| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2012 05:50:05 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Laws should be subservient to moral codes, not vice versa. |
Do you mean Mores, or moral codes. There is a difference.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 05:54:17 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Laws should be subservient to moral codes, not vice versa.
If society deemed a fertilized embryo a person (which it has every right to do if it wants) the laws would adjust to reflect this reality. |
...and if society considered that the elderly were too much of a drain on the public purse, they should be able to pass a law that says it is okay to euthanize them???
Yes I know it's a stretch, but it is worthy of some discussion right?
Ray |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 06:28:11 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
I find it truly ironic, that the HHS mandate is pushing birth control and abortion coverage, but doesn't cover infertility treatments (which is a disease and a disorder). Why is that? |
You might want to read This... its seems the church considers that sinful also.
Ray |
There are other treatments for infertility besides IVF.
You're missing the point. I was more pointing out the single mindedness of this HHS mandate. Healthy people are broken and need a free pill, while people with a disorder (infertility) don't get a free pill. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 07:25:00 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Laws should be subservient to moral codes, not vice versa.
If society deemed a fertilized embryo a person (which it has every right to do if it wants) the laws would adjust to reflect this reality. |
...and if society considered that the elderly were too much of a drain on the public purse, they should be able to pass a law that says it is okay to euthanize them???
Yes I know it's a stretch, but it is worthy of some discussion right?
Ray |
Yes, they could. IF the society thought that saving public money was of higher value than the right to life of the elderly they could pass a law to reflect this. There's nothing inherently irrational about this and the law would then reflect the moral precept. Of course you and I both belong to a society that doesn't think this at all so we aren't going to be passing those laws anytime soon.
As far as mores vs. code, I don't particularly care. I'm using it in a generalized way to say that moral precepts should be the driver for laws and not the other way around. I'm also speaking from y'all's point of view of relative morality (ie. a society is free to determine their own ideas of moral right and wrong) rather than the view of a universal morality (where a truth exists about whether embryos are persons or not).
Message edited by author 2012-02-15 19:26:12. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 08:53:53 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The world would be much different if women weren't beaten down into submission by force or societal pressures. |
That principle generally applies to ANY segment of the population– gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. People are people, and as soon as you classify them into groups with superior and inferior rights and privileges, you're asking for trouble. |
Next you'll be asking for atheists to have the rights and status of everybody else and there I must draw the line! ;) |
I know you're joking here doc but that's how it feels. For example the tax-exempt status religious organizations get regardless any other prerequisite. I'd go to a giant Methodist church sometimes with my friend in middle school. The youth center alone had a Foosball table, pool table, big screen TV, kitchen, etc. It was bigger than most people's houses I'd been in and it was just a small fraction of the giant building it was housed in. The church, even more grandiose, and I just thought... this is wrong. Something is WRONG here. Tax exemption, I'm assuming, was designed to help the small churches that are barely scraping by, and that, I get. But standing in the face of massive profit... it's just not fair.
On the flip side NGOs, out doing good works for the world that aren't prescribing to any religion, are required to pay taxes on city, state and federal level... though I'm researching now there are ways to get tax-exemption on the federal level. Maybe I don't know enough about it.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2012 08:58:22 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll just weigh in as a doctor and say Nullix is technically correct. Although the pill does not usually prevent pregnancy in this manner, in a small percentage of cases (I don't recall the number but it is on the order of <2%) it works by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I won't comment on this other than to say this is known in the medical community. |
Sigh. This is such nonsense. Not that it's technically correct, fine, so it is. But that it's even an issue. Have no personal stake in the matter as I don't belief in taking birth control myself (I'm not a fan of messing with my body like that) and I don't live in the US and get insurance. But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs.
Doc, you keep wanting to say religion trumps govt. But you never answered my question, what about beliefs that aren't part of mainstream religion? I have all kinds of strongly held beliefs and convictions but I haven't a leg to stand on legally because I don't have some sort of conglomerated religious group to back me up. So much for freedom of religion. More like freedom to have a sheep-like existence. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 09:00:57 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Laws should be subservient to moral codes, not vice versa.
If society deemed a fertilized embryo a person (which it has every right to do if it wants) the laws would adjust to reflect this reality. |
...and if society considered that the elderly were too much of a drain on the public purse, they should be able to pass a law that says it is okay to euthanize them???
