Opposition to birth control, sterilization not biblical based.

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by LilOlLady, Feb 9, 2012.

  1. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    Opposition to birth control, sterilization not biblical based.

    eunuch - a man who has been castrated and is incapable of reproduction;
    Christians oppose this argument and state that the Bible's use of the word "eunuch" refers strictly to men incapable of sexual intercourse or reproduction, through either birth defect or castration.

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    Genesis 38:9-10 ESV /
    But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also. (put to death for rebellion and not birth control)

    There is no religions reason to oppose birth control or sterilization and the catholic church should now shove their non-biblical beliefs down the throats of women. Church or state don’t have the right to tell my insurance company what medical care I can or cannot have. It a violation of my civil rights and privacy. I pay my premiums and co-payment. Catholic church have no right to tell me when or if I can have a child. What if for medical reason a women is advised not to get pregnant?

    Many catholic universities already cover prescription contraceptives.

    Opposition to birth control and sterilization is not biblical base. Many catholic beliefs are not biblical based but is based on paganism.
    Catholic doctrine contradicts the Bible!!!
     
  2. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    So?
     
  3. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    SO they have no right to dictate to insurance companies what they can or cannot provide. I would not have that problem anyway because I would not work for a catholic organization because it is a cult and paganistic and beliefs based on dogma, doctrine and tradition.
    A religion could oppose anything claiming it is against their beliefs. Their beliefs is not based on religion at all.
    Bunch of perverted religious hypocrits. It has no morals any way with condoning priest raping of nuns and killing their babies and raping children.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2012
  4. LilOlLady
    Offline

    LilOlLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    7,841
    Thanks Received:
    660
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    Ratings:
    +761
    So what part of "i just made my point in my post" did you not understand?:confused::cuckoo:
     
  5. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,899
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,787
    No one is "forcing" anything. If you or any other women want the birth control and abortions, then don't work for the Catholic Church.

    How fucking hard was that?
     
  6. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    The controversy in a nutshell.

    Women have a right to birth control.

    Women want to make everyone else pay for it.
     
  7. chikenwing
    Offline

    chikenwing Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7,389
    Thanks Received:
    830
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,960
    What was your point?? That you want someone else to pay for your birth control,or that your very confused about the whole thing.

    1 Do you belong to the Catholic church? If not you have no point at all.

    2 If you do then you support their point of view and your OP is pointless again and rather confused.
     
  8. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    So what? So now you think OUTSIDERS get to tell the Catholic Church what doctrine it is allowed to follow? The Catholic Church has a CATHOLIC DOCTRINE that has always been far beyond just the Bible. It is why it is even called "Catholic doctrine" and not "Biblical doctrine". You don't want to follow that doctrine? Go join some other church -that is how it works! Gee, even Martin Luther managed to figure that one out.

    ARE YOU FOR REAL? It doesn't matter how many polls you hold up showing what percentage of Catholic women use contraception as if rights are now based on how faithful people are to their religion? Since we are all human and will fall short of perfection, what does that prove when it comes to understanding the rights of others??? It doesn't matter how large a majority of the population think the Catholic Church should be forced to provide insurance coverage for contraception so their employees can enjoy more carefree sex! It doesn't matter what percentage of Catholics use birth control. NONE OF IT MATTERS. Unless you want to argue that YOUR rights are also based on a popularity contest where OTHERS get to decide whether you get to keep them or not! Gee, wouldn't that mean you can't count on them even from year to year then?

    This is EXACTLY the kind of situation the founders put the Bill of Rights into the Constitution in order to prevent this kind of egregious over reach by government -with the inclusion of that sticky 1st amendment liberals so despise -and put it into crystal clear writing expressly forbidding government from doing just this kind of thing! It is not a right at all if others can deprive you of them just because they like the reason for it!!! If it is a right, it means why someone else wants to deprive you of that right is IRRELEVANT! There is no such thing as a "right" to deprive others of THEIR RIGHTS just because you personally like the reason for doing it! And what happens when it is YOUR rights at stake and the majority is cheering and stomping their feet insisting government strip them from YOU? Who are you counting on to put a stop to that THEN? This is why our Bill of Rights exists as part of the Constitution -which is a CONTRACT between WE THE PEOPLE and government, SPECIFICALLY forbidding government from doing just this kind of thing. For ANY reason.

