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.

 

The Birth Control Controversy

page: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios
 


The issue at hand is whether or not religious institutions should have the right to impose their religious views on their employees to the extent that they can prevent them from taking certain medications


That is not the issue and you should know it, or you are merely hiding behind a label to foster a falsehood.

The issue is whether the institution/policyholder, or their insurer, should pay for "certain medications."

None of the subject institutions are "imposing views" or "prenting them from [medicating];" those who proclaso are flat-out lying.

The only issue is using other people's money for a purpose the payor does not support.

jw




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


No, but let's say you work for a Catholic Private School that self-insures. You don't have to be Catholic to work there. Can you demand that they provide you with birth control when it counters their religious beliefs?


Yes, because your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. If you have a religious belief against birth control, fine, don't take it. However, if I want birth control, you have no right to imposes your belief system upon my person.



Nor do you have the right to climb into my pocket and just take the money to pay for your own vices.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by WTFover
But, the fact is, no matter how many "reasons" you dream up, that pesky little First Amendment just keeps getting in your way.

That is the heart of the issue and all the Sandra Flukes in the world won't change it.



What does the first amendment have to do with birth control?


Its another typical right wing way to instill their Fascist ideas on America,
just like Citizens Untied. Constitution is toilet paper to be used like toilet
paper I guess.


Wrong.

Ignoring the First Amendment and forcing religious people to ignore their religion in violation of Constitutional guarantees is the LEFT wing method of installing their Fascist ideas on America.


Of is that right? I guess allowing billionaires and foreign money to be the major dictate in our elective
process is no biggy? Protect them and the money... I mean free speech






Instead, Fascists will try to employ force to impose THEIR ideas on the unwilling.



The GOP wanting to stick camera's up women, based upon their moral reservations,
I get it.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


No one is stopping anyone from using a different insurance... It is their right believing that it is not right to supply birth control to NOT supply birth control. Forcing them to do otherwise is violating their right to follow their religious beliefs.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Ignoring the First Amendment and forcing religious people to ignore their religion in violation of Constitutional guarantees is the LEFT wing method of installing their Fascist ideas on America.

Here's a novel idea - don't like their rules on what insurance covers? Go to a different school. Work for a different employer. Buy your own damned independent insurance.

Instead, Fascists will try to employ force to impose THEIR ideas on the unwilling.



The church



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by mastahunta
 


No one is stopping anyone from using a different insurance... It is their right believing that it is not right to supply birth control to NOT supply birth control. Forcing them to do otherwise is violating their right to follow their religious beliefs.

Jaden


Yes and there is an opt out option and in the case of WTF's point there is going to be a dialogue
to resolve the conflict.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
*cough*illuminatiplayingcards*cough*



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


Seriously? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is our first amendment and if you still need to ask that question then move out of this country.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Yes and there is an opt out option and in the case of WTF's point there is going to be a dialogue
to resolve the conflict.


What dialogue? "We need to pass the bill, so we can see what's in it"??? That kind of dialogue? There will be no dialogue. Obama will issue an "edict". Then, the SCOTUS will spank his ass with the correct decision, that the government can not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
edit on 4-3-2012 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by mastahunta

Yes and there is an opt out option and in the case of WTF's point there is going to be a dialogue
to resolve the conflict.


What dialogue? "We need to pass the bill, so we can see what's in it"??? That kind of dialogue? There will be no dialogue. Obama will issue an "edict". Then, the SCOTUS will spank his ass with the correct decision, that the government can not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
edit on 4-3-2012 by WTFover because: (no reason given)


See if they can reach a compromise, you know like when Obama went from aiming for
universal healthcare to mandated to please conservatives who feared socialist healthcare.
Ya like that, you know, the exact solution Conservative touted for years until they got it...

You haven't even given time to see what he will do, his past record indicates he will probably
try to please everybody he can. Do you think he wants to make enemies in an election year?

Clearly you haven't observed him.

As far as prohibiting free exercise of religion, that is a bit of a stretch. No where in the bible does it
say that someone else's sins will transfer to another in proxy. That any Catholic will be unable to
exercise their religiosity is an exaggeration.

Never the less, I can understand that making them pay for something they disagree with on moral
grounds is not equatable or fair.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
It seems to me once a religious group becomes an employer they should be bound to the laws already in place to not "discriminate" based on age, religion, race, sex, etc. , so I would say they no longer can impose religious beliefs in the context of "employer"

If insurance is offered by an employer they should have no say what so ever what descisions are made between the doctor and patient reguarding birth control. There's many reasons, some which have already been pointed out, why a doctor might pescribe them other than birth control. I would also suggest that a person's "emotional" well-being IS important when it comes to overall health and well-being, stress is a hugh factor in health related problems.

Happier people who enjoy better sex lives when the "stress" of getting pregnant isn't a factor probably improves the health and quality of life for both men and women more than most things. Condoms are all well and good, especially for people that have multiply partners, but are a kind of "barrier" to intamacy with monogamous couples, and a woman getting pregnant over and over if her and her partner enjoy a happy sex life certainly wouldn't be healthy for the woman in the long run if she used no birth control to prevent it.

We pay for people's "vices" all the time, obesity, drinking, smoking, etc. are all factored into insurance rates wether you do them or not, and most don't consider sex a "vice" but a normal and important part of a healthy persons life. This is just silliness and lacks commen sense.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by nenothtu

Wrong.

