Slut Or Not??

[Peach]

She appears to be a slut. But I support her right be a slut.... unless she expects me to pay for it. That is when I have an issue.

Cali Girl, question, KiKi answered but I gather you are a devout Catholic, so here it is. A C- section is done, on short notice, as the mother's blood sugar, caused by juvenile diabetes, is going out of control. The child may also be harmed if the C-section is not performed. A tubal ligation is done, NOT for the purpose of birth control, but due to the danger posed if another pregnancy occurs. The woman was hospitalized for a few days before the C-section, but was not responding to medication. Is this sterilization? Navy medical care covered it, no questions. (Earlier on, the woman was informed she might be forced to consider an abortion if her body could not withstand the pregnancy; this was years ago, the signed recommendations of two doctors was required. ) She didn't, I am glad.

Firstly, I don't consider myself a 'devout' Catholic. I am a Catholic. The 'devout' bit.... meh, not really. I try... and that's what God expects of me. I defend my religion against bullshit and lies (see, if I was 'devout', I wouldn't say 'bullshit'. )

In response.... I'm not really sure what the question is. Is it sterilization? Yes. It is. But... as a Catholic, I wouldn't have a problem with that... as it was required in order to ensure the woman's life. I don't think the Church would have a major issue with it either. Yes, we have a doctrine against birth control, abortion and sterilization.... We are also permitted to take another life in order to protect our own. So, I don't think it's a doctrinal issue.

I read on a site for Catholic & non Catholics, that if it was medically necessary, it was allowed. Thank you also, in my example the C-section was ALSO to protect ME from further harm, this was before Roe vs. wade, thus even mentioning abortion to my mother seemed strange. She never considered it........I just read the link.
***************************

Ehrich says the nun can be admitted back into the Catholic community by going to confession and repenting. McBride still works at the hospital in another position. Whether she is allowed to remain in her religious order, Erich says that is up to the Sisters of Mercy.

Why NOT blame the darn DOCTORS?

 

[Peach]

And yet I personally know of the opposite outcome... where no one was penalized for a similar situation. Go figure.

Oh, and, she can confess and be repentant, and be received back into the Church.

Agreed. However, it clearly is a doctrinal issue sometimes.

Of course, there is doctrinal problems in a situation like this. However, it is rarely as cut and dried as the article suggests. As I said, there are cases of similar situations where there was no excommunication. And.... as I said... an excommunicated Catholic can take steps - by confessing, and repenting... and be welcomed home to the faith. I expect to do time in purgatory... ....

As my Dad says "Sometimes, it is better to seek forgiveness than permission."

Even the Church recognizes that only God can know what is in an individual's heart.

Even the Church recognizes that only God can know what is in an individual's heart.
__________________
Beautiful, AND on point. ; )

 

[Dragon]

A woman who uses contraceptives is not necessarily a "slut." She may be a married woman, or a single woman with one partner, or a single woman without a partner who is looking for one and doesn't want to get pregnant.

The undercurrent and implication of Limbaugh's character assassination flows from the traditional view that women should be virgins until marriage and faithful thereafter for life, and that any deviation from this is "slut" behavior, so that any unmarried woman who uses birth control is either a "slut" (i.e., she's having sex with anyone) or planning to be one.

The Catholic Church takes things a step further and even condemns sex within marriage that isn't for the purpose of procreation, hence the blanket condemnation of contraception.

All of these constitute what I call the "bad except" view of sexual morality: the idea that sex is bad and evil, except for when it's allowed (in marriage, for the purpose of having children).

I myself, along with most people nowadays I think, subscribe to the "good except" view of sexual morality: the idea that sex is good, except for when it is not allowed (basically rape, and a few other coercive situations). In that perspective, quite honestly there's nothing wrong with being a "slut," although real serious promiscuity may not be a good idea for reasons of health. In any case, a woman who is unmarried and sexually active doesn't deserve the label unless she's really promiscuous -- and even if she is, there's nothing especially wrong with it.

Limbaugh is addressing his remarks to a remnant of old fogeys who are still messed up enough about sex to think it's a bad thing. [Shrug.] They'll all die off before too much longer.

 

[California Girl]

Cali Girl, question, KiKi answered but I gather you are a devout Catholic, so here it is. A C- section is done, on short notice, as the mother's blood sugar, caused by juvenile diabetes, is going out of control. The child may also be harmed if the C-section is not performed. A tubal ligation is done, NOT for the purpose of birth control, but due to the danger posed if another pregnancy occurs. The woman was hospitalized for a few days before the C-section, but was not responding to medication. Is this sterilization? Navy medical care covered it, no questions. (Earlier on, the woman was informed she might be forced to consider an abortion if her body could not withstand the pregnancy; this was years ago, the signed recommendations of two doctors was required. ) She didn't, I am glad.

