The Conservative War On Women

SixteenBlue wrote:

When the law asks them to violate their religious beliefs (i.e. insurance that provides birth control) they throw a fit. They don't accept that it's the law and follow it.

I really think that's a completely different thing - they didn't violate or ignore the law, they lobbied, put up a pr effort, and got the law's implementation changed to their advantage. It's not like they rolled around in the Popemobile shouting out "YOLO NO HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE EFF THE PO PO" (I know you're not saying that I just wanted to throw that imagery out there)

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Nah Malor if you look at what they said, it's carefully worded to be a legal position and not imply belief:

“Under Colorado law, a fetus is not a ‘person,’” Catholic Health Initiatives wrote, “and plaintiff’s claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed.”

I think that's the crux of the argument: is this a situation where it's okay to take a legal position that is in contradiction to your beliefs. It's kinda like how I'd say at one end, you've got what Seth said earlier about libertarians take advantage of things like public roads or other services. At the other end, you've got a feminist defending himself from an accusation of rape by saying the woman wore a short dress.

Where does this fall? Is the Catholic Church undermining the Culture of Life they seek to promote? Because every act that promotes a position--even a legal one--influences the culture. Even if we're just talking about the legal culture, the Church thinks abortion should be illegal, so that makes it even tougher to ignore the collateral damage in this case. If you help solidify the idea that a fetus is not a person in one legal case, shouldn't you blame yourself if you lose another case because the legal system's judgement that a fetus is not a person was too solid to overcome?

It's a tough question, but it's the one that needs to be asked here: by adopting this legal position in this case, are they contributing in some way to that next abortion by undermining their own efforts?

SixteenBlue wrote:

They want it both ways and that's bullsh*t.

This is where I stand.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

When the law asks them to violate their religious beliefs (i.e. insurance that provides birth control) they throw a fit. They don't accept that it's the law and follow it.

I really think that's a completely different thing - they didn't violate or ignore the law, they lobbied, put up a pr effort, and got the law's implementation changed to their advantage. It's not like they rolled around in the Popemobile shouting out "YOLO NO HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE EFF THE PO PO" (I know you're not saying that I just wanted to throw that imagery out there)

So why are they not lobbying and putting up a PR effort in this case? Why are they following a law that says an unborn child is not a person. That goes against their beliefs but there's no PR this time? This is what I mean. They're not responding the same way, because in this case it benefits them to violate their beliefs. Eating their cake, so to speak.

SixteenBlue wrote:

So why are they not lobbying and putting up a PR effort in this case?

Well, it's a much different case since Obamacare was brand new and they were changing the rules up till the last moment. In some ways the issue's been long settled. But they are still actively trying to change these laws, there's a fairly large March for Life going on in Washington right now that has the full support fo the Church (the Pope even tweeted about it!).

Well, it's a much different case since Obamacare was brand new and they were changing the rules up till the last moment.

Haven't we established that birth control measures like the pill were covered before Obamacare without a care (see what I did there?) in the world, and it's only with Obamacare that they threw a fit about it? I seem to remember reading that here somewhere.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

When the law asks them to violate their religious beliefs (i.e. insurance that provides birth control) they throw a fit. They don't accept that it's the law and follow it.

I really think that's a completely different thing - they didn't violate or ignore the law, they lobbied, put up a pr effort, and got the law's implementation changed to their advantage. It's not like they rolled around in the Popemobile shouting out "YOLO NO HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE EFF THE PO PO" (I know you're not saying that I just wanted to throw that imagery out there)

Disagree. You're talking about their reluctant compliance while fighting it (or working not to have to comply while fighting it). This case is about a law that runs contrary to their beliefs where they had the opportunity to take their own actions (settling out of court) that would not have run contrary to their beliefs. They did not take that opportunity, and now take a legal position (and an interesting one at that legally, as this calls into question, if cases where a man can be accused of two murders for killing a pregnant woman, why is a doctor not called into question on malpractice when a pregnant woman dies under his care in a negligent scenario) that runs completely contrary to their beliefs. They SHOULD be ashamed of themselves.

No one is calling into question the validity of their legal position itself (though with the example above for murder versus malpractice in some states, I think this is something that's debatable), they're calling into question the Catholic organization taking that legal position (or allowing the legal position to be taken on their behalf) which is inconsistent with their efforts elsewhere (abortion).

