Contraception - a discussion

[g5000]

i think the crux of the debate is people understanding that contraception (as provided by health care providers) will not "free." it will be included in the cost of your original premium. thus they can not charge an extra co pay or fee for. there are other services this applies to as well, such as mammograms. now... should all men who pay premiums demand that women pay for their own mammograms since 99% of men do not get them?

the way health (and really all) insurance works is that you pay a premium for access to services. when you pay your premium and do not receive any services, you area subsidizing someone else's services. so every month i pay premiums, i help to pay for some guys viagra, or some womans pap smear, or some kids physical. should i be raising hell that they should be paying for those services themselves? but your insurance contract will not allow for that. call your insurance company and demand that none of your premium dollars be used for any services or treatment you disagree with and see what happens.

Take a pill so you can fuck your brains out is not the same thing as getting a mammogram to see if you have cancer.

Don't be fucking retarded.

The crux of the debate is that the State went into a Church and directed them to do something against their faith.

You get all hot and bothered when that same State invades your bedroom. It is very revealing of your two-facedness you don't mind it invading a Church.

although you can take that same pill to control acne and hormone levels as well. not all women use the pill as a pregnancy prevention device.

Weak. You are shameless. Holding up a few people with medical problems as human shields so everyone else can get their fuck-at-will pill.

Alcohol is used in medicines. Therefore, because of this sick guy over here who can't afford his medicine, Congress should make colleges pay for students to get free liquor.

That is the kind of logic you are using, and the kind of logic Ms. Fluke used.

How about we just help actual sick people instead? My god! That might actually help keep health care costs down!

Can't have that!

 

[California Girl]

As said by many, if you can't afford a dollar for a condom, you have two choices. 1) keep it in your pants or 2) keep your legs closed ... Depending on you sex.

To force a church to go against its beliefs just so some poor fool can have sex without danger of getting a girl pregnant makes so little sense I can't believe people here are even defending it. The redirect to world poverty... Water shortages... The church .... Not a single word said about the idiocy of someone that poor thinking about mating.

If you want to take away religious freedoms, you better come up with a better plan then 'but I can't afford a $1 condom'

maybe churchs shouldnt operate hospitals then. if they have a problem with performing or providing certain services that are part of that business model, then maybe they shouldnt be in that business to begin with.

why would an intelligent person get involved in a business in which parts of it could violate their beliefs? that would be like a devout muslim opening a liquor store but refusing to sell booze.

So, you support taking away religious liberty. Nice. Idiot.

 

[kwc57]

As said by many, if you can't afford a dollar for a condom, you have two choices. 1) keep it in your pants or 2) keep your legs closed ... Depending on you sex.

To force a church to go against its beliefs just so some poor fool can have sex without danger of getting a girl pregnant makes so little sense I can't believe people here are even defending it. The redirect to world poverty... Water shortages... The church .... Not a single word said about the idiocy of someone that poor thinking about mating.

If you want to take away religious freedoms, you better come up with a better plan then 'but I can't afford a $1 condom'

maybe churchs shouldnt operate hospitals then. if they have a problem with performing or providing certain services that are part of that business model, then maybe they shouldnt be in that business to begin with.

why would an intelligent person get involved in a business in which parts of it could violate their beliefs? that would be like a devout muslim opening a liquor store but refusing to sell booze.

I'm sorry, but how does providing abortions equate with healing the sick in a Catholic hospital? I know of grocery stores who won't sell tobacco. It's their choice as to what services they will provide and what they won't. At least it is in a free society.

 

[Syphon]

As said by many, if you can't afford a dollar for a condom, you have two choices. 1) keep it in your pants or 2) keep your legs closed ... Depending on you sex.

To force a church to go against its beliefs just so some poor fool can have sex without danger of getting a girl pregnant makes so little sense I can't believe people here are even defending it. The redirect to world poverty... Water shortages... The church .... Not a single word said about the idiocy of someone that poor thinking about mating.

If you want to take away religious freedoms, you better come up with a better plan then 'but I can't afford a $1 condom'

maybe churchs shouldnt operate hospitals then. if they have a problem with performing or providing certain services that are part of that business model, then maybe they shouldnt be in that business to begin with.

why would an intelligent person get involved in a business in which parts of it could violate their beliefs? that would be like a devout muslim opening a liquor store but refusing to sell booze.

So, you support taking away religious liberty. Nice. Idiot.

where in the bible does it talk about the church offering medical services? i dont remember that being part of the catholic doctrine.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is some really weird retroactive time warp shit.

You seem pretty clueless to the fact that Catholic hospitals have been around a long time and have not been violating their beliefs. Their "business model" has been thriving.

