Why the "right" to free contraceptives is a challenge to the very concept of freedom

[Not2BSubjugated]

Free? No. You DON'T have the right to that.

But you DO have a right to contraception!
The government can provide that if they want.


It's not a right, it's a privilege. And the government can provide that privilege if they wish. (I support it for obvious reasons. people don't realize how much of a positive effect it can have overall.)
To be denied an item that you have a right to have because of religion is against the constitution, even if it is a privilege.


It's like saying you have to start paying for church. You can't go if you don't pay for it yourself because I'm an atheist.

There's a few misconceptions shining through in your argument. First, if the government doesn't force your employer to buy your contraceptives for you, you haven't been denied anything. You can still go buy all the contraceptives you can fit in your SUV if you choose to do so. I've never heard of any religious types standing in the medicine isle at 7-11 and blocking people off from the condom racks.

Next, the health care mandate is the only piece of legislation currently implying that there is a Federally recognized "privilege" to be given contraceptives by way of government mandate. Even if there was, it wouldn't trump the religious freedom granted in The Constitution. Why? No new legislation legally trumps the Constitution. The only way this new privilege could have that kind of weight is if the privilege underwent the ratification to be added to the Amendments. Absent that, you must recognize that the entire concept of the Constitution is a set of rules outside of which future legislation, exempting new Amendments, cannot operate. Essentially, even if Washington representatives -did- decide to Federally recognize this privilege, it would not carry the weight to trump the 1st Amendment's religious protection. Quite the opposite, actually.

Next, people -do- pay for Churches themselves. The government doesn't build and maintain religious organizations/infrastructure, it simply allows them to receive donations from their congregations without taxing them. You seem to suffer from a common misconception shared by most big government advocates: when the government doesn't take your money from you, they're not actually giving you anything. Those donations the churches receive from their congregation is not technically the government's property, so when it isn't taxed, nothing has actually been given away to the religion by anyone except those donors who voluntarily dropped their tithe/offering into the collection plate. If I'm standing outside your place of employment when you pick up your paycheck and I don't take your money on your way to your car, you don't thank me for giving you that paycheck.

Lastly, there's a minor point that I'm not sure if you've thought through or not. The US government isn't currently running a profit margin on any investments. It doesn't have its own income in any amount that even approaches its levels of spending. That means that for the government to provide you with anything, it has to use money that it has taxed from others. In essence, saying that the government is providing you with something is the same as saying the government is coercing your fellow citizens into providing you with something.

so you are saying because of your 1st amendment rights, people shouldn't be able to get it through healthcare?

If you've already forgotten what the original topic was about, that's not exactly what I'm getting at. I only brought the 1st amendment into the conversation because you brought up that women having their privilege denied by someone's religion. The only place I can imagine that argument being leveled currently is at the Catholic church so I assumed that you were referring to the current issue regarding the mandate vs the catholic church. In that case I adhere to the argument that, if offering contraceptives as part of the employee package conflicts with the employer's religious practices, they ought not be forced to do so. So, to answer your question, yes. If the only way you can procure your contraceptives is if the government forces your employer to give them to you, and your employer happens to be a religious organization to whom contraceptives are a sin (an evil, etc), then my 1st amendment rights (everyone's 1st amendment rights) trump your privilege to free stuff.

And, as I said at the onset, before you fire off about "my" 1st amendment rights, try to recall that I'm not Catholic or personally opposed to contraceptives.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm no constitutional scholar, but even if you argue that it is a "right", since when are all rights subsidized? Should the govt. provide us with "free" firearms?

Here's where the whole mess gets even messier. What about the "self-insured"?

Federal and state governments frequently order private companies to do things like put airbags in cars, he says. But those companies can charge more to make up the cost.

“I have never seen an example of the federal government telling a company they have to provide a service and they are not allowed to charge for it,” he says.

Does contraception really pay for itself? « Hot Air Headlines

Unfortunately, in the modern world, the government saying you have the right to something like housing or healthcare, subsidies and handouts is exactly what they're talking about. That was the beauty of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights as well as the big 3 (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), and why I disagree with Ginsburg 100% about South Africa's constitution being superior or even on the same philosophical level as that of the US. The freedoms the founders enumerated are all freedoms you would have in the absence of other people. The 2nd amendment wasn't everybody's right to a gun, just the right to keep and bear them if you want to. One reason nobody truly has the right to anything material is because, in the absence of other people, that person may or may not be able to procure that item. Chances are they weren't born holding it. You were, however, born able to consume sustenance, so you have the right to keep breathing if you choose to. Your brain is also the only brain physically attached to your body, meaning nobody can work you like a puppet and your choices, in a literal sense, are -always- your own, meaning your right to liberty and your right to pursue happiness are yours, period.

