CT-04

[Tuck!]

If they object so strongly they should get another job. Is a Muslim going to become a Catholic priest? No. Find a job that fits your religious beliefs and shut up.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

This debate reminds me of an Onion headline.

[cinyc]

The idea that providing the morning after pill to RAPE VICTIMS = Committing Murder is belief held by very few,  The onus should be on the Hospital to treat the RAPE VICTIM, not on the RAPE VICTIM to find a hospital to treat them.

This kind of hard core right wing crap to oppose helping RAPE VICTIMS sure as hell is not going to fly in Connecticut and is why this bill passed with almost unanimous support.

The view is held by the Catholic Church.  That you don't agree with it or think it extreme is IRRELEVANT.  Your hard core LEFT WING "PROGRESSIVE" crap of FORCING people to do something against their will is an EXTREMELY DISTURBING affront to LIBERTY.

That a hospital does not or cannot perform a procedure is fairly common.  Stabilizing the patient and getting them to someone who can provide acute care or charity care is not unheard of, whether it be for burn victims or trauma victims or the uninsured or whatever.   That you and your "progressive" friends don't care about people's consciences is what's really disturbing.  

Torie - I suppose you'd rather all Catholic hospitals close and Catholic physicians quit practice.  This country would be much worse off for it.   Forcing someone to perform elective medical procedures against their will is no different than state-imposed slavery.

[Torie]

No, I don't want to ban Catholic MD's, but I do want public hospitals to practice good medicine, or find someone who will, if they won't, including bringing in some outside physician, or hiring some staff who are willing to practice good medicine in instances where their theology dictates otherwise, and not endanger patients, and force the patients  or the state or something to bear costs that should not be borne. Maybe if it is just too tough to handle, such hospitals should not handle pregnancies.

With a license comes certain responsibilities. The practice of medicine is a privilege, not a right. So Catholic hospitals in some of these tough cases, where their theology constitutes bad medicine, need to make accommodations, at their expense, for the health and welfare of the patient - period.

Overstating what I said, Cinyc, or drawing inferences that don't seem reasonable, I don't think is a good debating technique (the bit suggesting that I want to force some individual to perform some procedure that they think contravenes their conscience is particularly surprising - what words did I use that gave you that idea?). Characterizing accurately what I said, and then explaining why you disagree with it, in cogent terms, of which you are fully capable, is. JMO.

[cinyc]

No, I don't want to ban Catholic MD's, but I do want public hospitals to practice good medicine, or find someone who will, if they won't, including bringing in some outside physician, or hiring some staff who are willing to practice good medicine in instances where their theology dictates otherwise, and not endanger patients, and force the patients  or the state or something to bear costs that should not be borne. Maybe it is just too tough to handle, such hospitals should not handle pregnancies.

With a license comes certain responsibilities. The practice of medicine is a privilege, not a right. So Catholic hospitals in some of these tough cases, where their theology constitutes bad medicine, need to make accommodations, at their expense, for the health and welfare of the patient - period.

Overstating what I said, Cinyc, or drawing inferences that don't seem reasonable, I don't think is a good debating technique (the bit suggesting that I want to force some individual to perform some procedure that they think contravenes their conscience is particularly surprising - what words did I use that gave you that idea?). Characterizing accurately what I said, and then explaining why you disagree with it, in cogent terms, of which you are fully capable, is. JMO.

This:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I read to mean Catholic hospitals and, by extension, doctors, should be forced out of "the medical business" if they don't do what the state tells them to for theological reasons - i.e. perform abortions or else.   "Good medicine" clearly involves killing unborn children because their lives aren't worth anything.

I have no interest in debating this any further.  As you pointed out, my debating skills suck and no one's mind will be changed regardless of what I say.

[Torie]

Well yes, your quote of mine, was a quote that was a bit over the top (even though it said nothing about individual doctors, just the church running hospitals, and telling individual doctors what to do in their practice of medicine), I admit, but it was in reaction, to your comment about separation of church and state, so I just riffed off of that, to muse about separation of church and medicine. It was a bit hyperbolic.  But well, that was the way we were going wasn't it? It kind of feels good, sometimes, but it is a poor debating technique. In this case, I went the feel good route. My bad.

Still, what is a Catholic hospital to do, if a woman needs an immediate abortion, which she wants, or she will die?  Any thoughts?

By the way, I would strongly oppose any effort to require Catholic hospitals to allow elective abortions within their walls.  It is when there is a medical necessity, that the issue arises, vis a vis the health of the mother, and what to do, so as not endanger the mother, or impose additional expense on either her, her insurer, or the state. I thought I sort of made that clear, but if not, I want to make it clear now.

[Tuck!]

