[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.9912

File: 1634516406056.jpg (383.09 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, NurseRedheart_wallpaper_by….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If a devoutly religious medical professional as an individual, or a group of such people, or a corporate organization under a spiritual mission refuse to give the same health care that would be given to somebody else to some victim because said victim is an atheist, a bisexual person, a Jew, a lesbian, a Muslim, a Satanist, a transgender person, or whatever else... should that be legal in the United States? Or should the federal government force the religious to defy their faiths by assisting those whom the divine have commanded them to be separate from? Is that justified?

What if the victims are to be provided substandard care, perhaps by paying more than a type of person viewed as more spiritually acceptable. Is that a reasonable compromise? Or is it insulting?

On the whole, is having so much of the U.S. health care system based around religious lines through spiritual organizations a problem as long as prejudice and sectarianism exists?

 No.9913

>>9912
>should the federal government force

No.  That never ends well.

 No.9914

>>9912
This seems like quite a hypothetical.  I think it's incredibly rare for a physician to refuse to treat someone on the basis of their religion or sexual orientation.  Closest I've heard is one physician who said that he's going to refuse to see unvaccinated patients.  I guess in some other cases there could be problems that stem from religion, e.g., a Muslim might not want a get a heart transplant from a pig.  Or a doctor who is unfamiliar with transgender issues might decline to treat transgender-specific issues.

>Or should the federal government force...
I'd say no -- that seems like a local issue reserved to the states.

>On the whole, is having so much of the U.S. health care system based around religious lines through spiritual organizations a problem as long as prejudice and sectarianism exists?
My guess is "no".  The only real problem I've heard about from religious medical institutions is about abortion.

 No.9915

>>9913
>>9914
I wouldn't call it an unrealistic hypothetical. Or even an extreme one. Medical facilities in general and health care professionals specifically practiced open discrimination on the basis of race all across the U.S. south within living memory, for instance. There's a lot of varying views out there. And actions such as, in comparison, denying somebody a job promotion due to being homosexual or being Jewish or such still happens even now, though thankfully not commonly.

The point that this is a matter federalism would ideally leave up to state and local law is noted, still.

 No.9916

File: 1634691045777.jpg (51.87 KB, 460x640, 23:32, floppy-525.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>9915
>Medical facilities in general and health care professionals specifically practiced open discrimination on the basis of race all across the U.S. south within living memory, for instance.
Okay, but I'd say that practices like that are as dead as 5¼-inch floppy disks.

 No.9917

>>9916
But even now, like... just this week the state of Texas moved through legislation based on the supposed immorality and inferiority of transgender people to kick them out of official sports programs, this being a proclaimed stepping stone to other, future measures such as denial of health care services that other Texans could get.

And if the response to 'Black Lives Matter', particularly in the U.S. south, as a movement has proven anything, it's that prejudice in terms of ethnicity/race isn't just alive and well but thriving.

 No.9918

>>9917
>just this week the state of Texas moved through legislation based on the supposed immorality and inferiority of transgender people to kick them out of official sports programs
So I looked this up and found:
>Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is poised to sign a bill barring transgender youth from participating on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.
>
>The measure requires public schools from elementary to collegiate levels to assign athletes based on the sex noted on their birth certificates “at or near the time of birth.”
For sports, I think it makes more sense to segregrate by sex than by gender identity.  The whole reason for a separate female team is that females generally are worse at sports than males due to developmental differences in puberty (e.g., they have less muscle mass, their wider hips reduce their running speed).  So, I don't think it's about "the supposed immorality and inferiority of transgender people" but rather it's about not letting individuals with an athletically superior male body type unfairly compete on the women's team.

 No.9919

>>9918
Now I guess the law should probably have focused on puberty hormones rather than sex at birth, so that individuals who hormonally transition prior to puberty play on the team of their transitioned-to gender.  And probably some of the motivation of the bill was just anti-transgender bias.  But I expect that the median voter was mostly concerned about MtF individuals who transitioned after puberty playing on womens' teams.

 No.9921

>>9918
>>9919
I don't think that your view of the matter is right given the context that you're not taking into account, with this sports related measure being one aspect in a series of legal changes in U.S. southern states ranging from denying transgender people health care in government programs to prohibiting transgender people from receiving adequate housing assistance.

There's also the matter of the conservatives' rhetoric around all of this, which isn't "we should protect the integrity of women's sports" but is instead of the sort of "we should prevent these Godless perverts from eating the foundation of Christian civilization like termites destroying a beautiful house".

As the saying goes, "when people tell you that they hate you and who they really are, you should believe them."

 No.9922

>>9921
>>9921
>There's also the matter of the conservatives' rhetoric around all of this, which isn't "we should protect the integrity of women's sports" but is instead of the sort of "we should prevent these Godless perverts from eating the foundation of Christian civilization like termites destroying a beautiful house".
All of the rhetoric that I've seen from conservatives on this issue focuses on the unfairness of allowing biological males to compete in women's sports.

 No.9923

>>9922
You're still not seeing the context.

Nor are you seeing the specific picture besides the fig leaf justification about "biological males" (a weird pseudo-political invention to say the least in terms of referring to transgender women who're people, not abstract chemical entities).

This is about systematically discriminating against transgender individuals out of bigotry, starting with really putting the screws upon them as children.

 No.9926

File: 1634996544781.gif (822.71 KB, 349x400, 349:400, 1629456617230.gif) ImgOps Google



[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]