cnn: Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

[Larry]

Larry, I believe a employment contract is binding on both parties equally....I take my responsibilities seriously and expect my employees to do the same or suffer the consequences

It's a job,not a damn entitlement

Yes, I understand.

The same argument was used to justify indentured servitude. And has been tried (unsuccessfully) to attack child labor laws, workplace safety laws, anti-racial-discrimination laws, and similar restrictions on the right of the guy with the money to do whatever he wants.

Me, I think that there are some things that aren't your employer's business. Even if he thinks they are.

[twa]

Me, I think that there are some things that aren't your employer's business. Even if he thinks they are.

Like the SS & hookers?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not a lawyer, But I don't think she's got a chance.

The impression I get is that churches basically have License From God to "discriminate" against anybody they want.

EVERY private organization has that right, look at Augusta National Golf Course. And the idea that a church should not be able to discriminate against actions and lifestyles which are against its view of morality is simply absurd. We live in an age where the word "discrimination' is automatically a bad word, yet in the church I can and should be discriminated against on the basis of my actions and lifestyle.

[PeterMP]

Rationality is laid out by the employer, but ultimately upheld or overruled by law. Except in the case of religious institutions, which I disagree with. I know the exemption exists, I disagree with it, I've said as much in here clearly, you reiterating that is unnecessary and pointless.

In normal circumstances, an employer would have to justify being against something such as invitro, and their justification would have to be rational. In the case of religion, that doesn't matter. They are free to interpret things the way they see fit and I disagree with any employer having that power, above the law. I am interpreting your responses of "employer has that right" instead of showing any kind of objection to their protected irrationality and being considered outside US law, as favoritism towards unfairly slanted powers to employers. I've seen you show those preferences before, and I think it's irresponsible and inconsiderate to support or not object to that kind of abuse and stripping of employee rights in favor excess powers for the employers, ones which in this case are above the law.

Out of curiosity would that the child is at higher risk for an assortment of health issues be "rational"?

[Larry]

EVERY private organization has that right, look at Augusta National Golf Course. And the idea that a church should not be able to discriminate against actions and lifestyles which are against its view of morality is simply absurd. We live in an age where the word "discrimination' is automatically a bad word, yet in the church I can and should be discriminated against on the basis of my actions and lifestyle.

I think you're arguing with me, and don't understand my point.

There's a reason why I put the word "discriminate" in quotes.

(And, as I've said, I approve of churches being exempt from those laws. I think that "discrimination" is one of the things that actually define churches.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think you're arguing with me, and don't understand my point.

There's a reason why I put the word "discriminate" in quotes.

(And, as I've said, I approve of churches being exempt from those laws. I think that "discrimination" is one of the things that actually define churches.)

I gotcha, I still don't see why you don't think that churches are legally allowed to discriminate. I wonder if you think that if my church refuses to ordain me because of moral issues (not that I think that will happen , also recongnizing that you understand that this is part of what defines churches) if and why I should have a legal claim against the church for discrimination?

[Kosher Ham]

What ever happened to the whole judge not thing ?

Oh well.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What ever happened to the whole judge not thing ?

Oh well.

LoL!!! :rotflmao: heheheheheh

Seriously....after three pages of discussion the best you can offer up is a trite usage of a poorly interpreted Biblical passage?

[Thiebear]

The primary reason the Catholic Church has opposed invitro fertilization from the beginning is that a child has a right to come into the world as a result of an act of love between his or her father and mother not as a result of a laboratory process.

using your highlights

Its almost like the Pope getting his wrist fixed after a fall:

Pope John Paul II -Surgeons at the Gemelli clinic, in Rome, performed a tracheotomy to help him breathe more easily

Cleveland Catholic Diocese Bishop Richard Lennon has back surgery

Archbishop Niederauer has unexpected heart surgery

Bishop David Zubik Hospitalized For Surgery On Good Friday

CNS STORY: Cardinal George has cancer surgery, second

Cardinal Keeler returns to residence after brain surgery

Cardinal Hume in hospital for hip surgery

Must be nice to be in an all mens club that gets to choose what can be fixed 'as a result of a laboratory process". Maybe they should have left it to God also?

[edited] You've(plural) stood up for a womans rights: Do you believe its okay to use a laboratory to fix every ailment known to mankind except a womans egg?

I would say Augusta and the Catholic church are both very very good examples. Look at Augusta, and then look at the Catholic Church, then tell us the differences in descrimination?

[twa]

Tbear...how many of those procedures take a innocent life in the process?(as defined by them)

ignoring the heart of the matter does not bring answers

the Church most definitely has embraced both science and medical advances,but ethics set limits......and they certainly embrace limits

[Thiebear]

Could we explain how this woman (Took an innocent life)?

