Contraception - a discussion

[kwc57]

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?

i find it much more interesting that the religious right pushes for abortion to become illegal, because life is sacred, while at the same time opposing universal health care.

its extremely hypocritical to say life is sacred when your willing to fight to protect an unborn life, but not willing to fight to protect people who have already been born.

when you force women to have children they may not want, in many cases they become dependent on the state for services such as medicaid, food stamp, welfare, the foster system, etc etc.

They aren't pro life... they're pro birth.

if they weren't, they'd be arranging adoptions for unwanted children.

if they weren't, they'd be supporting day care and job training and education for unwed mothers

if they weren't, they'd support WIC and head start.

but they are....

because it isn't about "life", it's about punishing the harlots and making women incubators.

which is why something like 80% of anti-choice activists are men.

Hmmmm? All of the church organizations providing such services would beg to differ with you. Feel free to Google.

 

[Warrior102]

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?

Liberals and contraception.

What a laugh.

You people stick your dicks into anything moist.

Life's one big immoral party to asswipes like you.

Buy your own rubbers asswipe.

 

[BluePhantom]

Rant on:

Let me offer my opinion here just for argument's sake. There's an old Taosit principle which basically says the more you try to force something the less likely it is to happen, at least in the way you think it will. Now let's think about Virginia's "personhood amendment" for a second and really think about what may have happened had it passed.

1) Abortions in Virginia would be illegal (which was the point) but would it stop abortion? Probably not. Those who could afford it would simply go to Maryland, North Carolina, etc for the procedure and those who couldn't would simply have the procedure done in unlicensed facilities which are far more dangerous. Sure it may reduce the rate of abortion but only among the poor who are in the worst position to be able to bear the financial burden of an unwanted child. So what you will see is a population expansion within the class that is least able to deal with it. That means more poverty, more government dependence, and more health care costs passed on to everyone else to cover the uninsured.

2) Many forms of birth control could possibly be banned. While most forms of birth control have the primary purpose of preventing ovulation or fertilization, most have the secondary effect of preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. If a fertilized egg is considered a "human life" according to the amendment then an argument will be made that those forms of birth control would be illegal as it interferes with the natural development of that "human life" even if the odds of it happening in that way were remote. I imagine that the courts would find that a compelling argument because even though the instances of occurrence might be rare it could not be statistically eliminated. Well at that point you will see much the same effect. Those with money will go to bordering states to get their birth control and those who don't will either have to go without or will be forced to buy birth control on the black market. In the case of birth control pills now you open up scam operations where the drugs are not real, they are the wrong kind of drug for the woman's body chemistry, etc. Now you have created an even bigger population explosion and potentially additional health problems for the class of people least prepared to deal with it and that, of course, translates into increased health costs.

Now we can say: "people should stop fucking then" but that's completely unrealistic. Whether they should or shouldn't; they won't. So abortions are not eliminated and we have created increased rates of unwanted pregnancy, poverty, government dependence, health problems, fatherless children, and contributed to rising health care costs for the rest of us. Well.....I applaud the effort to work towards a world without abortion, but this particular strategy really sucks. It creates WAY more problems than it solves and I personally have always been of the opinion that a solution that simply creates other problems isn't much of a solution.

Now with contraception we see much the same effect. Eliminating them may please those of a religious persuasion but as the OP states the secondary effects are population explosions, increases in poverty, unwanted children, fatherless children, health care costs, disease, etc. Well the cure is worse than the fucking disease.

So who pays for the contraceptives? Well the government shouldn't be the ones doing it nor should they be forcing anyone to provide it. There is no realistic way to say "Person A's tax dollars are going to fund Planned Parenthood, but Person B's isn't because of their religious beliefs." As such government funding of contraception is violating someone's first amendment rights. Forcing a business to provide products that violate their religious principles is clearly a violation of that business owner's first amendment rights. So who pays for it? How about the individual for one and if they can't afford it those who have no religious objection can always donate to organizations that provide free contraception on their own. No one's rights are being violated in that case and access to contraception is readily available.

