How does having to provide birth control justify shutting down hospitals?

[Linda_Marie]

No I don’t. If you had read further you would have seen that I am 100% against doing so.

Yes, but you have put the responsibility for the potential shutdown on the Catholic hospitals and institutions, rather than on the government which is trying to force them to provide services or medications contrary to our faith.

Why is it so important to the government to force Catholics to provide these things against their conscience, even if it may force the Catholic institutions to shut down, when the ‘medication’, sterilisation and abortion services are readily available elsewhere?

I submit that it is their intent to close Catholic hospitals and other institutions and take them over. It is a direct attack on the Church.

Medically speaking, imho, the pill should not be dispensed for any reason. It is a class 1 carcinogen just like asbestos.

Plus, the environmental catastrophe from all the artificial female hormones in the water is becoming apparent. Every living thing, animal or plant, is exposed to them, not just the women taking them.

NBC: Hormones in Water Turn Male Fish Into Females
youtube.com/watch?v=a1MsWUGkOFE

Hormones in the environment: how the facts were covered up

Pharmaceuticals In Our Water Supplies

Prostate Cancer May Be Linked to Birth Control Pill in Water Supply

Medical Expert Says that Contraceptive Pill is Causing Global Rise in Male Infertility

Malthus’ Mistakes

He failed to differentiate between human beings and “lower” animals, and for a clergyman, that’s particularly surprising. He noticed correctly that other species’ populations are self-limiting, but not that the human animal had such capacity for rational thought as to adapt himself to such limits and invent ways to overcome them, to change his own environment. Even Henry George grasped that: “Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens.” That ability is unique as far as I know, but any scholar of Malthus’ day could have taken a cursory look at history and notice how effective it had been. The same world had sufficed to feed a population of around 200 million in Roman times–an era with which this theologian would have been quite familiar–and about 980 million in his own day. Since food production had clearly grown by a factor of five in that period, what was to stop it continuing to increase? And had not the 18th Century in particular, in Malthus’ own neighborhood, demonstrated spectacular advances in agricultural productivity? He might be excused perhaps for failing to look back in history even further than two millennia, for at that time it was even foggier than today–but possibly, he might have reasoned that such growth must have occurred before Roman times as well as since. Had he taken his Bible literally and held that creation happened in 4,004 BC, his mathematical contemporaries at Jesus College (or if not there, along the road in Trinity) could have helped him calculate the growth rate during those four millennia as the population–and the supply of food it needed–expanded by a factor of 100 million.

Thomas Malthus failed to predict the future, but he didn’t fail to leave a following. On the contrary, his errors permeate every power center in the world.

7 Billion Reasons Malthus Was Wrong

The World Is Not Too Crowded

Luckily for us Malthus basic assumption was flawed. Advances in technology made geometric increases in food production possible. Moreover, such advances continue to be made in the form of GM foods and new farming methods which allow for more and more land to be brought under cultivation.

We currently produce enough food to feed the world 3 times over. Even if no extra advances in agricultural technology were made this means that we could feed a population of over 19 billion people, assuming as well that no extra land was brought under cultivation. Even the most pessimistic neo-malthusians do not predict this kind of population increase.

 

[Jules_Verne]

I think an even better analogy is if you sell this gun to her, well aware of her intent to use it unjustly. Would you be morally responsible in this case? I think so.

I actually think a better comparison would be knowing a priest is a child molestor and still allowing him to work with children rather than turning him into the police.

Funny how that sin is perfectly fine to commit.

I just can no longer take the Church seriously about them claiming to care about the lives of children when it was willfully complicit in ruining the lives of so many of them. Maybe if the Church had spent one millionth of the effort into protecting the most vulnerable in their flock as they do in fighting birth control and gay marriage, I’d still be Catholic.

 

[loko]

Unless you are referring to overpopulation “hysteria” as the attitude people have who think it is not a problem, you apparently didn’t understand what I meant when I said “I assume you don’t think overpopulation is a problem.” I know that being Catholic does not imply that one necessarily does not see overpopulation as a problem. But in my experience, the vast majority of Catholics do not think it is.

And I wouldn’t call it hysteria. Its a simple recognition of some basic math with respect to natural resources; especially the limited ones like rare earth metals and fossil fuels. Sure some people freak out about it, but realizing that overpopulation could become a big problem does not make you necessarily hysterical.

There is no danger of over-population. That is a myth being peddled around for various reasons.

The earth has abundant food and water resource however, it is** unevenly distributed**. Why? Most rich countries are too selfish. We have had 13million Sudanese die in the last 2years and it doesn’t make much of a blip on the news radar. I sometimes wonder if the world would react differently if they were white people starving to death.

