Romney lied in the debate – he did force Catholics to violate their conscience

You write very well.

So essentially your argument is that the victims right to exert some measure of influence over when and how she becomes pregnant is terminated once there is a very real possibility of her becoming pregnant, regardless of the circumstances that brought about that result, yes? If that's what you believe, then obviously the hospital shouldn't be forced to dispense EC; if I believed that, I'd agree with you.

I freely acknowledge that my result is irreligious - after all, I'm saying quite openly that I think that in extreme cases the government has a right to literally mandate Catholics do something that, to them, is essentially murder - and that my conclusion is the product of a disinterested examination of the facts at hand. I disagree, however, with the argument that I'm merely engaging in some sort of pro forma dialectic; the Constitution, again, is a secular document, and the rights derived therefrom do not necessarily coincide with values championed by religion. To whit, "a rape...under Catholic doctrine, simply does not rise to, or approach, the level of the inviolability of innocent life" -- obviously that's true, but this country isn't built on Catholic doctrine, or any other religious doctrine for that matter, and there are cases when constitutional doctrine and religious doctrine may directly conflict. While freedom of religion is fundamental, when the LDS church came up against established bigamy laws, the LDS church lost; if an Orthodox Jew decided to live by the Mosaic code, he'd still be arrested for stoning his child to death, no matter how disrespectful he/she might have been. Why? Because sometimes some rights trump others.

As for the example, let's say that the entire case hinges upon the bishop's testimony. Can the state force him to testify?

The door to a weighing and balancing never opens, under anything you conveyed--whether you took 15 or 15,000 words to convey it is, likewise, irrelevant.

And this is one of the basic fallacies of secularism/liberalism--that there is, necessarily, always some kind of detailed weighing and balancing that must go on pro forma.

But it is this very 'weighing and balancing', when it takes place, as it often does, innapropriately--that is, not in accordance with superceding religious principle, but in willful ignorance, or suspension thereof--which merely serves as a fig leaf for materialists to reach an irreligious result while attempting to avoid direct acknowledgment that the result is, in fact, irreligious.

Rape does not make the killing of an innocent child permissable--there is no weighing and balancing beyond that--a rape victim's very real pain, and the pain of a husband and other loved ones, under Catholic doctrine, simply does not rise to, or approach, the level of the inviolability of innocent life.

With your bishop-as-sole-witness scenario: if the facts of the case were known, as you state, the bishop's testimony could not be needed. His being compelled to testify, if such a thing did occur, does not compare to his being forced to provide the chemicals or the syringe.

Also, on an unrelated note, where do you stand on the death penalty?

And let's say someone gets murdered and the sole witness is a Catholic bishop. It's a death penalty case and his testimony is pretty much guaranteed to put a needle in the murderer's arm. If he refuses to testify, should he be held in contempt until he does or is this a violation of his right to freedom of conscience?

1,500 words and that's all you have? A reiteration of the same point and an insistence that I could never understand something - while having the nerve to call me arrogant?

I think I made it quite clear that I understand how the Catholic church feels and that I respect and would defend their rights to believe whatever they believe. I didn't say that they should stop providing healthcare, and I rather specifically stated that in general they shouldn't have to do anything that violates their conscience. It's not that I don't "understand" how they feel, it's just that I don't necessarily feel the same way that they do - and I'm not the only one.

The situation that we're discussing here is both extreme and extremely rare. How I went against the Constitution in arguing my point I'm not sure; the Constitution rather explicitly deems that government's reason for existence is to secure the blessings of liberty, and while freedom of religion falls under that umbrella, so does the natural right to self-determination. Perhaps the founding fathers felt that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob precedes and supersedes the State, perhaps they didn't, but one thing is clear, they wrote the Constitution as a secular document - rather boldly making absolutely no mention of God. Heck, the original document didn't even mention freedom of religion.

So if we want to work from a constitutional standpoint, we must adhere to the Constitution. Freedom of religion is in there, but so are a whole host of other freedoms, and sometimes there are situations in which the protection of one right comes at the expense of another. When that happens, we must determine which one is to be protected.

I'm sure you have things to say that would address the post I made directly as opposed to just telling me that I'm an idiot and then explaining something that anyone with a fundamental knowledge of Christian theology would know to be true. I'd actually be interested to hear what you have to say.

