|
On March 03 2012 05:44 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:40 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote:
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult. Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill. I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say. But here you go: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202290020
Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government.
I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy.
This seems relevant, haven't bothered reading it though. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-was-a-deliberate-provocation-and-rush-fell-for-it/
|
On March 03 2012 05:57 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:54 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:41 Chargelot wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:29 Chargelot wrote:On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment. I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'. The free exercise clause of the first amendment has case law stating that you can't restrict religions ("unduly burden the practice of religion") without "compelling interest", that is, strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Comparing suicide cults and Catholics because they don't like condoms is silly (ritual human sacrifice, really?). If Catholics claim that it is against their religion to use or provide contraceptives to others, you, and everyone else, needs to listen to why, and there needs to be judicial review into the case if they are forced to pay for contraceptives of others. That's a part of the first amendment, whether you or I like it. So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, it's something that requires strict scrutiny and the highest level of judicial review. Interesting and thanks for the insight, but again not something you can just call unconstitutional and have any legitimacy unless you're part of the highest judicial levels. Not to mention being required to provide birth control is likely stretching the use of "unduly burden the practice of religion" since anyone practicing the religion is free to not take birth control. So we agree then, any law forcing someone to do or support something which their religion, whatever it may be, is against the first amendment in accordance to the current interpretations, and any law regarding such things need to be individually picked out by the supreme court and allowed on a law-by-law basis. I'm glad we understand the first amendment now.
Yes, but I still don't see how this applies to the issue at hand. If I cared at all I'd be more than happy to hear the supreme court weigh in though their decisions have seemed questionable as of late.
|
On March 03 2012 05:58 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. This is so fucking insulting, and you clearly know nothing about women.
You are an elected representative of all women, I take it?
User was warned for this post
|
On March 03 2012 05:56 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:47 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 05:45 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 05:42 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on. Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere. Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line? There is no line. Nobody should be forced to cover any health care services. If employees don't like it, they won't work for the employer. So then what would be the point of health insurance? I'm not saying that insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover things they have agreed to cover.
Then what are you saying?
|
On March 03 2012 05:46 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:42 Praetorial wrote:On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that. Cuz the big book o' righteousness said so. Also, Republicans are uneducated(just in general, no offense intended to any on the forum) and believe that everything resolves itself without the government. Do you know who Milton Friedman is? By your logic, he's a very uneducated man. Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:44 Jibba wrote:
I'm past the abortion debate, we need to start focusing on legalizing retroactive abortions. 61 would be a good cutoff. I went to go report that post but then....
He was speaking generally, and you rebuked with anecdotal evidence. Very poor argument.
|
Reading this stuff feels like the United States is like a century behind on matters like these.
|
On March 03 2012 05:45 Zandar wrote:
The US always gives me such mixed feelings. On one hand it's the great country who put a man on the moon and improved science so much. But it also has a highly religious part who are so influential it's scary. If you're aiming to be a politician better not tell anyone you're an atheist or you can forget about your career.
As an outsider it seems most people on the east and west coast are very broad minded and liberal, but some states in the center... it just feels that too many weird cults and religious groups fled there when Europe had enough of them back in the day.
To come up up with shit like this in this time and age :/
Still happy to see the bill didn't pass though
Do you even know what the bill is about or did you just read the OP and kind of assume that the bill was against contraception in some general way? The bill was about trying to reverse Obama's plans to force employers to offer insurance including contraception. There are plenty of secular reasons why this is insane. See the video I posted on page 2.
|
On March 03 2012 06:02 Element)LoGiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:46 Chargelot wrote:On March 03 2012 05:42 Praetorial wrote:On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that. Cuz the big book o' righteousness said so. Also, Republicans are uneducated(just in general, no offense intended to any on the forum) and believe that everything resolves itself without the government. Do you know who Milton Friedman is? By your logic, he's a very uneducated man. On March 03 2012 05:44 Jibba wrote:
I'm past the abortion debate, we need to start focusing on legalizing retroactive abortions. 61 would be a good cutoff. I went to go report that post but then.... He was speaking generally, and you rebuked with anecdotal evidence. Very poor argument.
He gave his opinion (read: irrelevant in all cases, always), and I provided him the name of one of the most well known lasseiz-faire capitalists to ever exist which provided an example of a direct contradiction to his opinion.
On March 03 2012 06:05 Recognizable wrote:
Reading this stuff feels like the United States is like a century behind on matters like these.
Care to be more specific?
|
The real issue here is what this bill is in response to which is an attempted vote grab by Obama who is trying to make it seem like women are going to get free contraception by forcing employers to offer insurance plans that include contraception.
It's sad that so many people can't take the 5 minutes necessary to educate themselves before bashing on this bill as some religious, anti-contraception bill.
|
On March 03 2012 05:58 Dark Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:44 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:40 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote:
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult. Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill. I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say. But here you go: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202290020 Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government. I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy. This seems relevant, haven't botherd reading it though. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-was-a-deliberate-provocation-and-rush-fell-for-it/
I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end?
And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
Edit: Also that article really isnt worth reading, I'll save you the trouble. Having actually listened to the testimony from the Georgetown law student I can assure you that it was anything but "absurd."
|
On March 03 2012 05:59 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:58 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. This is so fucking insulting, and you clearly know nothing about women. You are an elected representative of all women, I take it?
Clearly.
It's an absurd claim. 99% of women, (in the states) use or have used birth control. To assert that a woman currently not using birth control would be "annoyed" that another woman was being covered for something she was likely using herself not a few months ago is ridiculous.
|
On March 03 2012 05:31 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works?
Look up the term "Insurable Risk."
Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take.
