Follow-up to argument about birth control, catholicism, & ACA

[mhughes0021]

You don't pay for specific coverages. Insurance carries are not that amiable. You choose from the base plans they offer and take it or leave it. Sorry. No exclusions for personal reasons. some riders may be available to include at extra cost. It's like cable/satellite TV. No ala cart. You get the main package whether you want QVC and the jesus channels or not. You can add on HBO or Porn for extra $$.

Don't like it? Don't offer it.

Insurance is big business. they don't care about the individual, just the $$.

insurance is a scam. business pays for a coverage cause they have to. Then the employee gets to feel good about themselves cause they have coverage. Then when they actually need something done like getting vaccines they have to pay out their ass anyways cause the deductible is $2000 for the "family plan." Soooooo on your first visit you are paying the $56 initial visitation fee + the you just took 30 min to fill paperwork fee + the 20% not covered by the insurance + a couple more fees. bend over....and take your $200 bill for the 30 seconds it took us to poke you with a needle ontop of the $200/mo we take out of your paycheck. But its all good now....cause we have universal healthcare.

 

[RABID]

Oh face it KAWDUP, you're fighting a losing argument and you know it.

Both champ and sbee made valid points about an employer using a non-catholic religious exemption in a health-care plan and you are calling strawman because you know they have a point.

If a Catholic employer could say birth control/contraceptives violate his beliefs, then a Muslim could so women doctors do, a Jehovahs Witness could say any blood transfusions do, and a Christian Scientist could say any medical procedure at all did.

You don't get to be exempt just because you think your ideas/beliefs are less hair-brained than the others.

And yes, his argument knocked your argument the fuck out. =*)

Obamacare is forcing the Christian Scientist/Quaker/Amish to pay for health insurance now anyway, so the whole thread is mute. You have to have what they tell you to have. Period. Your beliefs, ideals, and opinions DO NOT MATTER. There was no vote. This has been force fed on all of us against our will and we just lay here and take it. Or you can pay the tax/fine for not having it, and you are paying for it without getting anything.

We are a raped society, with no justice. Welcome to Obama's America.

 

[RABID]

No. We need to alter our premises and consider every child as wanted, just like most of us were.

That is nieve.
And the abolition of birth control would make society FULL of unwanted babies. Birth Control is not murdering babies no matter how you look at it.
Do not lump it in with abortion or capitol punishment, which I won't argue about because nobody will win. I believe in all three.

 

[RABID]

insurance is a scam. business pays for a coverage cause they have to. Then the employee gets to feel good about themselves cause they have coverage. Then when they actually need something done like getting vaccines they have to pay out their ass anyways cause the deductible is $2000 for the "family plan." Soooooo on your first visit you are paying the $56 initial visitation fee + the you just took 30 min to fill paperwork fee + the 20% not covered by the insurance + a couple more fees. bend over....and take your $200 bill for the 30 seconds it took us to poke you with a needle ontop of the $200/mo we take out of your paycheck. But its all good now....cause we have universal healthcare.

It sure is. We have TWO insurance carriers, primary with super high deductibles, and secondary to cover MOST of the deductible of the primary.
So co pay for every office visit, every prescription, and the $500 deductible comes out of my pocket every year plus about $1200/month ($820 before obamacare kicked in this month) out of my check just for the benefit of having coverage. But a yearly physical and vaccinations are covered 100% without deductible, so I have that going for me.

I would be sooooo much further ahead not having insurance, but then I would need major hospitalization and be bankrupt.

We can thank the pharmacutical empires and the frivilous lawsuits that have driven malpractice insurance to the outer limits for the high cost of health care.

 

[byco42]

That is nieve.
And the abolition of birth control would make society FULL of unwanted babies. Birth Control is not murdering babies no matter how you look at it.
Do not lump it in with abortion or capitol punishment, which I won't argue about because nobody will win. I believe in all three.

Yeah, I know. You're not alone in your misconception.

 

[KAWDUP]

Oh face it KAWDUP, you're fighting a losing argument and you know it.

You saying it AGAIN, makes it no more true this time either. Face it, people only attempt to declare victory in an argument when they are lost and have nothing more to say.

Both champ and sbee made valid points about an employer using a non-catholic religious exemption in a health-care plan and you are calling strawman because you know they have a point.

I think you will have to go back and look what I called a strawman - it was in response to champ's extended assertion that next basic human rights would be denied on religious reasons also. That is absurd.

If a Catholic employer could say birth control/contraceptives violate his beliefs, then a Muslim could so women doctors do, a Jehovahs Witness could say any blood transfusions do, and a Christian Scientist could say any medical procedure at all did.

Let us talk what is medically necessary - if you can convince me that a particular coverage that I object to is medically necessary, then society has every right to try and make insurance cover it. If not, well then you haven't said anything I would object to. As far as what is medically necessary, Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientist in your example lose out.

You don't get to be exempt just because you think your ideas/beliefs are less hair-brained than the others.