Yes, and if we were talking about a church providing spiritual guidance, I wouldn't say that they should have to do anything that they feel violates their moral conscience or the tenets of their faith

This just highlights the utter irrelevance of your entire argument. You, nor any of our elected representatives, have any right or authority to proclaim that the Catholic Church is somehow limited to a merely verbal exercise of their religion. Such a thing is neither true nor possible--no matter who arrogates to themselves the alleged right to decree it...

This type of idea comes from secularists and materialists, and is an inversion of reality generally and the US Constituion specifically.

Religion is not merely verbal, 'offering spiritual guidance'--that is incredibly absurd. True religion is by definition super-rational, meta-material, etc.,--it is not a sideline or sub-category within materialism, but exactly the other way around. Religion is not limited by a materialist worldview as secualrists wish--and the founding fathers well understood this truth.

The Church holds simply that the life which begins at conception is a gift from God, an inscrutable authority higher than any Kingdom or State, and that man cannot overrule God by taking it upon himself to kill--nothing about age, sex, victimhood, or anything else does, or could possibly, modify this absolute truth in the least.

Materialists of all stripes find all of this difficult to understand and accept.

The founding fathers well understood that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob precedes and supercedes the Sate, and that the State must scrupulously limit itself so as not to interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Thank you - I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'm happy that you read it and got something out of it.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. The one reason I do admire both Santorum and Paul is that even if I don't agree with them, they definitely have the courage of their convictions. They're not demagogues, they're honest guys with an honest set of beliefs - unlike one certain former speaker of the house.

And honestly, if Romney can win the governorship in Taxachusetts, I imagine if he had just remained consistent he have won the presidency handily* - especially with the way things are now - but his inability to stand on his own convictions has definitely done some serious damage. It's 2004 all over again.

*although, to be fair, he'd probably lose the primary before that could happen

Really good and well argued post but I think the real issue here is that Romney knowingly lied - not so much what he lied about. I suspect Romney shares your views - hence the decision to force catholic hospitals to provide contraception. However, I wish he had the confidence of his convictions to argue his corner, as you have, rather than deny them to avoid another potential blow to his already faltering reputation as a conservative.

Yes, and if we were talking about a church providing spiritual guidance, I wouldn't say that they should have to do anything that they feel violates their moral conscience or the tenets of their faith, but since they're choosing to be a primary healthcare provider for millions of people, their primary obligation should be to treat their patients. EC in most cases prevents ovulation and thickens cervical mucus to prevent sperm from ever entering the uterus - conception never taking place. In some cases, when both of these measures fail, it's known to prevent implantation of the zygote (or blastocyst, if it's been more than four days since fertilization). Of course, EC only works for about 72 hours with its efficacy decreasing as time passes, and it's not 100% effective. Incidentally, about 70% of zygotes fail to implant as it is. None of these things is "abortion," in the traditional sense, since abortion necessarily requires a pregnancy and if a blastocyst fails to implant, the woman never becomes pregnant - it just flushes out at her next period and nobody is the wiser.

At least that's the prevailing view in the medical community, but alright, the Catholic Church holds that life begins at conception and a zygote is a human being. Fine. Ignoring the fact that this means that well over half of human beings die before they even begin to develop (a zygote/blastocyst doesn't have a heartbeat and won't until after about 22 days. If it fails to implant, it will be flushed out long before that), it puts them in a tricky situation when dealing with rape victims - because if the victim asks for EC, isn't provided it, and ultimately becomes pregnant, chances are quite high that she's going to elect to have an abortion since she didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. Even most mainstream pro-life politicians support rape/incest exceptions, so she shouldn't have much trouble getting one, even if Roe v Wade is one day overturned. Considering that, honestly, if it were me, I'd imagine it preferable to provide requested - and widely accepted (by the medical community) - treatment that most of the time will simply prevent fertilization and on the off chance that fertilization does occur, it will simply increase the likelihood that the zygote will fail to implant, than it would be to create a situation in which the victim will later abort an actual fetus, which will be much more painful to the victim, cost about 100 times as much money, and - of course - means that a developing life with a heartbeat, hands, legs, and a brain will be cut off.