If you want to go the whole muslim route, then to make your completely false analogy a true one, what Obama has done is force a Muslim-operated convenience store which has been around for more than a century to start selling booze.

And then here comes you, saying "Gee, why would a Muslim have a business model that violates his beliefs? I don't get it!"

if you rule that religious hospitals apply for exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs, you up a whole different set of issues than just the contraception issue.

i could make the argument (in court) that my religion prohibits me from providing cancer drugs, aids drugs, heart drugs, or cholesterol drugs, or any other drug on the market. would that be an acceptable consequence in your mind?

Has anyone ever done that?

No?

Okay. Just keep making shit up.

In fact withholding lifesaving drugs by a parent because of their religion has been litigated, and the parents lost.

 

[g5000]

if you rule that religious hospitals apply for exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs, you up a whole different set of issues than just the contraception issue.

i could make the argument (in court) that my religion prohibits me from providing cancer drugs, aids drugs, heart drugs, or cholesterol drugs, or any other drug on the market. would that be an acceptable consequence in your mind?

Has anyone ever done that?

No?

Okay. Just keep making shit up.

In fact withholding lifesaving drugs by a parent because of their religion has been litigated, and the parents lost.

Not the same thing as a hospital withholding care, now is it.

But keep trying. I'm sure there's a slippery slope around here somewhere that isn't fallacious.

 

[Jarhead]

if you rule that religious hospitals apply for exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs, you up a whole different set of issues than just the contraception issue.

i could make the argument (in court) that my religion prohibits me from providing cancer drugs, aids drugs, heart drugs, or cholesterol drugs, or any other drug on the market. would that be an acceptable consequence in your mind?

Has anyone ever done that?

No?

Okay. Just keep making shit up.

In fact withholding lifesaving drugs by a parent because of their religion has been litigated, and the parents lost.

the child did not have t6he choice to be brought upo by parents that woulde allow meidcal care...it had to be decided as it was.

One can get a job at a different hospital if they do not like the health insurance offered.

 

[Syphon]

As said by many, if you can't afford a dollar for a condom, you have two choices. 1) keep it in your pants or 2) keep your legs closed ... Depending on you sex.

To force a church to go against its beliefs just so some poor fool can have sex without danger of getting a girl pregnant makes so little sense I can't believe people here are even defending it. The redirect to world poverty... Water shortages... The church .... Not a single word said about the idiocy of someone that poor thinking about mating.

If you want to take away religious freedoms, you better come up with a better plan then 'but I can't afford a $1 condom'

maybe churchs shouldnt operate hospitals then. if they have a problem with performing or providing certain services that are part of that business model, then maybe they shouldnt be in that business to begin with.

why would an intelligent person get involved in a business in which parts of it could violate their beliefs? that would be like a devout muslim opening a liquor store but refusing to sell booze.

I'm sorry, but how does providing abortions equate with healing the sick in a Catholic hospital? I know of grocery stores who won't sell tobacco. It's their choice as to what services they will provide and what they won't. At least it is in a free society.

i dont see where providing free abortions is part of this discussion

 

[g5000]

It is very revealing about the underlying hypocrisy when some people get all heated up about the State invading their bedroom, but when the State invades a Church, no problem!


The pill isn't medically necessary, but by golly we are going to make that Church do what the State says and violate its beliefs anyway.

 

[kwc57]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

Actually, the whole "contraception" drum is being pounded by the liberals in an attempt at gotcha politics. If one were being honest, they would know this is about constitutional freedoms rather than denying women "health care". But that is if one is being honest.

 

[kwc57]

maybe churchs shouldnt operate hospitals then. if they have a problem with performing or providing certain services that are part of that business model, then maybe they shouldnt be in that business to begin with.

why would an intelligent person get involved in a business in which parts of it could violate their beliefs? that would be like a devout muslim opening a liquor store but refusing to sell booze.

This is some really weird retroactive time warp shit.

You seem pretty clueless to the fact that Catholic hospitals have been around a long time and have not been violating their beliefs. Their "business model" has been thriving.

If you want to go the whole muslim route, then to make your completely false analogy a true one, what Obama has done is force a Muslim-operated convenience store which has been around for more than a century to start selling booze.

And then here comes you, saying "Gee, why would a Muslim have a business model that violates his beliefs? I don't get it!"

if you rule that religious hospitals apply for exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs, you up a whole different set of issues than just the contraception issue.

i could make the argument (in court) that my religion prohibits me from providing cancer drugs, aids drugs, heart drugs, or cholesterol drugs, or any other drug on the market. would that be an acceptable consequence in your mind?

