Author Topic: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies  (Read 57711 times)

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6724
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #350 on: May 15, 2021, 09:32:25 AM »
We are Catholic. I don't recognise mainstream American Christianity as being remotely the same religion. I find it very strange reading about "Christians" on the American internet and never having met anyone that resembles the description in the UK.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2525
  • Location: Germany
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #351 on: May 16, 2021, 04:54:48 AM »
The Roman Catholic Church is against contraception,

I am not sure, but I think last year the pope said condoms were ok. (There was definitely something on that topic, but I only remember that I was surprised, but not what about exactly.)

chaskavitch

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Fort Collins, CO
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #352 on: May 16, 2021, 07:23:03 AM »
The Roman Catholic Church is against contraception,

I am not sure, but I think last year the pope said condoms were ok. (There was definitely something on that topic, but I only remember that I was surprised, but not what about exactly.)

I'm pretty sure this revolves around the "uncertain" method of action by hormonal birth control.  Does it really prevent fertilization?  Does it only prevent implantation?  If you believe life begins at fertilization, then condoms (which definitely prevent fertilization) could be ok, while hormonal birth control is *maybe* just sneaky baby-killing.

Unless you're ready to be fruitful and multiply, or you believe that God has preordained the number of children you should have, or that you're building the army of God, in which cases all birth control is bad.

I grew up in a non-denominational evangelical church, so I'm not just making fun.  I firmly believe in family planning and contraception, etc., but I can at least see where these beliefs are coming from.

CodingHare

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #353 on: May 16, 2021, 03:22:55 PM »
<SNIP>
But the hierarchy is absolutely firm on the matter, and actively works against contraceptive access and education to the extent that they can. These days, that doesn't seem like much of a threat.  The idea of birth control being interfered with in America feels pretty far fetched, but while there is so much attention paid to Roe v. Wade it's easy to forget that Griswold v. Connecticut is only eight years older.  And Griswold only applied to married couples; it was only one year before Roe, in Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972, that the court ruled that unmarried people had a right to access birth control.
<SNIP>

Agreed, except American religious employers have successfully put in exemptions to not cover birth control for their employees.  Which may be fine for a church (which you assume the employees share the faith of the organization), but sucks for Hobby Lobby employees who work at a company who just happens to be owned by the overly religious.  Pills may be cheap, but they don't work with everyone's body chemistry.  IUDs can cost hundred of dollars.  Another reason for universal healthcare is to remove the ability of employers to dictate health coverage.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #354 on: May 16, 2021, 06:50:02 PM »
It gets even shittier when you consider the number of hospital and healthcare systems that are religiously affiliated. The sheer number of people who are employed by these systems and therefore have reduced access to reproductive healthcare is disheartening.

Michael in ABQ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
    • Military Saints
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #355 on: May 16, 2021, 08:22:51 PM »
The Roman Catholic Church is against contraception,

I am not sure, but I think last year the pope said condoms were ok. (There was definitely something on that topic, but I only remember that I was surprised, but not what about exactly.)

Any form of contraception is prohibited by the Catholic Church. It violates the natural law that the purpose of sex is for procreation. The pleasure obtained is a positive side effect within the bond of marriage. A hundred years ago all Christians were opposed to contraception and abortion. Once the Anglican church relaxes it's stance in the 1930s the rest soon fell to the dominant culture with only the Catholic Church still opposing it.


I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2525
  • Location: Germany
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #356 on: May 17, 2021, 08:01:00 AM »
The Roman Catholic Church is against contraception,

I am not sure, but I think last year the pope said condoms were ok. (There was definitely something on that topic, but I only remember that I was surprised, but not what about exactly.)

Any form of contraception is prohibited by the Catholic Church. It violates the natural law that the purpose of sex is for procreation. The pleasure obtained is a positive side effect within the bond of marriage. A hundred years ago all Christians were opposed to contraception and abortion. Once the Anglican church relaxes it's stance in the 1930s the rest soon fell to the dominant culture with only the Catholic Church still opposing it.


I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.
I am not sure if I shoudl react to that? is that trolling?

Contraception is not killing. To kill something needs that something to be there. All contraception works before there is anything that could be said to be a human (even if you accept a fetus).
And this is still ignoring the abortion thing - which is fine in most jurisdiction to ~24 weeks since that is when the brain starts to work (which does not mean that there are thoughts or anything, just that it works, still a lot lower than the pig you kill for meat).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18685
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #357 on: May 17, 2021, 09:02:17 AM »
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.

A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile.  The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US.  (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/).  Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.