 

[editec]

The very concept of "unalienable rights" is based on a theory that is basically insane.

It is a theory that some supernatural system of universal order supercedes social order.

That is the reason so many nutters cling to this comforting but mistaken notion.

If people have any rights within society, it is their human rights which that society collectively agrees upon.

Humans quite obviously have no rights that animals don't also have in nature.

And that is why most nutters must also include MIRACLES in their goofy notions about the nature of the world in which we live. To prove to the rest of us that there IS a supernatural power guiding the natural world.

If there are any human rights, (and generally there are, but those rights vary from society to society) it's humans who created that temporary state of affairs.

 

[mal]

We all have a right to contraception, but not for free.... no one in the GOP is saying you cant have it.

I just refuse to pay for it via my tax dollars.



Good Gawd where will it end with the freeloaders.

Apparently you Hate the Poor and Minorities...

How's that Working out for you?



peace...

 

[nitroz]

There's a few misconceptions shining through in your argument. First, if the government doesn't force your employer to buy your contraceptives for you, you haven't been denied anything. You can still go buy all the contraceptives you can fit in your SUV if you choose to do so. I've never heard of any religious types standing in the medicine isle at 7-11 and blocking people off from the condom racks.

Next, the health care mandate is the only piece of legislation currently implying that there is a Federally recognized "privilege" to be given contraceptives by way of government mandate. Even if there was, it wouldn't trump the religious freedom granted in The Constitution. Why? No new legislation legally trumps the Constitution. The only way this new privilege could have that kind of weight is if the privilege underwent the ratification to be added to the Amendments. Absent that, you must recognize that the entire concept of the Constitution is a set of rules outside of which future legislation, exempting new Amendments, cannot operate. Essentially, even if Washington representatives -did- decide to Federally recognize this privilege, it would not carry the weight to trump the 1st Amendment's religious protection. Quite the opposite, actually.

Next, people -do- pay for Churches themselves. The government doesn't build and maintain religious organizations/infrastructure, it simply allows them to receive donations from their congregations without taxing them. You seem to suffer from a common misconception shared by most big government advocates: when the government doesn't take your money from you, they're not actually giving you anything. Those donations the churches receive from their congregation is not technically the government's property, so when it isn't taxed, nothing has actually been given away to the religion by anyone except those donors who voluntarily dropped their tithe/offering into the collection plate. If I'm standing outside your place of employment when you pick up your paycheck and I don't take your money on your way to your car, you don't thank me for giving you that paycheck.

Lastly, there's a minor point that I'm not sure if you've thought through or not. The US government isn't currently running a profit margin on any investments. It doesn't have its own income in any amount that even approaches its levels of spending. That means that for the government to provide you with anything, it has to use money that it has taxed from others. In essence, saying that the government is providing you with something is the same as saying the government is coercing your fellow citizens into providing you with something.

so you are saying because of your 1st amendment rights, people shouldn't be able to get it through healthcare?

If you've already forgotten what the original topic was about, that's not exactly what I'm getting at. I only brought the 1st amendment into the conversation because you brought up that women having their privilege denied by someone's religion. The only place I can imagine that argument being leveled currently is at the Catholic church so I assumed that you were referring to the current issue regarding the mandate vs the catholic church. In that case I adhere to the argument that, if offering contraceptives as part of the employee package conflicts with the employer's religious practices, they ought not be forced to do so. So, to answer your question, yes. If the only way you can procure your contraceptives is if the government forces your employer to give them to you, and your employer happens to be a religious organization to whom contraceptives are a sin (an evil, etc), then my 1st amendment rights (everyone's 1st amendment rights) trump your privilege to free stuff.

And, as I said at the onset, before you fire off about "my" 1st amendment rights, try to recall that I'm not Catholic or personally opposed to contraceptives.

oh.

i really have a hard time putting large groups of text together.

 

[Katzndogz]

How did contraceptives get to be so vital to saving lives that they should be provided free, but medication to treat heart disease, cancer, and a host of other life threatening diseases are not?

Liberals have created a big boogeyman, Pregnancy. They have made it so fearful that women are reduced to nothing but Pavlov's dogs. Jump through the hoop on cue. Vote how you are told. Otherwise the boogeyman will get you and you'll have a terrible, horrible, baby.

