| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2012 12:16:17 PM · #851 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You are more than welcome to use birth control. Don't expect me to pay for it. |
If you have health insurance, more than likely those insurance companies have been paying for birth control for years for its members. Indirectly I think you are paying for birth control anyway, unless you work for a religious institution I guess. :-) |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 12:17:41 PM · #852 |
Well, to be fair, the logical extension would be "If you don't want to die from a bullet wound don't get shot at!" and Nullix's point is "If you don't want to bring a baby into the world don't have sex!" I will readily concede, however, that it's a far stretch from that to saying "Birth control causes abortions", if only because, in the Real World, "less birth control" will cause MORE abortions than "more birth control"...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2012 12:37:38 PM · #853 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, to be fair, the logical extension would be "If you don't want to die from a bullet wound don't get shot at!" and Nullix's point is "If you don't want to bring a baby into the world don't have sex!" I will readily concede, however, that it's a far stretch from that to saying "Birth control causes abortions", if only because, in the Real World, "less birth control" will cause MORE abortions than "more birth control"...
R. |
But yet he remained silent when asked if the only time he had sex was for procreation.
STILL waiting for that answer.
I also haven't heard his stance on who's supposed to take care of all the unwanted children his ideals would produce.
And again.......NONE of this debate concerns him, other than trying to foist his ideals on us.
He stated to us that if you don't want your kids molested, don't leave them around Catholic priests.....so if he doesn't like birth control, then don't use it.
His insurance dollar is surely paying for many procedures that he'll never use, and somehow I doubt that unless health policies are different than what's available where I am, that the drug rider is standard......usually, that's a perk.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2012 12:37:38 PM · #854 |
What the heck???? It posted the same reply twice....
Message edited by author 2012-03-13 12:38:19.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2012 01:00:20 PM · #855 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But yet he remained silent when asked if the only time he had sex was for procreation.
I also haven't heard his stance on who's supposed to take care of all the unwanted children his ideals would produce.
And again.......NONE of this debate concerns him, other than trying to foist his ideals on us. |
Sorry, I didn't see the question. I tend to ignore you Jeb; you've always been beligerent to me.
Of course I'm always open to the procreative aspect, but it's more than that. It's a loving event between my wife and I. I give her my love and every part of me because I want to share my life with her. We don't hold back in our love or our bodies. What else could such a loving act be about?
It's sad there's a such thing as unwanted children, but there are many wanting parents. Parents who are going to other countries to adopt kids since there aren't enough here.
I'm not trying to foist ideas on anyone. I'm getting ideas foisted against me.
You are more than welcome to use birth control or do anything that's against my beliefs. It's just now, for the first time, government is trying to foist it's ideas against my ideas.
Yes, there have always been birth control in health care, but there have been exemptions for religious people. The government has now closed all those exemptions.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2012 03:00:41 PM · #856 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Facts about Induced Abortion in the US
Originally posted by Guttmacher:
54% of women who have abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. |
In the US, there are between 1 and 1.5 million abortions. That's 540,000 abortions a year because of birth control.
If birth control actually worked, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but birth control doesn't work and leads to abortions. |
"birth control" is typically medical in nature (think pills or injections, typically). CONTRACEPTION is a much broader category that includes things like condoms (which can break or leak), IUDs, and pills/injections. Your quoted statistic adds nothing as contraception is not equal to birth control, and so adds nothing to the discussion about what "you" should pay for (leave alone the fact that its insurance companies that would pay for it, not you personally or via your taxes). |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 04:22:07 PM · #857 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But yet he remained silent when asked if the only time he had sex was for procreation.
I also haven't heard his stance on who's supposed to take care of all the unwanted children his ideals would produce.
And again.......NONE of this debate concerns him, other than trying to foist his ideals on us. |
Sorry, I didn't see the question. I tend to ignore you Jeb; you've always been beligerent to me.
Of course I'm always open to the procreative aspect, but it's more than that. It's a loving event between my wife and I. I give her my love and every part of me because I want to share my life with her. We don't hold back in our love or our bodies. What else could such a loving act be about?
It's sad there's a such thing as unwanted children, but there are many wanting parents. Parents who are going to other countries to adopt kids since there aren't enough here.
I'm not trying to foist ideas on anyone. I'm getting ideas foisted against me.
You are more than welcome to use birth control or do anything that's against my beliefs. It's just now, for the first time, government is trying to foist it's ideas against my ideas.
Yes, there have always been birth control in health care, but there have been exemptions for religious people. The government has now closed all those exemptions. |
No, the goverment has absolutely NOT closed all exemptions. If you recall the compromise was to have insurance companies pay for it instead of the employer. So really it's not about who is paying for it, you don't want people to have easy, covered access for it. Period. How is that affecting what you believe? Somehow, someway, if they can afford it, a person will get it. So really, you are only screwing over the very poor who can't afford it, who also can least afford to have a child. There is nothing being "foisted" on you, just other people. Are you even an employer that covers insurance? How does this even concern you?