As far as eliminating things we find morally distasteful from our society; that's not the role of government nor is it within government's power. Pass all the laws you want; you won't stop people from doing it. You will only be able to punish those who do and you will create crime and criminals. I thought prohibition would have taught us that one.

So the answer....keep government out of it completely. They should neither encourage nor discourage products, services, or actions that are moral or religious in nature. Believe it or not, both conservatives and liberals have a bad habit of endorsing government intervention when it suits their agenda and bitching about government interference when it does not.

Rant off

 

[Syphon]

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?

Liberals and contraception.

What a laugh.

You people stick your dicks into anything moist.

Life's one big immoral party to asswipes like you.

Buy your own rubbers asswipe.

i find the catholic religions morals offensive since they molest children. guess to them life is one big immoral party to them as well.

 

[kwc57]

i find it much more interesting that the religious right pushes for abortion to become illegal, because life is sacred, while at the same time opposing universal health care.

its extremely hypocritical to say life is sacred when your willing to fight to protect an unborn life, but not willing to fight to protect people who have already been born.

when you force women to have children they may not want, in many cases they become dependent on the state for services such as medicaid, food stamp, welfare, the foster system, etc etc.

Actually, It is how this Universal Health care is implemented.

The method this adminstration is using is more of a corporatists venture in which the citizen is forced to buy insurance.

The preferred method for a universal health care is more of a socialistic venture in which everyone contributes to a fund to pay for the health care.

Both methods have draw backs, the corporatist approach still institutes the insurance companies which will seek to turn a profit by short changing the policy--also, by forcing demand, the insurance companies can raise their rates to ensure more profit for their companies. There is little reason not to do this since the competitive spirit of the free market is being challenged by the lack of choice including not buying . The socialistic approach is still faced with rising costs in comparison to standard of living and the inefficiency of government. Pluss extra.

what is wrong with a system where everyone pays the same and everyone gets access to the same services? (i.e. single payer)

HEAVEN FORBID!!! That would be like asking the 47% of Americans who don't pay any federal income tax to pay their "fair share". The wealthy bastards of the nation need to foot the bill.

 

[Katzndogz]

Many cultures thought that it was moral to kill their children in times of scarce resources. They took their newborns into the fields and left them to die alone or be food themselves for predators. Today we regard such practices as barbaric. We prefer a nice sterile hospital room to leave babies to cry themselves to death alone. To justify the excuse that food and clean water are so scarce and so rare that children born here are to die liberals say "it's not like that all over the world. Children here must die so that...." Why exactly? It's not like for every child born here means a child in Africa is going to die because their food and water were stolen by the greedy American parents.

If someone has a moral objection to contraception, women are going to be the victims of domestic violence as if no woman that has ever used contraception has been the victim of a abusive partner. It's liberal nonsense, true and unadulterated liberal nonsense.

 

[kwc57]

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?

Liberals and contraception.

What a laugh.

You people stick your dicks into anything moist.

Life's one big immoral party to asswipes like you.

Buy your own rubbers asswipe.

i find the catholic religions morals offensive since they molest children. guess to them life is one big immoral party to them as well.

You just lost the debate. If you got nothing else, just man up and say so.

 

[BluePhantom]

Today we regard such practices as barbaric. We prefer a nice sterile hospital room to leave babies to cry themselves to death alone.

Sure...cause you know....so many kids are born in sterile hospital rooms and then everyone just leaves them alone and lets them die. That happens SO OFTEN.

If someone has a moral objection to contraception, women are going to be the victims of domestic violence as if no woman that has ever used contraception has been the victim of a abusive partner.

Sue your high school English teacher.

 

[regent]

Perhaps the solution to this biological problem, that has become political, is for the Church and Republican party to finance some type of creation or solution that when added to our drinking water removed the sex drive. I remember in the Fifties conservatives did not want flouride added to the water because flouride turned people into communists. If they can create a flouride that makes people communists surely they can come up with some kind of drug that destroys the sex thing.

 

[BluePhantom]

Perhaps the solution to this biological problem, that has become political, is for the Church and Republican party to finance some type of creation or solution that when added to our drinking water removed the sex drive. I remember in the Fifties conservatives did not want flouride added to the water because flouride turned people into communists. If they can create a flouride that makes people communists surely they can come up with some kind of drug that destroys the sex thing.