 

[Ravi]

Let me preface this little collection of abstractions by saying that, while I was raised Christian, I would currently have to say agnostic is the closest thing to a label that would fit my religious status. This thought is in no way based on any affiliation with Catholicism. To the contrary, I feel the subject is more a fundamental question as to the nature of human rights and the existence of freedom itself, let alone the freedom to practice religion. So when the inevitable rebuttals come at me, don't think that dismissing me as some sort of hyper-religious wingnut is a valid counterpoint.

The first step in the thought process is identifying that saying a person has the basic human right to free contraception is accepting that possession of a particular material item can be a basic human right. It is my contention that acceptance of -any- material item as a basic human right is a challenge to human freedom to some extent.

Let's take, for example, the "fundamental human right to housing". Sounds wonderful. Shelter, in most climates available on our sweet little piece of space rock, is necessary to human existence, and most sane people don't want to see others perish in the elements. When a government, however, declares that every person has the fundamental -right- to housing, it implies that those who can't or won't procure that housing for themselves must have that housing provided to them. Currently, we haven't developed animal training to the point that beasts of burden can be made to build us adequate housing. That means that the housing must be provided by other people. Therefore, a person can choose (and I realize that most don't simply choose, many are truly incapable of providing their own housing. My purpose is not an indictment of the disabled or those un/underemployed by no fault of their own) to contribute nothing to the acquisition/maintenance of their housing, and anyone capable of acquiring that housing for them would be trampling on their legally established, fundamental human rights by not providing that for them. Once again, and I emphasize, I'm not saying people who can't afford housing all choose to do nothing. I'm well aware that most truly are disabled or un/underemployed as a matter of circumstance and not of laziness. However, the fact remains that establishing a right to housing establishes the right to choose to subjugate your fellow citizens, should you be so inclined. If you question whether or not "subjugate" is an appropriate term, remember that slavery is involuntary labor in which the workers have no say in whether or not they share in that labor's fruits. In the case of housing, the challenge to freedom is limited in that housing, due to its nature as a necessity to human existence in many sectors of the globe, offers a clear cut-off to the degree to which people may subjugate each other. Essentially, it offers the fallback of being able to say that people are only beholden to each other insofar as is required to provide the necessities.

The case of a human right to free contraceptives is a much broader, if equally insidious, attack on human freedom in that contraceptives, unlike shelter, are -never- a necessity for basic human existence. The only sort of sex that can really be argued for as a physical necessity (and even then not to the existence of living humans, only to the continuing existence of the species) is sex for the purpose of procreation. When procreation isn't the purpose, the sex can only be classified as recreational (call it deep love making, it's still just an enjoyable activity for two or more people to enjoy together). If it isn't fulfilling a literal physical necessity, the most imperative status you can give to recreational sex is that a healthy sex life is necessary to a healthy social life. This is where the assault on freedom broadens. Basic physical necessities aren't nearly as debatable as social necessities. It is not arguable that not having enough recreational sex will, in and of itself, kill you, the way that not having water, in and of itself, will kill you. Social necessities, unlike physical necessities, are a matter of opinion, as is the very nature of a "healthy" social life. Now, chase the logic with me. . . You establish that possession of a physically non essential material object is a human right by declaring it a social imperative, you therefore establish that anyone who chooses not to procure that item for themselves has the right to subjugate others via government coercion to procure it for him. When that item is necessity only by virtue of the opinions of those in charge, you also establish that people can be subjugated to procure, for anyone who chooses not to procure for themselves, anything that those in charge deem necessary. Furthermore, establishing that item as a fundamental human right establishes that anyone capable of providing it who does not provide it is trampling the rights of those he does not provide it for, meaning that the degree to which subjugation is acceptable is limited only by the whims of those in power and the amount of "necessary" fruit the subjugated is capable of producing.

In summation, the "right" to ownership of a particular material item is, in essence, the "right" to various degrees of enslavement. When that "right" includes items not essential to human existence, freedom becomes a farce beholden to the whims of those in charge. I believe the term is "soft tyranny".

Can't wait for the back and forth on this one =)

One, it isn't free. It is covered by the insurance policy that everyone must have.

Two, do you feel the same way about prostrate exams?

 

[PredFan]

The idea that contracetion is a right is insanity, ignorance and partisan hackery all rolled up into one ugly blob.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Viagra is covered is contraceptives aren't..

What's wrong with this picture?

Viagra covers a medical condition.

condoms cover your junk.