It is not to simply pay for a decision you make.
I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree.
I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom.
Adding on the new bedroom was my choice.
Using contraception is a choice.
|
Honestly, I haven't seen a single compelling argument from anyone on the left as to why the government has to play for contraception.
I see arguments about how important contraception is, which is fine, however it doesn't even address the point. It's not THAT expensive and it's not like it's vital for life. If you have to wait till your next paycheck for your pills, either keep it in your pants or know what might happen, it's not that hard.
|
On March 03 2012 06:07 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:58 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:44 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:40 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote:
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult. Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill. I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say. But here you go: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202290020 Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government. I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy. This seems relevant, haven't botherd reading it though. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-was-a-deliberate-provocation-and-rush-fell-for-it/ I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end? And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much.
The right for me to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.
That said, when contraception is a part of the constitutional rights, that is, the rights which are above all other rights, it will gain more power over religious rights. But the constitutional right of religion will always trump* the generic right to use contraception. As will any constitutional right beat any law-borne right.
edit for nonsensical word.
|
It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses.
|
On March 03 2012 05:14 Fealthas wrote:
I don't think a child should be killed because a woman can't keep her pants on.
I hope that abortion gets some serious regulations. Employers should be able to deny because its their company, you don't have to work there.
I am confused when did we start talking about abortion? I thought this was just birth control. So the idea that there could possibly be a child because people have sex but due to birth control probably they probably won't have a child counts as killing a child? If I get kicked in the groin enough times (kick boxing, tae kwon do it happens) and I can't have children is the person the kicked me a murderer?
As for the employers should be able to deny heath care because it is their company. So what if your boss is against blood transfusions and therefore you can be fired from your job because you have one?
On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on.
I don't know 100% what it is like now in the states as I only lived there for a year and am Canadian but don't people have to pay for heath care coverage or it is part of your job? So in a sense it is kind of part of your salary so you are paying for it. If you want to recieve tax money (and also recieve huge tax breaks like the church does) though everyone should have to play by the same rules.
Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion if you choose to not be a part of a one and if you think it is unfair that the government is telling religious groups to provide birth control if the person wants it then it is unfair for the the church to say don't have sex. The government isn't making people take birth control. They are just saying if you want to they want it to be availiable for you.
TLDR: If your company shouldn't dictate what coverage you get based on the bosses beliefs. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. You are not forced to take birth control... but it is there if you want to.
|
This is a great bill, now it will cost employers more money to hire women to give them free contraception so now men have the advantage in being hired.
|
On March 03 2012 06:11 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:07 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:58 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:44 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:40 Dark Templar wrote:On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote:
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult. Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill. I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say. But here you go: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202290020 Haha. Exagerrated for emphasis. What I am saying - again - is that the Republican party by and large have little interest in birthcontrol, but for who is paying for it - and the reach and power of the federal government. I believe that crude and unsavory remarks have a place in a well-functioning democracy. This seems relevant, haven't botherd reading it though. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-was-a-deliberate-provocation-and-rush-fell-for-it/ I can understand the sentiment of not wanting the federal government to dictate health insurance. I respect libertarian views, though I do not always agree.I disagree with the deliberate cherry-picking of one aspect of the health care bill that takes access to a medical service away from one group. Where does religious liberty begin and personal liberty end? And as for the "unsavory remarks" I really disagree that they have a place in politics. They are often misleading and really dont serve to accomplish much. The right for me to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin. That said, when contraception is a part of the constitutional rights, that is, the rights which are above all other rights, it will gain more power over religious rights. But the constitutional right of religion will always trump* the generic right to use contraception. As will any constitutional right beat any law-borne right. edit for nonsensical word.
Isn't that taking a big leap? It's not that people must use contraceptives. It's that employers must provide health care coverage to employees without restricting contraceptive coverage.
Isn't Viagra is covered by most of these health care providers. A single man can get Viagra which is equally against the religion, where's that outcry. Or what about transplants? Can a religion deny that coverage? Can any Scientology organization deny drug coverage to their employees because they don't believe in drugs? There's clearly a line somewhere.
|
On March 03 2012 06:10 deth2munkies wrote:
I see arguments about how important contraception is, which is fine, however it doesn't even address the point. It's not THAT expensive and it's not like it's vital for life. If you have to wait till your next paycheck for your pills, either keep it in your pants or know what might happen, it's not that hard.
![[image loading]](http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/Feministing%20NEW%20ALBUM/bc_costs.jpg)
It actually kind of is.
Doesn't look like much to some people, but to poor women, that really adds up. Read a few of the stories here. People don't understand how important controlling your reproductive cycle is to one's autonomy, and how costly an unwanted pregnancy can be.
|
On March 03 2012 06:10 deth2munkies wrote:
Honestly, I haven't seen a single compelling argument from anyone on the left as to why the government has to play for contraception.
I see arguments about how important contraception is, which is fine, however it doesn't even address the point. It's not THAT expensive and it's not like it's vital for life. If you have to wait till your next paycheck for your pills, either keep it in your pants or know what might happen, it's not that hard.
Youd like to think that as a society we can move past this patriarchal idea that women should just learn some self control and "keep it in their pants" because to me this is unreasonably offensive. We live in a time when birth control that is actually functional exists which has allowed women to control their reproduction and have a better chance at a successful career. Just telling someone not to do something has never worked, e.g. prohibition. Telling people not to have sex doesnt work, that is why areas with abstinence only sex ed programs have higher teen pregnancy rates.
And as for the expense, birth control in the form of hormone pills is as expensive as any other medication if it is not insured. It is not reasonable to fund on your own if you are not very wealthy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