It stinks of "our beliefs are sacred and we will fight with our lives for them, unless they cost us money, in which case... well... you need money to live, don't you?"

That sucks, and this hospital should really be ashamed of itself for that. What'll they do when a brain-dead patient is ordered by her next of kin/spouse off life support? Respect that the law says that person's power of attorney has the right to do that? Or bitch and moan and pursue questionable medical opinions from people who are not her doctor to keep the patient alive?

Demosthenes wrote:

This case is about a law that runs contrary to their beliefs where they had the opportunity to take their own actions (settling out of court) that would not have run contrary to their beliefs. They did not take that opportunity

You're making a couple of assumptions here - first, like I said, that they had any choice in the "fight or settle" question - it's reasonable to assume that a network of 70+ hospitals does NOT keep a huge self-insurance fund lying around, so any settlement would have to come from the malpractice insurer, who is not going to pony up just because "Jesus". Furthermore, you don't know for sure that a settlement offer wasn't made and rejected - these things aren't public record, and neither side would likely be disposed to report it to the press.

I'll accept that on the face of it it appears hypocritical, but when it comes to the Church, there's much lower-hanging fruit.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

This case is about a law that runs contrary to their beliefs where they had the opportunity to take their own actions (settling out of court) that would not have run contrary to their beliefs. They did not take that opportunity

You're making a couple of assumptions here - first, like I said, that they had any choice in the "fight or settle" question - it's reasonable to assume that a network of 70+ hospitals does NOT keep a huge self-insurance fund lying around, so any settlement would have to come from the malpractice insurer, who is not going to pony up just because "Jesus". Furthermore, you don't know for sure that a settlement offer wasn't made and rejected - these things aren't public record, and neither side would likely be disposed to report it to the press.

I'll accept that on the face of it it appears hypocritical, but when it comes to the Church, there's much lower-hanging fruit.

Well yeah, but I like to climb, makes eating the fruit that much more enjoyable, and really... Catholic hospital using legal defense that contradicts their state beliefs? Low enough and amusing to talk about.

But they are still actively trying to change these laws, there's a fairly large March for Life going on in Washington right now that has the full support fo the Church (the Pope even tweeted about it!).

But they only believe this, Norman, when it's women that are hurt by it. When they're hurt by it, suddenly they don't believe it at all.

SixteenBlue:

While this is a logical view, they don't apply it to all cases. When the law asks them to violate their religious beliefs (i.e. insurance that provides birth control) they throw a fit. They don't accept that it's the law and follow it. In this particular case, their religious beliefs are being violated but since they're being sued, they suddenly don't mind.

They want it both ways and that's bullsh*t.

As mentioned, the Catholic Church and its affiliates are usually very conscientious about obeying the law. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." and all that. The distinction here being made is not only between the moral and the legal, but also between compensations in both systems. Even if you murder someone as a Catholic, the Church will neither jail you nor kill you, even though it considers murder a "grave moral disorder." This behavior is not morally inconsistent.

What's inconsistent is that anti-religious critics will ask the Church not to pursue moral prerogatives that will make life easier for its constituents, while they pursue their own moral prerogatives, themselves. In this particular case, these critics are actually criticizing the hospital for abiding by the law, whereas they'll also criticize these same affiliates for not following the law, even when accusations are unfounded. It's impossible to do anything right when your critics presume your malevolence.

The Church is just being consistent here. It's the critics who want it both ways.

LarryC wrote:

The Church is just being consistent here. It's the critics who want it both ways.

If we were saying that the church was guilty of wrongful death, you'd be correct. But what we're saying is that they're guilty by their own standards. They've put up a huge fuss when adhering to the legal definition of personhood would mean they'd have to allow birth control, but apparently have no qualms about adhering to the same legal definition when it saves them money. We're not criticizing them for adhering to the law in this case because we think they were wrong to do so, but for their lack of integrity/consistency. There stance on the personhood of a fetus in this case is in direct opposition to the stance they used when arguing against providing employees health insurance that covered birth control or having to provide abortions at their hospitals.

The fact that they're giving unto Caesar in this case is great, what we're saying is "Isn't it interesting that they put up such a fight when following the law means women can control their own bodies, yet have no problem following the law when it save them money?"

They have no problems either way. They follow the law anyway. Changes to the law that will recognize fetuses as legal persons would have changes that would impact laws such as the Colorado Wrongful Death Act, so they are putting up a fuss about it - in the proper channels. When the law is being enforced, however, they do what the law says.