But I'm not Catholic and the Catholic Church likes to be black and white about things. I get it - just because most zygotes fail to implant anyways doesn't mean that we have the right to interfere; after all, 10% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, that doesn't mean abortion is okay. From their standpoint, they'd rather our victim get pregnant and go abort elsewhere, so at least they wouldn't have any part in it. I'm relatively pro-choice (first trimester on-demand, second trimester only in special cases (rape, incest, life of mother, and cases of euthanasia, which is to say the discovery of an incurable birth defect that will ensure that the baby lives a short and painful life because I'd rather it die before it fully develops a central nervous system than have it come into and leave the world in pain), and by the third trimester only if giving birth is literally going to kill the mother or, again, some rare and incurable defect is discovered. That's my stance, but it's not the church's stance, and I respect that. That's where the conscience angle comes into play - and I respect people's rights to their religious beliefs.

So why is this different? Simply put, it's not so cut-and-dry because there are two groups whose rights you need to consider: the conscience of the church, and the victims right to self-determination (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

One thing that people generally respect - regardless of their personal views on artificial contraception and abortion - is the right of men and women be able to determine - or at least influence - when and how they get pregnant. The Catholic Church encourages the rhythm method for married women precisely because they recognize this fact. I don't know of any groups that object to the rhythm method itself, but even if then, they would say that people can abstain from sex should they wish not to get pregnant. None of these methods, of course, is foolproof (except for abstinence, but that fails when people succumb to their baser instincts). We expect that people who choose to have sex are aware of that fact.

When these various methods fail is when our various views on the subject start to diverge - there are pro-life absolutists who view the zygote as a full life, pro-choice absolutists who feel that abortion is okay pretty much until birth, and people in the middle, like myself. But, to be redundant, in all cases, we believe that even if they're having sex (in or out of wedlock) people should have the right to take measures to reduce the possibility of their becoming pregnant unexpectedly - and we expect them to take responsibility - whatever we as individuals think that means - for their actions if they do become pregnant by accident. Catholic hospitals shouldn't have to provide EC to couples if condom breaks, because the couple knew the risks of using a condom, and if they want EC, it's OTC and they can get it elsewhere.

Rape, however, robs the victim entirely of her right to influence her pregnancy. It violates probably our most basic human right - to control our own bodies. When rape occurs, the woman has lost total control of her own sexual destiny; her most fundamental freedom has been violated, and she has the right to try and regain it by some measure, including by taking steps that will allow her to control the circumstances by which she becomes pregnant - and once sperm has entered the vagina, EC is the only measure that gives her that option.

As noted above, we don't all agree on artificial contraception, but we do all agree that people have a basic God-given right to self-determination. And that's where the government comes in.

Rape victims are not teenagers with a broken condom - the latter has engaged in activity out of their own free will while the former has not. Condom-users recognize the risks of what they're doing and are exercising their right to determine what happens to their bodies, rape victims aren't afforded that liberty. While, should the former choose to go to a catholic hospital, the only right in play is the church's conscience rights, when the latter gets rushed to a catholic hospital for a rape kit, her rights also come into play, and it becomes a matter of determining whether the church's rights or the victim's rights take precedence - because in this case, she can't just get in a car and drive around to try and find a pharmacy that will accomodate her. It's a zero-sum game at the end of the day, I feel hers are more basic, and thus ought be protected, and government should take the measures to secure her rights. That's its purpose, no?

The other issue, of course, is that we're talking about a hospital, whose primary objective should be to ensure the wellbeing of their patients (first do no harm). By not providing EC to rape victims, a very solid ethical argument could be made that they're inflicting more pain on top of what she has already been through. Not that they're "punishing her with a baby," but that they're further depriving her of the right that she's already been deprived of by her rapist.

And that's why this issue is much more complicated than we want it to be.

You and the scarecrow must have something in common.

Why should the rape victim be robbed of the option of taking whatever legal measures that she feels are necessary because she happened to get raped in an area where the proprietor of the primary healthcare facility happens to be the Catholic church?

Nobody is "robbing" anybody of anything--where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church could somehow legitimately be required, in the very first place, to violate its own essential moral tenets and conscience? Regardless of what crimes are committed by third parties in their vicinity.... How does someone else's crime rightfully implicate the Catholic Church, and somehow compel them to violate their deeply held morals? The Catholic Church believes that children conceived as the result of rape are every bit as innocently and actually human as everyone else, and cannot be killed--not by a pill, or by any other means...

Seems quite reasonable to me! Carry on Marine.