Lets start at the most basic and work our way up:

Is every period taking an innocent life

Is every attempt at fertilzation but failure taking an innocent life

Is every frozen egg taking an innocent life

Is every frozen fertilized egg that doesn't work taking an innocent life

Is every miscarriage taking an innocent life

Leaving out abortions as that will sidetrack the issue.

I asked what she did wrong and you posted the "life not as the result of a laboratory process"

So i posted other "Laboratory processes that kept life "alive using those that interpret moral code(leadership) as the example"

Now you say its taking an innocent life (moving the goal posts)

so I'll play along and reattempt to find out who she killed.

[Larry]

I gotcha, I still don't see why you don't think that churches are legally allowed to discriminate.

No, you don't gotchme.

Larry's opinions:

1) Churches have almost unlimited exemption from all kinds of laws, including the ones prohibiting discrimination.

2) I approve of this exemption. Churches should be exempt from such laws. "Discrimination" (in quotes) is what religions do.

Well, I suppose it's theoretically possible to be a religion, and to not take a position on that whole "right and wrong" thing. But I'm not aware of any real-world religion that actually does so. I think it's pretty clear that, frankly, the only thing that distinguishes many churches from each other is which things they "discriminate" against.

3) I think that churches sometimes go too far in using this exemption. IMO, this is such a case. I don't approve of the church firing this person doing this. But they certainly have the authority, and I approve of them having the authority.

I don't approve of people burning the flag to get their cause on TV, either. I approve of them having the right. In fact, I'm

proud

of the fact that they have the right. I just disagree with them

using

it.

Edit:

I think that the confusion is that I keep saying "churches should be exempt from such laws".

When I say that, I'm not saying "churches are now subject to such laws, but I think the laws should be changed".

I'm saying "churches are now exempt from such laws, and I approve of the exemption".

[twa]

learn how in-vitro is really done(and involves) or quit playing dumb

in-vitro could be done in a manner possibly acceptable to them,but the standard methodology is most certainly not

they embrace human medical intervention to humanity's benefit,but benefiting from anothers suffering or their loss of life is unacceptable

---------- Post added April-29th-2012 at 08:37 AM ----------

Could we explain how this woman (Took an innocent life)?

I doubt I can w/o offending some loving parents....I'll pass

as to the fertilised egg?...yes they consider it a individual human life

your other examples are acts of nature or God if you prefer,which mankind has no blame for

[Thiebear]

So she just needs to prove she didn't kill any fertilized eggs intentionally and she's back?

[LadySkinsFan]

I'll betcha that the Catholic Church is just fine with using a non-sentient woman as an incubator to keep a pregnancy going.

I remember my mother telling me that when we moved to Columbus OH when I was 4 and my mom was pregnant with my brother and the closest hospital was a Catholic hospital, and she begged my father to not take her to that hospital because if something happened, they would do everything to save the baby and let the mother die and she didn't want me to be motherless. (It's also because my father was less than stellar as a father and she feared what would happen to her children if she wasn't around to raise us.)

From my viewpoint, the Catholic "faith" always favors the innocent life, even at the expense of a living, breathing woman, because we are just there to serve, after all. (see nuns)

[twa]

So she just needs to prove she didn't kill any fertilized eggs intentionally and she's back?

No..... judging from the second link earlier

"The two fundamental criteria for moral discernment in this field", he said, "are: unconditional respect for the human being as a person, from conception to natural death; and respect for the origin of the transmission of human life through the acts of the spouses".

freezing embryos (individual humans to them) long term is is not a acceptable way around in their view,and the issue of procreation outside the husband/wife remains as well.

if all fertilised eggs were implanted in the mother (assuming no outside donor) possibly, but the issue of science intervening in procreating would remain.

put yourself in their mindset and ask how many humans should be kept frozen alive just so one could live for your desirevto be met?...or be sacrificed in the quest.

once you accept it is a individual human life with a soul at fertilisation the perspectives change greatly on the process.

I'm not saying they are totally right,but to ask them to not object (when holding that beief) to such a thing is barbaric.

[Larry]

I'll betcha that the Catholic Church is just fine with using a non-sentient woman as an incubator to keep a pregnancy going.

Oh, yeah? Well I bet that the Church of Scientology is opposed to Warp Drive!

---------- Post added April-29th-2012 at 11:07 AM ----------

if all fertilised eggs were implanted in the mother (assuming no outside donor) possibly, but the issue of science intervening in procreating would remain.

So, in your opinion, the Catholic Church condemns Viagra just as much an IVF, huh?

Them being so opposed to anything artificial being used to aid reproduction, and all.

[twa]

I'll betcha that the Catholic Church is just fine with using a non-sentient woman as an incubator to keep a pregnancy going.

