Obama Health Care Bill would force Catholic Institutions to Violate their Beliefs

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1329247994' post='1095969']

Government has certain legitimate roles. Protecting the innocent is one of them. Being a "nanny state" is not.
II Thessalonians 3:10 says If a man will not work he shall not eat.

I have no problem with "helping the poor". I'm all for the concept of a "safety net". I have a problem when the "safety net" becomes a hammock and government reliance becomes a lifestyle.

[b]And what does that have to do with the government interfering in the religious beliefs of the Catholic church?[/b]
[/quote]

I don't even want to start on the top part, because that's just right wing talking points, that have become a lot more prevalent since there is one of "them" in the White House. As far as the catholic church is concerned, however, none of the institutions involved are simply on a "Catholic Mission". They have non-catholics attending their schools, and going to their hospitals, and a portion of their employees are not catholic either. Plus, they do accept federal funding. Once you do that, it's not beliefs, it's labor law. You should not be allowed to cover perscription drugs for one type of people, without allowing others to have their drugs covered as well, even if some of those drugs may have effects that you don't like. Nobody is saying that you've gotta take birth control, but if you're going to cover Viagra you should cover birth control.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1329228143' post='1095892']


Without a doubt I am.

One only has to look at this verse...

Matthew 19:21 - [color=#001320][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."[/font][/color]
[/quote]

That is fiscal conservatism... You are talking about possessions and money. I am talking about nuclear familes and abortion. How much more clear do I have to make it?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1329269620' post='1096022']

That is fiscal conservatism... You are talking about possessions and money. I am talking about nuclear familes and abortion. How much more clear do I have to make it?
[/quote]


I know what the conventional narrow definition of it is, I am saying its narrow minded, life issues go further than if a child is born or not.

If your going to be pro-life then you should be pro-life from the womb to the tomb, otherwise what you are is not pro-life, what you are is pro-birth.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1329271955' post='1096024']


I know what the conventional narrow definition of it is, I am saying its narrow minded, life issues go further than if a child is born or not.

[b]If your going to be pro-life then you should be pro-life from the womb to the tomb, otherwise what you are is not pro-life, what you are is pro-birth.[/b]
[/quote]

Lawyerd...

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1328822789' post='1094966']
There is 0 chance Jesus would be a republican.[/quote]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1328844976' post='1095044']
And no, Jesus could never be a Republican. [/quote]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1329160643' post='1095721']
Jesus would not have been into politics. He was here to change the world on a person by person basis.

But He also knew the difference between government redistribution of wealth and true charity. He would also be pro-life.[/quote]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1329183427' post='1095824']
I agree with Jason though, he would not be in politics.
He would most certainly be a social conservative on most things, though. He'd be pro life, pro marriage, anti gay marriage, Anyone that will assume differently, I'd love to hear your rebuttal.
[/quote]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1329189985' post='1095840']
I'm not quite sure you're right about my Jesus. I don't think my Jesus would want to penalize a woman for being human and making a mistake or being taken advantage of. I also think he would be a lot more pro life on people after they were born, as opposed to just while they are in the womb. I do believe he would be pro marriage even though most people aren't, considering we have about a 50% divorce rate. And I don't think he would consider "Gay" a problem like social conservatives do. Sin is sin, so whether it's
[/quote]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1329225517' post='1095880']
So you think he would applaud or even ignore someone that decides to take life in their own hands, play God, and end their pregnancy early? I think he would call that murder.
[/quote]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1329225607' post='1095881']
I am not judging, nor would Jesus... But he would not approve or be an advocate which is what being in politics would have to entale.[/quote]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1329225968' post='1095883']
But on this topic, no chance Jesus is in politics but if he were, he'd be a social conservative like I said, based on his teachings and the Bible.

