Paying for Sex

[Stardreamer]

Yeah.

And like 98% of viagra is 'necessary' to treat a clinical problem other than not being able to pop a boner in order to fuck. Hardly a critical medical condition.

What it comes down to is the hypocrisy that it is okay to pay the costs for guys to fuck, but not the costs to avoid the consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

And Billo is one of the worst hypocrites of all the old white boys club.

The problem with this analogy is the Federal Government is not mandating that you be provided with viagra by your insurer over their religious convictions.

 

[Benvolio]

I lot of drug insurance policies do not pay for Viagra.

 

[PolterGUYst]

Paying for contraception is apparently infringing on their rights, yet these are most likely the same people that wish to infringe on the rights of a woman by forcing her to carry an unwanted child to full term. "No, I will not contribute to help prevent the issue in the first place, but once the issue does arise, I'm going to fucking force you to do what I want."

 

[JayHawk]

The problem with this analogy is the Federal Government is not mandating that you be provided with viagra by your insurer over their religious convictions.

Nobody is forcing any other human to use contraception.

So ya know what if it is provided and not filled then zero cost was assumed.

There are religions that belief everything should be in God's hands. Do you also agree a child suffering from a cancer should be allowed to die due to the parents religious beliefs?

Ignorant is ignorant.

 

[Benvolio]

Bad analogy. No one is imposing their beliefs on the woman having sex--as with the dying child. It is she who wants to impose her belief--that unmarried sex and contraception are not immoral--by forcing the institution and tuition paying students to facilitate and pay for her sex.

 

[JayHawk]

Nope she just wants the health insurance to ensure her good health. Being with child in college and not prepared not only puts the girl in poor health but typically ensures the child of poor health as well.

 

[Rolyo85]

And the church's beliefs are COMPLETELY irrelevant when it comes to offering jobs to people. I am not talking about this particular issue, but any issue in general. Once you provide a job, I do not care what your beliefs are, you are fucking going to provide them the exact same benefits that every other employer does under the law.

This whole "our beliefs are under oppression" is just absurd when it comes to having people work for you. If it's so against your beliefs, just stop providing that service, don't hire people, and you have no problem. Of course, that reflects very poorly on you when it comes to things like adoption agencies, but oh well...

 

[Stardreamer]

Nobody is forcing any other human to use contraception.

So ya know what if it is provided and not filled then zero cost was assumed.

There are religions that belief everything should be in God's hands. Do you also agree a child suffering from a cancer should be allowed to die due to the parents religious beliefs?

Ignorant is ignorant.

That is probably the most ignorant analysis of the issue I've seen. Nobody is forcing anybody to not use contraception either. It is a matter of should a religious organization be forced to provide a service that violates their faith? There are plenty of alternatives available to this student.

 

[Stardreamer]

Nope she just wants the health insurance to ensure her good health. Being with child in college and not prepared not only puts the girl in poor health but typically ensures the child of poor health as well.

Gee I wasn't aware that the yardstick for determining what is 'good' health insurance was free contraceptives. Even if I was female, that would be rather far down my priority list of health care needs. Condoms are cheap hospital emergency rooms are not. I'd put dental higher actually.

 

[Rolyo85]

That is probably the most ignorant analysis of the issue I've seen. Nobody is forcing anybody to not use contraception either. It is a matter of should a religious organization be forced to provide a service that violates their faith? There are plenty of alternatives available to this student.

This is not directed at religious organizations. It's a federal law (if it becomes so). Are you saying religious organizations should be able to ignore the law if it doesn't fit their beliefs? What about organizations who claim that their beliefs do not allow for equal rights to women?

That's why we have laws in the first place. When you provide a job, your beliefs do NOT play a part in it.

 

[Stardreamer]

This is not directed at religious organizations. It's a federal law (if it becomes so). Are you saying religious organizations should be able to ignore the law if it doesn't fit their beliefs? What about organizations who claim that their beliefs do not allow for equal rights to women?

That's why we have laws in the first place. When you provide a job, your beliefs do NOT play a part in it.

And part of the highest law of the land is the First Amendment, you can restrict and limit enumerated rights but only when the harm to society to not do so is great and there are no real alternatives. That is not the case here, there are alternatives available, this individual can manage her fertility needs without forcing others to pay for her contraceptives. On the other paw, the school has alternatives available to it as well, it could simply find a way to remove itself from the insurance it provides the students. The problem is both sides want to dig in instead of finding a truly reasonable compromise because they want to make it a battleground niche issue.

