The Birth Control Controversy

page: 17
11
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
Compromise is a thing Liberals and people who believe in representative government practice.

What Obama did does not qualify as 'compromise'. Again ... he tried to pull something that was unconstitutional. Even Joe Biden says they screwed it up. Obama's backpeddling and being forced to work within the Constitution is not a 'compromise'. It's just his unconstitutional agenda getting shot down. To call it 'compromise' is just a sugar coating spin.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I suggest you go back and read the entire thread. You will see that the person I was responding to did indeed want to decide what the Catholic Church believes and they did indeed want to take away their First Amendment rights to act on those beliefs.


There is no first amendment right to force others to ACT on your religious beliefs. Just protection from laws that would make YOU go against your religion. If they were forcing you to TAKE birth control, then you'd have a case. Otherwise, you just don't. There's nothing the gov't is doing to make Catholics take, provide or pay for birth control.

Some Muslims BELIEVE that Americans should be killed. Preventing them from ACTING on their beliefs is a good thing, wouldn't you agree? But having that belief is a first amendment right. Living one's life in accordance with that belief is a fundamental first amendment right. But making OTHER people act on YOUR belief is NOT a first amendment right.



For reference for those who want to know what Hyperbole is - Hyperbole definition


1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.



Exactly. Your hyperbole is an obvious and intentional exaggeration.
edit on 3/6/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There's nothing the gov't is doing to make Catholics take, provide or pay for birth control.

Again .. read the thread. The posters (2 of them) were saying that they wanted it that way.
THAT is what we were discussing.

Your hyperbole is an obvious and intentional exaggeration.

Wrong. You see only that which you wish to in this matter due to your bias.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


your point being??



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


This isn't about play, this is about medical need.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Originally posted by FlyersFan

You said I am "TRYING TO CONTROL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH", I was un aware I was trying
anything. I was typing on a website, I very much doubt typing does anything to control the Catholic
Church

WANTING refers to a desire, something that has not manifested and a desire I curbed non the less


I am not active trying to do anything, in fact I am sitting here on a website talking to you,
a person who is trying to infer that I am able to CONTROL one of the most powerful organizations
in the history of mankind.

I realize this is something I cannot control that outcome and I am fairly confident the three interests
involved can figure this out, if they can't, I will comment then. But I cannot complain about
the cake before it is out of the oven because that is useless
edit on 6-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mastahunta
Compromise is a thing Liberals and people who believe in representative government practice.

What Obama did does not qualify as 'compromise'. Again ... he tried to pull something that was unconstitutional. Even Joe Biden says they screwed it up. Obama's backpeddling and being forced to work within the Constitution is not a 'compromise'. It's just his unconstitutional agenda getting shot down. To call it 'compromise' is just a sugar coating spin.


You used the word DID, PAST tense, they are actively trying to resolve the conflict now, which is
an act of COMPROMISE. It is a act some of us learned in Kindergarten and I find it hard to believe
that you are so clueless as to what constitutes a compromise.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There's nothing the gov't is doing to make Catholics take, provide or pay for birth control.

Again .. read the thread. The posters (2 of them) were saying that they wanted it that way.
THAT is what we were discussing.



I agree with BH, you are being a drama queen here.

am I the government??? I have read in the past several days three posters suggesting that
Obama be executed for one reason or another. Does that mean the GOP is trying execute Obama?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Again .. read the thread.


I HAVE read the thread. I've been reading it since it was started.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
The posters (2 of them) were saying that they wanted it that way.


I don't know what you mean by "that way". They wanted Catholic churches to be forced to provide birth control? They want to control people's minds by controlling what they believe? Because I don't see even a hint of that in nixie's posts. I don't know who the other poster you're referring to is, but I haven't seen ANY posts in this thread that advocate the church being forced to provide or pay for birth control...