Firstly, I don't consider myself a 'devout' Catholic. I am a Catholic. The 'devout' bit.... meh, not really. I try... and that's what God expects of me. I defend my religion against bullshit and lies (see, if I was 'devout', I wouldn't say 'bullshit'. )

In response.... I'm not really sure what the question is. Is it sterilization? Yes. It is. But... as a Catholic, I wouldn't have a problem with that... as it was required in order to ensure the woman's life. I don't think the Church would have a major issue with it either. Yes, we have a doctrine against birth control, abortion and sterilization.... We are also permitted to take another life in order to protect our own. So, I don't think it's a doctrinal issue.

I read on a site for Catholic & non Catholics, that if it was medically necessary, it was allowed. Thank you also, in my example the C-section was ALSO to protect ME from further harm, this was before Roe vs. wade, thus even mentioning abortion to my mother seemed strange. She never considered it........I just read the link.
***************************

Ehrich says the nun can be admitted back into the Catholic community by going to confession and repenting. McBride still works at the hospital in another position. Whether she is allowed to remain in her religious order, Erich says that is up to the Sisters of Mercy.

Why NOT blame the darn DOCTORS?

Without knowing ALL the details, I can't really comment other than to say, personal experience tells me this was not the way the Church would always view the outcome. I know of a Catholic female who underwent sterilization because another pregnancy would have killed her... and she was not excommunicated, nor penalized in any way... in fact, the Church picked up the tab for her medical expenses.

 

[Gadawg73]

A woman who uses contraceptives is not necessarily a "slut." She may be a married woman, or a single woman with one partner, or a single woman without a partner who is looking for one and doesn't want to get pregnant.

The undercurrent and implication of Limbaugh's character assassination flows from the traditional view that women should be virgins until marriage and faithful thereafter for life, and that any deviation from this is "slut" behavior, so that any unmarried woman who uses birth control is either a "slut" (i.e., she's having sex with anyone) or planning to be one.

The Catholic Church takes things a step further and even condemns sex within marriage that isn't for the purpose of procreation, hence the blanket condemnation of contraception.

All of these constitute what I call the "bad except" view of sexual morality: the idea that sex is bad and evil, except for when it's allowed (in marriage, for the purpose of having children).

I myself, along with most people nowadays I think, subscribe to the "good except" view of sexual morality: the idea that sex is good, except for when it is not allowed (basically rape, and a few other coercive situations). In that perspective, quite honestly there's nothing wrong with being a "slut," although real serious promiscuity may not be a good idea for reasons of health. In any case, a woman who is unmarried and sexually active doesn't deserve the label unless she's really promiscuous -- and even if she is, there's nothing especially wrong with it.

Limbaugh is addressing his remarks to a remnant of old fogeys who are still messed up enough about sex to think it's a bad thing. [Shrug.] They'll all die off before too much longer.

You are speaking real world and common sense.
Something religous ideology supporters, entertainment figures and politicians could care less about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A woman who uses contraceptives is not necessarily a "slut." She may be a married woman, or a single woman with one partner, or a single woman without a partner who is looking for one and doesn't want to get pregnant.

The undercurrent and implication of Limbaugh's character assassination flows from the traditional view that women should be virgins until marriage and faithful thereafter for life, and that any deviation from this is "slut" behavior, so that any unmarried woman who uses birth control is either a "slut" (i.e., she's having sex with anyone) or planning to be one.

The Catholic Church takes things a step further and even condemns sex within marriage that isn't for the purpose of procreation, hence the blanket condemnation of contraception.

All of these constitute what I call the "bad except" view of sexual morality: the idea that sex is bad and evil, except for when it's allowed (in marriage, for the purpose of having children).

I myself, along with most people nowadays I think, subscribe to the "good except" view of sexual morality: the idea that sex is good, except for when it is not allowed (basically rape, and a few other coercive situations). In that perspective, quite honestly there's nothing wrong with being a "slut," although real serious promiscuity may not be a good idea for reasons of health. In any case, a woman who is unmarried and sexually active doesn't deserve the label unless she's really promiscuous -- and even if she is, there's nothing especially wrong with it.

Limbaugh is addressing his remarks to a remnant of old fogeys who are still messed up enough about sex to think it's a bad thing. [Shrug.] They'll all die off before too much longer.