Yes I know it's a stretch, but it is worthy of some discussion right?
Ray |
Ahhh the good old "Death Panel" debate.
The Republicans imagined that into the President's health care plan, but then when they talk about what to do when people who can't afford insurance get sick, they bring it up...using different words of course. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 09:24:14 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs.
Doc, you keep wanting to say religion trumps govt. But you never answered my question, what about beliefs that aren't part of mainstream religion? I have all kinds of strongly held beliefs and convictions but I haven't a leg to stand on legally because I don't have some sort of conglomerated religious group to back me up. So much for freedom of religion. More like freedom to have a sheep-like existence. |
You've got to stop thinking about it as the employer "exerting control" because they are doing no such thing. Nobody is preventing anyone from doing something, they are just refusing to paying for it. In the case of birth control we know that it is easily and readily available through other sources. If the employer was saying "you can't use birth control period if you work for us" then I would agree it would be "exerting control" and I would think that would be a problem.
I did answer your question. I said that religion doesn't have a blank cheque as far as convictions and beliefs go. There is a tension between protection of religious expression and conscience and protection of society. I will generally be sympathetic to the religious position, but there will be a line where I would say the protections don't stand. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 09:30:20 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The world would be much different if women weren't beaten down into submission by force or societal pressures. |
That principle generally applies to ANY segment of the population– gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. People are people, and as soon as you classify them into groups with superior and inferior rights and privileges, you're asking for trouble. |
Next you'll be asking for atheists to have the rights and status of everybody else and there I must draw the line! ;) |
I know you're joking here doc but that's how it feels. For example the tax-exempt status religious organizations get regardless any other prerequisite. I'd go to a giant Methodist church sometimes with my friend in middle school. The youth center alone had a Foosball table, pool table, big screen TV, kitchen, etc. It was bigger than most people's houses I'd been in and it was just a small fraction of the giant building it was housed in. The church, even more grandiose, and I just thought... this is wrong. Something is WRONG here. Tax exemption, I'm assuming, was designed to help the small churches that are barely scraping by, and that, I get. But standing in the face of massive profit... it's just not fair.
On the flip side NGOs, out doing good works for the world that aren't prescribing to any religion, are required to pay taxes on city, state and federal level... though I'm researching now there are ways to get tax-exemption on the federal level. Maybe I don't know enough about it. |
Yes, there are plenty of ways for non-religious organizations to gain tax exempt status. For example, our state allergy society is tax-exempt. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 11:05:53 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs.
Doc, you keep wanting to say religion trumps govt. But you never answered my question, what about beliefs that aren't part of mainstream religion? I have all kinds of strongly held beliefs and convictions but I haven't a leg to stand on legally because I don't have some sort of conglomerated religious group to back me up. So much for freedom of religion. More like freedom to have a sheep-like existence. |
You've got to stop thinking about it as the employer "exerting control" because they are doing no such thing. Nobody is preventing anyone from doing something, they are just refusing to paying for it. In the case of birth control we know that it is easily and readily available through other sources. If the employer was saying "you can't use birth control period if you work for us" then I would agree it would be "exerting control" and I would think that would be a problem.
I did answer your question. I said that religion doesn't have a blank cheque as far as convictions and beliefs go. There is a tension between protection of religious expression and conscience and protection of society. I will generally be sympathetic to the religious position, but there will be a line where I would say the protections don't stand. |
They may not be implementing a directive that explicitly says "You can't use birth control and work here", but by refusing to pay for treatment that would otherwise be provided, they are exerting a measure of control by penalizing employees who choose birth control. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 11:10:25 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
They may not be implementing a directive that explicitly says "You can't use birth control and work here", but by refusing to pay for treatment that would otherwise be provided, they are exerting a measure of control by penalizing employees who choose birth control. |
If it's control, it's not very effective since I'm sure people who work for such hospitals utilize birth control at the same rate as the general public. If it's not effective control, then who cares? I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
Message edited by author 2012-02-15 23:11:04. |
|
|
|
02/15/2012 11:46:12 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
They may not be implementing a directive that explicitly says "You can't use birth control and work here", but by refusing to pay for treatment that would otherwise be provided, they are exerting a measure of control by penalizing employees who choose birth control. |
If it's control, it's not very effective since I'm sure people who work for such hospitals utilize birth control at the same rate as the general public. If it's not effective control, then who cares? I'm open to evidence to the contrary. |
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. Or an even higher cost for other methods like an IUD. Those don't have a monthly cost, but they can cost several hundred dollars up front.