You're making the claim. Please provide the evidence.
edit on 3/6/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
If religious views concerning the approval of the pill is what's causing all the fuss, well what about all the other approved medications/procedures that are covered. Seems the religious/taxpayers aren't overly concerned/overburden by all that crap.

The lap-banding procedure immediately comes to mind. My hubby has an obese client. He developed diabetes, high blood pressure, breathing problems, circulation issues, orthopedic problems to name a few. He's constantly battling one infection or another requiring antibiotics and he takes pain meds. It goes on and on. There's a laundry list of prescription drugs/over the counter meds he routinely takes every day.

This wouldn't bother me if he was making an honest effort, he's not. Drs/medicare pressured him to have the procedure because his obesity related conditions were getting worse/more costly and he was going to die. He eats pepperoni slices like most people eat chips. First thing after the procedure he was eating Carl's Jr fries when he should've been on a liquid/soft diet. He is killing himself with food. The guy is on medicare and gets social security because he's too disabled to work. Taxpayers pay for it all.

Should I go on about my hubby's other clients? The women hooked on pain meds or how about the disabled alcoholics receiving meds/hospital care for one ailment or another related to their alcoholism. Not to mention social security payments because they can't work. My hubby pics up their multiple _takes them to Dr appointments all paid for by us.

I know people are upset with the above situations but the pill alone has been singled out as the straw that will break the camel's financial back. Is this really honest outrage over cost or more about immoral lifestyle choices that many feel shouldn't be covered by insurance/tax dollars.

Isn't drinking a lifestyle choice? What about gluttony isn't that a "deadly sin?" Seems the religious like to target meth addicts but how many of those nice elderly church ladies are addicted to narcotics? All of it on the taxpayers buck. My hubby sees it all the time. Approving oral contraception for coverage isn't going to cause medical/insurance costs to increase anymore than all the other BS that's already covered.

Whether a woman is using the pill medicinally or not isn't anyone's business. Just like my hubby's clients no one is prohibiting them from treatment because they're still drinking/eating/abusing prescription drugs. Look it's all or nothing. If you want to refuse coverage for oral contraception on moral grounds fine but lets make it fair. Cut off all alcoholics, obese and prescription drug abusers. I have more of a problem over those costs as opposed to women who need the pill to treat medical conditions or for family planning.

This whole debate seems to be less about money and more about picking and choosing what should be covered based on religious belief. It's confusing that drinking/gluttony/prescription drug addiction gets a free pass while BC is prohibited because it's seen as medically unnecessary, a choice and an immoral one at that. If we're going to refuse coverage for one group of people based on cost/morality then we need to apply that same standard across the board. There are many approved conditions that could be considered just as costly/immoral as BC.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Morningglory because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
But then there's that pesky First Amendment that guarantees religious freedom... which can often be found being exercised by a ... church! The Constitution is not being "extended" to cover the church, that coverage is BUILT IN to it.

But, I often see the argument that individual rights are more important and that corporations should be second, if at all. I'm sure it being "BUILT IN" for institutions, corporations, organizations, etc. is subject to interpretation.


The individual's rights are not being abrogated - they have other recourse to exercise them that violating the rights of another in favor of theirs. Their rights do not extend to forcing someone else to pay for their recreational activities.

But the employer also has the right to stop offering healthcare coverage and just pay the employee the corresponding amount so that she can take care of it herself.


No, conservative ideology insists that the individual pay his own way. No organization is "deciding for" individuals in this case, they are only saying what they will not pay for - the individual is still free to get it by another route.

Sure they are, when they decide to offer healthcare as part of payment and what coverage consists of instead of letting the employee take care of it themselves. How is this consistent with "individuals paying their own way"?

edit on 6-3-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 


THANK YOU for your post. I have been arguing the same thing exactly. People who use birth control are actually acting very responsibly - we should be happy about that - unlike smokers, drug abusers, and gluttons who are are extremely irresponsible. The last statistic I saw was that $300 billion dollars a year is spent by the insurance companies on smoking and obesity-related illnesses. If you don't think that has something to do with the cost of your insurance premiums, you are very naive. Why does no one have a problem paying for such irresponsible behavior, but they do have a problem with someone who is trying to be responsible???