Maybe a better solution would be for religious conservatives to worry about their own fucking morality and for liberals to show some fucking respect for the Constitution.

 

[Intense]

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?

In this Society there are Remedies. Remedies not limited to Eugenics.

 

[Intense]

Perhaps the solution to this biological problem, that has become political, is for the Church and Republican party to finance some type of creation or solution that when added to our drinking water removed the sex drive. I remember in the Fifties conservatives did not want flouride added to the water because flouride turned people into communists. If they can create a flouride that makes people communists surely they can come up with some kind of drug that destroys the sex thing.

Maybe a better solution would be for religious conservatives to worry about their own fucking morality and for liberals to show some fucking respect for the Constitution.

For example, it's okay for you to impose your value, because you are special? In your own mind, maybe, outside of it, the word may take on a different meaning. Idea Censorship is offensive to some, might want to consider the effects of what you advocate.

 

[Syphon]

Liberals and contraception.

What a laugh.

You people stick your dicks into anything moist.

Life's one big immoral party to asswipes like you.

Buy your own rubbers asswipe.

i find the catholic religions morals offensive since they molest children. guess to them life is one big immoral party to them as well.

You just lost the debate. If you got nothing else, just man up and say so.

yes i lost the debate because the catholic church has never molested a child.

 

[BluePhantom]

For example, it's okay for you to impose your value, because you are special? In your own mind, maybe, outside of it, the word may take on a different meaning.

Neither government nor people should impose their values on anyone.

Idea Censorship is offensive to some, might want to consider the effects of what you advocate.

Ideas are fine. I am all for ideas. But when they are of a moral or religious nature it's not government's business. If you want to change society's morals you appeal to the hearts and minds of the people that are willing to listen and if they embrace it what you find to be immoral will eventually die out on it's own. Government forcing a moral or religious principle creates rebellion and in the end delays or prevents it being embraced by society. History is pretty clear on this one.

 

[kwc57]

i find the catholic religions morals offensive since they molest children. guess to them life is one big immoral party to them as well.

You just lost the debate. If you got nothing else, just man up and say so.

yes i lost the debate because the catholic church has never molested a child.

Tell the class, how is that related to the discussion of contraception in this thread?

 

[Syphon]

You just lost the debate. If you got nothing else, just man up and say so.

yes i lost the debate because the catholic church has never molested a child.

Tell the class, how is that related to the discussion of contraception in this thread?

read the discussion that led up to that moron.

heres what dipshit said:
warrior102 -
Liberals and contraception.
What a laugh.
You people stick your dicks into anything moist.
Life's one big immoral party to asswipes like you.
Buy your own rubbers asswipe.

to which my reply was:
i find the catholic religions morals offensive since they molest children. guess to them life is one big immoral party to them as well.

are you all caught up now?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

When a woman chooses to have sex she accepts the possible risk of a pregnancy. To kill the unborn is not only selfish it is (in my opinion) murder. Karma will hopefully sort it out if she doesn't respect life.

if you were a true conservative, you wouldnt really care what one does with their body.

A true conservative doesnt want to pay for one to abort....but a true conservative doesnt care what someone else does with their lives. It is none of our business.

I don't care to the point where inborn children are being butchered and murdered. I'm not saying don't have sex. I'm saying don't kill defenseless babies. A woman can bang an NBA team for all I care. A true conservative vares for the unborn.

 

[driveby]

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?

Contraception, a deflection ........

 

[Katzndogz]

Perhaps the solution to this biological problem, that has become political, is for the Church and Republican party to finance some type of creation or solution that when added to our drinking water removed the sex drive. I remember in the Fifties conservatives did not want flouride added to the water because flouride turned people into communists. If they can create a flouride that makes people communists surely they can come up with some kind of drug that destroys the sex thing.

Gosh you and John Holdren, thinking alike, who woulda thought.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

tell that to Rick Santorum

I thought it was Obama that started the contraception thing.