Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'

  1. #11
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,494

    Re: Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    My outrage is not that they refused to perform the procedure on religious grounds, it is that they issued a press release identifying a 14-yr-old rape victime by name, violated her medical and personal privacy by informing the "world" that she was trying to get an abortion, after which the police detained her and removed her from her home in an attempt to force a 14-yr-old rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term against her will.
    Oh I see. Yes that was so wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #12
    Guru

    HonestJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,485

    Re: Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    The first hospital was a Catholic hospital. Why should they be forced to give abortions? The second one however, if not religious should have performed the procedure.
    If it is determined to be medically the right course of action and the patient (or in this case her parents) agrees, why shouldn't they? If a hospital accepts an individual as a patient, they should be expected to offer the best medical treatment they're physically capable of providing.

    If an organisation is "morally" incapable of offering the full range of legal and medically legitimate procedures, maybe they shouldn't be running an acute hospital in the first place.

    More significantly IMO, you're saying that if a Catholic has a moral objection to abortion, they should get special exception but if a non-religious person has a personal moral objection to abortion, they shouldn't. If it is legitimate for Catholic hospital administrators to ignore medical advice on "moral" grounds, it should be legitimate for any other hospital administrators to do the same.

  3. #13
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,494

    Re: Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    If it is determined to be medically the right course of action and the patient (or in this case her parents) agrees, why shouldn't they? If a hospital accepts an individual as a patient, they should be expected to offer the best medical treatment they're physically capable of providing.
    Because you would be forcing a Catholic hospital to preform abortions. If you can't see the conflict here. Also they did not accept her, that is part of the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    If an organisation is "morally" incapable of offering the full range of legal and medically legitimate procedures, maybe they shouldn't be running an acute hospital in the first place.
    Using the US as an example; considering the amount of aid and services religious hospitals offer, that would be a huge mistake. The consequences should be obvious to even you. In fact due to rising insurance costs some states are already having problems keeping good doctors and are suffering server shortages. Lets add to that and see who cries then.

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    More significantly IMO, you're saying that if a Catholic has a moral objection to abortion, they should get special exception but if a non-religious person has a personal moral objection to abortion, they shouldn't.
    No you said that. I said nothing of the sort.

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    If it is legitimate for Catholic hospital administrators to ignore medical advice on "moral" grounds, it should be legitimate for any other hospital administrators to do the same.
    Yes it should.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  4. #14
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'

    Seems a little strange that she couldn't find one hospital that would peform the service if abortion is legal. Why did the police make such a big deal about this one girl? Why is she being hassled?
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

  5. #15
    Guru

    HonestJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,485

    Re: Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Because you would be forcing a Catholic hospital to preform abortions. If you can't see the conflict here.
    I recognise the conflict, I'm challenging your view on how it should be "resolved". I don't think the personal morality of individuals who happen to be in control of a hospital shouldn't be allowed to override medical decisions on the health, well being and potentially life of their patients.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Using the US as an example; considering the amount of aid and services religious hospitals offer, that would be a huge mistake.
    Not really. The vast majority of religious hospitals don't have an issue with the religious aspects impacting medical decisions. Even in the ones that do, I'm not suggesting closing hospitals, only a voluntary change at the top. The issue isn't the institutions, just a handful of individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No you said that. I said nothing of the sort.
    You said the Catholic hospital shouldn't have been forced to perform the abortion but if the second hospital wasn't religious it should have done it. You didn't allow for a moral objection at the second hospital if it wasn't a religious one. I'm sure that was a subconscious slip on your part but a symptom on an underlying mindset all the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Yes it should.
    At least that would be consistently wrong. It would still be wrong though. The correct form of treatment should be determined by the doctor and the patient, not administrators and certainly not on the basis of their personal morality. If you were refused a blood transfusion, drugs made with animal products or a treatment developed in Israel because the hospital's new CEO objected to them I'm sure you'd change your tune.

  6. #16
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,494

    Re: Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    I recognise the conflict, I'm challenging your view on how it should be "resolved". I don't think the personal morality of individuals who happen to be in control of a hospital shouldn't be allowed to override medical decisions on the health, well being and potentially life of their patients.
    Giving someone an abortion because they "want" one is not life threatening in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    Not really. The vast majority of religious hospitals don't have an issue with the religious aspects impacting medical decisions. Even in the ones that do, I'm not suggesting closing hospitals, only a voluntary change at the top. The issue isn't the institutions, just a handful of individuals.
    Actually yes they do. An individual who works at a corporate or county run hospital etc, has no right to refuse anything. They can reasonably be expected to do things in line with that job. A hospital funded and operated by the archdiocese should not be forced to go against it's own philosophy. If you don't like it, you can go to another hospital. Just like she did.

    The Catholic hospital overstepped its bounds by releasing a minor's name, that she was raped and wanted an abortion. This was the real problem. Not them refusing to do the abortion. The secular hospital in Warsaw refusing to do it based on the comments and information from the previous hospital was also an issue.

    There are more than 600 Catholic hospitals governed by the Catholic Health Association, which are regulated by bishops and prohibited from performing abortions, period.

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    You said the Catholic hospital shouldn't have been forced to perform the abortion but if the second hospital wasn't religious it should have done it. You didn't allow for a moral objection at the second hospital if it wasn't a religious one. I'm sure that was a subconscious slip on your part but a symptom on an underlying mindset all the same.
    A secular hospital is under no moral value to not perform abortions while a religious institution is.

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    At least that would be consistently wrong. It would still be wrong though. The correct form of treatment should be determined by the doctor and the patient, not administrators and certainly not on the basis of their personal morality. If you were refused a blood transfusion, drugs made with animal products or a treatment developed in Israel because the hospital's new CEO objected to them I'm sure you'd change your tune.
    No I would not. I understand the need to let religious institution run separately from government. I also have the right to go to a different hospital. The only thing consistently wrong here is you thinking religious hospitals must go against their core principles.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 10-31-12 at 03:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •