There is a perfectly acceptable means for people of conscience to obtain Conscientious Objector status and spend their service time performing public service rather than military service. It’s deliberately limited to people who have a history of commitment to the group which claims this status. Quakers were not required to perform combat duty. The 30,000 draft avoiders were those who did not qualify, and they were lawbreakers. Very different kettle of fish.

What is it with this CRAP people are throwing at me? Don’t any of you ever read any of the documents written by the guys who founded the United States of America? I’m not saying anything different from what they said when they broke from England. If you all don’t believe this stuff, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES?????????

I would argue that the government does not have the right to force taxi drivers to violate their consciences — not because they might be offended, but because liberty demands it.

I would also argue, relevant to this topic, that in the case that the government acts improperly and demands the taxi drivers to carry objects that violate their consciences, the taxi drivers are very much within their rights to simply refuse to drive taxicabs; they are not “deliberately harming the public interest” by finding another profession. Same with Catholic hospitals: they are not harming the public interest in any way by refusing to offer abortion services, but if the government demands (improperly) that all hospitals must offer abortion services, then the hospitals are entirely within their rights to close their doors, and the damage done the community thereby is on the government, not on the hospitals.

Ok, my JW analogy was contrived. Here are a couple of analogies that are not. They have nothing to do with abortion, but I’m questioning the absolute statement you made above.

1) A blind man with a guide dog is refused taxi service at an airport because all of the taxi drivers in the official queue are muslim, and islam considers dogs to be “unclean”.

2) A woman with a bag containing a bottle of wine is also refused taxi service at the same airport, because alcohol is forbidden by islam.

In both cases, no action was taken against the taxi drivers because of fear they might be offended.

So, Phil, what would your recommendation be for handling these non-hypothetical situations?
—
http://www.chl-tx.com

You wrote:

Its a difficult problem.

Actually, it’s not a difficult problem so long as people are willing to tolerate differences in others. What’s so hard about acknowledging that so long as it’s Catholics providing the services, they’re only to provide those services that Catholics are comfortable providing?

That’s why I made the point about “emergency abortions”; what the hell is so hard about driving to the next town to get an abortion if that’s what you need to do? Even if it’s 100 miles? People who live in remote places like that are USED to traveling for big-city services. And why can’t folks live and let live, even if — and I don’t believe this is correct — even if a majority thinks Catholics are behind the times?

I simply do not believe that you can produce a single instance, anywhere in the country, where medical necessity justifies forcing a Catholic hospital to offer abortion services. That’s a contrived issue, and it’s BS.

You and I can argue about whether abortion is a legitimate medical procedure until we’re blue in the face, but the public (and the regulators appointed by our elected representatives, and the U.S. Supreme court)have all decided that it is.

More BS. I’ve never seen a poll asking whether the public thinks “abortion” is actually “medical care” as opposed to elective surgery, nor have I seen that issue addressed in a Court case, so I’m pretty doubtful that you’re saying anything meaningful. What the court has decided is that states cannot forbid abortions; nothing says the state can force a facility to provide them. The right to regulate does not include the right to compel a business to offer a service against its will. Can you think of another instance where the state has the right to force a business of ANY sort to provide a service that they choose not to provide?

Furthermore, I’m fairly disgusted at the attempt to stifle debate by invoking a majority view. Again, I’m talking about what’s right, not what’s legal, and again, you’re trying to change the subject. If 100% of the population says Jews are sub-human, that does not make them sub-human, and that does not justify silencing the one guy left who says they’re just like the rest of us. And even when talking about legality rather than morality, the system is designed to protect the minority from the whim of the majority; why is this different?

So, no, I’m not going to fold up and go away just because you assert (incorrectly) that something is the majority view. Would you? I didn’t think so. So don’t ask me to.

Oh yeah, institutions don’t have natural rights.

Reread the quotation at the top of this article. Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you. Vis: “Compacts then between nation & nation are obligatory on them by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts.” If countries have moral obligations, then countries also have rights. Countries are institutions, ergo institutions have both moral obligations and rights.

I remember after the death of John Paul II, a girl where I worked at the time saying that the Church really should “pick a young guy, or a woman!” I asked her if she was Catholic and she said no and she did not even really believe in God. I pointed out that that is like worrying over who is going to be elected the High Druid this year (for her at least.)

My last post should have been addressed to Horatio.

My bad.

Joe

I would never suggest that the church should “get with the times” if that meant “endorse immorality because its currently popular.” I merely pointed out that the Catholic church and the public have come to disagree about what is morally acceptable on reproductive issues like abortion. That’s simply a fact, and a big part of the problem from a public policy perspective.

I personally believe that convenience abortions are immoral because they are profane (they fail to respect the sanctity of human life). However, I don’t believe that aborting a first trimester fetus is a murder because, at that stage of its development, there is no “someone” to be the victim of a murder. There is a life, but no “someone.”

I’m pretty sure the vast majority of Americans would adopt my view, if they gave the matter careful thought. Almost two thirds of Americans think that early term abortions should remain legal and that late term abortions should be banned. And most people remain uncomfortable with abortion at any stage of fetal development. My view makes sense of these facts. The Catholic Church’s view does not.

That doesn’t mean I’m right and the Church is wrong. But its worth considering.

Joe H.

The church believes that life begins at conception. I would argue that even scientifically, they are right on this score. Abortion, even in the earliest of stages, brings about the death of this life. Now this is not killing in a Just Cause (the church does make certain exceptions for this), most of the time, abortions are done for convenience. The Church does not hold with that and believes anyone who does is either participating in or advocating murder, the commission of a mortal sin.

This is where this whole argument gets even more sticky than has been gone over so far in this thread. Some have suggested as I believe Joe mentioned, that if the Church does not want to stay in the health care business in order not to violate their conscience, then they should simply sell the hospitals to a third party that does not share their values. This brings up a sticky wicket for Catholics- the question of aiding in the sin of others. If the Church sells these buildings to a third party, with the knowledge that the facilities will then be used sometimes to carry out abortions, some have argued that they are then giving consent to the commission of a mortal sin- murder.

I have heard some Archbishops say that if FOCA is used to try to coerce these facilities to carry out abortions, rather than merely selling off the hospitals, they will simply close the doors and hold onto the properties, rather than enter the moral conflicts listed above. I am not trying to add fuel to the fire, just describing how deep the water is.

Just to point out, Joe says right out he believes abortion is immoral…just that it shouldn’t always be illegal.