 

[hotatlboi]

Bill O and other conservative pundits are against abortion right?

If so, why would they be opposed to this?

 

[Rolyo85]

How is anything in this situation about restricting or limiting rights?

EVERY law EVER restricts one freedom or another. My freedom to kill anyone I don't like is limited by all the laws dealing with what would happen if I did that.

 

[Stardreamer]

How is anything in this situation about restricting or limiting rights?

EVERY law EVER restricts one freedom or another. My freedom to kill anyone I don't like is limited by all the laws dealing with what would happen if I did that.

Rights at issue here:
Freedom of conscience
Freedom of religion
Right to privacy
Right to control over self (your body)

Social right to health care

When enumerated rights are infringed and when multiple rights are in conflict is the time to proceed with caution and reserve lest we tear down the foundation of civil rights in the process. There is absolutely no reason why a reasonable compromise on this issue cannot be reached except both sides want to make a wedge issue of it. I'd give Obama credit for taking a step towards compromise if he hadn't forced the issue in the first place.

 

[Benvolio]

The First Amendment protects freedom or religion. Show me where the Constitution says that the our totalitarian government can force a Church--or anyone else--to buy contraceptives for anyone.

 

[Rolyo85]

Nobody is forcing the church to buy anything for anyone. However, if a church wants to run a hospital, it should follow the same laws in regards to its employes as any other hospital. It is the church's decision to become an employer, nobody is forcing churches to do that. BUT if they have gone outside the religious area (which being an employer is), then they are bound by the exact same laws as anybody else.

If the law says contraceptives are part of what an employer should provide their employes (notice how I DON'T say that's right or wrong), then a church has the freedom to obey that law - being an employer - or stop employing.


I am sorry, to me this is the same argument as "bulying gay kids in school is me exercising my right to express my religious beliefs". It is flawed and out of place in a modern society.

 

[Kulindahr]

I disagree. We should pay for all forms of contraception and encourage their use. Half the reason (at least) that we have so many worthless idiots running around is because their parents were not prepared nor desiring to raise a child and the shitty results are proof.

it's cheaper to pay for a condom than pay for childbirth and another 70-80 years of medical need.

that's all the argument I need for subsidized birth control.

Condom dispensers in all public buildings, pack of 2 for 25 cents...

Yup they should pay for you to go to the gym. Or at least encourage it by buying facilities.

I like the way Maryland does it. Every town has a community center that has pools and gym equipment and a track and they help pay out of taxes for the facilities. People using it still have a small fee but it is much less for much more than a gym cost.

That's brilliant.

How is anything in this situation about restricting or limiting rights?

EVERY law EVER restricts one freedom or another. My freedom to kill anyone I don't like is limited by all the laws dealing with what would happen if I did that.

You change subjects in midstream: you have no right to kill anyone, except perhaps someone who has invaded your home or business and is armed with a lethal weapon.

 

[Rolyo85]

I don't? Why? That's how I express my beliefs about how idiots should be dealt with. You're telling me I don't have the right to express my beliefs?

HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

 

[Kulindahr]

Rights at issue here:
Freedom of conscience
Freedom of religion
Right to privacy
Right to control over self (your body)

Social right to health care

When enumerated rights are infringed and when multiple rights are in conflict is the time to proceed with caution and reserve lest we tear down the foundation of civil rights in the process. There is absolutely no reason why a reasonable compromise on this issue cannot be reached except both sides want to make a wedge issue of it. I'd give Obama credit for taking a step towards compromise if he hadn't forced the issue in the first place.

The sleight of hand rule says any time a politician does something to get the public's attention on something, he/she is aiming to distract the public from something else.

What's Obama up to?

 

[Kulindahr]

Nobody is forcing the church to buy anything for anyone. However, if a church wants to run a hospital, it should follow the same laws in regards to its employes as any other hospital. It is the church's decision to become an employer, nobody is forcing churches to do that. BUT if they have gone outside the religious area (which being an employer is), then they are bound by the exact same laws as anybody else.

If the law says contraceptives are part of what an employer should provide their employes (notice how I DON'T say that's right or wrong), then a church has the freedom to obey that law - being an employer - or stop employing.


I am sorry, to me this is the same argument as "bulying gay kids in school is me exercising my right to express my religious beliefs". It is flawed and out of place in a modern society.

All they should have to do is opt out of getting government money.