Jump to content

One of THOSE topics

Recommended Posts

"If you're making Catholic taxpayers fund government hospitals that provide abortion and contraception, can't you at least be courteous enough to allow the opposite?"


Great question!




Because the government isn't taxing "Catholic taxpayers" , They are taxing US taxpayers of a wide variety of different beliefs.


Why should a Hindu US citizen Pay taxes that pay for Bibles that are used in court for swe3aring in purposes?


They don't! But as US taxpaying citizens, they contribute their share of taxes that support government ...well, let's say stuff since alot of it will arguably not be real needs! :)


Maybe my own personal beliefs do not support any Mars missions as we will not be living on, traveling to, or gain any usefull earthly info about Mars. But I am not being taxed as an "Let's don't waste money on Mars" citizen. I am being taxed as a US citizen.


FRankly, you will never find any total agreement by all US citizens when it comes to what taxes are used on. Somebody somewhere will find a plenty of things that they do not think the US government should be buying, funding, supporting or subsidizing.


Personally, I am generally against abortion, but I am even more against taking the right to to make that choice from other people based on my own choices. It's not my place to limit your right to make your own choices and vice versa.


But I am also not asking the government to fund me fully for a less that full product.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Although I am a liberal.. Personally I don't mind if Catholic hospitals receive federal funding and don't offer routine services that don't abide by their beliefs.. As long as there are hospitals nearby that will perform the services and a persons insurance will except care from the other hospital.. What I worry about is if the care is needed in an emergancy capacity such as would a catholic hospital abort a child if an accident with a pregnant women happened outside their doors so the women was brought inside, and the womens life was in jeopardy without the abortion.. Also will the Catholic hospital treat homosexuals with aids?..



But then I don't see why NH looses out on federal funding for not having a manditory seatbelt law. Why is this of concern to anyone but the residents of NH?


Problem is, the government does not see things that way, and the Catholic Hospitals should have been wide eyed to that fact when they started taking govenment funding.. Now if they dug themselves a hole where they can not live without the Gov't funding, well shame on them.. They have made themselves dependent on something, and may be forced to either shut down, or accept the governments rules.. That is no ones fault but the Catholic Hospitals..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moosetracker: has NH ever thought about trying to withhold the seatbelt share of their taxes? Probably not worth the effort.


Those of you (Scoutfish, etc.) who respond to a moral argument by answering "It's against the law":

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right, and just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong.


When Catholic hospitals stop accepting government money, can they stop accepting non-Catholic patients? Since Catholics comprise 22% of the US population and Catholic hospitals are only 12% of the total hospitals, the hospitals would still stay busy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being privately owned, maybe if not and emergancy and it is life/death the victim is brought in.. I think the Dr.'s oath does force attention in life/death situations.


But, Maybe you can just charge more for the non-Catholic.. Because their church dollars didn't fund your hospital?? Sort of like State Colleges charge more for out-of-Staters..


Then there is the communities who don't have a fire station, and to get the neighboring town to come to put out a fire only if they paid a voluntary tax.. If the person doesn't pay the tax, then the firetruck comes and the firemen watch the fire.. (there in-case your neighbor who did pay his fire tax catches on fire, they will then tend to their house..) (Of course the fuel to move the trucks & the staff is activated and money is used for that effort..)


I can see the headlines now.. Catholic ambulance comes and watches as non-Catholic croaks in the streets..


The community fire stations that do this get a mixture of anger and support for their tactics..

Link to post
Share on other sites

" When Catholic hospitals stop accepting government money, can they stop accepting non-Catholic patients?"


They should be allowed to do just that, with the exception of the emergency room - in which even private hospitals who can turn down non insured - have to at least stabilize a patient in an emergency.


And I never said anything about legal overriding moral. But you have to ask, how moral is it to take my money, but refuse to treeat me based on my lifestyle or own morals? You'd think if you can turn me away for my atrocious lifestyle, that you'd turn away my atrocious money too.


And the thing about morals is this: who's morals do you want to be treated by? I would guess you want to be treated with, and handled with morals that are the same as yours.


So what if you end up at a non catholic hospital and they treat you using a set of standards that are not consistant with your religious beliefs..or worse, refuse to perform certain procedures because you are a catholic?


Same thing, just turned around.


And I say let the Catholic hospitals refuse, but they also need to be ready to accept that they might lose the funding. Either you play the game by the rules or you drop out. Nobody is making them accept federal dollars.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhhh... Scoutfish!! I know I now can't find it, but it reminds me of some ultra-conservative radio or talk-show host who got on their soap box..



