Religious group attacks religion in healthcare
A coalition of religious leaders took on the Catholic Church, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush administration on Tuesday with a plea to take religion out of health care in the United States.
They said last week’s Supreme Court decision outlawing a certain type of abortion demonstrated that religious belief was interfering with personal rights and the U.S. health care system in general.
The group, calling itself the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said it planned to submit its proposals to other church groups and lobby Congress and state legislators.
With the April 18 Supreme Court decision banning specific abortion procedures, concerns are being raised in religious communities about the ethics of denying these services,” the group said in a statement.
Religious leaders opposed Jesus as He walked the earth and they still oppose JESUS!!
A house divided … I would have liked to see their argument, but the site wouldn’t let me.
Are you suggesting that Jesus wasn’t a religious leader himself, batman?
It’s unethical to deny these services? The Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion.
A coalition of religious leaders…
The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women’s reproductive rights and several physicians.
Color me unimpressed.
I don’t see how anyone can argue that it’s ethical to suck out the brains of a live 8-month-old baby just because part of it is still in the birth canal.
#4 most doctors don’t take the Hippocratic oath anymore.
Wow. I’m finding the religious left a breath of fresh air compared to the religious wrong.
#4 – MikeN,
Ellighten me please on where the hypocratic oath forbids abortion. Do you mean the original Greek version? It specifies a particular procedure using a pessary. The classical version makes no reference to abortion at all.
I think you should stick to your religious arguments against abortion, recognize them as such, and avoid legislation on the subject. If you are personally opposed to abortion, your action is simple, don’t have one!
#6 – Frank IBC,
Minor correction, most people count age from date of birth. An eight month old baby typically is a term applied to one born eight months prior to the conversation. When asked your age, do you go by the date of your conception?
I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear. Eight months since conception. But since it hasn’t passed through the birth canal, it doesn’t count as human.
If anything, this should go to show that not all Christians are fundamentalist idiots.
Case in point, me.
Even though I’m an evangelical Christian, I don’t believe there is a biblical justification to be anti-abortion.
No where in the bible is abortion forbidden nor is it ever stated clearly that life begins at conception. (In fact, there are some verses which indicated that a fetus was lesser than a baby, in the Levitical law.)
But, I’m still pro-life — not for religious reasons but because a fetus seems like a human life to me. It just does.
It also strikes me as a logical position. How different, exactly, is a fetus from a baby? Not much.
But I accept that there is a legitimate difference of opinion on this subject and I respect those who differ from me. That’s also where I differ from most evangelicals.
#7 Really? I don’t know any that haven’t and this is actually the reason that Doctors are never involved in Capital Punishment via lethal injection. This is the reason that the dosage of the drugs used is often wrong and why there is a current investigation into whether Lethal Injection constitutes “Cruel and unusual punishment”.
The fact that anyone can argue that it is right to allow a woman who has carried a baby to full term and then decides during the birth to allow a “Doctor” to crush the skull of the baby while it is leaving the womb is outrageous. Once someone has gone that far why not just deliver the baby and put it up for adoption?
I don’t believe that human life begins at conception nor at birth. It’s somewhere in between. An obvious starting point would be the age at which a premature baby can survive. Another possible measure could be brain activity.
#14 – raddad,
But, what about in-vitro fertilization? They are surviving outside the womb … and many get thrown away once the woman is pregnant. Should in-vitro fertilization be illegal because it shows that a fertilized egg can survive in a petri dish?
#13 – Jason,
From wikipedia
Reasons commonly given for having a late-term abortion include:
* A deteriorating financial situation
* A change in relationship with the father
* A lack of awareness of the pregnancy until its later stages
* Discovery of the pregnancy by others who persuade an abortion, for example, the parents of a minor
* Inability to have an abortion earlier in the pregnancy (possibly due to a lack of funds, lack of transportation, or a legal restriction)
* Discovery of a fetal abnormality, undetectable earlier in the pregnancy
* The pregnancy becomes a risk to the mother’s life or health
There is very little data on how common each of these reasons are.
