It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Or perhaps you not sure where the self determination movement came from. ...




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton
I'm sure his *base* will think this is great news.


Not just "his base". Democrats should also be thankful for anything that enables their voting base to grow. Sperm meets egg and 9 months later, VIOLA!, another future voter is born.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Unless they get aborted of coarse. Which will also happen. As well as parents giving birth to kids they don't want who later rob you...



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burdman30ott6

When the number of abortions rises do to this how will you feel?


You're mixing arguments, dude. I am opposed to abortion on the exact same grounds as I am opposed to mandates involving health coverage. I'm not opposed to birth control in any way, I think it's a much needed and smart thing... I don't, however, believe in laws that force someone to run opposed to their own moral compass. In other areas of the system we allow religious and concientious objectors to opt out... military service, jury duty, vaccines (though that one is under attack), medical treatment, etc. are all systemic components which have "opt out" clauses for those whose personal beliefs would be compromised by forced involvement. Why should paying for another's birth control when your morals consider that evil be an exception?


The question is if the opt out ends up killing babies or bearing children with inept parents was that freedom really worth it?

I don't think so and I think it's an impossible moral argument to defend.


Like i said - cover both areas. Ban abortions after 20 weeks (House has just passed the bill) AND make people pay for their own contraception. Seems like the govt have the angles covered, so your emotional blackmail argument to justify paying for others' risk taking seems taken care of going forward.

edit on 6/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
"Abortion is murder! We have to do anything we can to stop it! "

"Okay, let's provide more birth control options and education ..."

"I AIN'T PAYIN' FOR NO BODY'S HEALTHCARE!!!"




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burdman30ott6

When the number of abortions rises do to this how will you feel?


You're mixing arguments, dude. I am opposed to abortion on the exact same grounds as I am opposed to mandates involving health coverage. I'm not opposed to birth control in any way, I think it's a much needed and smart thing... I don't, however, believe in laws that force someone to run opposed to their own moral compass. In other areas of the system we allow religious and concientious objectors to opt out... military service, jury duty, vaccines (though that one is under attack), medical treatment, etc. are all systemic components which have "opt out" clauses for those whose personal beliefs would be compromised by forced involvement. Why should paying for another's birth control when your morals consider that evil be an exception?


The question is if the opt out ends up killing babies or bearing children with inept parents was that freedom really worth it?

I don't think so and I think it's an impossible moral argument to defend.


Like i said - cover both areas. Ban abortions after 20 weeks (Hosue has just passed the bill) AND make people pay for their own contraception. Seems like the govt have the angles covered, so your emotional blackmail argument to justify paying for others' risk taking seems taken care of going forward.


So in other words you live in political theory and ignore reality.

Good luck with that.

Or you like activist judges. If 20 weeks is a viable fetus it will change to that. .

However it doesn't effect the number of abortions going up because you think 5 cents is too much to pay for your society not killing babies.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burdman30ott6

When the number of abortions rises do to this how will you feel?


You're mixing arguments, dude. I am opposed to abortion on the exact same grounds as I am opposed to mandates involving health coverage. I'm not opposed to birth control in any way, I think it's a much needed and smart thing... I don't, however, believe in laws that force someone to run opposed to their own moral compass. In other areas of the system we allow religious and concientious objectors to opt out... military service, jury duty, vaccines (though that one is under attack), medical treatment, etc. are all systemic components which have "opt out" clauses for those whose personal beliefs would be compromised by forced involvement. Why should paying for another's birth control when your morals consider that evil be an exception?


The question is if the opt out ends up killing babies or bearing children with inept parents was that freedom really worth it?

I don't think so and I think it's an impossible moral argument to defend.


An individual's actions and choices are always on that individual, alone. Not forcing others to pay for another's birth control absolutely does not put the responsibility of "what happens next" on the shoulders of the person who didn't pay for the other. Using that as an argument is symptomatic of the disease spreading across America right now: a disease of zero personal responsibility. Insurance providers not paying for it doesn't mean in any way that the patient can't go pay for it themselves... we're not talking about the price of a kidney transplant here. Further, "if you don't buy my condoms or pills for me, the abortion I choose to have will be on your head" is effing ridiculous and makes women sound like little toddlers having a pissy fight. Your misogyny is showing.
edit on 6-10-2017 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Abortion is murder! We have to do anything we can to stop it! "

"Okay, let's provide more birth control options and education ..."

"I AIN'T PAYIN' FOR NO BODY'S HEALTHCARE!!!"



And when the number of abortions goes up drastically it's there damn fault.

Let's let states not sell birth cotrol too so they have to drive 400 miles. That would never happen right?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

Or perhaps you not sure where the self determination movement came from. ...


If you believe this discussion violates the principles of self-determination, then not only do you not know where it came from, you don't know what it is.

edit on 6/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: burdman30ott6

When the number of abortions rises do to this how will you feel?


You're mixing arguments, dude. I am opposed to abortion on the exact same grounds as I am opposed to mandates involving health coverage. I'm not opposed to birth control in any way, I think it's a much needed and smart thing... I don't, however, believe in laws that force someone to run opposed to their own moral compass. In other areas of the system we allow religious and concientious objectors to opt out... military service, jury duty, vaccines (though that one is under attack), medical treatment, etc. are all systemic components which have "opt out" clauses for those whose personal beliefs would be compromised by forced involvement. Why should paying for another's birth control when your morals consider that evil be an exception?