What's funny is I hear conservatives degrading poor women for having lots of kids, yet here they are, fighting like mad to deny women the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And no Doc, I don't mean you.
Message edited by author 2012-02-15 23:56:48. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:14:07 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs. |
I don't think this is the case. The only employers who are up in arms are Catholic employers. They currently don't provide birth control coverage to their employees. I'm sure this discussed in the interview process. Now the government comes along and tells these companies they have to cover this.
They don't care about what other companies or people do. They don't want the government telling them to go against their conscience.
Look at what organizations have sued so far:
EWTN: Catholic TV & Radio
NC Register: Catholic news
Priests for Life
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:24:15 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. Or an even higher cost for other methods like an IUD. Those don't have a monthly cost, but they can cost several hundred dollars up front. |
I really don't get this. Birth control isn't necessary for survival. If you can't pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:32:38 AM · #190 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. |
You did see where Target has the pill for $4/month right? You know about planned parenthood right? You are raising a pretend barrier. If such a barrier exists, then show me the evidence in the current population of university or hospital workers... |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:44:25 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs. |
I don't think this is the case. The only employers who are up in arms are Catholic employers. They currently don't provide birth control coverage to their employees. I'm sure this discussed in the interview process. Now the government comes along and tells these companies they have to cover this.
They don't care about what other companies or people do. They don't want the government telling them to go against their conscience.
Look at what organizations have sued so far:
EWTN: Catholic TV & Radio
NC Register: Catholic news
Priests for Life |
Not quite true. 22 states have mandates that employers provide birth control. The existing Federal mandate which predates Obama and GW Bush (who never opposed it either). All of these mandates only exempted an institution if it "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," in other words; churches. Not hospitals, not universities. The ONLY change Obama made was to make coverage for birth control equivalent to preventative care so that it was affordable. Many of the existing mandates were endorsed by Republican governors. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:48:03 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. |
You did see where Target has the pill for $4/month right? You know about planned parenthood right? You are raising a pretend barrier. If such a barrier exists, then show me the evidence in the current population of university or hospital workers... |
Which version of the pill does Target have for $4/mo? There are several, with varying costs. What if the pill isn't a good choice and an IUD is better?
BTW, I got the $50 as the high end of the cost range for the pill from the planned parenthood website.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:50:47 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. Or an even higher cost for other methods like an IUD. Those don't have a monthly cost, but they can cost several hundred dollars up front. |
I really don't get this. Birth control isn't necessary for survival. If you can't pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it. |
I know you don't get it. Lots of things covered by health insurance aren't necessary for survival and lots of things necessary for survival aren't covered.
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 01:34:03. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:57:51 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. Or an even higher cost for other methods like an IUD. Those don't have a monthly cost, but they can cost several hundred dollars up front. |
I really don't get this. Birth control isn't necessary for survival. If you can't pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it. |
WHAT? Wow... that's not a classist statement at all. No sex for the poor then? |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 12:59:54 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs.
Doc, you keep wanting to say religion trumps govt. But you never answered my question, what about beliefs that aren't part of mainstream religion? I have all kinds of strongly held beliefs and convictions but I haven't a leg to stand on legally because I don't have some sort of conglomerated religious group to back me up. So much for freedom of religion. More like freedom to have a sheep-like existence. |
You've got to stop thinking about it as the employer "exerting control" because they are doing no such thing. Nobody is preventing anyone from doing something, they are just refusing to paying for it. In the case of birth control we know that it is easily and readily available through other sources. If the employer was saying "you can't use birth control period if you work for us" then I would agree it would be "exerting control" and I would think that would be a problem.
I did answer your question. I said that religion doesn't have a blank cheque as far as convictions and beliefs go. There is a tension between protection of religious expression and conscience and protection of society. I will generally be sympathetic to the religious position, but there will be a line where I would say the protections don't stand. |
No that just addresses that mainstream religions don't have total free range. But it doesn't address what someone like me is supposed to do with my beliefs? Shove em, is basically what I have to do.
