Welcome to PatsFans.com

Contraception

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInEaglesLand, Mar 9, 2012.

  1. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +77 / 5 / -7

    #37 Jersey

    I am trying to figure out why this is even an issue. The pill, Norplant, the shot, patch or whatever is certainly cheaper and a hell of a lot more moral than an abortion. Also, it is better than a child born in to the welfare system, I wish more women and men would think to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    Is this all because of the Catholic church?
  2. Why?PJ

    Why?PJ Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    it isn't an issue. Anyone can buy any contraception they choose to. The Catholic Church has jumped through hoops to align themselves with the Democrat party on this one.

    The issue is government telling others what they can and cannot do, especially when the Constitution forbids it directly.

    And also why should an individual be forced to pay for anything that is going to someone else?
  3. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,460
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ratings:
    +283 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    I agree with your, however, it's not just the Catholic Church. It is fundamentalists from all religions, Jews, Muslims, Christians and people who genuinely and honestly don't agree with contraception. This is something that they have every right to oppose for themselves.

    Although, Ms Fluke attends Georgetown, I wouldn't single out the Catholic Church.
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,895
    Likes Received:
    120
    Ratings:
    +305 / 1 / -9

    Careful shmessy, you mentioned "The Muslims" they are the left wings new "protected speices"
  5. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,460
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ratings:
    +283 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    In my world, there are no "protected species". I have no hang-ups or jealousies of any group of people. There is only the human race.
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2012
  6. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well the Catholic Church is the latest battlefront in the left's war on religion, but don't be fooled into thinking that ALL of this is ONLY about and will ONLY affect the Catholic Church.

    Anyone with an IQ north of Forrest Gump's knows what will be next if the moonbats get they way here. They'll go from forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control coverage for women who want it to forcing Catholic institutions (among others) to provide abortion coveage for women who want it. Everyone knows that is their next step, which is why it is so important to draw the line in the sand here.
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,029
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +292 / 6 / -8

    The government is not there to help a church (synagogue/mosque) foist its preferences on anybody, or enforce its strictures on the general populace.

    If you're a business over a certain size, you have to offer a qualified insurance plan. Among the health services covered are birth control options.

    Please note: no conservative catholic, Jew, protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Quaker, Buddhist, animist, shinto, or Zoroastrian is forced to use any such health service. They can practice their religions as they please, and if their religion forbids birth control, they are not required to use birth control.

    If that is not the case, and they believe that birth control is "for them," or in some cases, morally required in their worldview, they can choose to use birth control.

    Neither were the businesses we are talking about churches. They were church-affiliated businesses.

    If a church doesn't want to meet the secular demands made of businesses, they can remain church-only churches, rather than extended churches that run non-religious business endeavors -- which also hire people who aren't within their respective flocks.

    Casting the access to health care as a "freedom of religion" issue is utter horse crap.

    PFnV
  8. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    OUR insurance is also pooled to pay for psychologists who treat people who were raped by catholic priests when they were little boys.


    where is the outrage from Rush Limbaugh?


    Oh....he is returing from a trip from the dominican with a bunch of dudes, and too much Viagra? Oh...cool.




    This entire sham is an attempt by the neo-clowns to divert the conversation away from a recovering economy. Plain and simple.



    Shows you how much the right cares about america.
  9. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,826
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +147 / 2 / -1

    harry lives in an imaginary world -- an America where Christians are prosecuted and Muslims go uncriticized
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,826
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +147 / 2 / -1

    I think you were the key person here who started moving me away from the freedom of religion argument.

