T
TradCath001
Guest
Can someone help me come up with an appropriate response to someone who is very anti-Catholic? I quoted this statement from Fr. Harrison and below is what the response was. It seems obvious to me, but I wan to really make the point clear this time.
"Moreover, pregnancy is not a disease or injury that needs to be insured against as part of “health care”. It is a healthy condition resulting from freely chosen behavior, and preventing it is equally elective. Therefore, even if the preventive procedures in question were all morally legitimate and nobody had any conscientious objection to them, it would still by no means follow that employers and college administrators could justly be required to finance their employees’ and students’ use of these procedures. If that were the case, the same employers and administrators could logically be required to pay not just for their employees’ and students’ birth control, but also for their beer, gasoline, health foods, cigarettes, vacation travel . . . and what else? The list would be endless.
"I disagree, completely. This implies that all pregnancy can be prevented by just the woman choosing abstinence and that there are no health risks with it, as if it were genital herpes. You can live a long, healthy life with untreated herpes virus, but without medical intervention in pregnancy, there is an unacceptable level of risk that the mother or child will die.
Also, we expect insurances to pay for addiction recovery services and for injuries and illness sustained in travel, so i don’t see how “logically” anyone would be required they pay for something like beer, gas, cigarettes, travel, unsubstantiated food claims or anything that will contribute to the health risk. That’s not really logic there, it’s a talking point."
"Moreover, pregnancy is not a disease or injury that needs to be insured against as part of “health care”. It is a healthy condition resulting from freely chosen behavior, and preventing it is equally elective. Therefore, even if the preventive procedures in question were all morally legitimate and nobody had any conscientious objection to them, it would still by no means follow that employers and college administrators could justly be required to finance their employees’ and students’ use of these procedures. If that were the case, the same employers and administrators could logically be required to pay not just for their employees’ and students’ birth control, but also for their beer, gasoline, health foods, cigarettes, vacation travel . . . and what else? The list would be endless.
"I disagree, completely. This implies that all pregnancy can be prevented by just the woman choosing abstinence and that there are no health risks with it, as if it were genital herpes. You can live a long, healthy life with untreated herpes virus, but without medical intervention in pregnancy, there is an unacceptable level of risk that the mother or child will die.
Also, we expect insurances to pay for addiction recovery services and for injuries and illness sustained in travel, so i don’t see how “logically” anyone would be required they pay for something like beer, gas, cigarettes, travel, unsubstantiated food claims or anything that will contribute to the health risk. That’s not really logic there, it’s a talking point."