    What is it liberals refuse to accept when it comes to the rights of OTHERS? We all know they get it when it comes to THEIR rights -but when it comes to the rights of others, they insist THOSE hinge on the personal approval of the masses. And by "masses" they actually mean THEMSELVES -in other words you only have rights if THEY like the way you exercise them and if THEY don't, they claim a "right" to strip them from you. Except no such right exists but they will NEVER, NEVER stop trying to lay claim to that "right" anyway -and this is just ONE MORE ATTEMPT! Just because you can find a large group of people who would approve of stripping others of their 1st amendment rights in THIS case -doesn't make it acceptable, doesn't make it constitutional to do so. Is there any guarantee you will approve the next time government decides it has the power to strip others of their rights? But by then YOU already said it was ok if government violated the Constitution even over the objections of those being stripped of their rights. Do you REALLY not get this? YOUR rights are not based on whether I approve of how you choose to exercise them -NO ONE'S rights are based on whether YOU like the reason government claims the power to strip them from others. That is NOT how rights work! When people are being told they should have no problem with stripping others of their rights because the reason given this time is one you don't have a problem with -is when you should be most worried. Do you think government just starts off stripping the majority of their rights? NO, government ALWAYS starts by stripping it from people and groups YOU don't really care if they are deprived of their rights or not! Government has to get its foot in the door first to claim it has the power to strip others of their rights in violation of the Constitution and those intent on doing so count on people like YOU who are not sympathetic to the particular targets chosen to be deprived of their rights. Just because you personally have no use for parts of the 1st Amendment does NOT give anyone permission to strip it from others and insist THEY cannot be allowed to value it. Who you counting on to stop government when it gets around to targeting rights YOU value but others don't?

    This is how liberalism works. They first pick something they think the majority would value -like health care or birth control, whatever. Then they LIE THROUGH THEIR FUCKING TEETH by claiming you have a RIGHT to it for no reason but the fact you breathe. Calling birth control "women's RIGHTS" is a CON GAME, it is a deliberate and nonstop attempt to PERVERT the very definition of rights. Liberals are intent on perverting that definition so people fail to realize the value of the true definition intended to protect YOU from government persecution -to one intended to encourage you to believe there is a "right" to to lay claim to the fruits of the labor of others and force them to exist as state owned property. THIS is how it is done -by first lying and insisting you have a right to the goods and services produced by others -and what better way than by insisting you have a "right" to carefree sex without worrying about any pesky pregnancy -paid for by someone else of course. While just glossing over the fact what they mean by saying you have a "right" to it -is to pretend you have a right to force others to foot the bill for what you WANT and a "right" to force them to foot that bill even over their objections. Liberalism is saying "let nothing get in the way of your "right" to exist as a parasite on others." It is an appealing argument to the weak unwilling to buck against it, the immoral, the envious, the parasites, the thieves -and the power hungry. Why would anyone in their right mind trust liberals to protect their rights when they see how quickly and easily they suddenly think they have a greater "right" to strip them from others for their own personal benefit?

    In spite of the lies and nonstop attempts to grab ever more power by stripping it from the individual -my rights don't exist only as long as you haven't yet found a reason to strip them from me. The fact you think otherwise should scare the shit out of everyone who values their rights.
     
  9. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    In listening to obama, I must say, I finally get it.

    Pregnancy is an illness that can be prevented and cured when it happens. So birth control is a women's health care right.
     
  10. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    Bad news honey -but until the Cardinals make you Pope, your personal opinion about what should and should not be official Catholic doctrine has no more value than a bucket of shit.

    Exactly where is the "right" for morons like you to decide what others are allowed to believe in their religion? Where is your "right" to decide what is and is not allowed to exist as the religious doctrine of ANY church? Where is your "right" to force others to go against their religious doctrine just because you personally like the reason for doing so?