The question is if the opt out ends up killing babies or bearing children with inept parents was that freedom really worth it?

I don't think so and I think it's an impossible moral argument to defend.


An individual's actions and choices are always on that individual, alone. Not forcing others to pay for another's birth control absolutely does not put the responsibility of "what happens next" on the shoulders of the person who didn't pay for the other. Using that as an argument is symptomatic of the disease spreading across America right now: a disease of zero personal responsibility. Insurance providers not paying for it doesn't mean in any way that the patient can't go pay for it themselves... we're not talking about the price of a kidney transplant here. Further, "if you don't buy my condoms or pills for me, the abortion I choose to have will be on your head" is effing ridiculous and makes women sound like little toddlers having a pissy fight.


I am not making a series of judgements over there like you, I was raised Christian.

I am saying none of it matters if 40 percent less abortions have happened as a society especially in Christian areas for a miniscule community payment wtf is the problem?

My lord.
edit on 6-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

Or perhaps you not sure where the self determination movement came from. ...


If you believe this discussion violates the principles of self-determination, then not only do you not know where it came from, you don't know what it is.


So your response is I know you are and what am I is all you have or have you ever read philosophy so you know where the words coming out of your mouth you think are so original came from?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Well by God, if luthier doesn't have a problem with it, I guess there's no reason for us to discuss why anyone else might have a problem with it... the world, it doesn't revolve around any one man's opinion. It's why we have clauses in our laws that permit moral exemptions and conscientious objections.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

Well by God, if luthier doesn't have a problem with it, I guess there's no reason for us to discuss why anyone else might have a problem with it... the world, it doesn't revolve around any one man's opinion. It's why we have clauses in our laws that permit moral exemptions and conscientious objections.


I am just saying you aren't doing well holding up a moral philosophy unless you love Nietzsche



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

Or perhaps you not sure where the self determination movement came from. ...


If you believe this discussion violates the principles of self-determination, then not only do you not know where it came from, you don't know what it is.


So your response is I know you are and what am I is all you have or have you ever read philosophy so you know where the words coming out of your mouth you think are so original came from?


No, my response remains the same.

I think it is a good thing that individuals pay for their own birth control
They (along with their partner) are responsible if they get pregnant.
They alone will be responsible for the decisions they make on abortion.

It's not hard to understand, and certainly does not require a discussion on self-determination or Calvinism



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The problem is that we have a bizarre system by which the majority of people obtain health insurance through group policies, paid for in part or whole by their employers as part of the employee's compensation. In our dysfunctional system, insurers get drastically reduced rates on prescription drugs. I can fill a prescription for $10 that would cost $350 if I paid for it out of pocket. Not because the insurer is paying the other $340 for it either.

It's not practical for people to "find another job if they don't like it" either. Most people aren't in the job they're in because they had a plethora of offers they turned down. Nor is it feasible to expect that a significant number of people in this system will be able to purchase plans on their own.

So in practical terms, most people are actually operating at the whim of their employer which enables a small number of people in society to make decisions for the rest of society. It's not that I don't share your paramount concern for individual liberty but I think this is a case that presents a unique dilemma.

This is why we see the emerging popularity in the belief that access to health care should be considered as a sort of right. Most people consider it indispensable, something they can't do without — in some cases, literally can't live without.

In that context, it can be seen that the rights of the employer are infringing upon the rights of his employee.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No it just shows you have no idea what a social contract is and have no interest in solutions that actually benefit humanity.

Like not killing babies for a miniscule portion of taxes.
edit on 6-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whywhynot


Again, this isn't about money. It's about religious exemption.



Again, this is really about religious freedom.


With all due respect, my opinion is that it is not about money either, it’s also not really about the religious exemption. What it is about is political polarization. Just one more dart to throw at the other side and look for a wedge issue for the gullible.

The reason that I don’t believe that it is about the religious exemption is the scenarios in this thread (and other places) of doom and gloom are ridiculous and serious people can’t believe they would ever play out.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




I'm not opposed to birth control in any way, I think it's a much needed and smart thing... I don't, however, believe in laws that force someone to run opposed to their own moral compass. In other areas of the system we allow religious and concientious objectors to opt out... military service, jury duty, vaccines (though that one is under attack), medical treatment, etc. are all systemic components which have "opt out" clauses for those whose personal beliefs would be compromised by forced involvement. Why should paying for another's birth control when your morals consider that evil be an exception?


It sounds to me like you think an employer should be able to opt out of the birth control mandate because their "deeply held beliefs" disagree with the law itself, not because their morality is violated by having an insurance policy that covers women's birth control.

This is what I am also afraid of, that the rule makes women the targets of misdirected resentment.

Yes, there are conscientious objectors, but even their taxes still go to pay for military actions that they disagree with, juries who decide death penalties. Their refusal to serve doesn't stop others from serving. One the other hand, an employer refusing to allow the insurance company to funnel his premium payments toward women's preventative health, AKA birth control, does stop his female employees from benefiting from a law that protects them, the unappealed ACA. Now, they have to pay extra and jump through hoops to get what other women get for free, because of their bosses' closely held beliefs.
edit on 6-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Or perhaps I don't agree with said social contract and prefer any such contract to cover areas outside the control of an individual. For those areas that an individual can control, I prefer personal responsibility, not community responsibility.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




Like i said - cover both areas. Ban abortions after 20 weeks (House has just passed the bill) AND make people pay for their own contraception.


When people pay their insurance premiums, they paying for their own contraception.




top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join