EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6588
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1897 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
my vague recollection is that the government wanted to settle on requiring them to sign a form saying they religiously objected to covering birth control whereupon the government would cover the services instead, and LSotP wouldn't accept that. if that were the case, would you have a problem with that? Also, what is so wrong about requiring an employer to cover important health services as part of the insurance they're already required to provide? Is it really so wrong or intolerant to require people to cover basic health services? it might be kinda wrong, but it's not highly wrong or intolerant. | ||
|
pmh
1366 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1897 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1366 Posts
It also prevents a whole range of other costly diseases. Condoms should be coverd by health service up to a certain amount I think,its for the benefit of everyone. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:33 LightSpectra wrote: Birth control is not a basic health service. And yes, forcing Catholics to distribute birth control is as much a violation of religious freedom as forcing Muslims to distribute drinking alcohol or forcing Hindus to load their rifles with pig-greased cartridges that have to be opened by the mouth. actually, it IS a basic health service. you claiming otherwise is simply wrong. It's also a very worthwhile spending system. At any rate, would you agree or disagree that IF it's a basic health service, THEN it should be covered? I know you disagree with the premise, but that premise is not an issue wherein religion factors in notably, so I want to know how you'd feel with alternate decisions on that premise. also, we already said that the catholics are not being required to distribute birth control, they're being required to say they're unwilling to distribute birth control so the government can do it instead. Do you understand that distinction? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1897 Posts
And no, you're mistaken. It's not the government that's distributing the birth control, it's the employers. The government just reimburses the employer for it. Of course big companies like ExxonMobil are not compelled to do so under the Affordable Care Act because they "grandfathered" their old plan into the new laws, but forcing Catholics to do it is ok because everybody knows religious freedom is the road to fascism. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:38 LightSpectra wrote: It is highly disputed that birth control actually leads to less unwanted pregnancy. really? by who? I've never heard of anyone pushing that that hasn't been disproven by numerous studies. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1897 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:40 zlefin wrote: really? by who? I've never heard of anyone pushing that that hasn't been disproven by numerous studies. One such example from Googling: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/17/studies-birth-control-contraception-dont-cut-abortions/ Yes, it is a pro-life website, although the studies they cite are not funded by pro-life people. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:38 LightSpectra wrote: It is highly disputed that birth control actually leads to less unwanted pregnancy. And no, you're mistaken. It's not the government that's distributing the birth control, it's the employers. The government just reimburses the employer for it. Of course big companies like ExxonMobil are not compelled to do so under the Affordable Care Act because they "grandfathered" their old plan into the new laws, but forcing Catholics to do it is ok because everybody knows religious freedom is the road to fascism. would you find it acceptable if the government was doing the distributing, and only required the nuns to sign a form saying they were religiously unwilling to do it? and do the employers really provide anything? I thought the actual health services woul dbe provided by the insurance company, not the employer itself. also, you bringing up the unrelated exxonmobil makes it sound like you have an axe to grind and running from certain biased news sources. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:33 LightSpectra wrote: Birth control is not a basic health service. And yes, forcing Catholics to distribute birth control is as much a violation of religious freedom as forcing Muslims to drink alcohol, or forcing Hindus to load their rifles with pig-greased cartridges that have to be opened by the mouth, or forcing Seventh Day Adventists to work on Saturday. The first statement is your personal opinion (also, birth control pills can be used to address a variety of health issues). The second statement is a misrepresentation of the case -- LSotP was not required to distribute birth control. In fact, the Obama administration offered religious nonprofits the possibility of asking for an accommodation where third parties (and not those religious nonprofits) would provide and distribute the contraceptive coverage. I fail to see how that's unreasonable. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1897 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18134 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:43 LightSpectra wrote: Or, in their own argument: http://thelittlesistersofthepoor.com/littlesisterscomic One such example from Googling: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/17/studies-birth-control-contraception-dont-cut-abortions/ Yes, it is a pro-life website, although the studies they cite are not funded by pro-life people. Trololololol. Just the first paragraph... “Contraception reduces unintended pregnancies” has joined its fantastic make-believe friends “death with dignity,” the “efficacy” of embryonic stem cells, the “certainty” of man-made global warming, and the “positive” multiplier effect in the leftist vernacular. I'll call this fake "news" based on that paragraph alone. But here, an actual study, from an actual university: https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/ | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1897 Posts