    If you approve of it now, wouldn't it work out even better if government forced Catholic hospitals to provide abortion coverage to both its employees and the patients of any Catholic hospital too? And on the identical grounds? Again, their employees are not all Catholic and certainly in Catholic hospitals, their patients are not all Catholics, so if others insist they have a right to kill their unwanted unborn child, and since abortion isn't even mentioned in the Bible, then your same reasoning (and I use the word "reasoning" in its loosest sense) should equally apply to providing abortion as part of their "medical care" and insist Catholic institutions should be forced to provide abortion coverage and provide abortion services no matter what their actual doctrine says. That is why the reason you think its ok for government to order Catholic institutions to violate its own religious doctrine this time -is meaningless. YOU do not have the greater "right" to decide what any religious institution is allowed to have as its official doctrine, YOU do not have the greater "right" to decide whether any religious institution will be "allowed" to actually exist in accordance with its religious doctrine. The ARROGANCE of your post is really at the heart of what makes liberalism a failure EVERY TIME and the reason it inevitably increases the level of human misery no matter how it tries to dress up the means by which it will do it.

    See, if you just call anything you WANT a "right", or call it "medical care" -just look at the beauty of the liberal position! Calling contraception a "right" and calling abortion "medical care" and all of it as "women's rights" -makes it even easier to claim the Catholic Church is violating women's rights unless we force it to abandon its own religious doctrine. So seriously, why stop at contraception -and why shouldn't government also claim the authority to FORCE Catholic hospitals to provide abortion coverage to its employees and abortion services to its patients? What is the DIFFERENCE for you? It is nothing but an ARBITRARY line being drawn by those who insist they have the greater "right" to force religious institutions to act in violation of their own religious doctrine when THEY want it to. And that line is movable -if it is acceptable to force the Catholic Church to cover contraception in violation of its own religious doctrine, then it is acceptable to force any religious institution to violate their religious doctrine ANY TIME the government order it to do so. It is why the founders specifically banned government from doing this in the first place and it doesn't matter if morons like YOU have no problem with stripping others of theirs rights just because you like the reason they are doing it. What a good little totalitarian you are.

    AH -I just heard Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, refer to contraception as "preventative medicine" and FUNDAMENTAL to the role of government to prevent DISEASE as the more cost effective measure to prevent disease than treat it. So it is official government policy -the US government has deemed pregnancy to not just be a DISEASE, but such a serious one as to be FUNDAMENTAL to government policy! Brilliant next step that is critically necessary before government can also claim the authority to order religious institutions and religious hospitals to provide abortion services to its employees and those seeking services at these institutions. Because government is actually saying while you have a right to your religious beliefs, there is no such thing as a right to actually LIVE by them! In other words, FUCK that part of the 1st Amendment where it discusses the free exercise.... And look at the moron who started this thread who is fine and dandy with that and claims the greater "right" to even decide what doctrine a 2000 year old religion is even allowed to have, much less actually runs its institutions in accordance with it.

    The difference between ordering the Catholic Church to pay for contraception for its employees and the difference between ordering the Catholic Church to pay for abortion coverage for its employees -is an ARBITRARY ONE because BOTH violate its own doctrine. YOUR opinion about which is more "valid" is irrelevant and meaningless. Government does not have the authority to order EITHER because BOTH violate the religious doctrine of the Catholic Church. Just because one or both of them don't violate YOURS is MEANINGLESS. Just because you have no problem if government orders them to do it for ONE of them is MEANINGLESS. It isn't YOUR call -and what you clearly don't get, it sure as hell isn't the call of GOVERNMENT either. THIS the real test that determines whether you are even capable of comprehending the very nature of your real rights or not -and you flunk. Which should scare you too because if you don't understand them in the first place, and can't respect them when it applies to others who may exercise them in a different way from what you choose to do -then how will you ever know when it is your turn and it is YOUR rights being stripped from you? I assure you, when that happens it will also be with the approval of others who really don't give a shit if you personally object to it or not either. By the way -Obama's change today does nothing of substance -because he still claims government has the power to order them to comply, he simply chooses not to force them to do so. For now.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2012

Share This Page