Hospitals forced by Obamacare to cover birth control, sterilizations, abortion drug
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
February 10th, 2012, 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horn
I don't "encourage" women to have abortions.
By claiming there are not better alternatives, you most certainly do.
Quote:
I've never tried to force any woman to have one.
Force no ... encourage and promote, yes you do.
Quote:
Like all pro-choicers,
There is no such thing as *pro-choice* ... you are a pro-abortion/anti-child advocate. You have verbally given your support to women who wish to exterminate their unborn babies.
Quote:
I very much want to prevent as many abortions as possible. But
IF that were true you wouldn't find it necessary to always follow that claim with a "but" ...
Quote:
I just realize that making abortion illegal will never stop women from having them.
No, but it would DRASTICALLY decrease the number of abortions which would in turn save the lives of many unborn babies.
Quote:
And don't give me all that anti-choice B.S. about women "murdering" their "babies".
We all get that legally abortion is not considered murder ...
At one time, women were not allowed to vote, and it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves. It's a shame that we, as a supposedly civilized society, still have one foot in the dark ages and some claim it is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice their unborn children on the altar of convenience.
Quote:
They don't have abortions out of malice but desperation.
WRONG ... most abortions ARE done for the sake of convenience. Poor women do not have to keep their child and have one more mouth to feed so you can quit pretending that is the case.
Quote:
Abortion is a tragedy,
Horn, please explain the statement I have highlighted in bold.
IF you truly believe that unborn babies are not worthy of protection, then why is it a *tragedy* to kill them? Once again, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Quote:
not a crime.
Abortion should be a crime ...
Quote:
But being born can often be a far worse tragedy than being aborted. That's why abortions happen !
Says the guy who was given birth to and allowed to live ..............
"Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated." ~ George Bernard Shaw
Did you know that some b/c pills will prevent implantation of the embryo in the uterine wall? This is called pre-implantation contraception.
What percent of b/c uses this method?
A woman has a right to stop another organism from attaching to her for sustenance. In the case of rape this is very clear. True- if her own sloppy decisions lead to the creation of the embryo, it becomes more problematic.
btw, no one likes abortion other than an impregnated rape victim.
Because they are private institutions and not public ones... AND WE HAVE A CHOICE as to were we can go.
In a way this is very much like the college councilor case of a couple days ago.. who refused to endorse 'alternate lifestyles' and would gladly refer them to other counselors that would reassure the students that their gay activities were OK.
People and institutions should have the choice as to what they want to do.. just as people have a choice of who they want to give their money to.
If we were mandated to go to a specific facility by the law, you might then have a point.
At the end of the day, this is a freedom of religion and free speech issue.. it will get struck down in courts.
The "private institution" label makes no difference. They are serving the public, and claiming to be a health care provider. Birth control is a useful and positive aspect of modern health care. So it would be completely logical that birth control should be included among the medical prescriptions offered by any modern health care facility.
This has nothing to do with public choice, as anyone who chooses not to accept any form of medical prescription offered in any health care facility anywhere in the country already has the right and ability to refuse to do so. All we're talking about here is the right (and I believe, necessity) of the agency assigned to oversee public health procedures and practices to mandate that any institution or practitioner of health care meet it's requirements.
Why should we allow any supposed public health care provider to refuse to meet the established guidelines for public health care?
Should a "private religious" bank be allowed to ignore the rules set up by society to govern banking practices? Should "private religious" real estate agents be allowed to ignore the rules set up by society to govern the practice of real estate transactions? Should attaching the words "private" and "religious" on to the name of an institution render them immune to all government oversight?
A goodly percentage say goodbye to the perpetrator's seed with relief, thanking God that the morning after pill is legal. The rapists genes are often tainted with sociopathy generally frowned upon in offspring.
I don't know. I can do some research on it, except I'm going to be out of town for a few days and leaving shortly.
Quote:
A woman has a right to stop another organism from attaching to her for sustenance. In the case of rape this is very clear. True- if her own sloppy decisions lead to the creation of the embryo, it becomes more problematic.
btw, no one likes abortion other than an impregnated rape victim.
You would be wise to stop now, since you appear to be wandering further and further outside your area of expertise, personal experience, and level of wisdom.
Slogan/motto:
Honor is a dead word to the blindly loyal.
Reputation:
February 10th, 2012, 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukia
Yep, let the celibate old men make your choices for you.
They didn't decide any of this out of the blue. Said celibate old men are at no greater liberty to decide that contraception and abortion are suddenly A-okay than theft, rape, calumny, murder or any of the things that are still wrong even according to secular standards. And if they did change what had always been the genuinely Catholic position on an issue such as this, the same secularists who bemoaned the Church's refusal to get with the times would then whine about how "it's Calvinball!"
(Whatever that means, exactly. I've noticed that it refers to an ad-hoc decision that what was once true is no longer true, but I have no idea how or why that became the word for it.)
"So as not to exchange one evil for another, this poor land must be saved from the scourge of friend and foe alike." - Friedrich Schiller
Posting ability officially rated "pretty good" by Delmar.
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
February 10th, 2012, 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
The "private institution" label makes no difference. They are serving the public, and claiming to be a health care provider. Birth control is a useful and positive aspect of modern health care. So it would be completely logical that birth control should be included among the medical prescriptions offered by any modern health care facility.
This has nothing to do with public choice, as anyone who chooses not to accept any form of medical prescription offered in any health care facility anywhere in the country already has the right and ability to refuse to do so. All we're talking about here is the right (and I believe, necessity) of the agency assigned to oversee public health procedures and practices to mandate that any institution or practitioner of health care meet it's requirements.
Why should we allow any supposed public health care provider to refuse to meet the established guidelines for public health care?
No they are not serving the public.. they are accepting paying customers (and non-paying when the government forces them to do so).
Last edited by HisServant; February 10th, 2012 at 11:53 AM.
Slogan/motto:
Honor is a dead word to the blindly loyal.
Reputation:
February 10th, 2012, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
Should a "private religious" bank be allowed to ignore the rules set up by society to govern banking practices? Should "private religious" real estate agents be allowed to ignore the rules set up by society to govern the practice of real estate transactions? Should attaching the words "private" and "religious" on to the name of an institution render them immune to all government oversight?
Who here is making the argument that the problem is "all" government oversight? I think it's more a matter of how far the government should go in establishing these regulations, and if the government has the right to defy the common will of the people as long as they believe it's for their own good, especially a democratic government that claims to uphold freedom of religion.
"So as not to exchange one evil for another, this poor land must be saved from the scourge of friend and foe alike." - Friedrich Schiller
Posting ability officially rated "pretty good" by Delmar.
Linear Mode