...

because we are just there to serve, after all. (see nuns)

you would object to keeping a viable life alive?...they do not endorse euthanasia

I believe you are wrong on them choosing to favor one and that they would make every effort to save both.....JUST NOT ONE AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER,unless directed to do so

spending my time defending Catholics is not how I imagined my weekend if one of ya'll want to jump in.

---------- Post added April-29th-2012 at 10:21 AM ----------

So, in your opinion, the Catholic Church condemns Viagra just as much an IVF, huh?

Them being so opposed to anything artificial being used to aid reproduction, and all.

Are you saying viagra is the same as IVF?...you cannot equate the results of the two

I don't believe it is the aiding part they object to....it is the loss of life and suffering they see inherent in IVF

if it was solely aid I suspect there would little or no objection

[Larry]

I don't believe it is the aiding part they object to....it is the loss of life and suffering they see inherent in IVF

Then how about dropping the claim that they object to anything artificial, whether it results in the destruction of an egg or not?

I believe you are wrong on them choosing to favor one and that they would make every effort to save both.....JUST NOT ONE AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER,unless directed to do so

Just pointing out that one is living at the expense of another.

Every single thing that it needs, to live, comes at the expense of another. There is no better example of utter dependency in the Universe.

[twa]

Then how about dropping the claim that they object to anything artificial, whether it results in the destruction of an egg or not?

Just pointing out that one is living at the expense of another.

.

viagra does not change the act between two people,you could say it initiates it ....but they do seem to encourage sex and procreation in that manner rather consistently.

as to the other , there is no expense since they are forbidden to end the life of the patient(pregnant or not)

But LSF is right...if you are going to a hospital to die ,I would not suggest a Catholic one....they don't do abortions either

add

they don't support living wills either

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu78.htm

Pope John Paul II stated that there is an obligation to provide feeding tubes for those who are comatose. He declared that feeding tubes and hydration for patients in a vegetative state are "morally obligatory." Pope John Paul II further declared that the removal of feeding tubes is called "euthanasia by omission."

Pope John Paul's speech affirmed the church and the Catholic health ministry's abiding commitment to the inviolable dignity of human persons no matter their physical or medical condition and reminded the medication profession of its responsibility of never abandonning the sick or dying.

In conclusion, it should be added that it is not for one or more persons to determine when a person should die. Only God, the Giver of life, has the right to end someone's journey on earth.

[Larry]

they don't support living wills either

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu78.htm

Pope John Paul II stated that there is an obligation to provide feeding tubes for those who are comatose. He declared that feeding tubes and hydration for patients in a vegetative state are "morally obligatory." Pope John Paul II further declared that the removal of feeding tubes is called "euthanasia by omission."

Pope John Paul's speech affirmed the church and the Catholic health ministry's abiding commitment to the inviolable dignity of human persons no matter their physical or medical condition and reminded the medication profession of its responsibility of never abandonning the sick or dying.

In conclusion, it should be added that it is not for one or more persons to determine when a person should die. Only God, the Giver of life, has the right to end someone's journey on earth.

Thus providing another example for why I believe that the church's exemption from lots and lots of laws, should not extend to businesses, that are owned by the church.

IMO, when somebody opens a church, then they have the right to hang up a sign that says "whites only". (Well, the legal right. You can argue about whether they have the moral right.)

But, when the same church opens a restaurant, then no, they don't.

[twa]

since when is a hospital's mission to deny food or water or to end life?

going to a restaurant to be poisoned would seem illogical

we are getting way OT, but here are the exceptions and level of care mandated

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/16/catholic-directive-complicates-life-support-issue/

Under traditional Catholic teachings, patients may refuse medical interventions when anticipated burdens outweigh potential benefits.

Do you find the notion of a Joes Animal Rescue and Meat packing plant being funded by PETA to be inconsistent?:evilg:

[SuperBash]

It would be nice if logic could trump all but it clearly doesn't. And this case is just another example of that.

[Larry]

since when is a hospital's mission to deny food or water or to end life?

. . . to people who have stated, in writing, in advance, that that's what they want?

Do you find the notion of a Joes Animal Rescue and Meat packing plant being funded by PETA to be inconsistent?:evilg:

"Funded by"? You mean, Catholic Hospitals don't change their patients?

And here I thought that the customers paid. In fact, I always thought that the places made a profit.

[Destino]

Catholics should treat women quite a bit better if they ever expect to be taken seriously.

taken seriously by who? You?

---------- Post added April-29th-2012 at 12:44 PM ----------

since when is a hospital's mission to deny food or water or to end life?

A simple injection to mercifully end a life with dignity would be a better option. Sadly those defending life have forced unnecessary suffering.