This leads me to conclude that moral absolutism doesn't exist in reality - people who claim to adhere to it are just highly judgmental moral relativists.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #358 on: May 17, 2021, 12:59:07 PM »
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.

A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile.  The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US.  (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/).  Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.


Well, there are the Amish.  ;-)

Dang, you beat me to it!

I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:
Spoiler: show
 It was the same drug that they use for medical abortions. I had already had a miscarriage and needed the medicine to get the rest out because I was bleeding for too long afterward. I didn't get time off work for this.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6797
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #359 on: May 17, 2021, 01:01:04 PM »
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.

A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile.  The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US.  (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/).  Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.


Well, there are the Amish.  ;-)

They will ride in cars but do not own them.

CodingHare

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #360 on: May 17, 2021, 01:17:25 PM »
Dang, you beat me to it!

I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:
Spoiler: show
 It was the same drug that they use for medical abortions. I had already had a miscarriage and needed the medicine to get the rest out because I was bleeding for too long afterward. I didn't get time off work for this.


Yeah, that kind of stuff really scares me about Catholic hospitals.  When we bought our house I actually had "not religiously affiliated hospital nearby" as a criteria, and was lucky even in Western Wa to be able to fulfill that.  I was told at our previous local hospital that if I gave birth, they would require me to go to another doctor to have an IUD put in after giving birth since contraceptives are against the church's teachings.  And while that might be a minor inconvenience, it shows that my health is not their priority over their teachings.  If there was a complication that put my life at risk, but there was a chance of saving the baby, I wouldn't trust them to let my husband and I make that hard choice.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4825
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #361 on: May 17, 2021, 01:39:42 PM »
Dang, you beat me to it!

I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:
Spoiler: show
 It was the same drug that they use for medical abortions. I had already had a miscarriage and needed the medicine to get the rest out because I was bleeding for too long afterward. I didn't get time off work for this.


Yeah, that kind of stuff really scares me about Catholic hospitals.  When we bought our house I actually had "not religiously affiliated hospital nearby" as a criteria, and was lucky even in Western Wa to be able to fulfill that.  I was told at our previous local hospital that if I gave birth, they would require me to go to another doctor to have an IUD put in after giving birth since contraceptives are against the church's teachings.  And while that might be a minor inconvenience, it shows that my health is not their priority over their teachings.  If there was a complication that put my life at risk, but there was a chance of saving the baby, I wouldn't trust them to let my husband and I make that hard choice.


I actually carry a card in my wallet that says that in case of emergency, even life threatening emergency, I refuse care at any Catholic affiliated hospital.

I'm a dude and so the whole baby thing isn't really an issue for me, but I refuse treatment at any hospital and from any medical provider who makes their medical decisions based on anything other than medicine.

That said, my primary care doctor actually is Catholic, and she's great.  Because she's, y'know, a doctor and makes her doctor decisions for doctor reasons. She's aware of my directive and my reasons for it, and is fine with it, though I suspect that if my life were at stake she'd go with the Catholic affiliated hospital if that were the only option. But she'd do that for doctor reasons.

Ah, that card is a good idea. I'd rather avoid Catholic healthcare settings for the same reason.

This and another thread on this forum reminded me of a couple of things that happened when I was still a weekly church-going, confessional-using, church music-performing Catholic (I left the church in 2012).

The first was the rather public berating I received from one of the parish ultraconservatives (a charismatic renewal type) for having the audacity to present myself in a public role while being married and childless. Apparently I was causing scandal to the young people of the parish by making them think that I was endorsing birth control, and I had thus become a topic of gossip among the charismatics. Fun fact: husband and I had been struggling with infertility for several years at that point (and still are; we haven't used any form of contraception in 17 years). It struck me that if I went against Church doctrine and committed mortal sin by becoming impregnated via IVF and just didn't tell anyone, I would never again be accused of harming young people by my poor example. I can't remember if that was before or after our former associate pastor was arrested for child sex abuse.

The second was a news article about a female Catholic school teacher who became pregnant out of wedlock and was summarily fired. Two things struck me about that case: 1, a male teacher who impregnated a woman out of wedlock would likely not have been fired, and 2) if the female teacher had aborted the pregnancy and never told anyone about it, her employers would have been none the wiser and she would have kept her job in good standing.

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6724
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #362 on: May 17, 2021, 02:01:53 PM »
Sigh. It bothers me when people criticise Catholic theology without actually knowing what it is. It is one thing to criticise Catholics, in the sense of Catholic individuals whose beliefs you disagree with. But many people who regard themselves as Catholics disagree with church teaching.

