Contraception - a discussion

[Azrael]

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 don't know what God thinks about it and will not lie and tell you I do know.
I think that birth control should remain legal as even if it is wrong,
the person has the right to chose to do it any way.
I am not for it or against, I am not a woman though.

I do believe that abortion is a sin as I see it as murder, which is why I am lead to believe that birth control should not be thought of as wrong as it could save a person from committing a sin by having to have an abortion. Where if they had been taking birth control they never would have had to commit a sin.

 

[Too Tall]

Hold on. What country are you talking about? Food and water are scarce? Educational opportunity is non-existant? I know you're not talking about America. If you talking about another country than that's the country's problem, not the church's.

The Catholic are against contraceptives because they want as many members as they can get. It has nothing to do with morals.

Wow straight from the ultimate authority on Catholic theology. You know we have reached a significant crossroads when an arrogant pack of intolerant elitists believe they have the right to demand a 2000 plus year old religion change its centuries old, unchanging doctrine including redefine the Ten Commandments, redefine sin - and insist it should be based on nothing more than secular, unholy, anti-religious opinion of the arrogant elitists instead. Which kind of defies the unchanging laws of God as handed down to Moses thing, huh. Sure, turning churches into another tool of those in power has worked out SO well for mankind in the past, hasn't it?

You are an idiot. I'm not even Catholic but I know the decree against contraception has nothing to do with your ignorant comment and evrything to do with the unchanging position of the church regarding the ultimate purpose of sexual intercourse from the start - even though haggling over how much it's going to cost you for a blow job has been the only purpose of your own.

Nice rant. Put a bit more work into it, drop the personal attacks and try to understand not everyone believes in ghosts, holy or otherwise, and you might elicit awe and wonder - not derisive laughter. Just kidding, awe and wonder won't happen.

God (if He or She exists) created man and women and sexual intercourse. Some men and women enjoy the company of each other and engage in sexual intercourse and other pleasurable activities for fun, and not with the intent to create a new life. What goes on between a man and a women, or a women and a women, or a man and a man is not the business of the government nor of the church. And is not the business of a four-time married fat asshole who pontificates on the radio.

The week before we were to be Confirmed our Catechism class went into the church for confession. When I had completed the ritual the priest said to me, "is that all you need to confess?" Confused, I said, "Yes Father" and he then asked me if I knew that masturbation was a sin. I was embarrassed and didn't respond. He asked me if I masturbated and I lied and said, "No!"

At that I finished the ritual with the priest and paid my penance (I'd admitted to the priest I had lied to my parents). That was the last time I went to confession. Did the priest have a prurient interest in an adolescents private behavior? I'll never know, but as an adolescent I knew something was fishy and that was a pond I would avoid in the future.

There are only two kinds of teen age boys. Those that masturbate and those that lie about it, and the Priest knew that. I am not Catholic, but I wouldn't lie to a Catholic Priest or any other man of the cloth. But then , that's just me.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Where is the morality in creating a life when food and clean water are rare commodities? Since they are not rare, but in countries run by tyrants; Don't ****.Where poverty exists and educational opportunities are non existent? Don't ****.

Where is the morality when disease is spread? Don't ****.

Where is the morality when a women is the victim of domestic violence? That has nothing to do with contraception, nothing at all.When a women is forced to conceive and then trapped as the child become a lever to gain more power and more control? now you are just talking out your ass.

quell surprise.

 

[Too Tall]

you pay for other peoples health care every time you pay your insurance premiums.... are you protesting your current insurance company as right now?

Still think the sky is green?

still think you dont pay for it? hows that ignorance working out for you?

Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia.

Obamacare makes these state laws null and void. Of course the people in those 21 states who are exempt are NOT paying for other peoples contraception needs every time they pay their premium as you repeatedly state.

If the House Republicans could have got their bill passed in the Senate to allow insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines, I suggest that EVERY man that has had a vasectomy, every woman that has had a tubal libation, and those that are incapable of having or siring a child would opt for a policy without contraception coverage. And it would be cheaper for them and it would be FAIR.