You want me to go further I will, he would be a liberal when it comes to poverty and social programs, no question. But it wouldn't be that black and white. Jesus wasn't political... he was after your hearts not your minds. He will give you all the blessings in the world if you have faith in him and ask for them.[/quote]

[quote name='The PatternMaster' timestamp='1329233696' post='1095919']
Jesus knew that all of our stuff keeps us distracted from focusing on him, the more stuff you have the easier it is to put your faith and trust in those things than in him.[/quote]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1329241163' post='1095948']
Yep. You can not have two masters as he said.
[/quote]

10 attempts at discerning what a borderline fictitious character who lived 2000 years ago would think about real issues that plague our society today based only off second and third hand accounts that were written after 40 years he died by people he never knew. Are we really not concerned with Odysseus' thoughts on when human life begins? I'm sure Shakespeare gave us some real insight into Julius Caesar 's beliefs on marriage, perhaps we should consult that tragedy?

This is just simple message board chit-chat but its a microcosm of the flaws that weigh down the real debates surrounding when life begins or what defines marriage. In one hand you have mountains of scientific and socioeconomic data: Data that maps out the prenatal development of the respiratory system or nervous system and makes it pretty clear how long an embryo needs before it can survive as an individual. Data on the rapidly increasing divorce rates which indirectly show how much American's are really concerned with sanctity of marriage. Data that indicate without question that youths are experimenting sexually younger and more often. Data that begs to be taken seriously.

And on the other hand we have advice from 2000 years ago. Advice given by people who could never imagine that we could bounce sound waves off a woman's abdomen and render an image of an 8 week old fetus in milliseconds or karyotype or perform an amniocentesis on a fetus and determine birth defects months before they are born. Advice given by goat-herders who couldn't have imagined the ease with which people can prevent unwanted pregnancies today. We've already answered questions that 2000 year-old societies never even got to ask. We need to stop asking what their opinions are on every matter. To say the answers are already given in scripture is to make a mockery of countless fields of research.

If there was a passage somewhere in the gospel of Mark where Jesus said "the soul enters the fetus after the 4th month of pregnancy"...would there be any Christians left in the world who were outraged by a week 9 abortion? How much time/money/effort/emotion/hate could have been saved in this world with the recording of one line of text? How much scientific research would it take to have the same effect as that theoretical phrase? Frankly I don't think there is enough research in the world that could have that effect and its a fucking shame.

They say those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it...what about those whose sole purpose is maintaining past standards?

Gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, the right to medically accurate sex education and contraception, these are real human rights issues with real consequences. There is real experimental and observational data readily available for people who understand that these problems were not solved 2000 years ago in the desert and want to have their opinion taken seriously. For the rest of you, go on clinging to your fabricated notions of "the good ole days." Progress will win and your antiquated, distorted view of reality will cripple you. The modern world moves to the beat of real knowledge and you suffer as a slave to "revealed knowledge." And just like the last of the civil war vets, or those that campaigned against woman's suffrage you will die, wrought with misery over the state of the world while your grandchildren reap the benefits of those who fought ideology in the name of progress.

[Jamie_B]

I'm not sure what any of that rant has to do with anything?

Who is opposed to looking at data? I'm certainly not, I would think you'd know that by now.

The topic at hand is about the rights of the faithful, unless your wholly opposed to them having rights.

[Squirrlnutz]

It was mostly rant and I never singled out anyone in particular.

The between the lines message was that your "right" to practice religious freedom is trumped when said practice infringes upon larger scale human rights. The crux of most of these issues is beyond any idiot's "right to believe" gay's will burn in hell or that the soul enters the body at conception. Its about other's "rights" to happiness or "rights" to control over their own body and they are better solved by means which do not include the scripture of the faithful.

[|Elflocko|]

That was one high quality rant right there!

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329336371' post='1096205']




















10 attempts at discerning what a borderline fictitious character who lived 2000 years ago would think about real issues that plague our society today based only off second and third hand accounts that were written after 40 years he died by people he never knew. Are we really not concerned with Odysseus' thoughts on when human life begins? I'm sure Shakespeare gave us some real insight into Julius Caesar 's beliefs on marriage, perhaps we should consult that tragedy?