At best it's disputed, at worse free birth control is having a negative effect. Which makes sense of course. Even if the failure rate of condoms and whatnot was only 1% (in real life it's much higher, but for the sake of argument let's say 1%), that's still one in a hundred people that are getting unwanted STDs/pregnancies when having sex on birth control. Now a lot of fuss is made about "why don't you never cross the street since roads can be dangerous too?", but is it not here obvious that the statistical minority here is getting screwed over, and get no sympathy for it? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18134 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:55 LightSpectra wrote: Yes, I did say it was an opinionated website. But why not actually check the links they're offering? This study is from the Guttmacher Institute, who are affiliated with Planned Parenthood: https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/2003/03/relationships-between-contraception-and-abortion-review-evidence At best it's disputed, at worse free birth control is having a negative effect. Which makes sense of course. Even if the failure rate of condoms and whatnot was only 1% (in real life it's much higher, but for the sake of argument let's say 1%), that's still one in a hundred people that are getting unwanted STDs/pregnancies when having sex on birth control. Now a lot of fuss is made about "why don't you never cross the street since roads can be dangerous too?", but is it not here obvious that the statistical minority here is getting screwed over, and get no sympathy for it? Did you read your own link? It states pretty clearly that their conclusion is: CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:38 LightSpectra wrote: It is highly disputed that birth control actually leads to less unwanted pregnancy. And no, you're mistaken. It's not the government that's distributing the birth control, it's the employers. The government just reimburses the employer for it. Of course big companies like ExxonMobil are not compelled to do so under the Affordable Care Act because they "grandfathered" their old plan into the new laws, but forcing Catholics to do it is ok because everybody knows religious freedom is the road to fascism. you cited a study by the guttmacher institute later on in this page, looking at that page, in the conclusions section it starts with this: "CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly." this does not seem to match what oyu said. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:55 LightSpectra wrote: Yes, I did say it was an opinionated website. But why not actually check the links they're offering? This study is from the Guttmacher Institute, who are affiliated with Planned Parenthood: https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/2003/03/relationships-between-contraception-and-abortion-review-evidence At best it's disputed, at worse free birth control is having a negative effect. Which makes sense of course. Even if the failure rate of condoms and whatnot was only 1% (in real life it's much higher, but for the sake of argument let's say 1%), that's still one in a hundred people that are getting unwanted STDs/pregnancies when having sex on birth control. Now a lot of fuss is made about "why don't you never cross the street since roads can be dangerous too?", but is it not here obvious that the statistical minority here is getting screwed over, and get no sympathy for it? Are you sure you read that study? Here's the conclusion highlighted on the page you just linked to: "Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly." You also did not respond to my previous post in which I explained that the Obama administration did provide religious non-profits with the possibility of requesting an accommodation, which would take the form of third parties providing contraceptive coverage instead of them. edit: sniped by Acrofales and zlefin, I'm getting too old for this :p | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1897 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:59 Acrofales wrote: Did you read your own link? It states pretty clearly that their conclusion is: Read the whole paragraph: "CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly." In other words, if people have the same amount of sex, then birth control reduces abortions (according to this study). However that's only relevant when people have the same amount of sex with or without birth control. In half the countries they studied, abortions and contraception use increased simultaneously. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 19 2017 02:57 IgnE wrote: you think that people have 100x more sex when they are using birth control with a 1% failure rate? Of course. People will turn into filthy Dionysians, everybody will just drink wine and screw each other all day and that's basically how the American nation ends. Everybody knows that | ||
| ||
