Theologica

a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site

In another conversation, JRKH said:

By and large, these things are not medical necessities, they are elective surgeries AND they violate the rights of the unborn.

I split this off as a separate response as it might get in depth, but I'd love to hear about these "rights" of the unborn. I can understand assumptions that would grant civil rights to a viable fetus, but just what kinds of rights do my sperm have that are violated if I get snipped?

Views: 202

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You seem to be talking about the unconceived, not the unborn.

That is because the context of the original comment was the issue of whether Catholic hospitals should be required to have insurance for their employees that covered basic contraception and sterilization.  These "elective procedures" were suggested to violate the rights of the unborn.  I'd like to see some basis for the idea that should I decide to sterilize myself that I'm violating some else's rights.  I'd find it particularly interesting considering the admiration that is held for those that take a vow of celibacy - arguably self-imposed barrier against pregnancy and offspring.  The whole idea that one is honored and the other is said to violate the rights of the unborn is curious to me.

Marv said:

You seem to be talking about the unconceived, not the unborn.



Daniel said:

That is because the context of the original comment was the issue of whether Catholic hospitals should be required to have insurance for their employees that covered basic contraception and sterilization.  These "elective procedures" were suggested to violate the rights of the unborn.  I'd like to see some basis for the idea that should I decide to sterilize myself that I'm violating some else's rights.  

Is someone perhaps conflating two issues?  Contraceptives are "life of the unborn" issues when they also have abortifacient properties.

OTOH, contraception per se may be a separate issue.  It may violate the religious convictions of, e.g., those who hold the "be fruitful and multiply" directive issued to the first couple to be normative for all couples.  So in that case, it may not be a "life of the unborn" issue, but still a religious freedom issue.

I'd find it particularly interesting considering the admiration that is held for those that take a vow of celibacy - arguably self-imposed barrier against pregnancy and offspring.  The whole idea that one is honored and the other is said to violate the rights of the unborn is curious to me.

I find it hard to see how the "rights of the unborn" aspect applies here.  I also believe the "vow of celibacy" as normative for priests is a misguided practice that is a matter of tradition that is actually in contradiction to the bulk of Scriptural teaching.  However, the idea that God might call some to a lifestyle of celibacy, and "gift" them accordingly, is consistent with 1 Cor. 7.

Daniel,

If I may - in my zeal, I am perhaps not being overly clear.   Of course there are many different levels on this subject.  However, when I refer to the rights of the unborn, I refer to two specific, elective, products/procedures that effect the unborn, not the unconceived.  These are, first the most obvious, abortions.  Abortion coverage is mandatory.  Second and perhaps a bit less obvious are drugs and implants that do not prevent conception but rather prevent implantation, these are referred to as Abortificants (sp?).  Coverage of these items are also mandatory. 

As to items and procedures that are not abortificant, the right of the unborn is not violated, BUT the rights of the Church are in saying that these things are elective and we choose, out of considerations of conscience, to not cover them.

It is quite common for insurances to not cover what is considered to be elective procedures and I suspect that Obamacare likewise chooses not to cover many elective surgeries...(does ObamaCare cover facelifts and tummy tucks not done for reconstructive reasons??)  But THESE elective procedures they wish to force on us. 

Peace

James

I have zero problems with a Catholic doctor in a Catholic hospital refusing to perform an abortion.  It would truly be a violation of his religious beliefs.  Same would go with forcing a priest to have sex.  But it is an entirely different thing for MY religious beliefs to be forced on YOU if you don't share them.  If I believe sterilization is wrong, and my decisions impact your ability to do otherwise, it isn't MY rights that are being violated, but yours.  I see no difference between this and a sign at the door to the soup kitchen that says only heterosexuals are allowed.  If you are doing something with the PUBLIC, you can't impose your religious beliefs on them.  They have to be afforded the option to participate or not participate based on THEIR beliefs.  So if they want the ability to purchase a plan that covers something that you don't like, you can't force them into your choice.  So if you are going to offer a hospital or soup kitchen or homeless shelter or whatever, you have to be non-discriminatory about it.  Same goes with wages and benefits to your employees and extended benefits to their families.  