Actually, I can argue for that all I want. Hair-brained is matter of opinion, and mine is every bit as good as yours.

And yes, his argument knocked your argument the fuck out. =*)

HA! If I keep telling you it didn't for the 5th time - does it hold any more weight with you? Kiss my hiney on that one - as I said - in your own mind.

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . and one more thing about being exempt. Take a good look at who is exempt from Obama care, and then make that ridiculous statement again.

A large majority of groups/clubs/unions/small business coalitions in this country with any type of lobby power are trying to be exempt from Obama care. Why do you think that is?

 

[RABID]

Yeah, I know. You're not alone in your misconception.

I know you are not talking about birth control murdering babies.
You are far too intelligent to believe that.

 

[byco42]

I know you are not talking about birth control murdering babies.
You are far too intelligent to believe that.

Birth control is the initial "pregnancy safeguard." It is certainly not life-focused. And abortion is the final solution when birth control fails. So, yes, there is a direct connection between birth control and death, especially when you factor in that some forms of birth control destroy a viable fertilized egg.

 

[Michchamp]

. . . and one more thing about being exempt. Take a good look at who is exempt from Obama care, and then make that ridiculous statement again.

A large majority of groups/clubs/unions/small business coalitions in this country with any type of lobby power are trying to be exempt from Obama care. Why do you think that is?

this thread is (or was) pretty narrowly focused on the idiotic claim that the ACA infringed on First Amendment rights of the free practice of religion.

personally, I don't defend the ACA... I think it's more garbage corrupt corporate control (via government subsidy & regulation) of what should be a basic human right to some extent. The lobbyists wrote themselves another massive handout under Obama, just like they did with that prescription drug deal under Bush in '05.

maybe we can make a new thread about clearing up misconceptions and bagging on this boondoggle that convinces people government is the problem while ignoring the massive profits the industry is reaping as a result of the lack of there being a public option for healthcare? I mean, we're blaming "government" when the elected officials are just passing the laws that the industry lobbyists want them to pass.

the State of Vermont is rolling out a public healthcare option available to all residents in a few years. the law already passed. Vermont is a good example of what's possible, since the state doesn't have a lot of big business money controlling its government. it's more like an actual democracy!

 

[RABID]

Birth control is the initial "pregnancy safeguard." It is certainly not life-focused. And abortion is the final solution when birth control fails. So, yes, there is a direct connection between birth control and death, especially when you factor in that some forms of birth control destroy a viable fertilized egg.

We won't get into the fertilized egg being human life discussion.

Birth control can only be seen as a responsible action between sexual partners. High school kids, Hookers and Johns, one night stands... Without birth control what happens to these people? The "Pull out method" is also bith control, just a very poor application of the concept. Should condoms be outlawed? Is it the egg or the sperm that is sacred?

It is not only husband and wife that engages in sex. Maybe that is where your true issue originates.

 

[Mitchrapp]

We won't get into the fertilized egg being human life discussion.

Birth control can only be seen as a responsible action between sexual partners. High school kids, Hookers and Johns, one night stands... Without birth control what happens to these people? The "Pull out method" is also bith control, just a very poor application of the concept. Should condoms be outlawed? Is it the egg or the sperm that is sacred?

It is not only husband and wife that engages in sex. Maybe that is where your true issue originates.

Responsible action then mention HS kids, one night stands and hookers..lol

I'm not going to argue what you said, I don't really care just thought that part was funny. So thanks for making me laugh..

 

[Michchamp]

...

Birth control can only be seen as a responsible action between sexual partners. High school kids, Hookers and Johns, one night stands... Without birth control what happens to these people? ...

they are SUPPOSED to do the following:

1.) go to confession.

2.) begin a responsible courtship, and refrain from further intercourse until part 3 is complete.

3.) get married. and if they were already married to other people, divorce those people and remarry.

...so if they do have a kid, they will have a stable two-parent household with which to raise them.

see? no birth control needed!

 

[byco42]

We won't get into the fertilized egg being human life discussion.

No reason to. It is a human being in a nascent stage. I will not minimize my own viability in the summer of 1956 because I was just conceived. What people don't know about developing life in the womb is substantial and their ignorance is also their rationalization for killing it.

Birth control can only be seen as a responsible action between sexual partners. High school kids, Hookers and Johns, one night stands... Without birth control what happens to these people? The "Pull out method" is also bith control, just a very poor application of the concept. Should condoms be outlawed? Is it the egg or the sperm that is sacred?

If you consider high-school kids, prostitution and one-night stands as examples of "responsible action between sexual partners," I can't agree. Sexual activity should not be an option at all in these situations.

It is not only husband and wife that engages in sex. Maybe that is where your true issue originates.

Well, that's who should only engage in sex: married couples open to the idea of having children.

 

[RABID]

No reason to. It is a human being in a nascent stage. I will not minimize my own viability in the summer of 1956 because I was just conceived. What people don't know about developing life in the womb is substantial and their ignorance is also their rationalization for killing it.