 

[thewanderer]

I actually think a better comparison would be knowing a priest is a child molestor and still allowing him to work with children rather than turning him into the police.

Funny how that sin is perfectly fine to commit.

I just can no longer take the Church seriously about them claiming to care about the lives of children when it was willfully complicit in ruining the lives of so many of them. Maybe if the Church had spent one millionth of the effort into protecting the most vulnerable in their flock as they do in fighting birth control and gay marriage, I’d still be Catholic.

I’m sorry that this has led you away from the Church. Yes, horrendous things have happened because of Catholics failing to live up to the standards the Church gives them to follow. And every good Catholic must necessarily be appalled by such occurrences.

 

[ricofall]

I actually think a better comparison would be knowing a priest is a child molestor and still allowing him to work with children rather than turning him into the police.

Funny how that sin is perfectly fine to commit.

I just can no longer take the Church seriously about them claiming to care about the lives of children when it was willfully complicit in ruining the lives of so many of them. Maybe if the Church had spent one millionth of the effort into protecting the most vulnerable in their flock as they do in fighting birth control and gay marriage, I’d still be Catholic.

Wow, I see that you joined today and your post are all very negative. Such hatred, or is it hurt. People in the Church are guilty of crimes, that I will not defend. However, why hijack threads to talk about it. Instead, start your own thread.

I think it is interesting that people view the Church as a Monolithic entity. If a group of people commit crimes and sins, than the entire organization should be shut down, from top to bottom. However, when school teachers do the same, it is isolated to that school, and the system still continues. (Source). However, that would be for a different thread. My apology to the OP

 

[jmvizanko]

There is no danger of over-population. That is a myth being peddled around for various reasons.

The earth has abundant food and water resource however, it is** unevenly distributed**. Why? Most rich countries are too selfish. We have had 13million Sudanese die in the last 2years and it doesn’t make much of a blip on the news radar. I sometimes wonder if the world would react differently if they were white people starving to death.

You do know that we use lots of other resourcees than water and food, right? We need so many varied resources to produce things like computers, cars, airplanes, medical equipment, etc… And as we exhaust the easy to reach sources of many of these resources, we will have to get them from harder to access locations, which will be more expensive. Even if we can support 20 billion people with food, why would we want to if it means a computer or a cat scan becomes a luxury item for only the super rich? Why should we sacrifice our quality of life (in the materialistic (and not in the selfish sense of the word materialistic) sense of the phrase) so that we can just keep cramming more people onto the planet?

 

[Dymphna82]

And also not to mention the fact that 1)the percentage of “accused” priests is around the average percentage of pedophiles in the entire U.S. So, it’s not as if the Catholic Church has anymore pedophiles than any other part of our society. 2)if anyone goes to confession, the Church cannot force them to turn themselves in, or use the confession to turn them in.

Everything else is really the Church’s business. Beyond that, false pride because you feel the Church is inferior, isn’t going to save you come judgment day. So, something for you to workout, Jules.

On topic.
This bothers me too. I feel awful that so many are going to lose out in medical care because women(and their pushy mates) feel it so necessary to take birth control and have abortions. And rather than their side taking a step back and doing the right thing, they just take another step forward to push, and push, and push the church to go against its beliefs.

Yes, it is necessary to say no to the government in regards to this. Despite what the government thinks…the President is not God. We owe the gov. taxes, not dead babies.

 

[jmvizanko]

Yes, but you have put the responsibility for the potential shutdown on the Catholic hospitals and institutions, rather than on the government which is trying to force them to provide services or medications contrary to our faith.

Why is it so important to the government to force Catholics to provide these things against their conscience, even if it may force the Catholic institutions to shut down, when the ‘medication’, sterilisation and abortion services are readily available elsewhere?

I submit that it is their intent to close Catholic hospitals and other institutions and take them over. It is a direct attack on the Church.

No, I put the responsibilty first on the government, and then secondarily on the hospital. And I have no moral objection whatsoever to a Catholic hospital who treats only Catholics shutting down over this. But unless they find somebody to buy out the hospital, all the people that get treated there that do not share the same ideology are out of luck because of that ideology.

And why do you think I think it is important to force this? Once again, I am firmly against forcing this.

And I don’t think the idea is taking over Catholic hospitals. I think its just more that the current administration is expressing the mentality of “I don’t care if you disagree with me because I am right.”

 

[jmvizanko]

I feel awful that so many are going to lose out in medical care because women(and their pushy mates) feel it so necessary to take birth control and have abortions.

You can’t blame people that take birth control for this until you prove that they actually support this. People have good reasons (such as it being multitudes more effective than NFP without being limiting, not wanting to have more than a certain number of children, and the simple fact that they just don’t consider it evil at all, let alone murderous) for taking BC. You might not agree with any of those reasons, but to them your objections are unfounded. But that doesn’t mean they don’t care about the rights of Catholics and the Catholic Church.