This is just simple message board chit-chat but its a microcosm of the flaws that weigh down the real debates surrounding when life begins or what defines marriage. In one hand you have mountains of scientific and socioeconomic data: Data that maps out the prenatal development of the respiratory system or nervous system and makes it pretty clear how long an embryo needs before it can survive as an individual. Data on the rapidly increasing divorce rates which indirectly show how much American's are really concerned with sanctity of marriage. Data that indicate without question that youths are experimenting sexually younger and more often. Data that begs to be taken seriously.

And on the other hand we have advice from 2000 years ago. Advice given by people who could never imagine that we could bounce sound waves off a woman's abdomen and render an image of an 8 week old fetus in milliseconds or karyotype or perform an amniocentesis on a fetus and determine birth defects months before they are born. Advice given by goat-herders who couldn't have imagined the ease with which people can prevent unwanted pregnancies today. We've already answered questions that 2000 year-old societies never even got to ask. We need to stop asking what their opinions are on every matter. To say the answers are already given in scripture is to make a mockery of countless fields of research.

If there was a passage somewhere in the gospel of Mark where Jesus said "the soul enters the fetus after the 4th month of pregnancy"...would there be any Christians left in the world who were outraged by a week 9 abortion? How much time/money/effort/emotion/hate could have been saved in this world with the recording of one line of text? How much scientific research would it take to have the same effect as that theoretical phrase? Frankly I don't think there is enough research in the world that could have that effect and its a fucking shame.

They say those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it...what about those whose sole purpose is maintaining past standards?

Gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, the right to medically accurate sex education and contraception, these are real human rights issues with real consequences. There is real experimental and observational data readily available for people who understand that these problems were not solved 2000 years ago in the desert and want to have their opinion taken seriously. For the rest of you, go on clinging to your fabricated notions of "the good ole days." Progress will win and your antiquated, distorted view of reality will cripple you. The modern world moves to the beat of real knowledge and you suffer as a slave to "revealed knowledge." And just like the last of the civil war vets, or those that campaigned against woman's suffrage you will die, wrought with misery over the state of the world while your grandchildren reap the benefits of those who fought ideology in the name of progress.
[/quote]

[T-Dub]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1329349482' post='1096259']
That was one high quality rant right there!
[/quote]

2nd that

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329342299' post='1096233']
It was mostly rant and I never singled out anyone in particular.

The between the lines message was that your "right" to practice religious freedom is trumped when said practice infringes upon larger scale human rights. The crux of most of these issues is beyond any idiot's "right to believe" gay's will burn in hell or that the soul enters the body at conception. Its about other's "rights" to happiness or "rights" to control over their own body and they are better solved by means which do not include the scripture of the faithful.
[/quote]


I could care less if gays get married, it doesnt affect me or my faith at all, and think the whole sanctity of marriage thing is pretty absurd.

However I do have to draw the line at taking my tax dollars and using them to fund abortion. At than point you are stepping on my rights as well.

[T-Dub]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1329396068' post='1096347']
However I do have to draw the line at taking my tax dollars and using them to fund abortion. At than point you are stepping on my rights as well.
[/quote]

If it's just a question of where your taxes go, it's a helluva lot cheaper to abort them than to feed, clothe, and educate them instead.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1329399339' post='1096362']

If it's just a question of where your taxes go, it's a helluva lot cheaper to abort them than to feed, clothe, and educate them instead.
[/quote]


It is a question of where my taxes go, but thats more values than being concern about the cost savings of what I view as murder, in fact its troubling to me that anyone would view it as a matter of saving money. (Understand that I am so NOT a fiscal conservative.)

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1329396068' post='1096347']


I could care less if gays get married, it doesnt affect me or my faith at all, and think the whole sanctity of marriage thing is pretty absurd.

