While there is probably no room for agreement with someone who thinks “abortions are always immoral”, this does not mean their position is wrong somehow. What do you mean “we know this because we value human life”? I would say opposition to abortion is motivated by an appreciation for human life, even before birth we are valued.

A situation when a woman’s life is contingent on doing an abortion is a rare edge case, and I would say you should always save the mother then, but if they want to try to make sure the child survives as well in most cases where it is feasible, I can respect that since I see their rationale.

I would say, that the church while there were issues in which the church opposed some ideas that are now considered scientific consensus, most notably evolution and heliocentrism, I would say that it is not accurate to say it is opposed or has ever been opposed to science, nor that it opposes scientific thinking. This is like saying Marxists are opposed to science(which they famously love) because they opposed the theory of relativity in the soviet union.

You are saying they are wrong that it is immoral, but what gives you the right to say what is and what is not moral like you are some kind of prophet? The point is, if you accept their moral views, which are quite reasonable, and in case of their view on abortion not exclusively christian, their actions are perfectly rational most of the time in that regard, this has nothing to do with the denial of science.

Christian morality quite clearly does not involve that.

I meant it in a way that this is a very minor issue overall that is a direct consequence of your general approach to healthcare.

I don’t think you did address it. What do you mean women shouldn’t have rights? There are more rights than right to abortion, and you don’t have to be dogmatic about it.

They are more rule-bent, but a hardcore protestant is a lot more fanatical than a deboted catholic in my opinion. But with protestants it differs a lot between confessions.

The “unless someone else can provide them” part is unrealistic and unenforceable. I sympathise with you, but you should really just get your shit together first. Catholic hospitals are a drop in the ocean.

There is a difference between accepting the results of a democratic process(which they do, I suppose) and doing abortions yourself even though you don’t legally have to and believe it to be immoral. Your judgmental attitude is misplaced.

I agree, but I would rather catholic institutions are not forced to act in accordance with a moral system they do not believe in. Since your country leaves healthcare up to the free market, it is not commited to make sure everyone gets all the services the could possibly want, but it is not preventing it either. You can open an abortion clinic near a catholic hospital if there is demand. The solution to this should not be forcing catholics to do abortions.

Yes. This is why I said “significant threat” in the previous comment.

But how can you not interfere with the lives of other people? Shold I go live in the woods? If I am a private company, how much agency do I need to have to avoid interfering with the lives of other people?

Interesting word you have there, “pluralistic”. Do you reckon catholics will have a say in what laws are passed?

Only your views are allowed to interfere with other’s lives?

This situation is unfortunate, I suppose, but your government is not preventing anyone from getting these services in many states, and as of now, it does not have to provide all procedures to all the people. If you want your government to ensure that all approved procedures are easily accessible, and not leave it to the free market, it should actually manage it’s own hospitals, rather than force catholic ones to do abortions, which to me seems like too much to ask from a religious institution.

If the threat of death is certain, it does not mean that death is. I meant it in a way that if it is certain there is a risk of death, the woman should be saved.

Though I believe catholics would want to try, when possible, to save the child as well, and would use abortion as a last resort. I have no problem with that, for as long as they do abortions when there is no option that would avoid it while not putting the life of a mother under significant risk.

I am not a catholic. Never have been.

The church has always helped the poor and the ailing, this is not a recent development. This is simply a part of their tradition, their doctrine. It was happening when 99.9 per cent of christian europe was christian, and for centuries(thousands of years by now).

Also, while the church was often conservative, it would not be accurate to say it has stalled science to a significant degree, as there were only a few issues it took a hard stance on with regards to science.

We inherited the concept of the “dark ages” from the biased culture of the rennaisance(towards the classical roman culture and against the medieval), but modern historians are revising this issue, and I would say that it was not as bad as it is painted in pop culture, and towards the end of the era civilisation was very developed, and even if it was, christianity was not responsible for it, since it is doubtful the empire would have remained if it stayed pagan, plus the east did not experience this decline despite being christian.

Precisely, this is why I would work in a catholic hospital if I was in that situation.

I am not opposed to abortion, personally, nor is it banned anywhere in my country. I also have not killed anyone yet, but I’ll yet you know if anything changes. However, I am not particularly interested in forcing chrstians to accept secular morality.

The paradox I am referring to, is not in the fact that people that preach tolerance should be tolerant to everyone. I am instead pointing out the fact that western progressive culture, while preaching diversity, do not actually accept people that disagree with them, so inclusivity is contingent on acceptance of certain views, in that sense, this “diversity” is skin deep, we only accept you if you already agree with us.

This is similar to how christians have historically thought, ironically. So while blaming catholics of being intolerant of everything they disagree with, it seems like you are doing exactly that.

I do not doubt your experience, it sucks, I suppose but in my opinion it depends on the country and culture. A lot of christians(hardcore christians) are quite intense, let’s say, but a lot of them are pretty chill, in my experience, at least. I would say, some protestant denominations are the worst in that regard.

I would say, morality always comes into play when you decide which actions are permissible and which are not when it comes to healthcare, from designing legislation and hospital policy, to decisions doctors take on the spot, whether it is secular morality or religious(for example, many people oppose euthanasia, and not necessarily for religious reasons). I see no reason to discredit catholics and their moral views, I respect them, and see the appeal and logic of condemning abortion, even if personally I am not a catholic.

What makes your morality better than religious morality?

Their religious morals do not allow them to perform abortions. However, there are medical procedures banned in secular hospitals for moral reasons that are not exclusively religious, like euthanasia. Does that mean that countries that do not allow euthanasia do not have hospitals, but churches?

Very mature. I am not quite sure what you think they do at catholic hospitals, but there are a lot of medical operations other than abortion.