I know, I know

Splitting hairs

 

[theHawk]

This whole topic of a "right to contraception" seems to be the new talking point of liberals. Seems now they want to make a big push for tax-payer provided contraception and to make it an issue for the election. Anything to detract from the train wreck of the economy Obama has engineered.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Let me preface this little collection of abstractions by saying that, while I was raised Christian, I would currently have to say agnostic is the closest thing to a label that would fit my religious status. This thought is in no way based on any affiliation with Catholicism. To the contrary, I feel the subject is more a fundamental question as to the nature of human rights and the existence of freedom itself, let alone the freedom to practice religion. So when the inevitable rebuttals come at me, don't think that dismissing me as some sort of hyper-religious wingnut is a valid counterpoint.

The first step in the thought process is identifying that saying a person has the basic human right to free contraception is accepting that possession of a particular material item can be a basic human right. It is my contention that acceptance of -any- material item as a basic human right is a challenge to human freedom to some extent.

Let's take, for example, the "fundamental human right to housing". Sounds wonderful. Shelter, in most climates available on our sweet little piece of space rock, is necessary to human existence, and most sane people don't want to see others perish in the elements. When a government, however, declares that every person has the fundamental -right- to housing, it implies that those who can't or won't procure that housing for themselves must have that housing provided to them. Currently, we haven't developed animal training to the point that beasts of burden can be made to build us adequate housing. That means that the housing must be provided by other people. Therefore, a person can choose (and I realize that most don't simply choose, many are truly incapable of providing their own housing. My purpose is not an indictment of the disabled or those un/underemployed by no fault of their own) to contribute nothing to the acquisition/maintenance of their housing, and anyone capable of acquiring that housing for them would be trampling on their legally established, fundamental human rights by not providing that for them. Once again, and I emphasize, I'm not saying people who can't afford housing all choose to do nothing. I'm well aware that most truly are disabled or un/underemployed as a matter of circumstance and not of laziness. However, the fact remains that establishing a right to housing establishes the right to choose to subjugate your fellow citizens, should you be so inclined. If you question whether or not "subjugate" is an appropriate term, remember that slavery is involuntary labor in which the workers have no say in whether or not they share in that labor's fruits. In the case of housing, the challenge to freedom is limited in that housing, due to its nature as a necessity to human existence in many sectors of the globe, offers a clear cut-off to the degree to which people may subjugate each other. Essentially, it offers the fallback of being able to say that people are only beholden to each other insofar as is required to provide the necessities.

The case of a human right to free contraceptives is a much broader, if equally insidious, attack on human freedom in that contraceptives, unlike shelter, are -never- a necessity for basic human existence. The only sort of sex that can really be argued for as a physical necessity (and even then not to the existence of living humans, only to the continuing existence of the species) is sex for the purpose of procreation. When procreation isn't the purpose, the sex can only be classified as recreational (call it deep love making, it's still just an enjoyable activity for two or more people to enjoy together). If it isn't fulfilling a literal physical necessity, the most imperative status you can give to recreational sex is that a healthy sex life is necessary to a healthy social life. This is where the assault on freedom broadens. Basic physical necessities aren't nearly as debatable as social necessities. It is not arguable that not having enough recreational sex will, in and of itself, kill you, the way that not having water, in and of itself, will kill you. Social necessities, unlike physical necessities, are a matter of opinion, as is the very nature of a "healthy" social life. Now, chase the logic with me. . . You establish that possession of a physically non essential material object is a human right by declaring it a social imperative, you therefore establish that anyone who chooses not to procure that item for themselves has the right to subjugate others via government coercion to procure it for him. When that item is necessity only by virtue of the opinions of those in charge, you also establish that people can be subjugated to procure, for anyone who chooses not to procure for themselves, anything that those in charge deem necessary. Furthermore, establishing that item as a fundamental human right establishes that anyone capable of providing it who does not provide it is trampling the rights of those he does not provide it for, meaning that the degree to which subjugation is acceptable is limited only by the whims of those in power and the amount of "necessary" fruit the subjugated is capable of producing.

In summation, the "right" to ownership of a particular material item is, in essence, the "right" to various degrees of enslavement. When that "right" includes items not essential to human existence, freedom becomes a farce beholden to the whims of those in charge. I believe the term is "soft tyranny".

Can't wait for the back and forth on this one =)

One, it isn't free. It is covered by the insurance policy that everyone must have.

Two, do you feel the same way about prostrate exams?

Sorry, but point one is flat out incorrect. The entire theory behind the individual mandate in Obama's health care bill is that if everyone is legally compelled to buy insurance, rate adjustments to balance the cost of those who can't afford their own health insurance could be minimal as they would be absorbed by everybody who obeyed the mandate. A round about way of forcing everybody capable to pitch in on everybody else's health insurance. If a part of what's included in the health insurance mandate is that it provide contraceptives (especially when the cost is blatantly assigned to the insurance company) free of charge, then inevitably you have people receiving contraceptives, free of charge or at a reduced rate, on the backs of people paying extra for their own coverage. Why? Because those in charge have decided that contraceptives are a social imperative, even though they're not a physical necessity. Therefore the only thing that limits what we're beholden to provide each other with is whether or not those currently in charge decide that it's a social imperative.