There are many matters on which good Catholics can disagree even though there is an official Church view on the matter, but there are others where the Church says "You have to believe this". The Catholic Church isn't exactly secret about what it teaches. It's not hard to find it out. It also doesn't require people to be theological experts to be faithful, because many people are not interested in dissecting the minutiae of theological and moral matters and just want to live their lives. However, every theological or moral matter on which the Church has an official position has been studied and scrutinised by some very very clever people, and the details are more nuanced than the "headlines" if you read the full article.

So "Lol, if you were really pro life as Catholics you wouldn't drive cars and kill people with air pollution!!!" is actually an issue which has been extensively addressed by Catholic moral theologians. Perhaps not air pollution directly, but the principle of what counts as immoral killing when so many of our actions have consequences which ultimately result in death.

I feel like I'm getting really off topic here, and I'm sorry, and happy to shut up about it now I've "said my piece". But I find that many many people are all about primary sources and evidence when it comes to science or medicine or social policy, and then happy to rely on third party hearsay when it comes to Catholic teaching when the primary sources of Catholic positions are very widely available for anyone who cares to look.

If anyone does want to talk about this particular dichotomy (pro-source for science, never bothers with sources for official religious teaching) I'm very happy to, but we should probably do it in another thread. Otherwise, I will gracefully retire riding this hobby horse.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18685
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #363 on: May 17, 2021, 02:25:22 PM »
I feel like I'm getting really off topic here, and I'm sorry, and happy to shut up about it now I've "said my piece". But I find that many many people are all about primary sources and evidence when it comes to science or medicine or social policy, and then happy to rely on third party hearsay when it comes to Catholic teaching when the primary sources of Catholic positions are very widely available for anyone who cares to look.

If anyone does want to talk about this particular dichotomy (pro-source for science, never bothers with sources for official religious teaching) I'm very happy to, but we should probably do it in another thread. Otherwise, I will gracefully retire riding this hobby horse.

I wasn't discussing Catholics when mentioning killing people by driving cars.  It was in response to a post about moral absolutism.  My argument was simply that it's very hard (if not impossible) to adhere to moral absolutism - cars were just an example of how indirect actions can make moral absolutism tough.

(As an aside, if Catholicism has specifically addressed the issue of killing people through using cars I'd be interested to read the reasoning if you have a link or information about it.)

shelivesthedream

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6724
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #364 on: May 17, 2021, 03:07:16 PM »
Really and truly, I don't want to derail this thread, so I'm going to reply by PM where pertinent.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15798
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #365 on: May 17, 2021, 03:30:59 PM »
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.

A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile.  The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US.  (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/).  Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.


Well, there are the Amish.  ;-)

Dang, you beat me to it!

I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:
Spoiler: show
 It was the same drug that they use for medical abortions. I had already had a miscarriage and needed the medicine to get the rest out because I was bleeding for too long afterward. I didn't get time off work for this.


Lady business reply:
Spoiler: show
That is D&C territory here, or at least was when I had my miscarriage.  And I wasn't bleeding that much.


simonsez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #366 on: May 17, 2021, 05:26:31 PM »
Really and truly, I don't want to derail this thread, so I'm going to reply by PM where pertinent.
Frankly, I was lurking and enjoying hearing about religious slants as they relate to healthcare but I understand if you don't want to contribute publicly about it.  I didn't consider your talk derailing at all FWIW.  If anything it made me curious to learn more about Catholic viewpoints.  It's an area I could use more understanding and perspective especially about individual Catholic positions on contraception/abortion/etc.

I've never thought much about hospitals or the underlying funding/mission they may have prior to this thread.  I have only been inside hospitals a single digit number of hours aside from when I was born in a hospital with "Saint" as the first word.  I never really even thought about the Catholic connection until recently.  A cursory google search tells me that only about 1 in 5 hospitals are religiously affiliated.  Based on where I live, I would've guessed the majority are religious as the only ones I can think of all are.  There was a Simpsons episode I saw recently that parodied the differing levels of hospital care after Marge had a ski lodge accident.  Jewish was the highest level, Catholic was the lowest level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1u_m_hAfjI
Relevant part at 3:52-4:02.  Like I alluded to above, I've never thought about hospitals beyond being a building where doctors and nurses heal/manage/care for their patients.  Rankings, religious missions, what care may or may not be provided/encouraged/etc. has never entered my brain - just whichever was closest in case I needed something.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #367 on: May 17, 2021, 05:35:22 PM »
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.

A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile.  The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US.  (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/).  Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.


Well, there are the Amish.  ;-)

Dang, you beat me to it!

I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:
Spoiler: show
 It was the same drug that they use for medical abortions. I had already had a miscarriage and needed the medicine to get the rest out because I was bleeding for too long afterward. I didn't get time off work for this.