[b]However I do have to draw the line at taking my tax dollars and using them to fund abortion. At than point you are stepping on my rights as well.[/b]
[/quote]

I don't necessarily agree with you. I understand why you feel your rights are being trampked, but I just don't see any evidence that a fetus is human before the age of viability so as far as I'm concerned there is no leg to stand on. But compromise is a good thing and I'm pretty sure that more often than not, tax money is not used to fund abortions and where it is, corrective action should be taken. Unfortunately I also think that this becomes a rallying cry whenever there is an issue regarding birth control and it just detracts from real progress on the matter.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329400781' post='1096367']

I don't necessarily agree with you. I understand why you feel your rights are being trampked, [b]but I just don't see any evidence that a fetus is human before the age of viability so as far as I'm concerned there is no leg to stand on.[/b] But compromise is a good thing and I'm pretty sure that more often than not, tax money is not used to fund abortions and where it is, corrective action should be taken. Unfortunately I also think that this becomes a rallying cry whenever there is an issue regarding birth control and it just detracts from real progress on the matter.
[/quote]

do they not have sonograms in your area of the country?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329400781' post='1096367']

I don't necessarily agree with you. I understand why you feel your rights are being trampked, but I just don't see any evidence that a fetus is human before the age of viability so as far as I'm concerned there is no leg to stand on. But compromise is a good thing and I'm pretty sure that more often than not, tax money is not used to fund abortions and where it is, corrective action should be taken. Unfortunately I also think that this becomes a rallying cry whenever there is an issue regarding birth control and it just detracts from real progress on the matter.
[/quote]


Well I'm not Catholic, so for me I dont care much about the birth control issue, and as DC pointed out earlier even the Pope is coming around on that so....

[|Bunghole|]

I hate the Catholic (or any other religion/church) stance on birth control. Notice I did not say abortion. I am talking about preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD's. The practical heart of the matter is that people are people, and they are going to fuck no matter what anyone says. I mean c'mon, we have a hair pill and a boner pill before we have a cure for cancer! Its hardwired into our animalistic nature to have sex.

Would the same religions that oppose contraceptives also like to fire all the health inspectors and protect against salmonella and e coli by saying grace?

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1329400978' post='1096368']
do they not have sonograms in your area of the country?
[/quote]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329336371' post='1096205']
people who could never imagine that we could bounce sound waves off a woman's abdomen and render an image of an 8 week old fetus in milliseconds
[/quote]

Nope, never heard of that before?

I just don't believe having little arms and legs and a head makes you human if you haven't the machinery to breathe, think, or feel. I don't accept dualism. What reason is there to believe a non-material soul inhabits every mind/body? The mind and body behave exactly as one would expect if there were nothing more than material processes happening. If the brain and the rest of the nervous system are not developed there is no good reason to believe suffering happens and thus nothing wrong with flushing a mass of tissue out of your body.

I believe if one is going to claim superiority when it comes to the rights of ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY on behalf of yet another person's body, they need to bring more evidence to the table that the baby is human than the idea that life starts at conception because of god and/or a soul.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329411029' post='1096409']



Nope, never heard of that before?

I just don't believe having little arms and legs and a head makes you human if you haven't the machinery to breathe, think, or feel. I don't accept dualism. What reason is there to believe a non-material soul inhabits every mind/body? The mind and body behave exactly as one would expect if there were nothing more than material processes happening. If the brain and the rest of the nervous system are not developed there is no good reason to believe suffering happens and thus nothing wrong with flushing a mass of tissue out of your body.

I believe if one is going to claim superiority when it comes to the rights of ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY on behalf of yet another person's body, they need to bring more evidence to the table that the baby is human than the idea that life starts at conception because of god and/or a soul.
[/quote]


out of curiousity, are you a fan of necrophilia? There's no soul there, so I doubt it can be classified as rape, or anything illegal then. Brain and nervous system no longer functioning. It'd be like screwing a cardboard box under your definition.

And the "superiority" comment is a little disengenious. That's not what the argument is.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329411029' post='1096409']



Nope, never heard of that before?

I just don't believe having little arms and legs and a head makes you human if you haven't the machinery to breathe, think, or feel. I don't accept dualism. What reason is there to believe a non-material soul inhabits every mind/body? The mind and body behave exactly as one would expect if there were nothing more than material processes happening. If the brain and the rest of the nervous system are not developed there is no good reason to believe suffering happens and thus nothing wrong with flushing a mass of tissue out of your body.