Two, yes, I feel the same way about prostate exams. I'm afraid you'll not be able to dismiss this as a sexist argument. I'm actually pro choice, and when it comes to contraceptives, I never jump without my parachute =). I accept, however, that procuring said parachute is my own responsibility, just like getting my prostate checked is my own responsibility. If someone I care about needs a prostate exam and I'm capable of helping them procure it, I have no problem doing so. Same with a few bucks for morning after pills or a couple bills to help with the cost of an abortion (though it'd be accompanied with some stern words regarding wrapping sh*t up and planning ahead). In fact, I'm not even personally opposed to a little blind charity for people who aren't my loved ones when I've got the means to shoulder it. I don't, however, consider it anyone's responsibility to foot the bill for anyone but themselves, and I don't support the government subjugating anyone, to any degree, to the whims or even the needs of anyone they don't wish to support.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Let me preface this little collection of abstractions by saying that, while I was raised Christian, I would currently have to say agnostic is the closest thing to a label that would fit my religious status. This thought is in no way based on any affiliation with Catholicism. To the contrary, I feel the subject is more a fundamental question as to the nature of human rights and the existence of freedom itself, let alone the freedom to practice religion. So when the inevitable rebuttals come at me, don't think that dismissing me as some sort of hyper-religious wingnut is a valid counterpoint.

The first step in the thought process is identifying that saying a person has the basic human right to free contraception is accepting that possession of a particular material item can be a basic human right. It is my contention that acceptance of -any- material item as a basic human right is a challenge to human freedom to some extent.

Let's take, for example, the "fundamental human right to housing". Sounds wonderful. Shelter, in most climates available on our sweet little piece of space rock, is necessary to human existence, and most sane people don't want to see others perish in the elements. When a government, however, declares that every person has the fundamental -right- to housing, it implies that those who can't or won't procure that housing for themselves must have that housing provided to them. Currently, we haven't developed animal training to the point that beasts of burden can be made to build us adequate housing. That means that the housing must be provided by other people. Therefore, a person can choose (and I realize that most don't simply choose, many are truly incapable of providing their own housing. My purpose is not an indictment of the disabled or those un/underemployed by no fault of their own) to contribute nothing to the acquisition/maintenance of their housing, and anyone capable of acquiring that housing for them would be trampling on their legally established, fundamental human rights by not providing that for them. Once again, and I emphasize, I'm not saying people who can't afford housing all choose to do nothing. I'm well aware that most truly are disabled or un/underemployed as a matter of circumstance and not of laziness. However, the fact remains that establishing a right to housing establishes the right to choose to subjugate your fellow citizens, should you be so inclined. If you question whether or not "subjugate" is an appropriate term, remember that slavery is involuntary labor in which the workers have no say in whether or not they share in that labor's fruits. In the case of housing, the challenge to freedom is limited in that housing, due to its nature as a necessity to human existence in many sectors of the globe, offers a clear cut-off to the degree to which people may subjugate each other. Essentially, it offers the fallback of being able to say that people are only beholden to each other insofar as is required to provide the necessities.

The case of a human right to free contraceptives is a much broader, if equally insidious, attack on human freedom in that contraceptives, unlike shelter, are -never- a necessity for basic human existence. The only sort of sex that can really be argued for as a physical necessity (and even then not to the existence of living humans, only to the continuing existence of the species) is sex for the purpose of procreation. When procreation isn't the purpose, the sex can only be classified as recreational (call it deep love making, it's still just an enjoyable activity for two or more people to enjoy together). If it isn't fulfilling a literal physical necessity, the most imperative status you can give to recreational sex is that a healthy sex life is necessary to a healthy social life. This is where the assault on freedom broadens. Basic physical necessities aren't nearly as debatable as social necessities. It is not arguable that not having enough recreational sex will, in and of itself, kill you, the way that not having water, in and of itself, will kill you. Social necessities, unlike physical necessities, are a matter of opinion, as is the very nature of a "healthy" social life. Now, chase the logic with me. . . You establish that possession of a physically non essential material object is a human right by declaring it a social imperative, you therefore establish that anyone who chooses not to procure that item for themselves has the right to subjugate others via government coercion to procure it for him. When that item is necessity only by virtue of the opinions of those in charge, you also establish that people can be subjugated to procure, for anyone who chooses not to procure for themselves, anything that those in charge deem necessary. Furthermore, establishing that item as a fundamental human right establishes that anyone capable of providing it who does not provide it is trampling the rights of those he does not provide it for, meaning that the degree to which subjugation is acceptable is limited only by the whims of those in power and the amount of "necessary" fruit the subjugated is capable of producing.