My retina specialist doesn't do cancer screenings......and he's a healthcare provider! Go figure.

 

[Syphon]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

Actually, the whole "contraception" drum is being pounded by the liberals in an attempt at gotcha politics. If one were being honest, they would know this is about constitutional freedoms rather than denying women "health care". But that is if one is being honest.

sometime rights come into conflict and they need to be resolved. in this case it is the freedom of choice vs. the freedom of religion. the courts will have a difficult time deciding this one. if you rule for freedom of religion, you trample someones right, but if you rule for freedom of choice, you trample someone elses rights.

its a double edged sword.
as cruel as it sound, i would argue freedom of choice wins out on this fact and this alone. the US is a secular society and not everyone believe in or follow religion. now people are still free to choose which religion to follow, but (in this case) ruling in favor or religion would in effect make those of us who do not adhere to that religion forced to follow part of its doctrine.

opinions?

 

[Syphon]

This is some really weird retroactive time warp shit.

You seem pretty clueless to the fact that Catholic hospitals have been around a long time and have not been violating their beliefs. Their "business model" has been thriving.

If you want to go the whole muslim route, then to make your completely false analogy a true one, what Obama has done is force a Muslim-operated convenience store which has been around for more than a century to start selling booze.

And then here comes you, saying "Gee, why would a Muslim have a business model that violates his beliefs? I don't get it!"

if you rule that religious hospitals apply for exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs, you up a whole different set of issues than just the contraception issue.

i could make the argument (in court) that my religion prohibits me from providing cancer drugs, aids drugs, heart drugs, or cholesterol drugs, or any other drug on the market. would that be an acceptable consequence in your mind?

My retina specialist doesn't do cancer screenings......and he's a healthcare provider! Go figure.

this is a pretty ignorant post, thats like saying i go to oncologist when i break my leg and wonder why hes not fixing it.

 

[kwc57]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

the GOP has an agenda. They wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that Goveernment can dictate via law what an enterpsie can and can not sell. If the product or service is legal, they should be allowed to sell it. If they choose NOT to sell it, that should be THEIR choice.

That is the crux oif the debate. It happens to be contraception right now...but all along the agenda is the same.....government has no right to tell ANYONE that they HAVE to SELL anything.

i think the crux of the debate is people understanding that contraception (as provided by health care providers) will not "free." it will be included in the cost of your original premium. thus they can not charge an extra co pay or fee for. there are other services this applies to as well, such as mammograms. now... should all men who pay premiums demand that women pay for their own mammograms since 99% of men do not get them?

the way health (and really all) insurance works is that you pay a premium for access to services. when you pay your premium and do not receive any services, you area subsidizing someone else's services. so every month i pay premiums, i help to pay for some guys viagra, or some womans pap smear, or some kids physical. should i be raising hell that they should be paying for those services themselves? but your insurance contract will not allow for that. call your insurance company and demand that none of your premium dollars be used for any services or treatment you disagree with and see what happens.

I hate to break it to you, but grade school boys tall enough to reach the rubber machine on the truck stop bathroom wall can get contraception for next to nothing. Or you can go to planned parenthood where it's passed out like candy. You don't need insurance to get contraception. It's readily available off the shelf.

 

[Jarhead]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

Actually, the whole "contraception" drum is being pounded by the liberals in an attempt at gotcha politics. If one were being honest, they would know this is about constitutional freedoms rather than denying women "health care". But that is if one is being honest.

sometime rights come into conflict and they need to be resolved. in this case it is the freedom of choice vs. the freedom of religion. the courts will have a difficult time deciding this one. if you rule for freedom of religion, you trample someones right, but if you rule for freedom of choice, you trample someone elses rights.

its a double edged sword.
as cruel as it sound, i would argue freedom of choice wins out on this fact and this alone. the US is a secular society and not everyone believe in or follow religion. now people are still free to choose which religion to follow, but (in this case) ruling in favor or religion would in effect make those of us who do not adhere to that religion forced to follow part of its doctrine.

opinions?

But dont you get it?

The GOP is fighting for freedom of choice.

They are fighting the idea that goivernment has the right to mandate that an insuirance company MUST sell a service...even if they dont want to.

Ironically....they are fightiong for freedom of choice.

Freedom of religion started iut...yes....but Obamas "compromise" was to minimize freedom of choice for the insurance companies.

So now it is a fight for freedom of choice.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Catholic Church is opposed to contraception for moral reasons.

Where is the morality in creating a life when food and clean water are rare commodities? Where poverty exists and educational opportunities are non existent?