    Nobody has answered my question about whose rights, exactly, are being violated, which makes it fairly clear to me that nobody's are. And that pretty much leaves us with the slippery slope argument. And while I don't like the idea of moving anywhere near infringement of the first amendment, slippery slope arguments are pretty weak arguments.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,029
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +292 / 6 / -8

    Totally respect that - I know you've got a very healthy priority of individual rights & somewhat libertarian viewpoint in general. It's not like actual crackdowns on religions don't give me the willies. It's just so azz-backwards -- we're trying to protect the people's freedom, not the church's authority. As to churches (including all religious institutions,) the constitution says don't crush 'em and don't sponsor 'em. People take great liberties w/that one, and not the good kind of liberties.
  12. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Fortunately that is not happening here. What is happening is the church is saying "hey if you want to work for us or go to one of our schools, then you have to follow such-and-such rules."
    Where is the part in the Constitution that says the federal government has the right to tell businesses (and schools) they have to do these things? :confused:
    The only horse crap here is the amount you just shoveled into the forum with your above post.
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,591
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +116 / 7 / -10



    The rights of beliving catholics (and other Christians) who believe that contraception is a sin and that abortion is murder. These church members don't want their church subsidizing sinful activity.

    They understand that all humans commit sins, but the idea that the institution they belong to would be aiding and participating in the commission of these sinful activities offends they religious sensibilities and their conscence.
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,029
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +292 / 6 / -8

    Oh see, that's the problem here, 13.

    It's not a conscience insurance policy or a sensibility insurance policy, it's a health insurance policy.

    If it hurts my religious sensibilities for someone to have a blood transfusion, I have no right to dictate that it not be available to them. I do have a right to say "I don't want a blood transfusion."

    You want to run businesses, you have to play by the rules.

    PFnV
  15. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    What about a sincere belief against animal testing? I don't mind if it takes another million Rhesus monkeys to cure Cancer, but others feel different. You take a pill that was developed by way of animal testing or pay for someone else to take it you're subsidizing that testing/killing.

    What it really comes down to is that its not about religious freedom. Its about one very specific religion's freedom and that's precisely what's proscribed in the Constitution.
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2012
  16. Hebeill

    Hebeill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    :rofl: Oh My :rofl:
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,029
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +292 / 6 / -8

    Got that right. Then somebody tried to pass a bill that said anybody could knock out any procedure based on their moral or religious repugnance. Lots of people not getting transfusions, un-kosher feeding tube paste, contraception, hell, whatev. I am sure some biz somewhere, with or without a religious affiliation, would be run by a guy who had a moral objection to the law itself, game over. That's the goal, right? Not having any health care?

    What a joke.
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,591
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +116 / 7 / -10



    If someone needs a BC pill for another medical condition they are not prohibited by the Catholics from using them for a non contraceptive purpose.

    Cathloics consider in the context of THEIR religion Contraception (ie the process of prevent the start of a human life) to be immoral.

    This is not a health care issue to the church and it's believers.

    Just as to this church abortion isn't a woman's health issue it is murdering a child in the womb.

    The Church does not want to be involved in facilitating immoral behavior when it offers health insurance to it's employees.

    It is not the role of the government to ditate to religions what is or is not moral behavior. This is what they are doing with these rules. Just another reason to get rid of Obamacare.
  19. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,254
    Likes Received:
    227
    Ratings:
    +318 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    That was kinda the purpose of Ms. Fluke's statement, 13. At least 20% of women whose doctors prescribed BC pills for a medical reason were denied. So yes, the church is refusing to cover the pill for medical reasons unrelated to birth control.

    And it is not the role of religion to dictate to members not of their religion what is or is not moral behaviour.

    In fact, it is not up to religion to dictate behaviour at all. People are free to accept or reject religious guidelines. It's called "free will" and it's something that many religions, especially Catholics, acknowledge.

    Our Catholic Faith - About Free Will
  20. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,826
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +147 / 2 / -1

    So religious rights extend to not "subsidizing" what they view as sinful activity? Their pay to an employee may be subsidizing sinful activity -- so aren't they already violating their own principles, by your logic?

    How about taxes -- don't taxes subsidize what many people may view as sinful activity? Can I withhold federal and state taxes because I view the death penalty as murder? Can I withhold federal taxes if I view unnecessary war as sinful?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>