Daniel said:

I have zero problems with a Catholic doctor in a Catholic hospital refusing to perform an abortion.  It would truly be a violation of his religious beliefs.  Same would go with forcing a priest to have sex.  But it is an entirely different thing for MY religious beliefs to be forced on YOU if you don't share them.  If I believe sterilization is wrong, and my decisions impact your ability to do otherwise, it isn't MY rights that are being violated, but yours.

Daniel you seem to have a rather warped understanding of the issue here. This isn't about what an individual can or cannot do. It is about who is expected to pay for it.
If you believe that sterilization is wrong, would you be OK with being forced to pay for mine?

Under the current system of private companies offering private insurance, the employee might or might not have much say in what is covered on the policy. So, if your company's policy does not cover - say - dental, there really isn't anything you can do except either pay out of pocket or purchase dental coverage privately. Likewise if your employer's policy does not cover "elective surgery" (as defined in their policy) - and most do not, then once again you would have to make other arrangements. would you feel that your "rights" are violated under these circumstances??

If no then why do you feel your rights are violated if your employer chose not to cover mirth control pills and elective reproduction surgeries/procedures?

If you are doing something with the PUBLIC, you can't impose your religious beliefs on them. They have to be afforded the option to participate or not participate based on THEIR beliefs.

Explain to me how their options to participate are curtailed???

So if they want the ability to purchase a plan that covers something that you don't like, you can't force them into your choice.  So if you are going to offer a hospital or soup kitchen or homeless shelter or whatever, you have to be non-discriminatory about it.  Same goes with wages and benefits to your employees and extended benefits to their families.

If they wish to purchase a plan that is different than that offered by their employer, they are free to do so.
The employer, any employer, generally offers one plan with maybe a dental option. If you are an employee of that company, then that is the plan you are covered by...no option and no discrimination either. Everyone is the same.

I note here that you are very interested in keeping options open, but that doesn't seem to extend to the employers. doesn't the employer have the right to options as well??

Peace
James

I would not want to have to pay for your abortion.  But I don't see that as what is happening here.  That is a direct causal thing that would make me morally implicated in the event.  My allowing you to purchase insurance that covers it even though I am your employer is totally different.  I am not paying for the abortion your wife gets.  I'm not performing the abortion.  I'm just offering you the ability to purchase insurance that covers it.  I've been a manager and had payroll responsibilities in the past.  From a company standpoint, employee cost is a combination of all their wages and benefits.  It is all a payroll cost.  Some of that benefit is in hard money, and some is in other benefits.  If I can't tell you where you can spend your money and what you can spend it on, why should I be able to tell you what medical decisions you and your insurance company make just because I think I know best and you work for me?  

Your example of dental insurance is a good one.  But it doesn't fit.  There are dental insurance companies out there that allow you to purchase dental insurance without going through your employer.  But our health care system is largely based on insurance (many folks won't see you without it), and our insurance system is largely based on employer group plans.  Many people with disabilities cannot find insurance except through an employer.  In states like mine, there ARE no options for some people other than a group plan through your employer.  I've been jobless in the past and tried to find insurance that would cover my daughter who has Spina Bifida in the past.  There were none.  So an employer that doesn't approve of certain medical practices who refuses to offer those as an option can basically prohibit others from doing something that he doesn't like.  And that is wrong.

Catholics had no problem with provisions that mandated that employers with a certain number of employees had to offer insurance to them.  The problem is that now it is discriminatory to not offer insurance that doesn't cover some things.  Every state has their own regulations that says what the coverage has to include.  It can be an optional thing, but has to be an option.  And that is what this boils down to.  Options and the freedom to choose that option.  If the hospital with hundreds of employees wants to offer a standard policy that doesn't include vasectomies or dental and offer that as an option at a higher price for those that want those things, that is fine.  But you have to give your employees the option and freedom to spend their medical dollars where THEY want to.  If they don't want to purchase a policy that covers expensive rehab or dental or anything else, that should be their choice.  But if they want a policy that includes certain things, I should not be allowed to deny them of that.  And if they, like me, are unable to purchase a health policy anywhere else, their rights are being denied.  