I would think that the last two should be acceptible as valid reasons for late term abortion. Some others, possibly not. Why not take each case one at a time, and let the family and the doctor decide. Passing a law on the subject is likely to be heartless and cruel to the exceptional cases that were not discussed or adequately considered at the time blanket legislation was passed. IMHO, the issue is simply to personal to decide all cases in the supreme court. We’re people, not robots. Life is more complicated than you seem to imagine.
#13 – I’m Pro-Choice and always will be. I’m an athiest, a rationalist, and I believe I have a high standard of ethics, and I find the idea of this relatively rare and unusual procedure used at 8 months to be regretable at best and outrageous at worst, especially in the case of the woman who just decided, “Oh, I don’t wanna be a mommy after all.”
But there is a legitimate use for this procedure and medical experts agree. This procedure exists to be used when the life of the mother is in danger, and this is one of two procedures and this one is less dangerous to to the mother and less invasive.
And since I didn’t go to medical school, I trait I share with all/most of you and all the Justices on the Supreme Court, and the overwhelming majority of Senators and Representatives, and most assuredly with our stunningly undereducated President, I tend toward listening to actual credentialed medical experts when I decide what is right or wrong about medicine.
What is dangerous about this decision is that it marks perhaps the first time that decisions about specific medical procedures are being made by grossly incompetent laymen rather than actual doctors and medical experts. What is worse is that the basis for this decision is rooted in a belief in a mythological fairy tale.
I appreciate that there are many who have strong feelings… but you aren’t experts and you aren’t qualified to comment, and the right thing to do is to take you out of the equation and marginalize your emotionally based opinions. You simply are not qualified to comment. Sorry, but its true.
you aren’t experts and you aren’t qualified to comment, and the right thing to do is to take you out of the equation and marginalize your emotionally based opinions. You simply are not qualified to comment. Sorry, but its true.
So much for free speech in the Bu$hitler’s Amerikkka.
#17 – Go screw yourself….
You know damn well that no one can take your right to speak away, and no matter what absurd irrelevant BS comes out of uyour mouth, I will personally defend your right to say it.
But I’ll also add that you are full of crap and that those who make these decisions will do well to ignore you. That’s my First Ammendment right to say so.
If you want to address medicine from a religious point of view, you are irrelevant. If you want to address virtually anything of importance from a religious point of view, your words are irrelevant. Why? Because religion is magic, and magic is irrelevant in the grown up world of medicine, education, politics, ethics, and almost everything else.
Have a great day.
#15 Misanthropic Scott
My wife and I have done in-vitro twice and the doctor was very clear that the window for implanting was only a few days. With special care the embryo could survive until the early blastocyst stage at which point it would die if not implanted. Again, I suggest some recognized level of brain activity to define a fetus as a living being. Don’t know what that would be, just an idea.
What on earth is “religious” about asking if it’s ethical to suck out the brains of a live 8-month baby just because part of it is still in the birth canal, OFTLO?
#20 – Did you read my post?
Oh yes… Of course you did. You just chose to ignore it because you have a narrowly focused agenda. I don’t care about your agenda. I’m not going to waste time restating myself when I did it quite effectively the first time.
#22 – I don’t think that “anyone” who questions the ethics of a third trimester abortion is neccasarily doing so from a religious perspective.
I just think that you are.
#24 – Well, look man… I’m gonna do the last thing anyone expects on the Internet…
I’m typing in a hostile manner to you because I am under the impression that you are one of these Bible Thumping theocons, and I’m still pissed about the damage to my car. I could swear I’ve read that sort of stuff from you before.
You say you aren’t religious, and you aren’t having this discussion from a religious point of view, then who am I to say otherwise…
Thus (and watch how this is done guys) I apologize for treating you unfairly in this discussion. I have obviously misjudged your motives and have treated you in an uncivil manner, which you did not deserve.
.
To answer your question: I can only answer this for myself. I do not think it is ethical to “suck” the fetus out of the womb at 8 months. In my post #16, I say as much. However, as most medical professionals have pointed out, this is a safer procedure than the alternative procedure, and it is intended to be used in cases where a woman’s life is in danger. In that case, I have no ethical problems with terminating the pregnancy.
