Abortion and Marriage

[jcrawford]

What if abortions were kept legal within the reproductive and privacy rights granted in marriage only, and then only with consent of both spouses? If singles want either a child or an abortion, they would have to get parental consent or married, or would be considered married by the state, in either eventuality.

This way, all reproductive decisions would be made privately, by the parties concerned, and would be no one's else's business at all.

How would that play out in different scenarios, from a Christian or non-Christian POV?

[McCulloch]

Consumers have a right to know their clinics or doctor's religious affiliation.

Where is this right stated? Is it in the constitution? Has a law been passed? Is it stated in the Bible? The Qu'ran? Did God whisper in your ear?
Is there anyone else, on record, who agrees with you that this is a bona fide right? Who are they? Never mind about the last question, I probably do not want to know about them. Unless they are elected or appointed officials in government, executive, legislative or judicial.

You make me laugh with your government officials. I suppose you need certified government approval to take a breath of fresh air or to buy some Halal or Kosher meat.

I'm glad you are amused.
Now back to the topic at hand. Are you the only one who is proclaiming that consumers have this right? Please cite any sources. Are there any governments in the world that support this claim? Cite examples.

[jcrawford]

You make me laugh with your government officials. I suppose you need certified government approval to take a breath of fresh air or to buy some Halal or Kosher meat.

I'm glad you are amused.
Now back to the topic at hand. Are you the only one who is proclaiming that consumers have this right? Please cite any sources. Are there any governments in the world that support this claim? Cite examples.

Why go to all that trouble though, when it is perfectly obvious to every poster on the forum that we all have the right to ask and know someone else's religion.

You may choose not to volunteer that information yourself, but the rest of us still have the right to ask around, investigate and find out what your religion is even if you don't like it. Geez. Ain't there no freedom left up there in my old Cannuck country?

Most private hospitals advertise their religious affiliation before you walk in the front door. What's wrong with abortion chambers doing the same thing, or someone publishing their religious affiliation or walking around in front of the business with a big sign advertising it?

[micatala]

Uhhh, . . . . you seem to have changed the subject.

You had claimed that consumers have the right to know the religious affiliation (or lack thereof as the case may be, one assumes) of medical providers.

Now you are saying that anyone has a right to ask the religious affiliation and that providers have the right to display their affiliation if they wish. I don't think anyone would argue these points, as long as these actions were not done in a manner that would be deemed unlawful (e.g. person A harassing or stalking person B in a persistent effort to attain information that B does not want to provide).

The right to ask is certainly different than the right to know.

I am allowed to right the president and ask him questions about classified information. I have no right to know that information, however.

[ENIGMA]

Why go to all that trouble though, when it is perfectly obvious to every poster on the forum that we all have the right to ask and know someone else's religion.

Hardly.

You have the right to ask, and they have the right to either answer you or tell you where to shove your inquiry as they wish.

Why is there so little asking now? Perhaps the protestant women honestly don't give a care about such things so long as the doctor is competant.

Most private hospitals advertise their religious affiliation before you walk in the front door. What's wrong with abortion chambers doing the same thing,

They can if they wish. No one is denying that.

or someone publishing their religious affiliation or walking around in front of the business with a big sign advertising it?

Fine, however if they misstate the religious affiliation, they should be liable for slander.

[jcrawford]

Uhhh, . . . . you seem to have changed the subject.

You had claimed that consumers have the right to know the religious affiliation (or lack thereof as the case may be, one assumes) of medical providers.

Now you are saying that anyone has a right to ask the religious affiliation and that providers have the right to display their affiliation if they wish.

I haven't changed the subject, since having the right to ask someone their religious affiliation implies the right to know it. You may have the right to personally withhold that information from me if you choose, but you can't stop me from making further enquires from other people or doing some other research in order to find out and know what your religion or religious affiliation is, and broadcast it to the world if I have the means.

I don't think anyone would argue these points, as long as these actions were not done in a manner that would be deemed unlawful (e.g. person A harassing or stalking person B in a persistent effort to attain information that B does not want to provide).

The right to ask is certainly different than the right to know.

I am allowed to right the president and ask him questions about classified information. I have no right to know that information, however.

An abortionists religion is not classified information though.

[jcrawford]

Why go to all that trouble though, when it is perfectly obvious to every poster on the forum that we all have the right to ask and know someone else's religion.

Hardly.

You have the right to ask, and they have the right to either answer you or tell you where to shove your inquiry as they wish.

I don't even have to ask when someone like you proudly displays their religious identification without even being asked to.

Why is there so little asking now? Perhaps the protestant women honestly don't give a care about such things so long as the doctor is competant.

Obviously, it's only people like me who may be interested in ascertaining that information at the present time. However, shouldn't all women of faith have the choice of which doctor shall perform their abortion? You wouldn't recommend a Catholic abortionist to a Jewish woman, would you, or vice-versa?

Fine, however if they misstate the religious affiliation, they should be liable for slander.

How would misstating someone's religious affiliation be interpreted as slanderous if it was a case of mistaken identity, and could have been quickly corrected upon timely notification?

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

An abortionists religion is not classified information though.

But it is personal information and you don't have a need to know.
Same with the patient it is her personal information and she may want to share it with the doctor. He/she may not want to share with the patient. If she objects she can go some place else.
If the doctor objects he can refuse the patient and hope he/she is not discriminating due to religion or race. I suppose they might reject due to sex but that is a diffrent story.

[Cathar1950]

McCulloch your flashing maple leaf is annoying. I want my eye of God to flash.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote:

An abortionists religion is not classified information though.

But it is personal information and you don't have a need to know.

Doesn't stop me from finding out what the abortionist's religion is though, especially if he is aborting someone I may know personally.

Same with the patient it is her personal information and she may want to share it with the doctor. He/she may not want to share with the patient. If she objects she can go some place else.

That's exactly my point. Why should a Jewish woman get an abortion from a Catholic doctor when there are plenty of Jewish abortionists around? Same goes for a Catholic or Protestant. If they don't see a cross or a crucifix on the wall of the clinic, it could be owned and operated by an atheist or a secular Jew.

If the doctor objects he can refuse the patient and hope he/she is not discriminating due to religion or race. I suppose they might reject due to sex but that is a diffrent story.

If the abortionist refuses to direct the patient to a clinic of her religious choice, he could be sued for religious discrimination.

[ENIGMA]

Why go to all that trouble though, when it is perfectly obvious to every poster on the forum that we all have the right to ask and know someone else's religion.

Hardly.

You have the right to ask, and they have the right to either answer you or tell you where to shove your inquiry as they wish.

I don't even have to ask when someone like you proudly displays their religious identification without even being asked to.

It is a courtesy on my part, not a requirement.

Why is there so little asking now? Perhaps the protestant women honestly don't give a care about such things so long as the doctor is competant.

Obviously, it's only people like me who may be interested in ascertaining that information at the present time. However, shouldn't all women of faith have the choice of which doctor shall perform their abortion? You wouldn't recommend a Catholic abortionist to a Jewish woman, would you, or vice-versa?

I would recommend the most competant doctor, regardless of religion. If a protestant woman insists on a protestant abortionist, then they can make their own inquiries.