Every other word from Obama's lips is FAIR. Instead of being fair, he spends his time apologizing to Muslims and declaring war on Catholics.

 

[Sunshine]

Have you ever noticed how many kids muslim families have? I have heard that there is a fatwa for each muslim couple to have no less than 5 children. Not sure if that is verifiable on the internet or not, though.

They wouldn't last in China, would they?

Ya know, China's not as bad as she is made out to be. There is a lot we could learn

 

[Sunshine]

Have you ever noticed how many kids muslim families have? I have heard that there is a fatwa for each muslim couple to have no less than 5 children. Not sure if that is verifiable on the internet or not, though.

They wouldn't last in China, would they?

There are 10s of millions of Muslims in China...

How many of them have 5 kids. Have you forgotten China's 'one child' policy?

 

[Sunshine]

What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception?

the government didnt say you directly pay for other peoples health care idiot. the law says the health care providers can not change an extra co-pay or co-insurance for contraception. its not free, its simply included in the cost of your premium.

seeing as how you already pay for other peoples services, why are you not complaining about every other service your health care provider provides for no additional cost?

Again,

What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.

I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.

How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.

Everybody who has insurance pays for other people's claims. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk around. Some people will never have a claim. Others will have many claims.

Do you own a home? Think about how much your homeowner's insurance costs you. I had a patient in his 80s a couple weeks ago who has owned a home for 50 years. He said he figured up that over his lifetime he has paid $50,000 in premiums, but has never filed a claim. I haven't figured up mine because I've moved several times. Too much trouble. But mine right now is pretty high. I've only filed one claim and that was for a roof damaged by hail. $5,000. I've paid in much more. But the others who have lost everything have been covered because I have joined in and help, with my premiums, to spread the risk around.

That's how all insurance works. Med mal, health, car, you name it. The name of the game is spreading out the risk. If you never have a claim, you pay for everyone else's!

If I were an insurance company, I would pay for contraception. It would mean fewer dependents to cover.

 

[kwc57]

At the same time the government should not be forcing people to pay for other's people's contraception or forcing insurance companies to offer coverage for contraception if they choose not too

you pay for other peoples health care every time you pay your insurance premiums.... are you protesting your current insurance company as right now?

Contraception isn't healthcare just as cosmetic surgery isn't healthcare. Try getting your insurer to cover your liposuction and see how far you get.

 

[Intense]

Have you ever noticed how many kids muslim families have? I have heard that there is a fatwa for each muslim couple to have no less than 5 children. Not sure if that is verifiable on the internet or not, though.

They wouldn't last in China, would they?

Ya know, China's not as bad as she is made out to be. There is a lot we could learn

Yeah, State Capitalism is so good for us all, Comrade.

 

[Katzndogz]

They wouldn't last in China, would they?

There are 10s of millions of Muslims in China...

How many of them have 5 kids. Have you forgotten China's 'one child' policy?

The one child policy is not nationwide. People in rural areas can have as many children as they want.

There aren't tens of millions of muslims in China, there is a approximately 13 million muslims in China.

Today's Muslim Population in China

The more I learn about China, the more it seems to be in the process of becoming a more free country and the US much less so.

 

[earlycuyler]

What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception?

the government didnt say you directly pay for other peoples health care idiot. the law says the health care providers can not change an extra co-pay or co-insurance for contraception. its not free, its simply included in the cost of your premium.

seeing as how you already pay for other peoples services, why are you not complaining about every other service your health care provider provides for no additional cost?

No need to force them, they already do.
Again,

What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.

I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.

How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.

No need to force them, they already do.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Progressives bring a new perspective to the term "give and TAKE."

Pieces of shit...

You don't see them doing any of the "giving" unless it's someone else's cash however....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the government didnt say you directly pay for other peoples health care idiot. the law says the health care providers can not change an extra co-pay or co-insurance for contraception. its not free, its simply included in the cost of your premium.

seeing as how you already pay for other peoples services, why are you not complaining about every other service your health care provider provides for no additional cost?

