Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans introduce new bill to protect their freedom to restrict yours (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not arguing with you (0+ / 0-)

    There's a lot of drama that results from the collision of opposing belief systems.  I can see the problem with requiring a Catholic (or Baptist) physician to perform an abortion he or she believes to be wrong, just as surely as I can see the problem with shutting down clinics that provide that service to women who need it.  It's never going to be a simple subject.  The problem is in figuring out a way to not force anyone to commit acts against their own beliefs.  Easier said than done in a pluralist society.  Not quite on topic, but similar in concept, is the current push in Europe to outlaw circumcision.  

    One thing that caught my attention in the opening article was the nurse who was unhappy with assisting in an abortion.  The rational choice for her would be to change jobs.  

    The wisdom of my forebears ... Two wise people will never agree. Man begins in dust and ends in dust — meanwhile it's good to drink some vodka. A man studies until he's seventy and dies a fool.

    by Not A Bot on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 03:07:48 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It is indeed a problem. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Not A Bot

      I have some sympathy for a doctor or nurse who does not want to perform (or assist in) a medical procedure that they feel violates their religious beliefs.  As you say, though, surely there are other jobs -- even other jobs in the field of medicine -- where such a procedure wouldn't be asked of them.

      I have considerably less sympathy for employers required by law to provide insurance coverage who do not want their money to be used to pay for procedures that violate their religion.  If it is money that you are required to provide for your employee, it is not your money, and you are not morally complicit in whatever your employee does with it.

      •  Yep, Batya. Even ER work would do the trick. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon

        A doc or nurse would be highly unlikely to become involved with optional abortions in an emergency room setting; and any abortions they did run into would likely deal with a life-or-life choice, which under almost every religious system favors the mother.  Except maybe the Catholic church and extreme protestant fundamentalists.

        As to your second paragraph, I think most rabbis would consider government-mandated health insurance to be a kind of a tax on the employer.  Once taxed, the money is out of our hands, and no longer our responsibility (I'm using our in the hypothetical sense).  So yes, you're right.

        I still see some difficulty if the employer is a church or a religious charity (including church-owned hospitals).  It gets murky, and even more so if the charity or hospital accepts federal funds of any sort.  I'm conflicted on this, even though deep inside I'd feel some satisfaction if the Catholic church were divested of its assets and then dissolved.

        I enjoy reading Kaili Joy Gray's essays, even though I occasionally disagree with her.  I'm of the wrong sex to have a dog in the abortion fight, and too old in any case.  But the subjects Kaili brings up are very often related to conversations I participate in or at least listen in on with my daughters and granddaughters.  Mostly I read and listen and try to learn.  Now and then I open my big mouth and get in trouble, but that's okay.    

        The wisdom of my forebears ... Two wise people will never agree. Man begins in dust and ends in dust — meanwhile it's good to drink some vodka. A man studies until he's seventy and dies a fool.

        by Not A Bot on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 06:27:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site