(no subject)

[conuly]

"Even if I am not protected by the law, a fertilized egg is an innocent life," Mosher said in a phone interview. "If the law says that I have to dispense birth control, and that means taking an innocent life, they can take their license and shove it. Birth control is against what is written in the Bible."

No, it's not. God never came down and said "condoms are bad". There's a few passages I've seen which may indicate that birth control is a Bad Thing... or they may not. Barring an exact statement (such as "eating pork is bad, thank you"), everything is up to interpretation. And the tragedy is, you don't know if you're interpreting correctly, or if you're really just putting words in God's mouth.

If you really truly believe that birth control is sinful, get another job. I don't work as a stripper because I'd be uncomfortable doing that. When I finally answered that call from the recruiter, I said I couldn't join the army because I'm a pacifist, I did NOT accept the line that "not all jobs in the army require fighting" because the point of an army is to kill others, and I want no part of that. I'm not about to sign up and then say, after the fact, "Oh, no, I'm not okay with this part of the job". Not gonna happen.

And if you really, truly, believe it's your job to stop teh evul!!!111, do some research and find out how to persuade people. If you're right, you shouldn't have to resort to brute tactics like sending people on wild goose chases.

Comments

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

So, you expect the Bible to be explicit on every little thing? Is it supposed to say, for example, that "sniffing cocaine is bad," or "Human cloning is bad," or "driving drunk is bad"? Don't you think that's just a little bit unreasonable? The Bible is supposed to supply guidelines that can be used for eternity, not supply every little rule that could ever come up.

Yes, it does require interpretation. Pretty much anything does - even our own laws do, that's one of the main functions of our courts. In the Church, we look to our church leaders to help determine what means what.

That article mentions Catholic hospitals quite a few times. I would think a private Catholic hospital would have every right to serve medicine as it sees fit. If it receives federal funding, that might be a different story.

I must say, I'm perplexed how one can be a pacifist objecting to killing people, yet support abortion. To me, abortion IS killing people.

[conuly]

Fetuses aren't people. Simple as that. People are able to think. I'll allow my definition to include all humans past the second trimester, because otherwise it gets chancy saying who can think and who can't, but the bare minimum is the existance of a brain, which fetuses do NOT automatically have. Certainly, those who can be affected by emergency contraception (taken within a few days of conception) cannot. At that point, they're no more than a collection of cells, no different from the cells in your fingertip.

Besides, while I would allow some interpretation in the Bible, it has to be fairly obvious. Let's look at what the Bible says:

Exodus 21:22 If men strive [fight] an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit [fetus] depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

They say, and I agree, that it looks like the death of a fetus is not considered murder, even if it was caused against the wishes of the mother. If God does not consider violence which results in a fetus' death to be murder, why would it be fair to consider abortion to be murder?

Hosea 13:15-16 I will have no compassion...the people of Samaria...will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground; their pregnant women ripped open

This is God's command. He's telling people to kill pregnant women and innocent (by our standard definition) children, down to fetuses.

I am not even requiring a definitive statement, such as is found in the decalogue. All I want is a steady idea. I skipped over the quotes I disagreed with, or which seemed unclear mihi. That still leaves two (at least) which show God holding a pro-abortion (if not necessarily pro-choice) view. Interpretation is risky enough, but there's no reason to hold with contradictions.

[conuly]

That article mentions Catholic hospitals quite a few times. I would think a private Catholic hospital would have every right to serve medicine as it sees fit. If it receives federal funding, that might be a different story

What if, let's pretend, a neo-Nazi hospital were formed. Would it be all right, then, for them to deny treatment to people based on their beliefs? Some religions forbid blood transfusions, are they legally allowed to build hospitals that will not perform any blood transfusions, even in emergencies? Would they force people to go to a further hospital for these transfusions, even if every second counted? This is an emergency we're talking about. It's not as though she wanted to book an appointment there for an abortion.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

"you don't know... if you're really just putting words in God's mouth."

And I have a funny feeling that God will be pretty POed if that is the case. I know I would be!!

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I guess my own feeling on this is similiar to the above poster. If they don't receive government funding they can more or less do as they see fit.