But again, the real problem with this issue is that politicians, judges, and the like are not qualified to make decisions about medical procedures, and in doing so have crossed a very dangerous line.
Frank IBC,
Let me try to break the loop between you and OhForTheLoveOf. He made a point about letting medical experts make a decision. You made a point that failed to address the health of the mother. I would like to ask this a different way.
In what way are you qualified to make the determination for each and every single case of a late term abortion? If the answer is years of medical training and a strong scientific background on fetal brain development, I might begin to listen to and appreciate your opinion.
However, we are talking about a law that will, quite literally, allow a grown woman with an obviously functioning brain to die because you can’t tolerate the procedure in use to save her life. If you like the term pro-life rather than anti-choice, you had damn well better make sure that you at least leave an exception in your rhetoric for the health of the woman. This law makes no such distinction and would kill the mother.
@3 Jesus was more a teacher than a leader while on earth … and quite radical for his day – the only reason this isn’t well known is that Christianity has been the establishment for much of the intervening time …
Anyway, irrelevant – Scott makes a valid point. I am pro-life (on religious ground) – if I had my way, abortion would be treated as murder, but, in cases where the mother’s life is in critical danger, permissible (you would try to save both if at all possible though) – this would be analogous to self-defense in my murder analogy
And raddad – where do you draw the line? For brain function, for survivability outside the womb? It seems like there would end up being an arbitrary decision made – in the case of survivability, this age becomes lower with advances in medicine (but more expensive the further back you go) – this all would be very difficult to determine medically anyway, pre-birth especially. In any case, its easier, and clearer to pick a definite date (ie, conception)
By the way, I have no medical training, so if someone with more medical knowledge can correct my second paragraph, I’d love to hear it.
#27 – Bruce IV,
Since you admit to being pro-life on religious grounds, I’m curious how you justify legislation against abortion. Do you not believe in separation of church and state??!!? Are you really for the creation of a Christian theocracy?
It seems to me that once you admit that the argument is religious, you must either support choice, even if you personally find abortion morally repugnant, or support the creation of a national religion, thus completely obliterating the constitution on which this country was founded.
Am I missing some third option here? The religion into which I was born, but do not follow, makes no statement against abortion. So, not only would you be legislating Christian values on atheists, you would be legislating them on all other non-Christians as well. This to me is absolutely abhorrent.
I’d like to see a TOTALLY INDEPENDENT, TOTALLY NON PARTISAN commission of medical scientists make a MEDICAL-ONLY determination of when life begins.
Based on brain-waves, maybe? As they determine when life ends?
Their determination might give us moderates on this issue a starting place to finally create a compromise on this issue.
#29 – I tend to agree….
I would opt for a ban on second and third trimester abortions, with exceptions for conditions that threaten the life of the mother which can be made by a doctor without the intervention of a court.
I’d also make exceptions possible by court order in exceptional circumstances, because studies have shown that there are a large number of women who live in situations where their access to a safe abortion may be impeded upon by external influences: two examples might be physical threats made by a family member or a lack of adequate medical care as is the case in many poor rural areas.
But there is a point at which the organic clump of cells stops being a possible child and takes on the characteristics of an actual human, and it is in out human nature and possibly our best interest to recognize a line that must be drawn.
There is no such thing as pro-abortion. No one wants abortions to occur. But there is pro-choice, and in a society predicated on freedom, it is the only rational stance to take. But a compromise of conditions, like what I’ve outlined above (which until a few days ago, was kinda close to the current law of the land anyway) is a reasonable balance between the sides on this debate.
The real problem is that one of the sides on this issue is predominately irrational and unreasonable, and their motivations are steeped in a right wing theology, which is controlling and absolutist in nature… that is, anti-freedom, anti-American, and just about anti-everything good people hold dear.
(I’m still angry about my car – damn Xians)
#14
Exactly. How do we determine when a person is dead? Their brain waves stop. How can we determine when something is “alive”? The same way. Organized brain waves and even the most primitive awareness do not even begin until at least 28 weeks. That would be month 7. see:
http://www.cbctrust.com/prenatal.php
Misanthropic Scott –
Have you actually read the law? It explicitly provides an exception for the life/health of the mother.