No, I don't want to ban Catholic MD's, but I do want public hospitals to practice good medicine, or find someone who will, if they won't, including bringing in some outside physician, or hiring some staff who are willing to practice good medicine in instances where their theology dictates otherwise, and not endanger patients, and force the patients  or the state or something to bear costs that should not be borne. Maybe it is just too tough to handle, such hospitals should not handle pregnancies.

With a license comes certain responsibilities. The practice of medicine is a privilege, not a right. So Catholic hospitals in some of these tough cases, where their theology constitutes bad medicine, need to make accommodations, at their expense, for the health and welfare of the patient - period.

Overstating what I said, Cinyc, or drawing inferences that don't seem reasonable, I don't think is a good debating technique (the bit suggesting that I want to force some individual to perform some procedure that they think contravenes their conscience is particularly surprising - what words did I use that gave you that idea?). Characterizing accurately what I said, and then explaining why you disagree with it, in cogent terms, of which you are fully capable, is. JMO.

This:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I read to mean Catholic hospitals and, by extension, doctors, should be forced out of "the medical business" if they don't do what the state tells them to for theological reasons - i.e. perform abortions or else.   "Good medicine" clearly involves killing unborn children because their lives aren't worth anything.

I have no interest in debating this any further.  As you pointed out, my debating skills suck and no one's mind will be changed regardless of what I say.

You changed my mind, actually.

[Smash255]

The idea that providing the morning after pill to RAPE VICTIMS = Committing Murder is belief held by very few,  The onus should be on the Hospital to treat the RAPE VICTIM, not on the RAPE VICTIM to find a hospital to treat them.

This kind of hard core right wing crap to oppose helping RAPE VICTIMS sure as hell is not going to fly in Connecticut and is why this bill passed with almost unanimous support.

The view is held by the Catholic Church.  That you don't agree with it or think it extreme is IRRELEVANT.  Your hard core LEFT WING "PROGRESSIVE" crap of FORCING people to do something against their will is an EXTREMELY DISTURBING affront to LIBERTY.

That a hospital does not or cannot perform a procedure is fairly common.  Stabilizing the patient and getting them to someone who can provide acute care or charity care is not unheard of, whether it be for burn victims or trauma victims or the uninsured or whatever.   That you and your "progressive" friends don't care about people's consciences is what's really disturbing.  

Torie - I suppose you'd rather all Catholic hospitals close and Catholic physicians quit practice.  This country would be much worse off for it.   Forcing someone to perform elective medical procedures against their will is no different than state-imposed slavery.

Even that uber socially liberal group called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is in favor of this.

Regardless this is not about how you or I personally feel about this issue.  Its about how the voters in Connecticut and specifically CT-4 feel about it, and in this well educated socially liberal suburban NYC district, being in favor of denying rape victims the morning after pill is a major fail.

[cinyc]

Even that uber socially liberal group called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is in favor of this.

Regardless this is not about how you or I personally feel about this issue.  Its about how the voters in Connecticut and specifically CT-4 feel about it, and in this well educated socially liberal suburban NYC district, being in favor of denying rape victims the morning after pill is a major fail.

When properly explained, it will end up being as much as a fail as it was for Scott Brown to take a similar position in even more socially liberal Massachusetts.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Even that uber socially liberal group called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is in favor of this.

Regardless this is not about how you or I personally feel about this issue.  Its about how the voters in Connecticut and specifically CT-4 feel about it, and in this well educated socially liberal suburban NYC district, being in favor of denying rape victims the morning after pill is a major fail.

When properly explained, it will end up being as much as a fail as it was for Scott Brown to take a similar position in even more socially liberal Massachusetts.

Yeah, I imagine telling a rape victim to pack her bags and go to another hospital seems like a real winner.

[Smash255]

What kind of douche would actually let that decide their vote anyways?

Point was to show that even most of the Republicans in the State Senate disagree with him on this issue.  Forcing RAPE VICTIMS to go to another hospital in order to get the morning after pill is just not going to sit well in this district. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Whenever I see a race between a Northeastern Republican and a Democrat come down to the issue of abortion, the Democrat involved is desperate and grasping at straws.

Pro-choice voters really, really, really do not care about abortion. And if they do, they're never going to vote for a Republican anyway, pro-choice or not.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Whenever I see a race between a Northeastern Republican and a Democrat come down to the issue of abortion, the Democrat involved is desperate and grasping at straws.

Pro-choice voters really, really, really do not care about abortion. And if they do, they're never going to vote for a Republican anyway, pro-choice or not.

Nice spin but Smash brought up the subject just to show how conservative Himes' challenger is.
There is no evidence that the Democrats are planning to run on how anti-choice Debicella is.