Lady business reply:
Spoiler: show
That is D&C territory here, or at least was when I had my miscarriage.  And I wasn't bleeding that much.


Thanks
Spoiler: show
 I had two, no d&c either time. The first one I found out at my ultrasound and chose to wait it out. Finally it came on its own but then I bled forever afterwards and they gave me ergotamine. I lost so much blood that I was getting dizzy when I stood up. Second time I had a tiny bit of bleeding to start. I used the misoprostol because I didn't want to walk around with a dead baby for two weeks. Still had the bleeding issue and needed the ergotamine after. No time off work and nothing stronger than ibuprofen for pain.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #368 on: May 17, 2021, 05:52:33 PM »

I feel like I'm getting really off topic here, and I'm sorry, and happy to shut up about it now I've "said my piece". But I find that many many people are all about primary sources and evidence when it comes to science or medicine or social policy, and then happy to rely on third party hearsay when it comes to Catholic teaching when the primary sources of Catholic positions are very widely available for anyone who cares to look.

If anyone does want to talk about this particular dichotomy (pro-source for science, never bothers with sources for official religious teaching) I'm very happy to, but we should probably do it in another thread. Otherwise, I will gracefully retire riding this hobby horse.

That's a legitimate dichotomy, not derailing at all!

 I have a lot of respect for the Catholic church because they helped those poor refugees who were being persecuted by Trump, and they seem to really care about people and the environment too. I've met some nuns and they were just wonderful kind people. Even the Catholic hospitals provide needed care to those who could not otherwise afford it. I am pro choice but I believe the Catholic church (in modern times at least) provides a net good to society.

*My birth control was covered, I just had to go to a different pharmacy

Many "Christians" in the US don't seem to care about babies at all, once they are born, especially if the parents look different from them. Why do they want moms to go to work six weeks after having a baby, or for young people to die from treatable health conditions, or kids to be separated from their parents or locked up? I don't get it.


RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15798
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #369 on: May 17, 2021, 06:37:38 PM »
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.

A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile.  The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US.  (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/).  Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.


Well, there are the Amish.  ;-)

Dang, you beat me to it!

I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:
Spoiler: show
 It was the same drug that they use for medical abortions. I had already had a miscarriage and needed the medicine to get the rest out because I was bleeding for too long afterward. I didn't get time off work for this.


Lady business reply:
Spoiler: show
That is D&C territory here, or at least was when I had my miscarriage.  And I wasn't bleeding that much.


Thanks
Spoiler: show
 I had two, no d&c either time. The first one I found out at my ultrasound and chose to wait it out. Finally it came on its own but then I bled forever afterwards and they gave me ergotamine. I lost so much blood that I was getting dizzy when I stood up. Second time I had a tiny bit of bleeding to start. I used the misoprostol because I didn't want to walk around with a dead baby for two weeks. Still had the bleeding issue and needed the ergotamine after. No time off work and nothing stronger than ibuprofen for pain.


That is disgustingly abysmal health care.  All my sympathy.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #370 on: May 17, 2021, 07:06:40 PM »
I understand that moral relativism is the dominant culture in America, and probably most of the world. Moral absolutism - for instance that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong - seems outdated to many. The most basic Christian doctrine is to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Pretty hard to square loving others as yourself if you're willing to kill them.

A moral absolutist who believes that killing an innocent person is inherently wrong would be unable to drive an automobile.  The air pollution caused by internal combustion engines alone contributes to more than 50,000 deaths each year in the US.  (https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/).  Yet I don't see many (any?) Christians who refuse to drive on moral grounds.


Well, there are the Amish.  ;-)

Dang, you beat me to it!

I think there are different branches or factions in the Catholic church so we're not all talking about the same thing. I remember not being able to pick up a prescription where I worked once because it was a Catholic hospital. Spoiler is lady business:
Spoiler: show
 It was the same drug that they use for medical abortions. I had already had a miscarriage and needed the medicine to get the rest out because I was bleeding for too long afterward. I didn't get time off work for this.


Lady business reply:
Spoiler: show
That is D&C territory here, or at least was when I had my miscarriage.  And I wasn't bleeding that much.


Thanks
Spoiler: show
 I had two, no d&c either time. The first one I found out at my ultrasound and chose to wait it out. Finally it came on its own but then I bled forever afterwards and they gave me ergotamine. I lost so much blood that I was getting dizzy when I stood up. Second time I had a tiny bit of bleeding to start. I used the misoprostol because I didn't want to walk around with a dead baby for two weeks. Still had the bleeding issue and needed the ergotamine after. No time off work and nothing stronger than ibuprofen for pain.