If your child breaks his leg, would you want them to be treated at the hospital by a nurse/Doctor with a rainbow pin??? No.. what sort of immoral example is that for my child to have as a role model!!! I say we should have it in our charts that we do not want ourselves or our children to be treated by health care staff with a rainbow pin..


(I guess saying the word homosexual was something too terrifing she just couldn't utter..)..


You listened to it, and did not know whether to laugh or be upset with this attitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because there are enough public hospitals around that you don't have to go to a Catholic hospital? So you don't need to create new ones..


In fact alot of agonizing over merging hospitals, due to rising health costs in our area.. I think our catholic Hospital & public hospital who are about 10 blocks from each other looked into merging, or at least specializing in different area in each one.. But, from what I can tell it fizzled due to the Catholics wanting things their way, and the public being well public, so they had to serve all of the public..


I don't, but you never know if I find myself or a loved one in one due to it being the closest in an emergancy situation. In which case, I would like them to treat me or my loved one, with respect to our beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, I think we're all missing the bigger picture.


The big picture is Poor New Hampshire, forced to survive life with sub-par straight wedding planners (being straight automatically makes them sub-par) rather than be graced with the creme-de-la-creme of wedding planners - gay men.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know huh?? Not to stereo-type them, because I know some great buisness men/women, teachers etc.. But isn't creative talent one of their cornerstones?? Sort of like men make the best chefs..


To not have enough homosexuals in something that is part of the entertainment,fashion or romance business that the homosexual community could pull from.. To not have enough homosexuals in this business that those who are straight can still work in it and not have to hob-nob with them, so that they never get over their homophobia..


What can I say.. We are deprived :(



Link to post
Share on other sites

SO, if St Judes Children Hospitals in Memphis get federal dollars (and they do) does that mean they will have to provide Cancer treatment for my mothers breast cancer? Can I go to Sloan Kettering (Another place that gets Federal DOllars) for Obstetrical care for my daughter in law who is Cancer Free



Link to post
Share on other sites

OGE : I am no hospital administrator, but my guess is a positive yes for your mother going to the Catholic hospital (as long as she is not a lesbian, in which case it is an "I'm not sure"), and a maybe she would not want to go there if she is pregnant, because I am not sure if they will inform her of all her options if some might include aborting the child in order to get the treatment..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit taken aback by the stone-throwing in this thread. I realize it's in the politics forum, but there are definitely some skewed judgements being tossed about.


Look at it from a Catholic Doctor's point of view:

He believes that God breathed a soul into that embryo at conception, really.

And many of you are in favor of forcing that doctor, by the power of the government, to murder that soul by performing an abortion.


Help me figure out what part of the Scout Law that falls under?




I appreciate your tolerance of other points of view....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, the government does not see things that way, and the Catholic Hospitals should have been wide eyed to that fact when they started taking govenment funding.. Now if they dug themselves a hole where they can not live without the Gov't funding, well shame on them..


Yah, but if the government controls most of health care funding, what choice do they have? Especially if they feel they have a mission to servin' the poor.


That's the part that yeh seem to miss, moosetracker. I don't know what line of work you're in, but imagine if the government started subsidizing half of your clientele who were buying your services. Would yeh turn 'em all away? Could you survive with only half of your business? Then they expanded the subsidy, so now it was coverin' 70% of your business. Would yeh be willing to try to turn your formerly open business into a boutique shop catering just to the wealthiest 30%? Would your business survive?


Then the government says that to continue to do your work, yeh are required to dump toxic sludge into a neighborhood playground, if anyone asks you to dispose of their toxic sludge. But oh, no, we're not discriminatin' based on your religion or values! This is freedom! People should be able to hire you to dump toxic sludge if they want. If yeh don't like it, yeh should just find another line of work that the government hasn't (yet) gotten into.


As JoeBob says, those of us who don't ignore the science of biology and the moral teaching of millenia truly believe that human life starts way before any surgical abortion procedure can occur. It's straight up manslaughter at least. Every bit as bad as dumpin' toxic waste in a playground. Worse, in fact.


What the ACLU is askin' in these regulatory actions is quite simple when all is said and done, eh? They want the government to prohibit practicing Christians from being employable health care workers. Remember, we just expanded da scope of government health insurance mandates to cover everyone eh? :p




Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, but if the government controls most of health care funding, what choice do they have?


The tragedy of public life today is that, by overcentralizing, we force ourselves into intractable arguments that we just don't need to have. We don't respect the difference between "you must" and "you should" any more, so there's limited opportunity to live and let live.


Helping poor people cover medical costs is a fine and noble thing for a government to do. Doing it by running a national insurance policy is about the dumbest possible way of going about it. Unfortuantely it's the way that gives people in DC the most power.


But kings arguing with monks usually doesn't end well for either side.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...