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by nenothtu
 


This isn't about play, this is about medical need.



This is about using genuine medical need as a smoke screen to bypass the rules against pay for play, and attempt to hamstring the Constitution by employing a straw man.

You have no doubt noticed that the topic is "birth control", not "hormone therapy".

What people are trying to do is use hormone therapy as a cover story for birth control.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 
You're very welcome. The hubby and I have seen it all. He owns a small town taxi/delivery service. We're completely frustrated by what's going on.

Family members call him and local liquor stores crying/begging for refusal of services/selling alcohol to their addicted relatives. This lasts about a week...those out of control people call him constantly tying up his phone for hours demanding service. My hubby contacts the family for help and 99.9% of the time the family gives up. Some are actually quite grateful that my hubby does daily wellness checks, grocery shops etc. It takes a load off their mind and busy schedules.

The addicted older ladies get a little scary and creative. If they run out of pills over a weekend they'll ask him to go to this or that friend/relative to get pills from them. It's like some kind of twisted network of pill popping old ladies. He refuses he's afraid of being held liable.

He tells on the obese guy all the time. One of his relatives told my hubby he should get some kind of humanitarian award for his watch dogging efforts. These people are a mess but they've got the stamp of approval. Responsible women on the other hand are the real villains, scum of the earth with their bad habits making us all pay. What an upside down world.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by nenothtu
But then there's that pesky First Amendment that guarantees religious freedom... which can often be found being exercised by a ... church! The Constitution is not being "extended" to cover the church, that coverage is BUILT IN to it.

But, I often see the argument that individual rights are more important and that corporations should be second, if at all. I'm sure it being "BUILT IN" for institutions, corporations, organizations, etc. is subject to interpretation.


It is plain English. Any average American 8th grader can read and understand it, so no, it's not open to "interpretation".



But the employer also has the right to stop offering healthcare coverage and just pay the employee the corresponding amount so that she can take care of it herself.


What a useless idea. If she's not making enough to cover her bills, she should look into that, rather than expecting someone to cover her ass one way or the other. Raises are based on merit and work done, not "medical needs". An increase in wages to "cover it" should properly be accompanied by an increase in work load to justify the raise.



No, conservative ideology insists that the individual pay his own way. No organization is "deciding for" individuals in this case, they are only saying what they will not pay for - the individual is still free to get it by another route.

Sure they are, when they decide to offer healthcare as part of payment and what coverage consists of instead of letting the employee take care of it themselves. How is this consistent with "individuals paying their own way"?


No, they're not. If I don't like what a job offers, I don't take that job. No one decides for me that I have to just accept what's offered. I go down the road if I don't like it. No one forces me.

You must not understand the English phrase "paying your own way", or you wouldn't be asking why expecting someone else to pay it is not consistent with "paying your own way".



edit on 2012/3/6 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


to be frank, paying your own way, and health insurance just don't jive together too well...
matter of fact, most people buy health insurance because they know that sooner or later something is gonna happen that they aren't gonna be able to totally pay for!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
It is plain English. Any average American 8th grader can read and understand it, so no, it's not open to "interpretation".

In the real world it is open to interpretation. That is what the SCOTUS does. Whether an individual agrees with their interpretation or not is what I am talking about. I often see people who call themselves conservative express their belief that corporations should not have the same rights as people.


What a useless idea. If she's not making enough to cover her bills, she should look into that, rather than expecting someone to cover her ass one way or the other. Raises are based on merit and work done, not "medical needs". An increase in wages to "cover it" should properly be accompanied by an increase in work load to justify the raise.

I never said a raise. The employer is using some of the income generated by this person to pay for healthcare. It's just like social security. Your money is taken and put into a fund by someone other than you.


