Dogma over health

fatmammycat

Whenever anyone tells me the Catholic church has the best interests of its 'flock' at heart I am reminded of the expression 'a turkey voting for Christmas'.
More utter mindless tripe here today. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1102045.htm

How can any organisation be so lacking in compassion that they would put dogma before health with such specious reasoning; it is beyond me.

Dades

Given the last thread on this was closed, maybe we'll give this one a chance.

MagicMarker

But if everyone allowed god into their heart and loved one another and remained faithful to their partner then there would be no AIDS, in fact the sun would always shine and beer would always be cold, women would always have succulent bosoms and gob****es working in delis would put the sauce on our rolls FIRST!!

fatmammycat

I hope so as the link I provided is the Catholic News, a sort of straight from the horses mouth line. Cannot understand how any group- religious or not- can put forward unrealistic proposals that endanger people and their continued health.

MrPudding

fatmammycat wrote: »

Cannot understand how any group- religious or not- can put forward unrealistic proposals that endanger people and their continued health.

When you have, at best, the most tenuous grip on reality, and you have spent you life in service to a despicable organisation like the rcc and rationality is something that happened after the second world war when there was a shortage of food, I would imagine it is quite easy.

MrP

kylith

So, because condoms can't 100% protect against HIV you shouldn't say that condoms can protect you from aids and no-one should use them?

That's kind of like saying that because you can't 100% guarantee that a seatbelt will save your life in a car crash then you shouldn't say that seatbelts can save your life, and no-one should use them.

Dades

kylith wrote: »

That's kind of like saying that because you can't 100% guarantee that a seatbelt will save your life in a car crash then you shouldn't say that seatbelts can save your life, and no-one should use them.

There's people that do that, too. No really.

kylith

Dades wrote: »

There's people that do that, too. No really.

I know. It'd be pitiful if it wasn't so tragic. Hopefully they'll at least enjoy the view as they are ejected head-first through their windscreen at 70mph.

Turtwig

kylith wrote: »

I know. It'd be pitiful if it wasn't so tragic. Hopefully they'll at least enjoy the view as they are ejected head-first through their windscreen at 70mph.

Yeah, and hopefully they don't collide with and cause serious harm to anyone who actually has a seatbelt on.

Dades

kylith wrote: »

Hopefully they'll at least enjoy the view as they are ejected head-first through their windscreen at 70mph.

http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt, Lefler said. He said Havermann and Uphoff were wearing seat belts at the time.
In a column written for the Daily Nebraskan in September, Derek attacked seat belt laws as intrusions on individual liberties and expensive to enforce.
"It is my choice what type of safety precautions I take," he wrote.
"There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group."

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

Dades you're the lawyer guy, is it possible to sue someone in advance because they unwittingly intend to pose serious risk to others by not wearing a seatbelt? I'm sure if such a court case was won, these dimwits would think twice about claiming their liberal seatbelt views. I've no problem with someone refusing to wear a seatbelt if they are alone in the vehicle and travelling in an area devoid of other humans.

kylith

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah, and hopefully they don't collide with and cause serious harm to anyone who actually has a seatbelt on.

Hopefully.


I'm so used to putting seat belts on now that I feel really weird if I don't. I even wear them on buses.

Dades

Malty_T wrote: »

Dades you're the lawyer guy, is it possible to sue someone in advance because they unwittingly intend to pose serious risk to others by not wearing a seatbelt?

I'm thinking, no. But it's a wacky world!

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

So, because condoms can't 100% protect against HIV you shouldn't say that condoms can protect you from aids and no-one should use them?

That's kind of like saying that because you can't 100% guarantee that a seatbelt will save your life in a car crash then you shouldn't say that seatbelts can save your life, and no-one should use them.

Ah ha. But the bible doesn't mention seat belts... Oh... Wait...

MrP

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

Dades you're the lawyer guy, is it possible to sue someone in advance because they unwittingly intend to pose serious risk to others by not wearing a seatbelt? I'm sure if such a court case was won, these dimwits would think twice about claiming their liberal seatbelt views. I've no problem with someone refusing to wear a seatbelt if they are alone in the vehicle and travelling in an area devoid of other humans.

I don't think you can, in a legal sense, unwittingly intend to do something. Intention has a very specific, and much argued over, meaning in law.

I think it would be very difficult to secure any kind of conviction for anything I advance of an offence being committed, bearing in mind not wearing a searbelt is already an offence.

I think it is generally seen as being an offence that only affects the offender, but, like yourself, I am not sure I agree with that.

MrP

pH

Malty_T wrote: »

. I've no problem with someone refusing to wear a seatbelt if they are alone in the vehicle and travelling in an area devoid of other humans.

Well it depends on what that person expects if and when an accident occurs.

And here's the problem, if you want the state to send ambulances containing well trained medics to rush out to you and rush you back to hospital where highly trained medical professionals will try and save your life and put your body back together again, then I think the state does have the right at some level to ask you to take whatever precautions are needed (drive a safe car with airbags, wear a seatbelt, wear a helmet) to help yourself.

Now a pure libertarian may argue that you have the right to die horribly in your car after an accident, with no state assistance, but that would not go down well with other road users, and isn't really practical on our road system.

Turtwig

pH wrote: »

Well it depends on what that person expects if and when an accident occurs.

And here's the problem, if you want the state to send ambulances containing well trained medics to rush out to you and rush you back to hospital where highly trained medical professionals will try and save your life and put your body back together again, then I think the state does have the right at some level to ask you to take whatever precautions are needed (drive a safe car with airbags, wear a seatbelt, wear a helmet) to help yourself.

Now a pure libertarian may argue that you have the right to die horribly in your car after an accident, with no state assistance, but that would not go down well with other road users, and isn't really practical on our road system.

That's true I never considered the burden on the state to help the individual.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

"He was a bright young boy, a 4.0,"
Would it be cruel to suggest that he wasn't that bright considering his anti-seat belt views?

kylith

Galvasean wrote: »

"He was a bright young boy, a 4.0,"
Would it be cruel to suggest that he wasn't that bright considering his anti-seat belt views?

You can have all the book learnin' in the world and still have the common sense of a brick.

Turtwig

kylith wrote: »

You can have all the book learnin' in the world and still have the common sense of a brick.

That's a little harsh on bricks.:(

kylith

Malty_T wrote: »

That's a little harsh on bricks.:(

I suppose you're right. You rarely see bricks taking unnecessary risks with their lives, and the lives of others. How about '...not have the common sense of a brick'.

Dr. Loon

Galvasean wrote: »

"He was a bright young boy, a 4.0,"
Would it be cruel to suggest that he wasn't that bright considering his anti-seat belt views?

"Erica Rogers, opinion page editor at the Daily Nebraskan, said Derek's brains and intensity would be missed."

Eh....