I do not see a lack of consistency in mounting a legal defense, because the morality of Catholic doctrine doesn't say that anyone or any organization has to answer to earthly powers for moral failings. Per the church, you don't have to spend jail time when you confess to robbery, for instance, if the law doesn't say that you do. Where's the lack of consistency? They're both internally consistent and law-abiding. Painting the Catholics as villains here only makes sense with the addition of an unspoken apriori assumption - that organized religion is evil. With that assumption in place, it is reasonable to presume a malevolent evil motive. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Another plausible assumption would be this: that Churches have to abide by existing state practices in their internal morality; in other words, a merging of Church and State. In that case, admittance of moral responsibility would default to employer/employee responsibilities per modern business practices and law, and then to modern US legal standards of restitution. Barring that, I don't see an inconsistency.

Don't get me wrong. I can clearly perceive where the Church's stance on this issue could be easily strawmann'd into a catchy line where they seem to be contradicting themselves. It's a very strong weapon in the hands of those who have axes to grind against the Church - but it's a propaganda weapon, not the truth. That said, it may serve the Church's short term interests better to play into those misconceptions at this time.

By the by, I've asked about where Benedict is getting his theology. My friend informs me that it's taken from official catechism and from several passages from the Bible, but I'm milking him for more satisfactory information about the history of this approach.

They have no problems either way.

Other than constant, 24x7x365 false outrage, you mean?

They're hypocritical, Larry, and your defense isn't going to change that.

Lots of peeps and orgs are hypocritical Malor. If nothing else, the sex scandals make enough of a point that more really isn't necessary to mount character assassination. I wasn't making that point. I repeat this a LOT, but I think you're aware by now that I neither do nor understand ad hominems all that well.

The boy may have cried "Wolf" twice falsely, but the wolf came in at the end anyway.

LarryC wrote:

The boy may have cried "Wolf" twice falsely, but the wolf came in at the end anyway.

You really didn't get the moral of that story, did you?

SixteenBlue wrote:
LarryC wrote:

The boy may have cried "Wolf" twice falsely, but the wolf came in at the end anyway.

You really didn't get the moral of that story, did you?

I did. I thought the surface moral of the story was rather shallow, superficial, and unhelpful, even as a kid. "If you lie, bad things happen to you." Of course, I never believed it. People around me lied all the damn time and many of them lived very prosperous lives. I'm sure you'll find examples in your own culture and location.

No, what I really got from that story was "Never implicitly trust anyone or anything. Always see things for yourself." The boy may have been directly impacted by the tragedy, but I found it hard to believe that he actually owned a whole flock of sheep. Somebody's livelihood got devastated that day.

LarryC wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
LarryC wrote:

The boy may have cried "Wolf" twice falsely, but the wolf came in at the end anyway.

You really didn't get the moral of that story, did you?

I did. I thought the surface moral of the story was rather shallow, superficial, and unhelpful, even as a kid. "If you lie, bad things happen to you." Of course, I never believed it. People around me lied all the damn time and many of them lived very prosperous lives. I'm sure you'll find examples in your own culture and location.

No, what I really got from that story was "Never implicitly trust anyone or anything. Always see things for yourself." The boy may have been directly impacted by the tragedy, but I found it hard to believe that he actually owned a whole flock of sheep. Somebody's livelihood got devastated that day.

The moral of the story was that if you tell lots of lies, no one will believe you when you're actually telling the truth.

Like that helps. I tell the truth around here and no one believes me anyway. People believe what they want to believe. Whether you believe in it, too, is largely tangential. It was in that story, too. By the third time everyone was so annoyed they preferred not to believe the cries. And it cost someone (probably multiple someones) a lot of sheep.

Wasn't very realistic, either. That moral was also told to me as a kid, and even as a kid, I didn't believe it. Too many contradictory incidents. Even compulsive liars get believed when they say things people want to believe in.

Amusingly enough, that's extremely relevant to some of the content on this thread. Confirmation bias for the win, eh?

LarryC wrote:

Confirmation bias for the win, eh?

The irony of you saying this runs deep.

ruhk:

Tell you what. If I'm omitting any logical step in my reasoning, or ignoring data to support a position, feel free to point it out. Everyone operates with confirmation bias. EVERYONE. That includes me. So I don't see how it's all that ironic that I'm pointing it out.