And the simple fact is that the Catholic that wants the freedom to pay an employee whatever they want and work/treat them however they want just doesn't have that freedom - even if they say it is for religious reasons.  We like to phrase this as if the employee can just go down the street and buy coverage for something (even though that isn't always possible).  So it is phrased as if choice still exists.  But the same can be said for the Catholic hospital.  They can choose to not have employees and treat the public.  But they choose otherwise.  And that choice comes consequences.  There are minimum requirements to having employees that must be met.  We may not like it, but it isn't a violation of religious freedom when I am not FORCED to employ people.  I could get contract labor instead, for example.  I could choose to not have the company.  Choices exist.  I still have the option to practice my religion any way I want.  But if I do choose to hire you, I do NOT have the option to force you to practice MY religion the way I want.  I have to give you the respect your freedom allows and allow you to make choices different from my own.

Killing of the un-born in abortion is the same as murder, after WWII, Nazi doctors were hanged for doing this very same thing.

The context of this OP was Catholics being forced to allow their employees to get coverage that included birth control.  It wasn't limited to abortion.  That is why I said I could understand if someone wanted to extend human rights to a viable fetus, but didn't see how it applied to this other stuff.

Harry said:

Killing of the un-born in abortion is the same as murder, after WWII, Nazi doctors were hanged for doing this very same thing.

No Church should be forced to do anything that is against their doctrine whether it is being forced to provide birth control in the form of contraception or abortion. it is all the same.

Daniel said:

The context of this OP was Catholics being forced to allow their employees to get coverage that included birth control.  It wasn't limited to abortion.  That is why I said I could understand if someone wanted to extend human rights to a viable fetus, but didn't see how it applied to this other stuff.

Harry said:

Killing of the un-born in abortion is the same as murder, after WWII, Nazi doctors were hanged for doing this very same thing.

Understood,

But in the context of what the government is mandating both are included.

So the matter is not very easily separated. 

Even in the context of what most consider "birth control", there are relatively few things that act primarily to prevent conception.  Condoms do and sterilization procedures do.  However the Pill, IUDs, "Plan B" and other "Birth control" methods are somewhat less effective at preventing conception and are either primarily abortificant or abortificant as a secondary prevention. 

Peace

James

Daniel said:

The context of this OP was Catholics being forced to allow their employees to get coverage that included birth control.  It wasn't limited to abortion.  That is why I said I could understand if someone wanted to extend human rights to a viable fetus, but didn't see how it applied to this other stuff.

Harry said:

Killing of the un-born in abortion is the same as murder, after WWII, Nazi doctors were hanged for doing this very same thing.

I think that the base line of assuming that health care, and insurance for it, is a "human right" is just flat out wrong. I know. I'm going to sound legalistic and devoid of grace here (and I'm sorry for that), but simply put: healthcare is not a right. If I am diseased, I don't have the right to demand someone fix me. 

Getting a health care insurance plan through an employer is a huge blessing. But it is not a human right. If an employer does not offer health care, there are still choices out there. Like, not having insurance at all. Or private insurance is there. It may cost an arm and a leg and be unattainable for the vast majority of American citizens, but that's simply a different issue. It's a wealth issue. And for my wealth envy to pipe up and say that I should have the same right to medical attention as an extremely wealthy person, just without paying for it as much as they do, is wrong. We just don't have a right to medical attention. We should just die in our sinful bodies, and many, many, many people throughout history have done just that. We have choices. Getting any medical attention at all is still a choice. If I break my arm, I have a choice: I can live with it as a lame duck for the rest of my life, or I can pay someone to try and fix it. But that is my choice. 

