• galanthus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s funny how even catholic views are considered unacceptable now by the liberal society. This is the paradox of your tolerance: you want to accept all kinds of different people for as long as they are the same in what they believe.

    I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral, I don’t personally, but so what of it, they should not be forced to do it.

    It seems that in the US, people are taking more radical and unreasonable attitudes towards abortions(that applies to both sides). Some people may feel the need to defend abortions from anything. But I believe that tolerance should not be cast away for zealotry.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Okay but what happens if a pregnant person gets brought into the ER of a Catholic hospital and they need an immediate abortion or they die. The hospital doesn’t want to perform it because of religion. Should the hospital just let the patient die against the patient’s will? The patient didn’t had a choice into which hospital they were brought in. And this isn’t just a hypothetical this situation has played out in real life. Just look at Ireland.

      • galanthus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I do believe that in the case of emergencies, if the threat of death is certain, catholic hospitals should always save the mother and I suspect many catholics would agree, but I would still say that they should not have to perform abortions and prescribe contraceptive treatment generally.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          if the threat of death is certain

          Nice little carve out to allow them to sit by and watch women die under the pretense of uncertainty. Fuck off with this death cult bullshit.

          • galanthus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            If the threat of death is certain, it does not mean that death is. I meant it in a way that if it is certain there is a risk of death, the woman should be saved.

            Though I believe catholics would want to try, when possible, to save the child as well, and would use abortion as a last resort. I have no problem with that, for as long as they do abortions when there is no option that would avoid it while not putting the life of a mother under significant risk.

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I misread your comment, I now better understand what you were saying, and I apologize for being so hostile.

              With that said, pregnancy inherently brings with it the threat of death. All pregnancies have a chance (and therefore threat) of death. So regulating them such that they must perform abortion services when there is a threat of death would be a regulation that would force them to abort 100% of requested pregnancies.

        • Skates@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          they should not have to perform abortions and prescribe contraceptive treatment generally

          Abortions are medical procedures and contraceptives are the medical professional advice to prevent unwanted children/disease. If the institution doesn’t allow for fucking medicine to be practiced, it’s not a hospital, it’s a church.

          So yeah, let’s allow catholic hospitals to do whatever the hell they want with regards to religion, idgaf. But if their religion prevents them from offering medical care, they’re not allowed to practice medicine and they sure as shit aren’t allowed to call themselves a hospital.

          • galanthus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Their religious morals do not allow them to perform abortions. However, there are medical procedures banned in secular hospitals for moral reasons that are not exclusively religious, like euthanasia. Does that mean that countries that do not allow euthanasia do not have hospitals, but churches?

            • Skates@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You can derive your morals from wherever you want, I honestly don’t care. And you can consider those morals when applying for a job, such that you don’t end up with a career in a field where you are forced to go against your morals. This “I’m in emergency care or obgyn but don’t do abortions” shit? That’s too late. You had your time to make a decision - when you’re already hired is not that time.

              I’m sure plenty of catholic doctors make great physicians. But if you allow your morals to come before your job, but actually lack the morals to quit that job when it is apparent that it contradicts what you believe - at that point you’re not taking a moral stand, you’re just a cunt with a soapbox.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s funnier how the catholic church defends pedophilia on an institutional level, but you “think of the children” types don’t seem to care.

      Fun fact, the tolerance paradox isn’t a paradox. It’s a social contract. The contract is to be tolerant. Catholics are intolerant of anything they disagree with. They don’t abide by the contract, therefore we aren’t obligated to tolerate their bullshit.

      Even more fun facts, the late term abortions catholics LOVE to hate-monger about (I went to the march for life I know first hand) make up a tiny fraction of total abortions, and they are almost always emergency situations, or discovered fetus conditions incompatible with life. Any arbitrary ban WILL kill women, and disproportionately kill women who actually want children. Three women died in Texas in November alone due to abortion laws.

      I’m sure there can be some reasonable agreement that gives doctors greater discretion while not allowing elective late term abortions or whatever you think is happening, but for right now, you’re killing actual people.

        • Skates@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I too can write ‘roses’ on a sign and put it in my back yard next to the pile of manure.

          • galanthus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Very mature. I am not quite sure what you think they do at catholic hospitals, but there are a lot of medical operations other than abortion.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral

      If they let their backwards sexist standards for what is “immoral” get in the way of medical services, they shouldn’t fraudulently call their facility a hospital.

    • Tinks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is that in many areas there are no alternative institutions for someone to receive care. Choosing to go to another non-religious hospital is often not an option in many places. I live in a major metro and the majority of hospitals here are religiously affiliated. It’s not a matter of allowing a few random institutions to uphold their beliefs, it’s an institutional problem when a person cannot receive valid medical care because of the objections of a religion. If you live in a small town with a single hospital, and the next closest one is an 8 hour drive away, then that hospital should be required to provide all FDA approved treatments the doctors are physically capable of administering.

      I’m all for allowing people to practice their religion however it best suits them to do so, until it negatively interferes with the lives of others. When your religion starts preventing people from accessing widely approved and safe healthcare, then your beliefs should not be protected. I don’t care if you’re Catholic, Muslim, or Pastafarian - you have no right to prevent someone from accessing healthcare because of your beliefs.

      • galanthus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        This situation is unfortunate, I suppose, but your government is not preventing anyone from getting these services in many states, and as of now, it does not have to provide all procedures to all the people. If you want your government to ensure that all approved procedures are easily accessible, and not leave it to the free market, it should actually manage it’s own hospitals, rather than force catholic ones to do abortions, which to me seems like too much to ask from a religious institution.