members of their groups who are being reductive and extreme.
Message edited by author 2012-05-07 19:33:28. |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 07:34:02 PM · #1224 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
DrAchoo, I'm kind of shocked that you're unwilling to take Nullix to task for his logic.
To me it seems pretty darn clear that elective medical decisions aren't always about respecting your body or not, and that vasectomies/tubal ligations prevent deaths. This is a logical issue, not a matter of faith.
Your solidarity in the face of this is somewhat disturbing. It is precisely this that is a major issue with political discourse these days, in my opinion. Moderates are unwilling to stand against the members of their groups who are being reductive and extreme. |
It's not at all surprising, however. |
|
|
|
05/07/2012 09:25:13 PM · #1225 |
One thing I'm not sure about Mousie is what you want me to exactly debate with Nullix? We've been talking about birth control, but 90% of your post was on gay rights. I'm honestly confused as the the aim of your request. I answered as if you wanted me to talk about birth control, but now I'm not sure that's what you meant me to address.
Ah, Ed, it would pain me to disappoint you, so I'll sleep better tonight knowing I dodged that bullet...
Message edited by author 2012-05-07 21:26:22. |
|