That is disgustingly abysmal health care.  All my sympathy.

Thanks. I decided to start talking about it because I was getting questions about why I didn't have kids yet from coworkers and family. I didn't tell my mom about the first one until she said I was useless because I hadn't given her grandkids yet. I went to work for two weeks with a dead baby and didn't tell anyone. I was distracted, to say the least. Good ol protestant work ethic.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #371 on: May 17, 2021, 07:14:25 PM »
That's a legitimate dichotomy

Itís... a lot, honestly. As a healthcare worker and a Catholic and a many other labels, I have complicated feelings about the church but very black and white feelings about healthcare.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #372 on: May 17, 2021, 09:49:24 PM »
That's a legitimate dichotomy

Itís... a lot, honestly. As a healthcare worker and a Catholic and a many other labels, I have complicated feelings about the church but very black and white feelings about healthcare.

Mine get greyer and more complicated the longer I've been in it. I've never worked in ob/women's health though.

I do think that solving this religion issue is yet another good reason for single payer national healthcare. No more bosses dictating what healthcare you can get, or hospital managers forcing their beliefs on others.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #373 on: May 18, 2021, 04:58:17 AM »
Never done ob/wh either, but I do agree about single payer being very important. Profit should never be a factor in a personís healthcare choices, and only the person and their providers should get to participate in the decision making.

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #374 on: May 18, 2021, 07:53:09 PM »
I do think that solving this religion issue is yet another good reason for single payer national healthcare. No more bosses dictating what healthcare you can get, or hospital managers forcing their beliefs on others.

What do you mean by "solving this religion issue"? Single payer can solve a lot of issues and you don't need to ban Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anyone else from living or working in healthcare to migrate to single payer. Think about it. If you have a car problem, do you go to Gamestop? Or if your sink has a leak, do you call up Geek Squad? Of course not.

It's the same with healthcare. You can't get a knee replacement from an ENT nor would you expect to get cancer treatment from a podiatrist. Some facilities will perform abortions, others will not. Some doctors will perform abortions, others will not. Who pays is irrelevant. If a facility is rated for abortions, then it's rated for abortions. If a doctor is qualified and willing to perform abortions, then they are qualified and rated to perform abortions. Who pays for the bill is entirely separate.

You can absolutely have a single single payer health insurance system without requiring every single hospital to perform abortions and requiring every single doctor to perform abortions.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2956
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #375 on: May 18, 2021, 08:31:35 PM »
I do think that solving this religion issue is yet another good reason for single payer national healthcare. No more bosses dictating what healthcare you can get, or hospital managers forcing their beliefs on others.

What do you mean by "solving this religion issue"? Single payer can solve a lot of issues and you don't need to ban Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anyone else from living or working in healthcare to migrate to single payer. Think about it. If you have a car problem, do you go to Gamestop? Or if your sink has a leak, do you call up Geek Squad? Of course not.

It's the same with healthcare. You can't get a knee replacement from an ENT nor would you expect to get cancer treatment from a podiatrist. Some facilities will perform abortions, others will not. Some doctors will perform abortions, others will not. Who pays is irrelevant. If a facility is rated for abortions, then it's rated for abortions. If a doctor is qualified and willing to perform abortions, then they are qualified and rated to perform abortions. Who pays for the bill is entirely separate.

You can absolutely have a single single payer health insurance system without requiring every single hospital to perform abortions and requiring every single doctor to perform abortions.

Of course. I was referring to employers who refuse to cover certain things for their employees on religious grounds. Even birth control. Right now employers and insurance companies have too much control over what services a person can receive.

There is another issue of limited access to care, if all of the providers in a given location refuse to perform a certain service. The morning after pill is a good example. A while back there were issues with pharmacies refusing to carry it on religious grounds.

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #376 on: May 18, 2021, 11:16:13 PM »
Of course. I was referring to employers who refuse to cover certain things for their employees on religious grounds. Even birth control. Right now employers and insurance companies have too much control over what services a person can receive.

Gotcha. I have never worked for a company that self-insures, so I've never run into that. I've only had medical through a 3rd party health insurance company and everything is covered (to some degree) when you have such coverage. I agree with you: single payer resolves all the problems for health coverage including poor coverage from small businesses trying to save a buck on their medical expenses.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #377 on: May 19, 2021, 03:02:28 AM »
When you say 3rd party, do you mean you work at Widget Factory, inc, while the insurance comes from somewhere like Blue Cross Blue Shield? Whatís happening with some places, like maybe Widgets R Us retail store, is that they may use BCBS, too, but they have negotiated that packages available through them as an employer all specifically exclude these medications and services.