In summation, the "right" to ownership of a particular material item is, in essence, the "right" to various degrees of enslavement. When that "right" includes items not essential to human existence, freedom becomes a farce beholden to the whims of those in charge. I believe the term is "soft tyranny".

Can't wait for the back and forth on this one =)

One, it isn't free. It is covered by the insurance policy that everyone must have.

Two, do you feel the same way about prostrate exams?

I DEMAND MY FREE ANAL PROBE!!!!!



hold on, what?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The very concept of "unalienable rights" is based on a theory that is basically insane.

It is a theory that some supernatural system of universal order supercedes social order.

That is the reason so many nutters cling to this comforting but mistaken notion.

If people have any rights within society, it is their human rights which that society collectively agrees upon.

Humans quite obviously have no rights that animals don't also have in nature.

And that is why most nutters must also include MIRACLES in their goofy notions about the nature of the world in which we live. To prove to the rest of us that there IS a supernatural power guiding the natural world.

If there are any human rights, (and generally there are, but those rights vary from society to society) it's humans who created that temporary state of affairs.

I would have to agree that one of the biggest mistakes the founders made in their documents was referring to the basic 3 as unalienable and basing that on the assumption of the existence of God. The very existence of the constitution, however, belies any notion that they thought some higher power guaranteed any of the above. Quite obviously, it's possible to alienate any of those rights with force, which is the only reason that rights in society are only those agreed upon by that society (society/government's force is greater than that of any individual). The entire theme of the bill of rights was to temper democracy (representative democracy, granted, but still a system wherein much political power was placed in the hands of the majority) with a structure that kept society from using the force of government to deny anyone those basics. This is why I consider it a superior constitution to most modern documents. It recognized the tendency of societies, whether those controlled by a few or by many, to slide eventually into various forms of tyranny, and was primarily intended to prevent that slide, even if the tyranny was supported by a majority.

I, however, am among the dying breed of people who value individual freedom over any attempt at collectivist security. More and more people seem to prefer to trade more and more self initiative for promises of prosperity and approval via current mainstream morality. Just as long as they're assured that they're morally superior to their opposition and the chains securing them to the will of those in power aren't actually visible.

 

[Ravi]

Let me preface this little collection of abstractions by saying that, while I was raised Christian, I would currently have to say agnostic is the closest thing to a label that would fit my religious status. This thought is in no way based on any affiliation with Catholicism. To the contrary, I feel the subject is more a fundamental question as to the nature of human rights and the existence of freedom itself, let alone the freedom to practice religion. So when the inevitable rebuttals come at me, don't think that dismissing me as some sort of hyper-religious wingnut is a valid counterpoint.

The first step in the thought process is identifying that saying a person has the basic human right to free contraception is accepting that possession of a particular material item can be a basic human right. It is my contention that acceptance of -any- material item as a basic human right is a challenge to human freedom to some extent.

Let's take, for example, the "fundamental human right to housing". Sounds wonderful. Shelter, in most climates available on our sweet little piece of space rock, is necessary to human existence, and most sane people don't want to see others perish in the elements. When a government, however, declares that every person has the fundamental -right- to housing, it implies that those who can't or won't procure that housing for themselves must have that housing provided to them. Currently, we haven't developed animal training to the point that beasts of burden can be made to build us adequate housing. That means that the housing must be provided by other people. Therefore, a person can choose (and I realize that most don't simply choose, many are truly incapable of providing their own housing. My purpose is not an indictment of the disabled or those un/underemployed by no fault of their own) to contribute nothing to the acquisition/maintenance of their housing, and anyone capable of acquiring that housing for them would be trampling on their legally established, fundamental human rights by not providing that for them. Once again, and I emphasize, I'm not saying people who can't afford housing all choose to do nothing. I'm well aware that most truly are disabled or un/underemployed as a matter of circumstance and not of laziness. However, the fact remains that establishing a right to housing establishes the right to choose to subjugate your fellow citizens, should you be so inclined. If you question whether or not "subjugate" is an appropriate term, remember that slavery is involuntary labor in which the workers have no say in whether or not they share in that labor's fruits. In the case of housing, the challenge to freedom is limited in that housing, due to its nature as a necessity to human existence in many sectors of the globe, offers a clear cut-off to the degree to which people may subjugate each other. Essentially, it offers the fallback of being able to say that people are only beholden to each other insofar as is required to provide the necessities.