As far as not being "enough" children here so people go abroad, that's bull. There are plenty of overflowing group homes I guarantee it, plenty of kids in foster care too.
You didn't really give a straight answer "open to the procreative aspect." Gimmie a break. Do you ONLY have sex to have babies or not? You totally dodged the question with your holier than thou love talk.
As far as birth control "not working", how many of those cases were where the woman forgot to take the pill? Because that's not an issue of the pill then is it? |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 04:33:30 PM · #858 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
No, the goverment has absolutely NOT closed all exemptions. If you recall the compromise was to have insurance companies pay for it instead of the employer. So really it's not about who is paying for it, you don't want people to have easy, covered access for it. Period. How is that affecting what you believe? Somehow, someway, if they can afford it, a person will get it. So really, you are only screwing over the very poor who can't afford it, who also can least afford to have a child. There is nothing being "foisted" on you, just other people. Are you even an employer that covers insurance? How does this even concern you?
As far as not being "enough" children here so people go abroad, that's bull. There are plenty of overflowing group homes I guarantee it, plenty of kids in foster care too.
You didn't really give a straight answer "open to the procreative aspect." Gimmie a break. Do you ONLY have sex to have babies or not? You totally dodged the question with your holier than thou love talk.
As far as birth control "not working", how many of those cases were where the woman forgot to take the pill? Because that's not an issue of the pill then is it? |
Right now, as we speak, 10% of health care in the US have exemptions for religious grounds and nobody's had a problem with it.
Now, the government is removing exemptions so there can be no religious exemptions.
There are plenty of foster homes (some of those homes are ran by religious groups with this healthcare exemption). Are you suggesting they should've been aborted?
Sorry I used my "holier than thou love talk." When I speak about sex, I didn't want it to degenerate into locker-room talk. Yes, sex=babies, but it's more than that. Take babies out of sex, and all you get is self pleasure. No giving of one's self for another, just self satisfaction.
I was counting the issue of women forgetting to take their pill. Birth control that doesn't work leads to abortions. When it does work you only have the small percentage (actually we don't know the count) of chemical abortions. |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 05:01:28 PM · #859 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Right now, as we speak, 10% of health care in the US have exemptions for religious grounds and nobody's had a problem with it.
Now, the government is removing exemptions so there can be no religious exemptions. |
I think Monica's point was there was a compromise solution. Are you concerned about things after the compromise? before? It's confusing where people stand about things now. |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 06:05:24 PM · #860 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Right now, as we speak, 10% of health care in the US have exemptions for religious grounds and nobody's had a problem with it.
Now, the government is removing exemptions so there can be no religious exemptions.
There are plenty of foster homes (some of those homes are ran by religious groups with this healthcare exemption). Are you suggesting they should've been aborted?
Sorry I used my "holier than thou love talk." When I speak about sex, I didn't want it to degenerate into locker-room talk. Yes, sex=babies, but it's more than that. Take babies out of sex, and all you get is self pleasure. No giving of one's self for another, just self satisfaction.
I was counting the issue of women forgetting to take their pill. Birth control that doesn't work leads to abortions. When it does work you only have the small percentage (actually we don't know the count) of chemical abortions. |
There is a whole grey area (where I'd assume most people lie) between "locker-room talk" and glory to God baby making talk. Take the babies out of sex and all you get is self pleasure? What happened to that giving bodies loving each other stuff? That doesn't happen after menopause? Will you stop having sex at that point? I think that's what you just made claim to. Barren people obviously can't have sex for love and connection because yeesh, there will be no baby!
I think this is really sad. Because I DO respect sex. I think it's a beautiful thing. But because I don't respect it in the same way you do, then obviously I condone "locker-room talk".
You keep throwing this abortion card out there when I never said ANYTHING about abortion in this scenario. You were implying there weren't enough children to go around in the US, and I assured you there were. How did you miss that very simple point? I was trying to avoid the subject but I'll just outright say it: It's much more "cool" to go adopt an Asian child from abroad or even a black or hispanic child abroad than to adopt one from the US. Racism, alive and well. I'm sure there other factors, perhaps it's more difficult to adopt in the states than China, I don't know. But in any case, it's not some very simplistic "no more babies here, must go abroad" scenario.
Backed into a corner... accuse me of wanting all foster kids dead. Right, because that's exactly what I said.
