 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Another interesting question is:
If a catholic fundi pharmacist has the right to refuse selling the pill because of his beliefs,
has a doctor who is member of Jehovas Witnesses the same right to refuse to administer a blood transfusion because of his beliefs?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I hate these threads, it is a case of "politics make strange bedfellows. 
First, stop the trolls on the Catholic Church. The "Seamless Garment of Life" is good theology. I just happen to disagree with it. And the trolls about their protecting pedophile priests - first, their percentage of abusers is at 6% versus 6-8% (I don't have cites, though I have one for it being the same) as other religious ministers. The problem was that the Church believes in repentence, and often (there are some isolated cases otherwise, I am talking 90% plus) gave them a new start after "repenting". Given the context of the time, that was reasonable. Since the 1990's, when the understanding of pedophilia has improved, they almost never do that. Note - almost does NOT mean never, by it's very nature any Church has to be susceptable to the "I have repented" argument, especially in those cases where the individual truly believes he has succeeded.
Second - when does you right to not be discriminated against trump my right not to have you discriminate against me? Been largely avoided by those for the anti-abortificant pharmacists. There has been all kinds of arguments under the law in the United States. It is never clear cut, and the reasonable accomadation test is critical.
However, as an employee you will have no right to refuse this as it is a reasonable expectation of the job, unless you were employed prior to Griswold versus Conneticut in 1965. I don't think there are many of them left, so this constitutes a red herring. "Morning After" pills still use the same actions as regular birth control, so making an argument over that is a red herring. In fact, that issue at this point in time is a complete red herring.
Private businesses refusing to dispence birth control to all and sundry become problematic, see above. They are discriminating against me, because my personal beliefs permit birth control. As I've stated, this area of law becomes very murky. The best way to deal with it is to simply require all pharmacies, if they accept medicaid/medicare payments, to dispense all prescribed drugs. Same for private insurance. While there may be an isolated holdout here and there, which will do some harm, it will overall solve the problem as it would represent way too much of a financial loss for those businesses. That is the same way the Feds use Highway Funds to coerce states.
There already is a precedent for that, OB-Gyn programs now require residents to receive some training in abortion, it can be a necessary procedure. The Catholic Church does permit you to attempt to save the life of the mother and child, and if the child dies in the process, it is a sad result. That is the theological justification for ending a fallopian tube pregnancy - untreated it WILL kill both. The same applies to a fetus who dies in utero, the remains MUST be aborted, if it does not happen naturally, or the mother WILL die.
Only fundamentalists who literally believe that is wrong, and would pray to God while the mother dies, would be shut out under those criteria. That's not too unreasonable, IMHO. If you feel that you cannot dispense legally available drugs, go into another line of work.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
thats a stupid inclusion into the definition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
MRT144 - Che has the current thought on that among fundamentalist Christian circles correct (this includes both Baptist, Catholic, and Evangelical). You may think it is stupid, but given how they believe once fertilization occurs anything that interferes with the zygote becoming a baby constitutes abortion. They also opposue IUD's. Pretty much anything except a spermicide or condoms, and the Catholic Church even opposes those. Oh, and only within marraige, of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
quote:
VATICAN CITY (NC) -- Church authorities have clarified the legal definition of abortion to include new drugs and surgical procedures. |
From the Code of Canon Law.
quote:
TITLE VI : OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND LIBERTY (Cann. 1397 - 1398)
Can. 1397 One who commits murder, or who by force or by fraud abducts, imprisons, mutilates or gravely wounds a person, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with the deprivations and prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336. In the case of the murder of one of those persons mentioned in can. 1370, the offender is punished with the penalties there prescribed.
Can. 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
|
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm
To put it in practical terms, any time you interfere with a fertilized zygote you technically are performing an abortion, and thus are automatically excommunicate. This kind of extreme definition is why I left the Church. On the other hand, the vast majority of American Catholics, and Priests, simply ignore it. I find that very disturbing, just like I find my wife's ability to keep vaguely Kosher incomprehensible. I see matters of religion (versus faith and spirituality) as very clear cut issues.
I have argued that, under the standards in place during the reformation, Dutch and US Catholics would be considered schismatic. I wish I was able to feel comfortable and pick and choose the Church teachings I follow, but for me that is hippocracy. I envy other's ability to reconcile issues like these.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
do the winesses believe that it is sinful to administer a blood transfusion?
I know they believe it is sinful to recieve one. |
I canīt say for sure,
as I never encountered a Doctor who is member of them,
but I think itīs possible that such a Doc might argue,
that it is against his beliefs to aid someone in commiting a sin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
First, stop the trolls on the Catholic Church. The "Seamless Garment of Life" is good theology. I just happen to disagree with it. And the trolls about their protecting pedophile priests - first, their percentage of abusers is at 6% versus 6-8% (I don't have cites, though I have one for it being the same) as other religious ministers. The problem was that the Church believes in repentence, and often (there are some isolated cases otherwise, I am talking 90% plus) gave them a new start after "repenting". Given the context of the time, that was reasonable. Since the 1990's, when the understanding of pedophilia has improved, they almost never do that. Note - almost does NOT mean never, by it's very nature any Church has to be susceptable to the "I have repented" argument, especially in those cases where the individual truly believes he has succeeded. |
It's quite fun to troll them though 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-03-2005 18:53
|
|