The case of a human right to free contraceptives is a much broader, if equally insidious, attack on human freedom in that contraceptives, unlike shelter, are -never- a necessity for basic human existence. The only sort of sex that can really be argued for as a physical necessity (and even then not to the existence of living humans, only to the continuing existence of the species) is sex for the purpose of procreation. When procreation isn't the purpose, the sex can only be classified as recreational (call it deep love making, it's still just an enjoyable activity for two or more people to enjoy together). If it isn't fulfilling a literal physical necessity, the most imperative status you can give to recreational sex is that a healthy sex life is necessary to a healthy social life. This is where the assault on freedom broadens. Basic physical necessities aren't nearly as debatable as social necessities. It is not arguable that not having enough recreational sex will, in and of itself, kill you, the way that not having water, in and of itself, will kill you. Social necessities, unlike physical necessities, are a matter of opinion, as is the very nature of a "healthy" social life. Now, chase the logic with me. . . You establish that possession of a physically non essential material object is a human right by declaring it a social imperative, you therefore establish that anyone who chooses not to procure that item for themselves has the right to subjugate others via government coercion to procure it for him. When that item is necessity only by virtue of the opinions of those in charge, you also establish that people can be subjugated to procure, for anyone who chooses not to procure for themselves, anything that those in charge deem necessary. Furthermore, establishing that item as a fundamental human right establishes that anyone capable of providing it who does not provide it is trampling the rights of those he does not provide it for, meaning that the degree to which subjugation is acceptable is limited only by the whims of those in power and the amount of "necessary" fruit the subjugated is capable of producing.

In summation, the "right" to ownership of a particular material item is, in essence, the "right" to various degrees of enslavement. When that "right" includes items not essential to human existence, freedom becomes a farce beholden to the whims of those in charge. I believe the term is "soft tyranny".

Can't wait for the back and forth on this one =)

One, it isn't free. It is covered by the insurance policy that everyone must have.

Two, do you feel the same way about prostrate exams?

Sorry, but point one is flat out incorrect. The entire theory behind the individual mandate in Obama's health care bill is that if everyone is legally compelled to buy insurance, rate adjustments to balance the cost of those who can't afford their own health insurance could be minimal as they would be absorbed by everybody who obeyed the mandate. A round about way of forcing everybody capable to pitch in on everybody else's health insurance. If a part of what's included in the health insurance mandate is that it provide contraceptives (especially when the cost is blatantly assigned to the insurance company) free of charge, then inevitably you have people receiving contraceptives, free of charge or at a reduced rate, on the backs of people paying extra for their own coverage. Why? Because those in charge have decided that contraceptives are a social imperative, even though they're not a physical necessity. Therefore the only thing that limits what we're beholden to provide each other with is whether or not those currently in charge decide that it's a social imperative.

Two, yes, I feel the same way about prostate exams. I'm afraid you'll not be able to dismiss this as a sexist argument. I'm actually pro choice, and when it comes to contraceptives, I never jump without my parachute =). I accept, however, that procuring said parachute is my own responsibility, just like getting my prostate checked is my own responsibility. If someone I care about needs a prostate exam and I'm capable of helping them procure it, I have no problem doing so. Same with a few bucks for morning after pills or a couple bills to help with the cost of an abortion (though it'd be accompanied with some stern words regarding wrapping sh*t up and planning ahead). In fact, I'm not even personally opposed to a little blind charity for people who aren't my loved ones when I've got the means to shoulder it. I don't, however, consider it anyone's responsibility to foot the bill for anyone but themselves, and I don't support the government subjugating anyone, to any degree, to the whims or even the needs of anyone they don't wish to support.

At least you seem to be consistent. The point is that both birth control and prostrate exams are considered preventative care and therefore covered by your insurance.

That there were no protests about requiring insurance companies to pay for preventative care as part of their policy makes me realize just how hypocritical the right is.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I agree that a lot of "the right" are highly hypocritical. The vast majority of the republican party, in my sometimes humble opinion, have their heads inserted firmly in their colons.

I will say, though, I have seen a fair number of righties who are none too pleased about the government setting a precedent that it can demand that an industry offer a product free of charge, even if it is to facilitate a 1st Amendment based waver.

 

[Truthmatters]

then the only real answer is universal healthcare

 

[hortysir]

then the only real answer is universal healthcare

You went back almost 2 months just to find a reason to make that statement???