Baloney.

 

[Gadawg73]

Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway have the lowest child poverty rate of any countries in the world.
They care about that more than the sex lives of their 20something old women.
Some day maybe Americans will grow the hell up and see that families do better when there is an open discussion about sexuality without the ignorant labeling of others that is best illustrated by the bufoon Rush Limbaugh and his supporters.

 

[Dragon]

Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway have the lowest child poverty rate of any countries in the world.
They care about that more than the sex lives of their 20something old women.
Some day maybe Americans will grow the hell up and see that families do better when there is an open discussion about sexuality without the ignorant labeling of others that is best illustrated by the bufoon Rush Limbaugh and his supporters.

Someday. I'd say probably about the time Rush Limbaugh dies, except he's not in the best of health and may die somewhat prematurely. So it might take longer than that.

 

[Oddball]

A woman who uses contraceptives is not necessarily a "slut." She may be a married woman, or a single woman with one partner, or a single woman without a partner who is looking for one and doesn't want to get pregnant.

The undercurrent and implication of Limbaugh's character assassination flows from the traditional view that women should be virgins until marriage and faithful thereafter for life, and that any deviation from this is "slut" behavior, so that any unmarried woman who uses birth control is either a "slut" (i.e., she's having sex with anyone) or planning to be one.

The Catholic Church takes things a step further and even condemns sex within marriage that isn't for the purpose of procreation, hence the blanket condemnation of contraception.

All of these constitute what I call the "bad except" view of sexual morality: the idea that sex is bad and evil, except for when it's allowed (in marriage, for the purpose of having children).

I myself, along with most people nowadays I think, subscribe to the "good except" view of sexual morality: the idea that sex is good, except for when it is not allowed (basically rape, and a few other coercive situations). In that perspective, quite honestly there's nothing wrong with being a "slut," although real serious promiscuity may not be a good idea for reasons of health. In any case, a woman who is unmarried and sexually active doesn't deserve the label unless she's really promiscuous -- and even if she is, there's nothing especially wrong with it.

Limbaugh is addressing his remarks to a remnant of old fogeys who are still messed up enough about sex to think it's a bad thing. [Shrug.] They'll all die off before too much longer.

Pure irrelevant crap.

This issue is less about contraception and pre-marital sex than it is about a rather wealthy college coed, allowing herself to be used as a political prop and lying out her ass in the process.

You want to inject yourself into the situation and try to cynically play the victim, then don't piss and moan when you get slimed.

 

[Dragon]

This issue is less about contraception and pre-marital sex than it is about a rather wealthy college coed, allowing herself to be used as a political prop and lying out her ass in the process.

That's YOUR issue with it. I have another. So do most people. I expressed it. That you would prefer to confine the issues to what will support your own political agenda is understandable -- but not allowed.

 

[Katzndogz]

Who determines when promicsuity has been reached?

When the costs of her birth control is so great that neither she nor her sexual partners can afford it and need to pass the cost on to others.

 

[BluePhantom]

She may be a slut according to the definition of the word, but from my point of view, God bless her and the sluts of every nation. You make make the world a better place for the men and give other women a basis for comparison. But...she can pay for it herself. You gotta pay to play. Regardless, a quick trip to PP and she can get rubbers for free so she doesn't need any of our cash anyhow.

 

[Unkotare]

Total slut....But not in the conventional sense of the word.

Who else but a no-pride political slut would let herself be used by congress the way that Fluke has been?

On top of that, it's evident to anyone who isn't totally in the tank with the whackaloon left, that the figure of $3,000 for an annual contraception tab is simply an over-the-top lie.

a. The Obama administration will do anything to get his string of failures out of the news.

That has been evident since the the moment that the whole contrived "debate" over contraception was ginned up.

And used by RUSH, I guess, though I disagree about the insurance complaint, she has a right to speak out without denigration.

"without denigration"?

No one has that 'right.'

 

[Katzndogz]

In all seriousness, if she is having so much sex that her condom bill runs almost $100.00 a month she is performing a valuable service to the male students and professors by reducing their stress level. Such valuable service deserves compensation, but by the users of the service, not those who don't use her services.

 

[Katzndogz]

She may be a slut according to the definition of the word, but from my point of view, God bless her and the sluts of every nation. You make make the world a better place for the men and give other women a basis for comparison. But...she can pay for it herself. You gotta pay to play. Regardless, a quick trip to PP and she can get rubbers for free so she doesn't need any of our cash anyhow.

Did you stop to consider that she may be using so many rubbers that she's flat embarassed to go back to PP and ask for more?

