galanthus

The continuous US states are 8,080,460 square kilometres.

Europe is 10,186,000 square kilometres.

I am not sure if maths has reached north america yet, but saying that "Europe can fit in the continuous us states with room to spare" does not increase the percieved intelligence of the average american.

Europe is actually bigger than the entirety of the US, including alaska and overseas territories, but who cares about facts, right? If you can manufacture ridiculous reasons to feel better than others, who needs them?

In what world is that "not far off"?

Start smoking.

"all of Europe could fit inside the 48 continental states alone" - are you sure about that, fam?

Maybe if you had a clue about what is going on outside of your country you would want to leave it, but alas, you don't.

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.