Where is the morality when disease is spread?

Where is the morality when a women is the victim of domestic violence? When a women is forced to conceive and then trapped as the child become a lever to gain more power and more control?

You are aware of course of all of the charitable work the Catholic church does in each of the areas you mention aren't you?

Wry has pretty much already told me in this thread that doing things charitably is meaningless, it has to be done by gov't.

The cathlic church could cure cancer and hand out the cure for free, but if there's no gov't mandate involved, Wry wouldn't support it.

LOL, we both know you're full of shit, that said, when you grow up your opinions will change.

 

[Syphon]

Actually, the whole "contraception" drum is being pounded by the liberals in an attempt at gotcha politics. If one were being honest, they would know this is about constitutional freedoms rather than denying women "health care". But that is if one is being honest.

sometime rights come into conflict and they need to be resolved. in this case it is the freedom of choice vs. the freedom of religion. the courts will have a difficult time deciding this one. if you rule for freedom of religion, you trample someones right, but if you rule for freedom of choice, you trample someone elses rights.

its a double edged sword.
as cruel as it sound, i would argue freedom of choice wins out on this fact and this alone. the US is a secular society and not everyone believe in or follow religion. now people are still free to choose which religion to follow, but (in this case) ruling in favor or religion would in effect make those of us who do not adhere to that religion forced to follow part of its doctrine.

opinions?

But dont you get it?

The GOP is fighting for freedom of choice.

They are fighting the idea that goivernment has the right to mandate that an insuirance company MUST sell a service...even if they dont want to.

Ironically....they are fightiong for freedom of choice.

Freedom of religion started iut...yes....but Obamas "compromise" was to minimize freedom of choice for the insurance companies.

So now it is a fight for freedom of choice.

the GOP is fighting for freedom of religion.
the left is fighting for freedom of choice.

you have it backwards.

the GOP is fighting on the basis of religious institutions. where in the discussion has kaiser, united health care or blue cross / blue shield come up?
they havent raised any moral issues or issues of any kind with having to provide contraception at no additional cost.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As said by many, if you can't afford a dollar for a condom, you have two choices. 1) keep it in your pants or 2) keep your legs closed ... Depending on you sex.

To force a church to go against its beliefs just so some poor fool can have sex without danger of getting a girl pregnant makes so little sense I can't believe people here are even defending it. The redirect to world poverty... Water shortages... The church .... Not a single word said about the idiocy of someone that poor thinking about mating.

If you want to take away religious freedoms, you better come up with a better plan then 'but I can't afford a $1 condom'

maybe churchs shouldnt operate hospitals then. if they have a problem with performing or providing certain services that are part of that business model, then maybe they shouldnt be in that business to begin with.

why would an intelligent person get involved in a business in which parts of it could violate their beliefs? that would be like a devout muslim opening a liquor store but refusing to sell booze.

So, you support taking away religious liberty. Nice. Idiot.

Oregon Faith-Healing Couple Sentenced to 6 Years in Prison for 'Letting Baby Die', Christian News

Do you and others believe the couple were unjustly found guilty and should not have been sent to prison? Why is an abortion taking a life and praying over a dying infant and not calling 911 an exercise of religous freedom?

 

[kwc57]

maybe churchs shouldnt operate hospitals then. if they have a problem with performing or providing certain services that are part of that business model, then maybe they shouldnt be in that business to begin with.

why would an intelligent person get involved in a business in which parts of it could violate their beliefs? that would be like a devout muslim opening a liquor store but refusing to sell booze.

I'm sorry, but how does providing abortions equate with healing the sick in a Catholic hospital? I know of grocery stores who won't sell tobacco. It's their choice as to what services they will provide and what they won't. At least it is in a free society.

i dont see where providing free abortions is part of this discussion

What? Do you see the word free in regard to abortions in my post you responded to? Me either? I did mention a "free" society, which means free of government forcing you to provide services you choose not to.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You are aware of course of all of the charitable work the Catholic church does in each of the areas you mention aren't you?

Wry has pretty much already told me in this thread that doing things charitably is meaningless, it has to be done by gov't.

The cathlic church could cure cancer and hand out the cure for free, but if there's no gov't mandate involved, Wry wouldn't support it.

LOL, we both know you're full of shit, that said, when you grow up your opinions will change.

I've already asked and you've clarified it. Even if you're the most giving person to charity, unless you support gov't mandates, you aren't charitable.

I'm doubting as I grow up I'll become a partisan hack. I realized both parties were shit in my teens, it's shocking to me that others haven't. Partisan blinders always conquer common sense.