 

[PatriceA]

You can’t blame people that take birth control for this until you prove that they actually support this. People have good (not in your opinion, but in theirs) reasons for taking BC. And that doesn’t mean they don’t care about the rights of Catholics and the Catholic Church.

Actually it does mean they don’t care about the Catholic Church. To disregard the teachings of the Church as a Catholic and put their own reasons for taking ABC above this very fundamental teaching of the faith is exactly not caring at all about the Catholic Church. People can rationalize taking ABC all they want, but its still blatant disregard for the Church’'s teachings prohibiting ABC if they are purposely taking it for birth control and then having an abortion when their birth control fails. People taking ABC for reasons other than birth control are still instructed to abstain from sexual relations while taking the pill. They can not get a “two fer” by taking the pill for acne or some other medical reason and also taking advantage of the actual affect of the pill’s prevention of the pregnancy.

 

[Neildown]

Birth control, including sterilization, is necessary to prevent overpopulation. Unless you think a man and wife are just supposed to stop having sex at some point.

Of course, I am assuming (correct me if I’m wrong) that you think there is no basis for overpopulation being a problem.

Neither birth control nor sterilization are necessary when one can simply control his or her passions.

Married couples are supposed to produce offspring, yes, but the number of offspring is not specified as far as I know - so a couple, in the case that overpopulation were an immediately serious factor, could produce one or two offspring and be content with that - though at this point there is still plenty of space left in America. People just need to exercise a bit of self control,* especially* those outside of marriage who are not ready to have children in the first place.

Marriage was instituted for the purpose of raising children - which means people who aren’t married shouldn’t be having children. Marriage isn’t sacred just because God said so - it has a relevant purpose, but it isn’t going to work due to the way many Americans conduct themselves these days.

 

[sw85]

I can respect that Catholics have their stance on birth control,even if I don’t agree with it. But when I hear somebody say “it would be a shame if we had to shut all of these hospitals down because of it,” I have to ask, how is that not insane? Are you honestly trying to tell me that having to dispense a few pills is worth not performing millions of miracles of modern medicine in the applicable facilities? I completely disagree with the political reasons why the hospitals should have to dispense birth control, but how is this an appropriate response? I mean, if its only a threat to get what they want with the politics, so be it. But does anybody actually condone shutting down a hospital over this?

Your lack of comprehension stems from your subscription to consequentialism, which is naturally going to be a barrier to you understanding anything Catholics do.

You’re asking why I think the sky is blue when it’s obviouslyt black. You think it’s black because you’re wearing a blindfold. Take the blindfold off and you will understanding why I think the sky is blue.

A good place to begin removing the blindfold would be reading Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition.

 

[loko]

You do know that we use lots of other resourcees than water and food, right? We need so many varied resources to produce things like computers, cars, airplanes, medical equipment, etc… And as we exhaust the easy to reach sources of many of these resources, we will have to get them from harder to access locations, which will be more expensive. Even if we can support 20 billion people with food, why would we want to if it means a computer or a cat scan becomes a luxury item for only the super rich? Why should we sacrifice our quality of life (in the materialistic (and not in the selfish sense of the word materialistic) sense of the phrase) so that we can just keep cramming more people onto the planet?

These other ‘resources’ you speak of are not necessities. These are wants. A human being can and does live a happy life without computers or cars or aeroplanes.
The majority of the world’s population (China, India & Africa) lives without computers, cars or aeroplanes, that is a fact.

Basic needs such as food, clothing and roof over their heads, a basic education are what I am talking about. Many Westerners confuse ‘needs’ with ‘wants’. Their ‘wants’ which are usually material such as TV’s, computers etc have become so ingrained in their psyche that they actually believe it is a ‘need’. It is not a need, people do not die because they don’t have a TV or a car. People die needlessly because they haven’t eaten for weeks or because they have no home and have been exposed to elements.

People do not need to sacrifice their wants to feed the starving. In most cases people only need to donate a few dollars or a cow or a water pump. It costs $20 to donate a cow to a n African village, this one cow will feed them for years. For some reason the wealthier countries including mine, are reluctant to do so. Yet they will spend millions sometimes trillions of taxpayers money to fund defence programs.