 

[Foxfyre]

Total slut....But not in the conventional sense of the word.

Who else but a no-pride political slut would let herself be used by congress the way that Fluke has been?

On top of that, it's evident to anyone who isn't totally in the tank with the whackaloon left, that the figure of $3,000 for an annual contraception tab is simply an over-the-top lie.

a. The Obama administration will do anything to get his string of failures out of the news.

That has been evident since the the moment that the whole contrived "debate" over contraception was ginned up.

The woman attends one of the nation's priciest colleges, and the chances are good that she sees an expensive upscale prestigious doctor who probably prescribes the most expensive contraceptives out there. That's the only way I can possibly see that somebody could run up a $3,000 bill for contraceptives in a year. That would be $250/month!!! Give me a break. The most widely used prescription birth control runs about $30/month at most and there are a lot of quite effective means of contraceptive that cost a fraction of that.

And whatever happened to the concept of personal responsibility? I was told that if I insisted on smoking, I damn well better be working and buying my own cigs., Ditto for beer/alcohol etc. I would suggest that we would be a far stronger nation if we returned to a culture in which people did not expect to have sex until they were old enough and responsible enough to buy their own condoms.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, except for those who consider health care in toto an individual rather than a collective responsibility, the moral and social issues ARE what this is about.

What's the purpose of health care, anyway? It's to allow us the enjoyment of life that ill health would prevent us from enjoying, isn't it? To maintain, not just life, but healthy life, enjoyable life. And so, if we believe that health care for this purpose should be a collective expense -- whether in the form of government expenditure or in the form of insurance -- then whether we consider that contraception should be a part of that, depends on whether we consider sex to be a normal and proper part of the enjoyment of life.

If you think that sex is bad-except, and should be discouraged outside of marriage, then you will see contraception as an option not a necessity of life's enjoyment, and will object to it being a collective expense. If you think that sex is good-except, you're likely to believe that contraception, being a necessary medical expense for those who are sexually active, should be covered just like cancer diagnosis or surgery or medications or anything else in the way of medical expense necessary to living and enjoying a healthy life.

Really, it DOES all come down to how you think about sex.

 

[Unkotare]

She may be a slut according to the definition of the word, but from my point of view, God bless her and the sluts of every nation. You make make the world a better place for the men and give other women a basis for comparison. But...she can pay for it herself. You gotta pay to play. Regardless, a quick trip to PP and she can get rubbers for free so she doesn't need any of our cash anyhow.

Did you stop to consider that she may be using so many rubbers that she's flat embarassed to go back to PP and ask for more?

She doesn't seem like the 'shy' type.

 

[Foxfyre]

The issue is not about sex even. The issue is the expectation that we are somehow entitled to have others pay for the lifestyle we choose. I would like to enjoy filet mignon a whole lot more than I can afford it. It would be great if the rest of ya'll would see that I can have that without me having to pay for it. I would like to wear cashmere instead of acrylic sweaters, so how about one of you ponying up the cash for that?

Or hey, I would be delighted if somebody would just pay for the Ho Ho's, hot dogs and chips, hamburger, and a pound of beans. I gotta live don't I? I'll be in really bad shape if I don't eat. Unhealthy even. How about ya'll chipping in so I don't have to be responsible to buy my own food? You might want to pay my water bill while you're at it. That's pretty much a necessity too.

The point is, people, this is NOT about whether anybody has sex or whether we approve of sex or whether it is or is not a good thing to use contraceptives. This is NOT about denying anybody any damn thing they want to do or use short of interfering with somebody else's rights. This IS about whether anybody should have the ability to demand that somebody else pay for what they do or buy.

 

[American Horse]

48 Senators voted for the Blunt Amendment.
48 Senators have taxpayer paid for health insurance with contraceptive coverage.
22 of them worked for state, local or federal government for the period when they or their spouse were in the child bearing years.
I guarantee that at least ONE or more likely MOST of these folks used taxpayer funded health insurance to pay for their contraceptives during a part of their life.
They bow to the religous right pandering for votes for political gain all the while having their hand out when THEY need to have their health care bills paid for.
Hypocrisy is alive and well in the Democratic AND the Republican party.

The Blunt amendment was a "fig leaf" to allow Democrats to vote against the mandate when they really don't mean it. The Blunt amendment was one of these things that doesn't carry the force of any legislation, doesn't carry the impact of law behind it. What it was intended to do was to allow members of the Senate to vote in a way that would have been most helpful to them for their reelection since there's no change at the end of the day, at the end of the vote.