I believe if one is going to claim superiority when it comes to the rights of ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY on behalf of yet another person's body, they need to bring more evidence to the table that the baby is human than the idea that life starts at conception because of god and/or a soul.
[/quote]


Perhaps I'm not following your train of thought here, but as an atheist I didnt think you believed in the idea of a soul?

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1329411466' post='1096413']


out of curiousity, are you a fan of necrophilia? There's no soul there, so I doubt it can be classified as rape, or anything illegal then. Brain and nervous system no longer functioning. It'd be like screwing a cardboard box under your definition.

And the "superiority" comment is a little disengenious. That's not what the argument is.
[/quote]

My only concerns with dead bodies are biohazard related. We should not promote keeping bodies around for fun stuff because its hazardous to other people's health. I guess if you're asking how they should be treated legally I suppose I would consider them property of the family/spouse. As far as do I think Granny is suffering if grandpa has some more sexy time after he finds her chilled to a cool 72 degrees when he wakes up...nope.

I don't think superiority is disingenuous at all. A person who tells another woman that she no longer has legal control over her own body is definitely claiming to have superior knowledge of when life begins.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1329412007' post='1096415']


Perhaps I'm not following your train of thought here, but as an atheist I didnt think you believed in the idea of a soul?
[/quote]

Definitely don't believe...not sure where I confused you?

[quote]I don't accept dualism. What reason is there to believe a non-material soul inhabits every mind/body? The mind and body behave exactly as one would expect if there were nothing more than material processes happening.[/quote]

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329412225' post='1096417']

My only concerns with dead bodies are biohazard related. We should not promote keeping bodies around for fun stuff because its hazardous to other people's health. I guess if you're asking how they should be treated legally I suppose I would consider them property of the family/spouse. As far as do I think Granny is suffering if grandpa has some more sexy time after he finds her chilled to a cool 72 degrees when he wakes up...nope.

[b]I don't think superiority is disingenuous at all. A person who tells another woman that she no longer has legal control over her own body is definitely claiming to have superior knowledge of when life begins.[/b]
[/quote]

only because that's how you choose to spin it. It's not about the woman's body at all, but rather what's growing in it.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1329412373' post='1096419']

only because that's how you choose to spin it. It's not about the woman's body at all, but rather what's growing in it.
[/quote]

And there in lies the disconnect. To outlaw abortion is to shift legal authority over a women's body from her to her fetus. The fetus' right to nutrition and care would be legally more important than a woman's right to maintain her own body. That is pretty unprecedented in the legal system. What law could I possibly break that would give you the right to my liver? That would force me to treat my liver as only you would have it treated?

So if you are to do this you better damn well be sure there is a good reason to value one human over another...and that starts with determining what is human. That is a medical question.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1329412972' post='1096420']

And there in lies the disconnect. To outlaw abortion is to shift legal authority over a women's body from her to her fetus. The fetus' right to nutrition and care would be legally more important than a woman's right to maintain her own body. That is pretty unprecedented in the legal system. What law could I possibly break that would give you the right to my liver? That would force me to treat my liver as only you would have it treated?

So if you are to do this you better damn well be sure there is a good reason to value one human over another...and that starts with determining what is human. That is a medical question.
[/quote]


a woman risked that right the second she chose to have sex (pregnancy by rape is a whole other discussion). If she chooses to have sex, she chooses to accept the possibility that she could conceive a child.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1329414737' post='1096433']


a woman risked that right the second she chose to have sex (pregnancy by rape is a whole other discussion). If she chooses to have sex, she chooses to accept the possibility that she could conceive a child.
[/quote]

Sex is not a sin, it is a primal a human instinct. We need to stop treating sex as if its something to be scared of. There are plenty of methods by which people can enjoy sex without risking pregnancy. Those who stand in the way of abortion typically stand in the way of educating the masses about these methods as well as create barriers to proper contraception for those most likely to end up pregnant. And then there are people who are well aware of all this, take precautions to avoid pregnancy and still end up pregnant.

The Christian notion of sin is constantly clouding the issue.