No, they're not. If I don't like what a job offers, I don't take that job. No one decides for me that I have to just accept what's offered. I go down the road if I don't like it. No one forces me.

It's not all about you. Different people may not have the choices you do.

This works the other way as well. The employer that self insures can choose to hand over health care to a third party, if forced to include birth control. A choice similar to what the employee has. Honestly, they don't want to loose the money and that is why it's even an issue.


You must not understand the English phrase "paying your own way", or you wouldn't be asking why expecting someone else to pay it is not consistent with "paying your own way".

It's all about the employer taking part of your money and deciding what health plan it's being used on. How is the employer choosing what to spend your money on "you paying your own way".

Of course I meant you making your own choices but thought I would use your phrase.


edit on 6-3-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


do the medications they use for those other therapies have the same name as those that are being used for birth control, because I know for a fact that they did at one time!!!

and I also remember awhile back a thread opening up on this thread about a young girl who was raped in I believe it was brazil, she ended up carrying twins, which all of her doctors were claiming would more than likely kill her if she was forced to carry them to full term!!! well, to make a long story short...all those anti-abortionists came out of the woodwork, and alot of them were claiming the doctors were lying!!! ya, don't let the facts of the matter interfer with your agenda now....

even if the medicine is being used for birth control...
ya know, I ran into one women, she was mentally disabled and on medication, and had somehow managed to become pregnant. well, she was on some kind of high powered medicines... the courts actually stepped in and ordered that this women have an abortion, against her will!!! so which would you prefer?? give women like this who have conditions that require medicines that will definately do harm to the fetus birth control, or maybe take the medicines away from them from the start, to protect any child that might get the chance of developing in them, or giving them an abortion after the fact, or well, I guess we can all pitch in and help pay for some pretty messed up babies for the rest of their lives!!!
even if this wasn't the case.....I posted on preacher on here, who is encouraging his congregation to have lots and lots of sex!!! it's good for a healthy marriage...
I will state this again, and again, and again!!! having kids year after year for decades is not good for a women's body!!

not as far as the women being able to go and obtain a healthcare policy if she doesn't like the fact that hers doesn't cover the expense....
one...it would cost me an extra hundred, if not more to do this... I am so happy to know that you guys could eat that kind of cost without any pain, but you are talking to someone who has gone months eating every other day because the food wasn't in the house!!! I can see how this could be a problem for some...so glad that the idea is just so inconcievable to you!!
two...those constitutional protections are for individuals, not corporations, not church organizations, ect. so, if we accept that the hospitals should be exempt from having to follow a gov't mandate that requires that insurance to include birth control.... well, we have to accept the fact that the individual doesn't have to participate in any insurance policy that includes birth control, or go even further, since the money from you insurance policy is pooled into funds from other groups...that no insurance policy can cover birth control!!! thus effectively taking birth control out of most insurance plans..
but oh, they can opt for "special insurance" if they want that!! ya right, and you can opt for special insurance if you want to have the cost of your child's vaccines covered also!!

three..you should really read up on the history of health insurance in this country, and why it is so closely tied to employers. ya see, at one time the gov't stepped in and put a cap on the wages of the workers because they were just rising too fast. to counteract this, the businesses began to offer better and better benefits to the employees, in hopes of being able to bring the workers they needed to them.... health care was one of the big drawers! so, in reality, to say that those women who need to have their birth control covered by their health insurance can just go and buy it from somewhere else...you are in effect saying that they should take a pay cut!!! since those benefits are considered part of their pay!

just about every church I have ever been in has taught that women are to obey their husbands...in all things!!!
so, yous lose out on the argument that a married women can just opt out of sex, since if you are truly a believer, you know danged well, she isn't supposed to opt out of anything her dear hubby wants!! it's up to him, only it ain't him who is gonna be popping babies out year after year, is it???



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Those anti-contraception guys are so ignorant and stupid, it's laughable


Colbert summarizes the discussion best:






top topics
 
11
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join