Hobby Lobby Hypocrisy

reply to post by rickynews


Way to blame shift. The OP is on is hobby lobby being hypocritical? Not should people pay for your birth control?

There is no reason for them to do one without the other.... Except the bottom line of course.


IMHO every topic on any conspiracy site is answered by follow the money.

rickynews
You want birth control ? Then You pay for it. Quite simple.

Well, if it's ok to just pick and choose then why pay for anything. Why should anyone pay for anything that isn't going to be for themselves. Why should I pay for some guys prostate surgery or some woman's breast cancer or some kids heart pills or some old ladies kidney's or some soldiers ptsd meds or an officers whatever and so on and so on???

If we can arbitrarily pick and choose what we will or won't pay for, why would anyone pay for anything???

BTW, did you know that you're already paying for "Vacuum Erection Systems" for guys who can't get it up??? How do you feel about paying for some old guys "Boner Machine" while refusing to pay for some woman's birth control???

Seems like the more of one you have is all the more reason to have more of the other....

Almost forgot the link:
Dept. of Health and Human Services "Vacuum System Report"

macman
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

Your really grasping at straws now.
Last time I checked, there is no Constitutional right to have Health Care, nor is there a right to get birth control paid for by your employer.

The Constitutionality of Healthcare is NOT the subject of this Thread. If you wish to start a Thread on such, please do.

Once again, you and every other Progressive shows the seething hatred for what is outlined within the Constitution and BoR and just press forward with this "give me" attitude.

Again an attempt at deflection from the subject of the Thread. This time with a Straw Man argument, name calling and Political Trolling.

I would suggest personal responsibility, but to you it would fall on deaf ears.

And a final flourish with yet another insult and more Political Trolling.


Here's a bit of help for your "Is Healthcare Constitutional" Thread...
Starting a New Thread ?... Look Here First. ***ALL Members Read!***

Good Luck

Well, you do make a solid point...without erections, there would be no need for birth control.

BTW, Birth Control is a Choice, NOT a Medical Condition.

reply to post by rickynews

Birth Control is a Choice, NOT a Medical Condition.

Pregnancy is medical condition. Birth control is preventative medication.

reply to post by rickynews


Almost, but birth control is also used for other things besides just stopping fertilization. Some other uses include: Lowering risk of Cancer, PMS and Period Pain Relief and Endometriosis relief. Apparently it can also be used to treat bad skin by lowering testosterone in women which lowers the oil producing or something like that.

rickynews
BTW, Birth Control is a Choice, NOT a Medical Condition.

Grammatically you are correct.

However, did you know there are other reasons than stopping Pregnancy...

• Pill perk #1:
  Lower cancer risk Taking oral contraceptives (OCs) can slash your risk for both endometrial and ovarian cancer by more than 70 percent after 12 years; even just one to five years may lower your risk by 40 percent. They work by reducing the number of times you ovulate in your lifetime: Ovulation may trigger cell changes in the ovaries that can lead to cancer. If you're worried about using the Pill for too long, relax. "You can safely take the Pill for 20 years or more," says Stephanie Teal, M.D., director of family planning at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Barring health issues, the only reason to stop is if you want to get pregnant.
  
• Pill perk #2:
  Clearer skin Estrogen - the female hormone found in most OCs - helps clear your skin by decreasing levels of testosterone, a male hormone that stimulates oil production. Although Ortho Tri-Cyclen is often used to treat acne, many pills, such as Yasmin or Desogen, can banish blemishes. You'll likely see results within a couple of months.
  
• Pill perk #3:
  Lighter, less painful periods When you're on the Pill, you don't ovulate, so your uterine lining doesn't build up as much. In fact, you don't have a true "period" during the placebo phase - just withdrawal bleeding, in which your uterine lining breaks down in response to the drop in hormones. So most OC takers bleed less for a shorter time, and have little or no cramping. If you want an even lighter flow, ask your doctor about Seasonique, a new pill that gives you four periods a year and helps reduce period length to three days on average.
  
• Pill perk #4:
  PMS relief Hormonal shifts during the second half of your cycle are the main cause of PMS symptoms. The Pill can provide relief by steadying hormones, but different symptoms require different pills. If breast tenderness is your complaint, an OC that is lower in estrogen (such as Mircette) is your best bet. If you want to beat bloating, try a pill (such as Yasmin or Yaz) with drospirenone, a progestin shown to help prevent fluid retention. "Use the Pill for three to four months to see if it provides the relief you're looking for," says Pelin Batur, M.D., a women's health specialist at the Cleveland Clinic Independence Family Health Center.
  
• Pill perk #5:
  Endometriosis relief Endometriosis, a condition in which uterine-lining tissue grows in other pelvic areas, can lead to scarring, severe pain, and sometimes infertility. The Pill stops the growth of tissue in other areas by reducing the hormones that cause the lining to build up
  

The More You Know!

Perhaps, but in very rare circumstances. I am quite confident that the real data demonstrates Birth Control is taken to prevent pregnancy.

reply to post by mOjOm


lol.

Beat me to it.

rickynews
Perhaps, but in very rare circumstances. I am quite confident that the real data demonstrates Birth Control is taken to prevent pregnancy.

edit on 4-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)

Are you suggesting that what I presented is somehow not "real data"???