 

[jmvizanko]

Actually it does mean they don’t care about the Catholic Church. To disregard the teachings of the Church as a Catholic and put their own reasons for taking ABC above this very fundamental teaching of the faith is exactly not caring at all about the Catholic Church. People can rationalize taking ABC all they want, but its still blatant disregard for the Church’'s teachings prohibiting ABC if they are purposely taking it for birth control and then having an abortion when their birth control fails. People taking ABC for reasons other than birth control are still instructed to abstain from sexual relations while taking the pill. They can not get a “two fer” by taking the pill for acne or some other medical reason and also taking advantage of the actual affect of the pill’s prevention of the pregnancy.

I never said they care about the teachings of the church. I said they care about the religious rights of the church. People, such as myself, simply think that the church is completely wrong about birth control. But I also think the church should be able to have its opinion, and not be forced to act against it.

 

[jmvizanko]

Your lack of comprehension stems from your subscription to consequentialism, which is naturally going to be a barrier to you understanding anything Catholics do.

You’re asking why I think the sky is blue when it’s obviouslyt black. You think it’s black because you’re wearing a blindfold. Take the blindfold off and you will understanding why I think the sky is blue.

A good place to begin removing the blindfold would be reading Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition.

I could say the same thing right back at you. Take off the blindfold of adherence to whatever the church teaches, even if it doesn’t even come from or have any basis in the bible, and you’ll see the issue like I do.

Of course I wouldn’t say that to you, because I can respect that you have a vastly different worldview. Thanks for thinking mine is rooted in ignorance, and not deeply thought out philosophical thoughts and arguments.

 

[jmvizanko]

These other ‘resources’ you speak of are not necessities. These are wants. A human being can and does live a happy life without computers or cars or aeroplanes.
The majority of the world’s population (China, India & Africa) lives without computers, cars or aeroplanes, that is a fact.

Basic needs such as food, clothing and roof over their heads, a basic education are what I am talking about. Many Westerners confuse ‘needs’ with ‘wants’. Their ‘wants’ which are usually material such as TV’s, computers etc have become so ingrained in their psyche that they actually believe it is a ‘need’. It is not a need, people do not die because they don’t have a TV or a car. People die needlessly because they haven’t eaten for weeks or because they have no home and have been exposed to elements.

People do not need to sacrifice their wants to feed the starving. In most cases people only need to donate a few dollars or a cow or a water pump. It costs $20 to donate a cow to a n African village, this one cow will feed them for years. For some reason the wealthier countries including mine, are reluctant to do so. Yet they will spend millions sometimes trillions of taxpayers money to fund defence programs.

So your entire argument is that its best to have as many people as we can possibly support, all unable to do anything but eat and live, because everything else is not worth having less people. No computers, no internet, no airplanes, no space exploration, just lets go back to the time of cavemen. I understand that many of the things those resources are needed for are luxury items, and some ridiculously so. But do you think computers and medical equipment are? Why is your default position that more people equals better no matter what, even in the presence of a simple statement of why it is not?

 

[loko]

So your entire argument is that its best to have as many people as we can possibly support, all unable to do anything but eat and live, because everything else is not worth having less people. No computers, no internet, no airplanes, no space exploration, just lets go back to the time of cavemen. I understand that many of the things those resources are needed for are luxury items, and some ridiculously so. But do you think computers and medical equipment are? Why is your default position that more people equals better no matter what, even in the presence of a simple statement of why it is not?

No that is the argument that you say is mine. Read my posts fully. You will not see anywhere where I have said give up your wants, that is the argument that you want to impose on me.

Nowhere have I said more people equals better no matter what. That is what you would want to believe I have said.

I believe all human life is sacred. I believe if the richer countries share their wealth, we would be better off.

You are the one claiming that an automatic outcome of sharing your wealth means that you would have to do without computers or cars which is ridiculous. That is an irrational viewpoint.

 

[Ana_v]

First of all, it isn’t merely “dispensing a few pills”.** It’s that the pills we’re talking about result in the death of a human being ** [emphasis mine] and, by dispensing them, Catholics believe (as do most of us Protestants) that this would make them complicit in that death.

From what I have read, it is theoretically possible for “emergency contraception” to prevent implantation of a newly conceived life, but has not been experimentally verified to do that, and that the reason consumers are informed of this possibility is so that providers can save their behinds from otherwise getting into trouble , which could happen if they withheld this information and a woman were to experience a post-conception effect that she did not consent to risking, when she decided to use the drug.

I don’t say this to justify the mandate – by no means. I offer it as a nuance that I think is wise to include in one’s discussion of the mandate and its implications, because on the internet I’ve seen pro-lifer’s labled as “liars” for claiming that mandate requires coverage of abortifacient drugs.

For this reason, when I wrote a letter to my legislators criticizing the mandate, I described it as
obliging “a wide number of religious institutions to provide for health insurance coverage of counter-reproductive services and products (sterilization, contraceptives, and capably-abortive drugs …” (emphasis added here).

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)