Because you are one of the most egregious sufferers of confirmation bias in p&c. For example: almost everything you say about religion or American culture.

LarryC wrote:

ruhk:

Tell you what. If I'm omitting any logical step in my reasoning, or ignoring data to support a position, feel free to point it out.

You have a habit of assuming that Catholicism, religion, government, and life in general as you experience them in the Philippines are similar to Catholicism, religion, government, and life in general in western countries, despite repeated examples that they're actually a fair bit different.

Edit - That's not to say that it's not useful or welcome to have an outsiders view on any given topic of western culture, just that you have a really hard time accepting that things over here frequently work differently than they do over there, so we rather get stuck in a loop like the one we're in.

Shrug. What I say about religion comes from my personal experience. That's less confirmation bias and more of a different data pool. Not the same thing. Same thing about American culture. I'd like to point out that I do not make a habit of dismissing data or references without looking at it first. So, again, a case of limited data, not confirmation bias. Perhaps we need to discuss what it is?

You have a habit of assuming that Catholicism, religion, government, and life in general as you experience them in the Philippines are similar to Catholicism, religion, government, and life in general in western countries, despite repeated examples that they're actually a fair bit different.

I don't assume a difference where none has been demonstrated. Where it has, I accept the information at face value until I can get better. Once again, not really confirmation bias. You can't make up data when you have no data to work with.

This is similar to the way Americans assume that everything in the world works the way it does in America until they find different. That's NOT confirmation bias. Seems like this topic requires clarification.

LarryC wrote:

Shrug. What I say about religion comes from my personal experience. That's less confirmation bias and more of a different data pool. Not the same thing. Same thing about American culture. I'd like to point out that I do not make a habit of dismissing data or references without looking at it first. So, again, a case of limited data, not confirmation bias. Perhaps we need to discuss what it is?

You have a habit of assuming that Catholicism, religion, government, and life in general as you experience them in the Philippines are similar to Catholicism, religion, government, and life in general in western countries, despite repeated examples that they're actually a fair bit different.

I don't assume a difference where none has been demonstrated. Where it has, I accept the information at face value until I can get better. Once again, not really confirmation bias. You can't make up data when you have no data to work with.

This is similar to the way Americans assume that everything in the world works the way it does in America until they find different. That's NOT confirmation bias. Seems like this topic requires clarification.

It really doesn't. At the very least, not in this thread.

You've had it demonstrated in every thread that turns into the LarryC show that American culture is different than Filipino culture, and always have a hell of a time accepting that at face value when it's brought up. You should have tons of data on how religion in America is different from religion in the Philippines by now, unless you're throwing it all away after each episode ends.

Up until recently, I wasn't aware that American Catholicism was all that different since American Catholicism is rarely discussed in the specific or in depth. The last time a Catholic bothered to post more than a few superficial comments, it seemed quite similar to what we practice around here.

Podunk, in fact, just posted a comment that his experience with American Catholics is that there wasn't a culture of slut-shaming around contraception where he saw it. Should we just ignore that?

So, about that legislation-that-disproportionately-affects-women-in-the-United-States...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/he...

Thank you! This is the absolute latest from the NY Times. Please discuss this.

My standard response when that issue comes up: "Freedom of Religion" does not mean "freedom to impose your religious beliefs on those that don't share them." The law is not making them use the drugs they find so objectionable themselves, that would be in violation of their religious freedom. It is preserving the right of their employees to use birth control if they want to. Such a law actually promotes greater religious freedom, as employees whose religious beliefs allow them to use the objectionable drugs will have their rights protected if they work for an employer that objects to them. It only seems to those complaining about it that it diminishes it because it takes away the freedom they had to discriminate against other religions.

An employer is entitled to one thing--providing employees compensation for the work they do. They are not entitled to determine how that compensation gets used.

That's not entirely true, SpacePPoliceman... for instance, if you use your wages to party hard after work, and the pictures get out, you might end up fired. Everything you putatively did was legal, but you get fired anyway, for 'projecting a bad image for the firm'.

Employers do get to impose some values on you, even in your private life. I personally don't think they should be able to cross this particular line, but they already come quite close. This is just a more invasive version of what, say, Chick-Fil-A already does.

I think it's not just wrong, but egregiously wrong, and it's totally focused on shaming and controlling the sluts, but it is logically connected to what they already do.