Again,

What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.

I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.

How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.

Everybody who has insurance pays for other people's claims. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk around. Some people will never have a claim. Others will have many claims.

Do you own a home? Think about how much your homeowner's insurance costs you. I had a patient in his 80s a couple weeks ago who has owned a home for 50 years. He said he figured up that over his lifetime he has paid $50,000 in premiums, but has never filed a claim. I haven't figured up mine because I've moved several times. Too much trouble. But mine right now is pretty high. I've only filed one claim and that was for a roof damaged by hail. $5,000. I've paid in much more. But the others who have lost everything have been covered because I have joined in and help, with my premiums, to spread the risk around.

That's how all insurance works. Med mal, health, car, you name it. The name of the game is spreading out the risk. If you never have a claim, you pay for everyone else's!

If I were an insurance company, I would pay for contraception. It would mean fewer dependents to cover.

Not true.

If you have insurance you are paying a third party to assume the risk for your claims. Most insurance companies use the money from premiums to pay claims, but that does not mean that the person paying the premium is actually paying the claim. There are insurance pools set up where people do pay for other people's claims, but they do that by sending payment directly to the person that needs the money, not to the doctor or hospital.

 

[Triton]

the government didnt say you directly pay for other peoples health care idiot. the law says the health care providers can not change an extra co-pay or co-insurance for contraception. its not free, its simply included in the cost of your premium.

seeing as how you already pay for other peoples services, why are you not complaining about every other service your health care provider provides for no additional cost?

Again,

What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.

I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.

How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.

Everybody who has insurance pays for other people's claims. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk around. Some people will never have a claim. Others will have many claims.

Do you own a home? Think about how much your homeowner's insurance costs you. I had a patient in his 80s a couple weeks ago who has owned a home for 50 years. He said he figured up that over his lifetime he has paid $50,000 in premiums, but has never filed a claim. I haven't figured up mine because I've moved several times. Too much trouble. But mine right now is pretty high. I've only filed one claim and that was for a roof damaged by hail. $5,000. I've paid in much more. But the others who have lost everything have been covered because I have joined in and help, with my premiums, to spread the risk around.

That's how all insurance works. Med mal, health, car, you name it. The name of the game is spreading out the risk. If you never have a claim, you pay for everyone else's!

If I were an insurance company, I would pay for contraception. It would mean fewer dependents to cover.

Well, if you were a a private insurance company you should have the choice to offer contraception coverage or not. Not be required to do so or not by the government.



As far as premiums paying for other people's claims, is it really relevant? I still have the choice to pay for insurance or not.

Another issue is the federal government is not even authorized to provide health care. If we want to do this the constitution must be amended (not that the Federal government even follows the constitution anyway) However, if the people of the individual states want to have their state government run their health care that's completely fine.

Just don't expect the people of the other states that don't want it to pay for it.

 

[Syphon]

Again,

What does that have to do with the point that the government should not be forcing people to pay for other people's contraception or force insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception.

I don't have to have insurance, its still a choice.

How an insurance company uses the money from the premiums to pay for other people's health care is their business. If they want to charge extra for contraception coverage that is also also their business not the government's you arrogant prick.

Everybody who has insurance pays for other people's claims. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk around. Some people will never have a claim. Others will have many claims.

Do you own a home? Think about how much your homeowner's insurance costs you. I had a patient in his 80s a couple weeks ago who has owned a home for 50 years. He said he figured up that over his lifetime he has paid $50,000 in premiums, but has never filed a claim. I haven't figured up mine because I've moved several times. Too much trouble. But mine right now is pretty high. I've only filed one claim and that was for a roof damaged by hail. $5,000. I've paid in much more. But the others who have lost everything have been covered because I have joined in and help, with my premiums, to spread the risk around.

That's how all insurance works. Med mal, health, car, you name it. The name of the game is spreading out the risk. If you never have a claim, you pay for everyone else's!

If I were an insurance company, I would pay for contraception. It would mean fewer dependents to cover.