Which brings the question of if what you claim is true, where is your "real data" to support it???

Or are you a medical doctor specializing in Birth Control and it's uses, in which case I'll take your word for it once you provide your credentials and a summary of your medical training.

rickynews
You want birth control ? Then You pay for it. Quite simple.

What a crock of garbage. What effect do you think it would have on your premiums, co-pay or deductibles, if birth control were removed from every insurance policy in America? Zero. Not one cent less. Health insurance in this country is almost exclusively a for profit business with shareholders which, by law, must be beholden higher than the patient. They can cut benefits all day long and those premiums are still going to go up.

Just a bunch of imaginary "you get yours because my greed is so boundless that it surpasses the bounds of reality" garbage.

reply to post by Grimpachi

You said you accepted the challenge, and now you're backing out since you can see failure written on the wall. Too late. I'm going to ask the questions and post the results here. I'll ask seven people since that is enough to get an idea of what the result might look like. You can go around claiming every survey ever done is all made up and you're nothing more than totally and completely wrong. Credibility is useless garbage compared to verifiable facts, which obviously my survey results would be since the survey can be repeated anywhere in the USA for similar results, so your futile attempt at a personal attack falls flat.

Less than 1 in 200 people rounds to 0%, which means in short that I'm right and you're wrong. Hopefully when you go around and verify my results on you're own you'll have the guts to admit it. 0% of people know what pharmaceutical companies their 401k mutual funds are invested in because less than 1 in 200 people can name the investments.

The 0.4% (which you should know rounds to zero%) are going to mostly be people recognizing a nearby company or a company they work for on their mutual fund list.

I'll have no problem admitting if I'm wrong if thats what happens. It will be the easiest thing I've ever done. You though? Nope, don't see that happening.

reply to post by wayforward

Less than 1 in 200 people rounds to 0%, which means in short that I'm right and you're wrong. Hopefully when you go around and verify my results on you're own you'll have the guts to admit it. 0% of people know what pharmaceutical companies their 401k mutual funds are invested in because less than 1 in 200 people can name the investments.

The 0.4% (which you should know rounds to zero%) are going to mostly be people recognizing a nearby company or a company they work for on their mutual fund list.

lol

The main question I asked of you was how we could trust your not making things up. Oh well do a survey I was never saying you shouldn't.

However,

You may wan't to have someone help you with the math. 1 out of 200 is not .004 or .4%

1 out of 200 is .005 or .5%. When rounding numbers. .005 would get rounded up. It would be 1% in the end.

kkrattiger
reply to post by wayforward

 

That's just another example of the religious right using excuses and picking & choosing where they apply their ideals. There's no excuse for pro-lifers to have financial holdings which consist of stock in companies selling things to which they object morally. It's easy enough to invest in funds which are unobjectionable (sustainable practices, no humman rights issues, etc.) or hire a fund manager whom is instructed to keep the investments in line with one's values. Even if it weren't so easy, that's no excuse.

Are the 90%+ of us who invest in 401k funds that are not designated as socially responsible are acting immorally? Or is that just a standard you hold to Hobby Lobby but not your self?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Your question was "how do I know you're not making that up" and my answer was: The survey is verifiable by anyone by doing their own survey. So there you have it again the answer to your question just to be clear.

I implied that .4% is less than 1 in 200, and 0.4% is in fact less than 1 in 200. If there is a math error its on your end.

reply to post by wayforward





Welcome to ATS. I hope you stick around you may learn a few things in debating.

You miss my point. If a woman has a medical condition, such as the conditions you described, then I have no problem with medications to treat said condition. However, if a woman chooses to practice birth control, for the intended purpose of preventing pregnancy, then that is her choice, and she is free to do so, at her own expense of course.

wantsome
Religious people don't care about their own hypocrisy because to them they have the moral high ground. It's the same reason people blow themselves up and priests can't keep their hands off the alter boys. If they can justify their actions in the name of god they can do what ever they want. Religious people have some seriously flawed logic. How else would you explain believing in 2000 year old fairy tales of an invisible man living in the sky.

that's pretty funny stuff!! no matter how many times i hear the same exact thing.

do you do stand up? it's been said before, dude.

but that's only what you believe, isn't it?

you wouldn't lie, would you? you believe what you just posted, right?

people justify what they do even without God involved, too. so how is your moral high ground any different?

i'm a believer, who do you think i am gonna trust? you or God?

your post is quite insulting to me and believers in general.
=========================================================================================================
as to hobby lobby in the op dealing with china, the US Gov deals with them all the time.

people/companies that deal with iran and NK get smacked.

so what's the big deal OP?

rickynews
You miss my point. If a woman has a medical condition, such as the conditions you described, then I have no problem with medications to treat said condition. However, if a woman chooses to practice birth control, for the intended purpose of preventing pregnancy, then that is her choice, and she is free to do so, at her own expense of course.

edit on 4-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)

Then so should men's erection meds. Also, if someone goes skiing and breaks their leg or neck, hey, it was their choice to ski. They should pay for any medical care they need at their own expense, right?