This would require another thread and long discussion on cell division.

If you consider high-school kids, prostitution and one-night stands as examples of "responsible action between sexual partners," I can't agree. Sexual activity should not be an option at all in these situations.

Responsible sex is not what we are debating. That is a moral issue, and sex out of wedlock is reality. Whether you or I agree with it or not is mute.

Well, that's who should only engage in sex: married couples open to the idea of having children.

Again, a morality issue. The concept of sex soley for the purpose of procreation is based on opinion and ethics, and is completely unrealistic.

Dr. Ruth would argue to the death that sex is natural and healthy regardless of marital status. Married couples in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are done raising families should not have sex because they don't want more children? Is sex a sin, or a way to show love? Is a vasectomy imoral? I have a very difficult time seeing any sense in the abolition of birth control, or how it could be construed as anything less than acceptable.

 

[byco42]

This would require another thread and long discussion cell division.

Life is life, no matter what the developmental stage.

Responsible sex is not what we are debating. That is a moral issue, and sex out of wedlock is reality. Whether you or I agree with it or not is mute.

The conversations I had with my kids on the topic are/were not moot. Accepting that something is "a reality" is not the same thing as condoning it.

Again, a morality issue. The concept of sex soley for the purpose of procreation is based on opinion and ethics, and is completely unrealistic.

Dr. Ruth would argue to the death that sex is natural and healthy regardless of marital status. Married couples in their 50s, 60s, 70s who are done raising families should not have sex because they don't want more children? Is sex a sin, or a way to show love? Is a vasectomy imoral? I have a very difficult time seeing any sense in the abolition of birth control, or how it could be construed as anything less than acceptable.

I do not agree with Dr. Ruth, who has made a fortune merely echoing what her audience wants to hear. And I said open to the idea of having children, which means taking no deliberate, artificial steps to prevent conception. So sterile married couples, or married couples past child-making age are not doing that. Sex has several purposes, but none more significant than the creation of new life, which begins at conception, not at birth.

 

[Thumb]

Damn man, sex is supposed to be fun. That's the main reason people want to do it, our brains are wired for the pleasure we get from it. Sexual arousal does not begin at the idea of procreation, it begins at the idea of doing that thing with no clothes on.

You would think that GOD in his infinite wisdom and intelligent design, would have made the idea of having children what releases pheromones and causes arousal in humans, rather than just the idea of sex; and orgasm, because if he did.....there would be a lot less sex happening.

Guess he really dropped the ball on that one huh? Well he did think up and give us imposable thumbs and all that, guess he can't win 'em all.

 

[Thumb]

You saying it AGAIN, makes it no more true this time either. Face it, people only attempt to declare victory in an argument when they are lost and have nothing more to say.



I think you will have to go back and look what I called a strawman - it was in response to champ's extended assertion that next basic human rights would be denied on religious reasons also. That is absurd.



Let us talk what is medically necessary - if you can convince me that a particular coverage that I object to is medically necessary, then society has every right to try and make insurance cover it. If not, well then you haven't said anything I would object to. As far as what is medically necessary, Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientist in your example lose out.



Actually, I can argue for that all I want. Hair-brained is matter of opinion, and mine is every bit as good as yours.



HA! If I keep telling you it didn't for the 5th time - does it hold any more weight with you? Kiss my hiney on that one - as I said - in your own mind.

I'm seriously picturing you right now with your fingers in your ears going "NANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU NANANANANNANANANANANA"

 

[Gulo Blue]

And I said open to the idea of having children, which means taking no deliberate, artificial steps to prevent conception. So sterile married couples, or married couples past child-making age are not doing that. Sex has several purposes, but none more significant than the creation of new life, which begins at conception, not at birth.

Is that all there is to it? Not all birth control methods are 100% effective. At some point, a young healthy couple with birth control have a greater chance of getting pregnant than an older couple without birth control. How does that argument still hold in that case?

 

[RABID]

Life is life, no matter what the developmental stage.

Don't squash that mosquito!

The conversations I had with my kids on the topic are/were not moot. Accepting that something is "a reality" is not the same thing as condoning it.

(thank you for correcting my "mute") No argument. I don't condone all of it either, and educating your children is critical. If your 12th grade daughter was sexually active (secretly of course), you would not want her to use birth control?

I do not agree with Dr. Ruth, who has made a fortune merely echoing what her audience wants to hear. And I said open to the idea of having children, which means taking no deliberate, artificial steps to prevent conception. So sterile married couples, or married couples past child-making age are not doing that. Sex has several purposes, but none more significant than the creation of new life, which begins at conception, not at birth.

Not talking about sterile or post menapausal couples. They wouldn't need BC. Anyone using contraceptives is obviously NOT open to the idea of having children. My wife and I, in our 40's with teenage children most definately do not want more kids... So we should not have sex anymore?

Why?