Vatican abortion treaty brings down government

[Archae]

Vatican abortion treaty brings down government

Nicholas Watt
Saturday February 11, 2006
The Guardian

The Vatican has inadvertently triggered the collapse of the government in Slovakia, one of the economic stars of the 10 entrants to the EU, in a row over abortion rights.
The parliament in Bratislava voted on Thursday to hold elections early, on June 17, after Christian Democrats quit Mikulas Dzurinda's centre-right minority coalition government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1707579,00.html

Thank you, Pope Rat the 1rst!

[Warpy]

1. If your religion prevents you from doing your job,

then find another damn job.

This is the same thing they're trying to do here, allowing prissy pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions even when they have no clue if they're being used for birth control or for another condition.

Any health care provider whose religion interferes with his/her ability to provide the services outlined in the job description needs to be fired on the spot.

That sounds a little harsh to some believers, I know, but it's better for us all if we weed them out as quickly as possible. Pharmacists are not physicians and have no right to second guess them; gynecologists have no right to second guess any woman who has decided an unwanted pregnancy will ruin her life.

There are other pharmacy related jobs where the pious won't have their faith challenged. There are certainly other medical specialties where abortion won't be an issue. It's not a case of abandoning an expensive education. It's a case of using it appropriately so that it's not used to endanger people.

[CornField]

2. I don't find it harsh at all

Why would a Mormon go to work in a blood bank?

Why would an Orthodox Jew seek out employment on a hog farm?

[dsc]

11. You are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses

they ban transfusions. Mormons have no restrictions on medical care. In point of fact most Mormons even support stem cell research which is why Hatch did.

[CornField]

18. Damn! Sorry

I'm forever getting those two groups confused on this issue. Sorry for my ignorance shinging through and no offense intended.

[dsc]

19. No problem

Mormans have plenty of odd beliefs of their own just not that particular one.

[AndyTiedye]

16. They SEEK OUT Jobs Like That So They Can Block Access to Birth Control

They are trying to pack the pharmacy schools with Fundies so that they can eventually deny it to everyone.

[RedstDem]

3. You Think That's Harsh ?

I Would Beat Em Upside Their Head With A Tire Iron If They Refused My Prescription.

[area51]

4. Well said, Warpy. (n/t)

[MrPrax]

8. "a little harsh"

Not at all...quite reasonable.

Who would hire a vegetarian to run a steakhouse? Not me and I am a vegetarian. Now if the veggie insisted on it as a right, then 'what right is being violated' by my refusal to hire or fire them.

Hell if one is serious about their own 'principles and beliefs' then one would think that person would do the right thing and see the obvious conflict. Pharmists and healthcare types are clearly in violation of not doing there jobs and there defense ('read it in a book') is kinda irrelevent.

In other words, people wanting their rights respected should NOT be in a position of arguing 'theology', but should be allowed to argue 'secular' rights as are commonly held.

This idea of religious 'zealots' being given free rein to undermine and destroy 'secular' rights is getting out of hand, and worst, is that the 'silence' of their co-religionists doesn't make much of a case for continued 'religious tolerance'.

That's why abortion shit has never been much of a debate--the minority of zealots have simply organzie and become 'parasites' on the body of democracy--personally I am getting tired of these pigs, just like I am getting tired of reading the pronouncements of 'homophobic assholes' whose SOLE claim for their beliefs is...'oh I read it in a book' or 'oh the fetus has a soul'.

Even more disturbing is that large religious organizations on the other side are NOT condemning publicly their co-religionists, preferring instead to fence sit and witness and pray for peace.

I would like to see these 'so-called' progressive churches (oxymoron) start opening a direct challenge to these zealots...the fact they don't, makes it very difficult to pick the 'good' ones from the 'bad' ones, since they all 'read it in a book'.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Like you said, it is the silence of religious moderates that enable

the Christian Jihadists to carry on with their Crusade to Christianize the world at the point of the sword.

[MrPrax]

12. Duped

removed due to a quick eye and some weird computer mojo...

[MrPrax]

13. The 'Free Rider' problem...

I think co-religionists tend to think that if these 'pigs' are not given carte blanche to say 'stupid' things under the hubris of 'religious freedom' then their OWN rights might be affected in any clampdown.

Historically, this position makes sense and is reasonable. History has taught us that the stuff going on among Muslims over the cartoons, was SOP in the West. Angry mobs tend not to care about demoninational nuances.

What doesn't make sense is that the 'good' religious people claim to be working for human rights, freedom, tolerance, etc, but ignore the fact that religion itself is an 'incubator' for a lot of hate and intolerance and it might be 'incompatible' to promote worldviews based entirely on fictions.

Religious thought tends to permit people to think terrible terrible thoughts and avoid critical reasoning.

[Rich Hunt]

15. they do...

The fact that you see it as an oxymoron is indicative of the fact that you choose to see what you want.

If you were looking, you would see it, but because it's not on the front page of the papers, you think
it's not there.

And that's not a 'progressive' attitude - just accepting as gospel truth whatever is on your favorite
news web site. Progressivism is about activism and taking responsibility for change and participating
in your community, not sitting on your couch and reading news stories and commenting on them.

[xchrom]

5. the vatican trying to reassert control over europe.

and with priests telling their parishioners how to vote here -- the vatican wants to see where it's muscle will lead it.

i'm sure it doesn't care if the gov collapsed.

the churches there will work extra hard to organize it's faithful to vote with the conscience of the vatican -- not their own.

[Demeter]

6. That Won't Last a Generation

People who threw off the Soviet fascism aren't going to be happy with the Roman model. People are not as stupidly ignorant as they were (with the obvious exception of the USA, where Devolution is proceeding at break-neck speed). Religion's last hurrah, and it can't be over too soon.

[xchrom]

7. i hope so.

things, i know are very different when you get passed the old roman empire boundaries.
i don't know how conservative these folk are.

[rodeodance]

14. yes, yes, once the Jeni is out,it is hard to put her back.

[NashVegas]

9. Is This Quite So Black and White?

The party is angry with the prime minister after he refused to endorse a draft treaty with the Vatican that would have allowed healthcare workers in hospitals founded by the Catholic church to refuse to carry out abortions on conscience grounds.

Here in the US we wouldn't blink an eye over a Catholic hospital that refused abortions (excepting cases where the mother's life depends on it), unless that hospital was the sole hospital that served a community that had no other options.

So, what's the situation in Slovakia? Are there no non-religious-affiliated hospitals, or too few to be of service?

[kiraboo]

17. I was just wondering the same thing. We have such a hospital

here in town. It successfully competes with a secular hospital, also in town.

And, generally speaking, I believe that a doctor - NOT a pharmacist - does have the right to decide what procedures s/he will perform. I see no reason at all why an anti-choice gynecologist should be forced out of the profession for refusing to perform abortions. Unless, of course, that doctor somehow prevents the patient from obtaining the service elsewhere.

I don't understand why this is a problem in this free country of ours.