That's why a lot of private hospitals will turn away trauma victims or people without insurance. I know the private hospital down the street from me, while they don't deny blood transfusions or anything, will not take trauma victims. Period. End of subject.

While I don't agree with it on a moral level, on a legal one it's a tricky balance of issues.

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

It may just be because I'm tired, but his main two statements don't seem related to me. You can say a fertilized egg is a human (I'd disagree, but let's just leave that). I don't see how that translates into birth control being bad. Birth control is a preventive measure, to keep eggs from gettng fertilized at all. The day-after pill and other such means are not technically birth control... or did they get classifed there and no one sent me the memo?

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

So, you expect the Bible to be explicit on every little thing? Is it supposed to say, for example, that "sniffing cocaine is bad," or "Human cloning is bad," or "driving drunk is bad"? Don't you think that's just a little bit unreasonable? The Bible is supposed to supply guidelines that can be used for eternity, not supply every little rule that could ever come up.

Yes, it does require interpretation. Pretty much anything does - even our own laws do, that's one of the main functions of our courts. In the Church, we look to our church leaders to help determine what means what.

That article mentions Catholic hospitals quite a few times. I would think a private Catholic hospital would have every right to serve medicine as it sees fit. If it receives federal funding, that might be a different story.

I must say, I'm perplexed how one can be a pacifist objecting to killing people, yet support abortion. To me, abortion IS killing people.

[conuly]

Fetuses aren't people. Simple as that. People are able to think. I'll allow my definition to include all humans past the second trimester, because otherwise it gets chancy saying who can think and who can't, but the bare minimum is the existance of a brain, which fetuses do NOT automatically have. Certainly, those who can be affected by emergency contraception (taken within a few days of conception) cannot. At that point, they're no more than a collection of cells, no different from the cells in your fingertip.

Besides, while I would allow some interpretation in the Bible, it has to be fairly obvious. Let's look at what the Bible says:

Exodus 21:22 If men strive [fight] an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit [fetus] depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

They say, and I agree, that it looks like the death of a fetus is not considered murder, even if it was caused against the wishes of the mother. If God does not consider violence which results in a fetus' death to be murder, why would it be fair to consider abortion to be murder?

Hosea 13:15-16 I will have no compassion...the people of Samaria...will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground; their pregnant women ripped open

This is God's command. He's telling people to kill pregnant women and innocent (by our standard definition) children, down to fetuses.

I am not even requiring a definitive statement, such as is found in the decalogue. All I want is a steady idea. I skipped over the quotes I disagreed with, or which seemed unclear mihi. That still leaves two (at least) which show God holding a pro-abortion (if not necessarily pro-choice) view. Interpretation is risky enough, but there's no reason to hold with contradictions.

[conuly]

That article mentions Catholic hospitals quite a few times. I would think a private Catholic hospital would have every right to serve medicine as it sees fit. If it receives federal funding, that might be a different story

What if, let's pretend, a neo-Nazi hospital were formed. Would it be all right, then, for them to deny treatment to people based on their beliefs? Some religions forbid blood transfusions, are they legally allowed to build hospitals that will not perform any blood transfusions, even in emergencies? Would they force people to go to a further hospital for these transfusions, even if every second counted? This is an emergency we're talking about. It's not as though she wanted to book an appointment there for an abortion.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

"you don't know... if you're really just putting words in God's mouth."

And I have a funny feeling that God will be pretty POed if that is the case. I know I would be!!

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I guess my own feeling on this is similiar to the above poster. If they don't receive government funding they can more or less do as they see fit.

That's why a lot of private hospitals will turn away trauma victims or people without insurance. I know the private hospital down the street from me, while they don't deny blood transfusions or anything, will not take trauma victims. Period. End of subject.

While I don't agree with it on a moral level, on a legal one it's a tricky balance of issues.

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

It may just be because I'm tired, but his main two statements don't seem related to me. You can say a fertilized egg is a human (I'd disagree, but let's just leave that). I don't see how that translates into birth control being bad. Birth control is a preventive measure, to keep eggs from gettng fertilized at all. The day-after pill and other such means are not technically birth control... or did they get classifed there and no one sent me the memo?