So in this discussion of what options employers should offer to employees, we have to remember that we don't have a "right" to any of it. If an employer so chooses to offer a certain package of health care benefits, what a blessing!! But they should still have the right to decide what they offer. Take it or leave it. Accept their offer as a choice or choose something else that suits you better. But you have to view their offer as one option for you, not as a right to get all your medical needs met. That, is simply absurd. We do have a civil right to life, which should apply to the conceived and growing children, but we don't have a right to medical treatment. 

In light of that, I disagree with these statements that were made (my emphasis added, and reactions in bold):


Daniel said:

1) So an employer that doesn't approve of certain medical practices who refuses to offer those as an option can basically prohibit others from doing something that he doesn't like.  And that is wrong. - No, that is the employers choice to offer anything at all. What a blessing that they choose to offer some benefits!

2) The problem is that now it is discriminatory to not offer insurance that doesn't cover some things.  Every state has their own regulations that says what the coverage has to include. - "Now" is the big emphasis here. ObamaCare should never have forced employers to offer anything at all. And no state should be involved in what any company offers any private citizen as a "health care plan" choice. The whole system is so messed up that it all just needs to be scraped. 

3) It can be an optional thing, but has to be an option.  And that is what this boils down to.  Options and the freedom to choose that option.  - But we must admit, that an employer offering any option at all, is a blessing, not a right. 

4) But if they want a policy that includes certain things, I should not be allowed to deny them of that.  And if they, like me, are unable to purchase a health policy anywhere else, their rights are being denied.  - No, their "wants" are being denied. It's still not a right. 

5) So it is phrased as if choice still exists.  - Because it does. People just don't like the other options, like not being treated and dying. But that is still an option. (sorry for the harshness of that truth)

6) There are minimum requirements to having employees that must be met.  -  again, screwy government interference. 

7) I still have the option to practice my religion any way I want.  But if I do choose to hire you, I do NOT have the option to force you to practice MY religion the way I want.  I have to give you the respect your freedom allows and allow you to make choices different from my own. - Buying the insurance options that I offer as an employer, in no way denies you religious freedom. Remember, you don't have to buy my benefits package. 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsors

Birthdays

Linkologica

Blog Resources

Arminian Today

Anyabwile

Bock

Called to Communion

Challies

Classical Arminianism

Craig

Christian Answers For The New Age

Christians in Context

Conversation Diary (catholic)

Continuationism.com (marv & scott)

Desiring God blog

DeYoung

First Things

Fr. Stephen (eastern orthodox)

 

Internet Monk

KJV Only Debate (jason s.)

 

Köstenberger

Lisa Robinson - TheoThoughts

Mohler

McKnight

National Catholic Register (catholic)

Parchment & Pen

Pierce

Re-Fundamentals

Resurgence

Roberts

Roger Olson

Taylor

Team Pyro

The Apologist's Pen

Untamed Spirituality

WDTPRS (catholic)

Witherington

 

Theological Resources

BioLogos

Center for Reformed Study and Apologetics

Creeds and Confessions

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Council of Biblical Manhood and Womenhood (complementarian)

The Center for Bibical Equality (Egalitarian)

Evangelical Theological Society

Monergism.com

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Society of Evangelical Arminians

Theopedia

Theological Word of The Day

Tyndale House Bulletin

 

Church History

Early Christian Writings

Glimpes of Church History

 

Christian Traditions

Book of Concord

Catholic.com

Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox Catechism

 

Apologetics

CARM

Lennox

Reasonable Faith

RZIM

Stand to Reason

Tektonics

 

Bible Study

Bible Gateway

Bible Researcher

Blue Letter Bible

Bible.org

IVP New Testament Commentaries Online

 

Online Bible and Theology Education

Biblical Training

The Theology Program

 

Theology and Bible MP3s

Covenant Seminary

263 Theology Questions and Answers

Veritas Forum

 

Theologica Chat Room

MiRC Chat

Badge

Loading…

Get the Widget


Sponsor



Bible Options




© 2014   Created by Michael Patton.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

/*============================================================================================ /*============================================================================================