Message edited by author 2012-03-13 18:07:53. |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 06:16:38 PM · #861 |
"Race/Ethnicity - Approximately 64% of children waiting in foster care are of minority background; 32% are White. 51% of all foster children waiting for adoption are Black, 11% are Hispanic, 1% are American Indian, 1% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5% are unknown/unable to determine. "
"Based on current AFCARS estimates released January 2000, there are approximately 520,000 children currently in foster care in the United States. Of these, 117,000 are eligible for adoption. (US HHS, 2000)"
Adoption Stats |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 06:17:50 PM · #862 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Right now, as we speak, 10% of health care in the US have exemptions for religious grounds and nobody's had a problem with it.
Now, the government is removing exemptions so there can be no religious exemptions. |
Are you saying that because insurance companies will be required to pay for (or provide free) birth control for the employees of institutions that are religiously affiliated -- in other words, the religious employer can no longer deny access to birth control -- that it's not a real exemption, even though the employer isn't required to pay for it? |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 06:43:22 PM · #863 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Right now, as we speak, 10% of health care in the US have exemptions for religious grounds and nobody's had a problem with it.
Now, the government is removing exemptions so there can be no religious exemptions. |
Are you saying that because insurance companies will be required to pay for (or provide free) birth control for the employees of institutions that are religiously affiliated -- in other words, the religious employer can no longer deny access to birth control -- that it's not a real exemption, even though the employer isn't required to pay for it? |
Maybe he's talking about the religious institutions that are self-insured? We went over this before and some institutions are large enough to have their own insurance. So by pushing the problem back one step (to the insurance company rather than the institution) you may not be pushing it outside the religious realm. |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 07:13:45 PM · #864 |
Nullix -- I'm sure that the intimacy in your marriage is an intensely private thing, and rightly so, it shouldn't be the subject of conversation here. However, nor should the intimacy of anyone else's relationship. The extension of the argument you are making is that sex should only be procreation, or perhaps that sex, if it happens for whatever reason, should never seek to prevent pregnancy.
You say sex without babies is only about self pleasure, but you've already said that at least in one case (yours) its a loving expression (if I might paraphrase, I hope it is accurate) to one another and a giving of self to each other. Why can't that be the case between others, except they want to express their love for each other more often than they want to have babies. How is that so offensive? I'm sorry to single you out, but your words have bothered me because their logical extensions make no sense, and also you give a security blanket to the love between yourself and your wife, but do not allow anyone else to have such a definition for their love. |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 08:10:40 PM · #865 |
Originally posted by frisca:
You say sex without babies is only about self pleasure, but you've already said that at least in one case (yours) its a loving expression (if I might paraphrase, I hope it is accurate) to one another and a giving of self to each other. Why can't that be the case between others, except they want to express their love for each other more often than they want to have babies. How is that so offensive? I'm sorry to single you out, but your words have bothered me because their logical extensions make no sense, and also you give a security blanket to the love between yourself and your wife, but do not allow anyone else to have such a definition for their love. |
+1
I think it's generally known as a double standard......
|
|
|
|
03/13/2012 08:13:09 PM · #866 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Yes, sex=babies, but it's more than that. Take babies out of sex, and all you get is self pleasure. No giving of one's self for another, just self satisfaction. |
Or perhaps it's the mutual satisfaction of sharing with and pleasing each other.
Is that a sin?
Or a perfectly acceptable reason to make love?
|
|
|
|
03/13/2012 10:12:16 PM · #867 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by yanko:
citing statistics from an institute so closely tied to Planned Parenthood is probably not going to hold much sway with someone who is pro-life. |
Could you imagine any institute that collect statistics in this area of study that would be accepted by the "pro-life" community? Science is based on the examination of provable data, faith is held in the absence of proof. |
I don't know, but if you can find another institute that generates abortion related statistics in the US you let me know.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Science is science, no matter who says it, the facts are supposed to be transparent, provable and reproducible. You can't deny a fact based on who says it. If you are going to deny certain facts because you don't like the philosophy the researchers have, you are throwing the scientific method out the window. |
I don't recall saying I denied any facts. I merely pointed out the inherit bias in that particular institute. It's no different than an oil company creating a research institute to produce environmental studies except that with abortion there's only one institute generating these types of reports in the US and that's the one Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider, started as their research firm. |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 10:35:42 PM · #868 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe he's talking about the religious institutions that are self-insured? |
Religious institution with insurance = serious lack of faith. |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 11:16:10 PM · #869 |
You are all being so reasonable in your responses about what was so insultingly insinuated: ie: "my love is better than your love." I commend you for that but let me sum up in my usual potentially offensive style:
Straight love better than gay love.
Married love better than unmarried love.
Sex for procreation is better than sex for love.
Love 3-way with God better than love among atheists.
It seems the most religiously zealous folks just want to play a game of pedestals and rig the rules so they are on top.
The funny thing is God can't talk (or perhaps painfully and annoyingly chooses not to while all of "his" children kill each other for "him"). And the rest of us can make our games and rig them too.