Well, if you were a a private insurance company you should have the choice to offer contraception coverage or not. Not be required to do so or not by the government.



As far as premiums paying for other people's claims, is it really relevant? I still have the choice to pay for insurance or not.

Another issue is the federal government is not even authorized to provide health care. If we want to do this the constitution must be amended (not that the Federal government even follows the constitution anyway) However, if the people of the individual states want to have their state government run their health care that's completely fine.

Just don't expect the people of the other states that don't want it to pay for it.

the fed is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. since when you have health insurance is follows you across state lines, this can be interpreted as interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution. when the case reaches the supreme court, this is ultimately what the decision will hinge upon.

i posted the below earlier.... can you comment:

"i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this."

 

[oreo]

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?

Catholic women take birth control contraceptives. You're talking about the CHURCH & Rick Santorum who still believes that it is immoral to take birth control contraceptives.

The funny thing about it--Catholics are not supporting Rick Santorum they are voting for Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney Trouncing Rick Santorum Among Catholics

 

[Triton]

The commerce clause, the 10th amendment, and universal health care would be a court battle that's for sure.

As for your comment

You are trying to make people who don't support government run health care appear to lack compassion. We already have a qausi socialized system. There is already enough regulation to allow for recourse for declining paid for coverage. I am of the opinion that free market forces will allow for greater ingenuity in medicine and lower costs through competition. Artificial monopolies don't work and they stagnate progress. More government involvement will generate more problems.



We simply disagree on what the government's role should be in health care.


In turn, what's wrong with letting an individual state such as New York have government run care while New Hampshire does not? With the residents of New Hampshire not having to pay for New Yorkers' health care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everybody who has insurance pays for other people's claims. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk around. Some people will never have a claim. Others will have many claims.

Do you own a home? Think about how much your homeowner's insurance costs you. I had a patient in his 80s a couple weeks ago who has owned a home for 50 years. He said he figured up that over his lifetime he has paid $50,000 in premiums, but has never filed a claim. I haven't figured up mine because I've moved several times. Too much trouble. But mine right now is pretty high. I've only filed one claim and that was for a roof damaged by hail. $5,000. I've paid in much more. But the others who have lost everything have been covered because I have joined in and help, with my premiums, to spread the risk around.

That's how all insurance works. Med mal, health, car, you name it. The name of the game is spreading out the risk. If you never have a claim, you pay for everyone else's!

If I were an insurance company, I would pay for contraception. It would mean fewer dependents to cover.

Well, if you were a a private insurance company you should have the choice to offer contraception coverage or not. Not be required to do so or not by the government.



As far as premiums paying for other people's claims, is it really relevant? I still have the choice to pay for insurance or not.

Another issue is the federal government is not even authorized to provide health care. If we want to do this the constitution must be amended (not that the Federal government even follows the constitution anyway) However, if the people of the individual states want to have their state government run their health care that's completely fine.

Just don't expect the people of the other states that don't want it to pay for it.

the fed is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. since when you have health insurance is follows you across state lines, this can be interpreted as interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution. when the case reaches the supreme court, this is ultimately what the decision will hinge upon.

i posted the below earlier.... can you comment:

"i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this."

The market between 2004 and 2008 was not a free market.

 

[Syphon]

The commerce clause, the 10th amendment, and universal health care would be a court battle that's for sure.

As for your comment

You are trying to make people who don't support government run health care appear to lack compassion. We already have a qausi socialized system. There is already enough regulation to allow for recourse for declining paid for coverage. I am of the opinion that free market forces will allow for greater ingenuity in medicine and lower costs through competition. Artificial monopolies don't work and they stagnate progress. More government involvement will generate more problems.



We simply disagree on what the government's role should be in health care.