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 01:00:32. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 01:04:29 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But this is a clear case of an employer being about to exert control over employees based on their beliefs. |
I don't think this is the case. The only employers who are up in arms are Catholic employers. They currently don't provide birth control coverage to their employees. I'm sure this discussed in the interview process. Now the government comes along and tells these companies they have to cover this.
They don't care about what other companies or people do. They don't want the government telling them to go against their conscience.
Look at what organizations have sued so far:
EWTN: Catholic TV & Radio
NC Register: Catholic news
Priests for Life |
You apparently missed the hold-up fight, trying to stop Plan B from going on the market. I know it's a tangent off the topic but let's not pretend these kinds of activists don't try to fight to make EVERYONE follow their rules. The difference in this fight is they know it's a losing battle so they are trying to play it off like they are the victims.
Need I mention the "creationism in schools" BS that's been going on for years as well? I know that's not the Catholics but it has the same kinds of arguments behind it. There are always several examples of employers trying to exert control over their employees with irrelevant beliefs. This birth control debate being more tame doesn't exempt it.
And I'm not sure if you watched the John Stewart thing, but the compromise said, the companies didn't have to pay, but insurance companies did. Case closed right? Apparently not. Not happy paying for it, but also not happy with other people paying for it. That is control. Money is power. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 01:36:40 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. |
You did see where Target has the pill for $4/month right? You know about planned parenthood right? You are raising a pretend barrier. If such a barrier exists, then show me the evidence in the current population of university or hospital workers... |
Which version of the pill does Target have for $4/mo? There are several, with varying costs. What if the pill isn't a good choice and an IUD is better?
BTW, I got the $50 as the high end of the cost range for the pill from the planned parenthood website. |
I dunno. Why is an IUD better? How much are ey and what does that average over the life of the device? We seem to be trying really hard to make an issue. Again, show me how this is affecting the current employees. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 01:39:46 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
If you don't make a lot of money, paying $50/mo for BC is a barrier. |
You did see where Target has the pill for $4/month right? You know about planned parenthood right? You are raising a pretend barrier. If such a barrier exists, then show me the evidence in the current population of university or hospital workers... |
Which version of the pill does Target have for $4/mo? There are several, with varying costs. What if the pill isn't a good choice and an IUD is better?
BTW, I got the $50 as the high end of the cost range for the pill from the planned parenthood website. |
I dunno. Why is an IUD better? How much are ey and what does that average over the life of the device? We seem to be trying really hard to make an issue. Again, show me how this is affecting the current employees. |
I think the issue is that they are making it an issue, even after Obama's more than fair to both sides compromise.
Aren't IUDs more reliable (especially when you factor in human error of forgetting pills)?
Message edited by author 2012-02-16 01:40:07. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 02:08:15 AM · #199 |
Well, I'm no ob/gyn, but I think they also have more side effects. My guess is there is a downside or they would be much more popular.
Well, I think Obama's compromise is just fine. My guess is all the further fretting is just posturing with a bit of "and don't come back!". Obama really stepped in it with this particular group. |
|
|
|
02/16/2012 02:38:33 AM · #200 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I'm no ob/gyn, but I think they also have more side effects. My guess is there is a downside or they would be much more popular.
Well, I think Obama's compromise is just fine. My guess is all the further fretting is just posturing with a bit of "and don't come back!". Obama really stepped in it with this particular group. |
Right, don't you have to have had babies already to get it because of chance of infertility? A friend of mine said that, maybe it's different state by state. As I said, I don't touch any of it, but it's not for me to say who does.
Even if Obama does EXACTLY what they want, they'll just change what they want. I'm not a huge fan of either side politically at this point but the Reps seem to have a special talent for coming up with ideas and then jumping ship when they get support from across the isle. Maddow did a wonderful montage of just that with several prominent republicans being totally for something, even sometimes having it be their idea, and then flash forward and they think it's wrong and terrible and bad for the nations and Dems need to be STOPPED! (cough cough, "Romneycare" cough cough).
I'm so sick of this poor poor us routine. It seems rather transparent to me. It goes on because people keep believing it. If we called them on their crap, it would stop and they'd stop getting re-elected. But we take being lied to as status quo now. It's sick. |
|