Ignoring the First Amendment and forcing religious people to ignore their religion in violation of Constitutional guarantees is the LEFT wing method of installing their Fascist ideas on America.


Of is that right? I guess allowing billionaires and foreign money to be the major dictate in our elective
process is no biggy? Protect them and the money... I mean free speech



Yup, that's right. I care much less than a damn about "billionaires" and "foreign money". They are completely irrelevant in the matter of whether or not the First Amendment is valid or not. I don't give much of a damn about their money, either. I DO give a damn when the government starts running roughshod over us, and attempting to trample our rights underfoot. Telling ME that I have to pay for YOU to get laid is beyond the pale.

Buy your own.




Instead, Fascists will try to employ force to impose THEIR ideas on the unwilling.



The GOP wanting to stick camera's up women, based upon their moral reservations,
I get it.


I give less than a damn about the GOP, too. They can buy THEIR own as well as you can. I have no idea what twisted crap you're trying to insinuate by saying "stick cameras up women". Care to elaborate?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I wish the government would stay out of my wife's vagina.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by nenothtu

Ignoring the First Amendment and forcing religious people to ignore their religion in violation of Constitutional guarantees is the LEFT wing method of installing their Fascist ideas on America.

Here's a novel idea - don't like their rules on what insurance covers? Go to a different school. Work for a different employer. Buy your own damned independent insurance.

Instead, Fascists will try to employ force to impose THEIR ideas on the unwilling.



The church



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by mastahunta
 


No one is stopping anyone from using a different insurance... It is their right believing that it is not right to supply birth control to NOT supply birth control. Forcing them to do otherwise is violating their right to follow their religious beliefs.

Jaden


Yes and there is an opt out option and in the case of WTF's point there is going to be a dialogue
to resolve the conflict.


Here's an idea for resolving the conflict: stop trying to bypass the separation of church and state by legislative fiat. Stop passing laws in an attempt to nullify the Constitution.

Then there would BE no conflict to "resolve".



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel

We pay for people's "vices" all the time, obesity, drinking, smoking, etc. are all factored into insurance rates wether you do them or not, and most don't consider sex a "vice" but a normal and important part of a healthy persons life. This is just silliness and lacks commen sense.


I don't pay for other people's vices, and I'm mildly curious as to why you do. If you just want to, that's fine by me, but I don't. I have my own vices to shoulder the bill for. No one else is paying for mine, nor would I expect them to.

Anything becomes a vice when taken to excess - and doing more than you can pay for on your own qualifies.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by MountainLaurel

We pay for people's "vices" all the time, obesity, drinking, smoking, etc. are all factored into insurance rates wether you do them or not, and most don't consider sex a "vice" but a normal and important part of a healthy persons life. This is just silliness and lacks commen sense.


I don't pay for other people's vices, and I'm mildly curious as to why you do. If you just want to, that's fine by me, but I don't. I have my own vices to shoulder the bill for. No one else is paying for mine, nor would I expect them to.

Anything becomes a vice when taken to excess - and doing more than you can pay for on your own qualifies.




I don't "willingly" pay for other's vices, I'm just pointing out that they are still factored into the insurance premiums we pay wether we do them or not. If a person has insurance, through thier employer, which in most cases they do pay for in someway through co-pays, etc. why shouldn't they be allowed to use it as they and their doctor see fit?
edit on 5-3-2012 by MountainLaurel because: spelling



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by mastahunta
The 1st amendment is not a tool for religious Fascists to use as a dictating implement.
That is a bologna cover so zealots can inflict morality upon others.


The First Amendment (capitalized to give it the distinction it deserves) is a defense against anti-religion totalitarians, who wish to "inflict" their beliefs upon others.


It actually works both ways - it's a defense against anti-religious totalitarians, AND it's a defense against religious zealots taking over government. The main idea of "separation" being that "congress shall pass no laws..." in other words, government has NO legitimate say in religious matters, either for or against.

When government sticks it's hands into religions pockets, the corollary door opens for religion to dictate to government, or, more properly said, for government to dictate a religion for all.



No one has, is or will be refused the right to obtain contraceptives.


Exactly, but that is the straw man being employed here. The totalitarians are attempting to equate "I don't want to pay for your gravy" with "you are not allowed any gravy no matter who pays for it". That just isn't the case.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel

I don't "willingly" pay for other's vices, I'm just pointing out that they are still factored into the insurance premiums we pay wether we do them or not.


Ah, I see. You opt in to playing the insurance lotto. I don't, nor will I ever, "individual mandate" be damned.



If a person has insurance, through thier employer, which in most cases they do pay for in someway through co-pays, etc. why shouldn't they be allowed to use it as they and their doctor see fit?
edit on 5-3-2012 by MountainLaurel because: spelling


For the same reason that you don't expect your car insurance to cover gas, tires, and oil. Insurance is supposed to be just that - insurance - protection against catastrophic, unforseen medical problems. Birth control is certainly not "unforseen", it's "routine maintenace."



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


For some religious beliefs, birth control is a sin and sex for pleasure versus procreation is a sin. Having the government forcing their adherence to a law that counters that religious belief would violate the First Amendment, specifically freedom of religion.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)


so people can chose not to talk that pill or wear a condom.

I mean this is the biggest farce I have ever seen.

How many times has someone FORCED you to wear a condom?


So have you ever asked your neighbor to buy your condoms?




top topics



 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join