In turn, what's wrong with letting an individual state such as New York have government run care while New Hampshire does not? With the residents of New Hampshire not having to pay for New Yorkers' health care.

my post is not advocating for a full government run system. what i am simply pointing out that government regulation can provide an avenue for change. which is what is happening here. there are many good things in the health care law which everyone agrees are good. things like making 80% of premium dollars be used on patient care, not being able to drop patients when they get sick, the removal of lifetime caps, kids being able to stay on their parents insurance until 26, mammograms at no additional costs, the elimination of pre-exisiting conditions. without government intervention then none of this would have happened.

the free market is not always the best solution. look at natural monopolies such as utilities providers. they have government regulated monopolies because it makes more sense logisitically and financially to have one say electricity provider instead of 20 in a given area. look at what the free market did to the financial markets between 2004 and 2008? the lack of regulation cause a huge financial collapse. i have never said the government should run everything or is the perfect solution to every problem. but..... government intervention and regulation can provide a positive avenue for change when the free market is not willing to do so.

health care costs have increased 10 fold since 1990, and the average family is getting squeezed out of the insurance market. all of this due to the free market. how much longer should we wait to see if the free market corrects itself? 10 more years? 20 more?

your notion of letting NY have state run health care but no NH opens a large amount of problems. what if someone from NY travels to NH and gets hurt, but NH will not accept the NY health insurance? so the patient has to be transported back to NY at the possibility of dying. if every state had their own standards of health care, each state would need to have an separate agreement with every other state to accept that states health insurance. if a state is not willing to do so, then you create problems amongst the states. you will have people who will not travel outside their state for fear of incurring costs associated with this. you will also have 50 different form of health care. what if NY had good health care, and NH didnt have good health care, would you allow the residents of NH to cross state lines and improve their health care? would NH be allow to restrict this through law? would people being to flee states due to lack of access to health care?

if you create one single minimum standard that has met, you provide uniformity across the industry. this does not stop providers from exceeding that standard, but it provides a framework with which to start. is this such a terrible thing?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Everybody who has insurance pays for other people's claims. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk around. Some people will never have a claim. Others will have many claims.

Do you own a home? Think about how much your homeowner's insurance costs you. I had a patient in his 80s a couple weeks ago who has owned a home for 50 years. He said he figured up that over his lifetime he has paid $50,000 in premiums, but has never filed a claim. I haven't figured up mine because I've moved several times. Too much trouble. But mine right now is pretty high. I've only filed one claim and that was for a roof damaged by hail. $5,000. I've paid in much more. But the others who have lost everything have been covered because I have joined in and help, with my premiums, to spread the risk around.

That's how all insurance works. Med mal, health, car, you name it. The name of the game is spreading out the risk. If you never have a claim, you pay for everyone else's!

If I were an insurance company, I would pay for contraception. It would mean fewer dependents to cover.

Well, if you were a a private insurance company you should have the choice to offer contraception coverage or not. Not be required to do so or not by the government.



As far as premiums paying for other people's claims, is it really relevant? I still have the choice to pay for insurance or not.

Another issue is the federal government is not even authorized to provide health care. If we want to do this the constitution must be amended (not that the Federal government even follows the constitution anyway) However, if the people of the individual states want to have their state government run their health care that's completely fine.

Just don't expect the people of the other states that don't want it to pay for it.

the fed is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. since when you have health insurance is follows you across state lines, this can be interpreted as interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution. when the case reaches the supreme court, this is ultimately what the decision will hinge upon.

i posted the below earlier.... can you comment:

"i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this."

WHo gave the federal government the right to 'regulate insurance commerce'?....Answer..A misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
First, health insurance is not available across state lines. Therefore the federal government is acting outside it's Constitutional authority. Exactly the reason why Congress felt justified to pass Obamacare. Since it was essentially illegal for the law to be passed as a tax( which it is), Congress had to find another way to ram this down our throats.
Anyway. This is much ado about nothing. Fake outrage from the left is all we are hearing. And by the end of next week, this will be buried in the back of the "B" section of the local paper.
Ms. Fluke will have had her tour through all the liberal talk shows. The President will have milked this for every political drop he could get out of it. Limbaugh will replace those ***** assed sponsors that turned tail and ran.
This story is SHIT.