So you've probably heard the news. It seems the Obama administration decided christian hospitals "must" provide contraception and morning pills which is against what they belive in. I find it surprising Obama would be so bold. What are your thoughts on this?
My thoughts on this are good for him. Not only Christians may be taken to a Christian hospital, thus anyone who wants those will have them available. The people running the hospital do not have to force patients to take them, only have them available for those who do.
docters work for the best of the patients. if the patients want to choose for these things. then they should be able to get it. the christian docters should not force their believe on others.
I agree with Kasic and partydevil. I don't know if 'christian hospitals' (the mere notion itches me horribly) are an exception or not, but hospitals are supposed to provide people with public medical services, and as such, should be able to provide contraceptions and pills. No patient is forced to accept them anyway, and the doctors can choose to not prescribe them if the patient says nothing; however as soon as the patient asks for it, you should have some. And if a doctor doesn't like that, s/he shouldn't have become a doctor to begin with..
I disagree with everything obummer(obama) does. This is just one of them.
Do you have a valid reason to disagree with this thing specifically, that does not involve Obama directly? Or do you just disagree by principle without thinking much about it?
Good for Obama. I think it's in Medical Ethics to provide for the patient and this is an example. You're not forcing it, you're simply ensuring that the ability to supply people with what they want is there, as it is expected to be.
Freedom of Religion? People have the right to proper medication and care. The freedom of religion has already been extended to utterly rediculous results and it just shows how much the name of "religion" can change something. I disapprove of the very notion of freedom of religion, because it cannot be supported without the religion, which is not supported at all.
Is it just me, or is religion, although much more highly regarded in America than Europe, still being ruled out bit by bit? I mean, a majority vote (a democratic method) that spoke against gay-marriage in California was overruled. They had Religious support, of course, even a boycott of a make of coffee because they supported gay-marriage.
If anything, I'm cheering for the simple reason that religious rights that have no solid ground are being invaded. Sure, it isn't about that, but no doubt some Christian folk will come along and perceive it that way -- and I'm perfectly fine with arguing on that point.
Do you have a valid reason to disagree with this thing specifically, that does not involve Obama directly? Or do you just disagree by principle without thinking much about it?
That's the problem with macfan1, he doesn't think.
Okay. Everone hear seems to be supporting the part where religous facilities have to do what the government says. even though it is against what "we" believe in. If you havent noticed this violates the first ammendment separation from church and state. What you people seem to think is that the government should force christian hospitals to do things against what we beliave in. This is the government who deicided to ignore the constitution and take control of christian facilities. really, I can't believe you people agree with taking over the church.
If you havent noticed this violates the first ammendment separation from church and state
How so? It doesn't violate the first amendment. By saying a hospital should have what patients might require is kind of a "Duh" thing, and by denying patients a valid treatment simply because the hospital, "doesn't believe in it" is unethical. The government isn't going to force people who don't want those pills to take them. Nor are they forcing the hospital to make patients use them. They are forcing the hospital to have the pills in case people want them.
If you havent noticed this violates the first ammendment separation from church and state.
Isn't the whole notion of 'christian hospital' a violation of the separation of state and church? A hospital falls under the juridiction of the health system, and this is public if you didn't know.
Isn't the whole notion of 'christian hospital' a violation of the separation of state and church? A hospital falls under the juridiction of the health system, and this is public if you didn't know.
So what you are saying is that christians are not alowed to have christian hospitals or any other christian based facilities? You people don't seem to understand. The government cannot force people to do what is against what they believe in.
So what you are saying is that christians are not alowed to have christian hospitals or any other christian based facilities?
Why are you generalizing to 'any christian based facilities'? Did I say anything against churches or community centers? I'm just saying that hospitals are public buildings, owned by a public institution, under juridiction of the government. Christianity, or any other religion, is a private institution and I don't see why they should own a hospital, like I don't see why for example McDonalds should own a hospital and dictate their own food laws within.
Independently of this, denying a patient a certain treatment solely based on belief is criminal as soon as the patient wants the treatment and has otherwise the right of having it. Christian hospitals only make sense when it is for christians only (and even then belief diverge), and this, now this would be discriminating.
But, maybe I understood a concept wrong.. please tell me, are those 'christian hospitals' entirely in the hand of the church? Or do they have anything like a public license or whatever a regular hospital needs?
But, maybe I understood a concept wrong.. please tell me, are those 'christian hospitals' entirely in the hand of the church? Or do they have anything like a public license or whatever a regular hospital needs?
As far as I know who ever owns the hospital needs some kind of permit or license, but so do the doctors that practice medicine. So even if the hospital didn't need one the doctors would, and they would be required by law to provide the care the patient needs/wants.
Okay. Everone hear seems to be supporting the part where religous facilities have to do what the government says. even though it is against what "we" believe in. If you havent noticed this violates the first ammendment separation from church and state. What you people seem to think is that the government should force christian hospitals to do things against what we beliave in. This is the government who deicided to ignore the constitution and take control of christian facilities. really, I can't believe you people agree with taking over the church.
If those facilities can't provide the care required from them because of religious reasons then they shouldn't be operating in the first place.
