positive rights negative rights
When freedom of religion and freedom of sexual expression clash, who wins? The question is not just theoretical as an article this week in the New York sun brings up the clash between New York lawmakers and the Catholic Church. The issue centerers around the question if abortion is a fundamental human right.
In short, New York is updating its abortion laws to match with newer medical techonology. Abortion would go from being done in clinics to being done in hospitals. However, the Catholic church wants an exemption due to freedom of religion. They say that a Catholic run hospital should be allowed to act within the doctrine of the Catholic faith. Theirfore, no abortions. They were woried that by not offering abortions they might open themselves up to discrimination lawsuits.
The issue is similar to the same debate abotu gay marriage. When gay marage is legalized in the united states, could a church be sued if it refuses to preform a gay mariage. I would certinaly hope not. Forcing anyone or any institution to do something that is againt their faith is an enormous breach of freedom of religion. And even gay mariage suporters dont want things to come to that. The organization marriage equality even says they dont want gay rights to override religious rights. “Even after civil marriage becomes available to same-sex couples, churches will retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage, just as they already do for every couple. No court decision or legislative enactment can change the basic tenets of religious faith.” In canadan law that recently legalized gay marriage, it was expresly writen in that no church would be compeled to preform a gay marage againt its wishes.
So it would seem to me that a reasonabal answer to the abortion arguments in New York would be to take the same cue from gay rights. Just write it into the law that churches cant be charged with discrimination if refusing to preform something that violates their faith. However, New York lawers are staunchly refusing to do any such thing and are screaming and pointing fingers at the church calling them hatemongers.
I think under this all is some confusin as to what exactly a ‘right’ is. Now a days anyone who wants anything can call their wish list a ‘right’ and start whining about oppression. But is somethign nessasaraly a right just because you want it?
As an example, take the right to life. If I am walking down the street and a mugger sneeks up behind me and shoots me taking my wallet. This would violate my right to life. In order to protect my right to life, you would have to stop him from preforming the action he wants. However, if the gunshot dosent kill me and I lay bleading in the street, a passing off duty might happen on the scene. He could do CPR on me or choose not to help. Now even though my life would be taken away if he dosent help, this dosent violate my right to life. He woudl be forced to DO something to protect my life while in comparision the mugger would be forced NOT to do something to protect my life.
In order to protect my rights, I can force others to do no action, but I cant force others into action. In each case the person saying no wins out. Mugger wants my wallet but I say no. I win. I want CPR but passing doctor says no. They win.
Everyone has a safeword.
I dont have the right to a job because someone someplace woudl be forced to give it to me. I do have the right to own property because nobody is compled to give property to me to own. I do have the right to speak my mind. I dont have the right to force others to listen.
So what does that ‘right to refuse mean’ for catholic hospitals? Well, someone wanting an abortion coudl posiably go to some other hospital. But just for the sake of an argument lets say no other hospital exists. Someone comes in wanting an abortion saying it is their right to recive medical care. Doctor dosent want to prefom abortion saying it will violate their faith.
Well, the issue has already come up (kind of) ….. In 2005 pharmacist Rich Quayle refused to dispense the ‘morning after pill’ because he said doing so would be againt his faith. Illinois courts agreed with him basically giving him conscious objector status.