 

[Truthmatters]

nope

 

[IndependntLogic]

Let me preface this little collection of abstractions by saying that, while I was raised Christian, I would currently have to say agnostic is the closest thing to a label that would fit my religious status. This thought is in no way based on any affiliation with Catholicism. To the contrary, I feel the subject is more a fundamental question as to the nature of human rights and the existence of freedom itself, let alone the freedom to practice religion. So when the inevitable rebuttals come at me, don't think that dismissing me as some sort of hyper-religious wingnut is a valid counterpoint.

The first step in the thought process is identifying that saying a person has the basic human right to free contraception is accepting that possession of a particular material item can be a basic human right. It is my contention that acceptance of -any- material item as a basic human right is a challenge to human freedom to some extent.

Let's take, for example, the "fundamental human right to housing". Sounds wonderful. Shelter, in most climates available on our sweet little piece of space rock, is necessary to human existence, and most sane people don't want to see others perish in the elements. When a government, however, declares that every person has the fundamental -right- to housing, it implies that those who can't or won't procure that housing for themselves must have that housing provided to them. Currently, we haven't developed animal training to the point that beasts of burden can be made to build us adequate housing. That means that the housing must be provided by other people. Therefore, a person can choose (and I realize that most don't simply choose, many are truly incapable of providing their own housing. My purpose is not an indictment of the disabled or those un/underemployed by no fault of their own) to contribute nothing to the acquisition/maintenance of their housing, and anyone capable of acquiring that housing for them would be trampling on their legally established, fundamental human rights by not providing that for them. Once again, and I emphasize, I'm not saying people who can't afford housing all choose to do nothing. I'm well aware that most truly are disabled or un/underemployed as a matter of circumstance and not of laziness. However, the fact remains that establishing a right to housing establishes the right to choose to subjugate your fellow citizens, should you be so inclined. If you question whether or not "subjugate" is an appropriate term, remember that slavery is involuntary labor in which the workers have no say in whether or not they share in that labor's fruits. In the case of housing, the challenge to freedom is limited in that housing, due to its nature as a necessity to human existence in many sectors of the globe, offers a clear cut-off to the degree to which people may subjugate each other. Essentially, it offers the fallback of being able to say that people are only beholden to each other insofar as is required to provide the necessities.

The case of a human right to free contraceptives is a much broader, if equally insidious, attack on human freedom in that contraceptives, unlike shelter, are -never- a necessity for basic human existence. The only sort of sex that can really be argued for as a physical necessity (and even then not to the existence of living humans, only to the continuing existence of the species) is sex for the purpose of procreation. When procreation isn't the purpose, the sex can only be classified as recreational (call it deep love making, it's still just an enjoyable activity for two or more people to enjoy together). If it isn't fulfilling a literal physical necessity, the most imperative status you can give to recreational sex is that a healthy sex life is necessary to a healthy social life. This is where the assault on freedom broadens. Basic physical necessities aren't nearly as debatable as social necessities. It is not arguable that not having enough recreational sex will, in and of itself, kill you, the way that not having water, in and of itself, will kill you. Social necessities, unlike physical necessities, are a matter of opinion, as is the very nature of a "healthy" social life. Now, chase the logic with me. . . You establish that possession of a physically non essential material object is a human right by declaring it a social imperative, you therefore establish that anyone who chooses not to procure that item for themselves has the right to subjugate others via government coercion to procure it for him. When that item is necessity only by virtue of the opinions of those in charge, you also establish that people can be subjugated to procure, for anyone who chooses not to procure for themselves, anything that those in charge deem necessary. Furthermore, establishing that item as a fundamental human right establishes that anyone capable of providing it who does not provide it is trampling the rights of those he does not provide it for, meaning that the degree to which subjugation is acceptable is limited only by the whims of those in power and the amount of "necessary" fruit the subjugated is capable of producing.

In summation, the "right" to ownership of a particular material item is, in essence, the "right" to various degrees of enslavement. When that "right" includes items not essential to human existence, freedom becomes a farce beholden to the whims of those in charge. I believe the term is "soft tyranny".

Can't wait for the back and forth on this one =)

Simple. Your argument is based on sex which is not the argument those in favor of coverage make.
Guess what? There is not "right" to a physical exam. There is no "right" to bone-marrow transplants for cancer patients.
people pay premiums for a collection of coverages. After discovering insurance companies were screwing people (Oh no! Say it isn't so!), minimum standards of care were set by the government - LONG before Obama took office.
So there IS no right to contraception. But like many for-profit industries, insurance companies are regulated and required to provide certain standards of preventative care, in exchange for the premiums paid. No sex required.