And that's just fine and dandy. The trouble comes, when you are trying to rig MY game. And this is where the some people are fabulously brilliant. Because if you try to STOP them from rigging your game, that somehow means you are rigging theirs. It's like if I block a punch, I'm somehow attacking. Makes no sense.
Message edited by author 2012-03-13 23:17:50. |
|
|
|
03/13/2012 11:54:00 PM · #870 |
Holy crap folks this just in from Arizona:
"A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona's an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees' sex lives could fire them as a result."
Jezebel Article
~_~_~_~_~_~_~_
And for those that would prefer a different source:
Lesko says employers can make exceptions.
“Women could still get contraceptives for other uses," she said.
But the ACLU worries that would violate a person’s right to privacy.
“She has to tell employer why she uses contraception; she would have to say, 'I have endometriosis and use this for treatment.' That’s typically a private medical issue,” Abraham said.
AZ Family Article
Message edited by author 2012-03-13 23:55:11. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 12:12:47 AM · #871 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't recall saying I denied any facts. I merely pointed out the inherit bias in that particular institute. It's no different than an oil company creating a research institute to produce environmental studies except that with abortion there's only one institute generating these types of reports in the US and that's the one Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider, started as their research firm. |
I didn't intend to imply you denied anything, my point was that true believers would be unlikely to believe any numbers from anywhere ( just look at the blowback from the abortion/crime rate section of Freakonomics). My point was that there is an inherent schism in the arguments of the two sides, since the argument of one side is faith based, and that is not an argument that can be beaten back with research or statistics, you can only argue scripture.
Your point about being skeptical about research that is funded by dubious by organisations that are too close to actors is a good one, unfortunately with most marginally legal questions (drug issues, abortion, prostitution) there are few institutes that gather information, and in the absence of impartial actors, you can't write off the only research that exits, you need to examine the data collection methodology for flaws before you can wave it off as biased. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 12:55:13 AM · #872 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't recall saying I denied any facts. I merely pointed out the inherit bias in that particular institute. It's no different than an oil company creating a research institute to produce environmental studies except that with abortion there's only one institute generating these types of reports in the US and that's the one Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider, started as their research firm. |
I didn't intend to imply you denied anything, my point was that true believers would be unlikely to believe any numbers from anywhere ( just look at the blowback from the abortion/crime rate section of Freakonomics). My point was that there is an inherent schism in the arguments of the two sides, since the argument of one side is faith based, and that is not an argument that can be beaten back with research or statistics, you can only argue scripture.
Your point about being skeptical about research that is funded by dubious by organisations that are too close to actors is a good one, unfortunately with most marginally legal questions (drug issues, abortion, prostitution) there are few institutes that gather information, and in the absence of impartial actors, you can't write off the only research that exits, you need to examine the data collection methodology for flaws before you can wave it off as biased. |
Whoa Brennan. You have a pretty biased statement in there that one side of the debate is "faith based". If you read this thread you will see arguments raised by myself that have nothing to do with faith, which seemed to be supported by yanko (hardly the faithful zealot), and polls show that 47% of people against abortion would not list their faith as the most important reason. I've worked hard to try to relieve us of that misinformation so I need to speak out when you raise it all over again. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 12:59:33 AM · #873 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Holy crap folks this just in from Arizona. |
I see your Arizona and raise you a Utah, |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 01:16:22 AM · #874 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whoa Brennan. You have a pretty biased statement in there that one side of the debate is "faith based". If you read this thread you will see arguments raised by myself that have nothing to do with faith, which seemed to be supported by yanko (hardly the faithful zealot), and polls show that 47% of people against abortion would not list their faith as the most important reason. I've worked hard to try to relieve us of that misinformation so I need to speak out when you raise it all over again. |
I believe that as you state a minority of the opponents to abortion have a greater reason than their faith to oppose allowing legal access to abortion. I would be interested to see the study that found it was as high as 47%, but there are of course arguments beyond faith that some opponents employ. That said a majority of opponents do claim faith as their principal reason to oppose abortion are the people I feel will not be swayed by studies, statistics of data points. You I know are a scientific man of faith. As far as Richard's stance on the issue, I have no idea where he stands, and did not mean to imply that I did. I only meant to question if any study would shake the belief of the majority in the right to life movement which is based on religious belief. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 01:19:38 AM · #875 |
The poll is linked somewhere up above. I'll have to find it again. I want to say it was a Pew poll, but I might be wrong.
Dangit. Had to switch to the desktop. How do you search a page for text on an iPad?
Here it is: Pew poll on abortion It's the second to the bottom chart and is titled, antithetically to what I'm saying, "Plurality cites religious belief as main influence on abortion opposition". Still, the take home point to me is that the % is barely over 50% among those who are against abortion. 47% list another reason and I think that's probably higher than most people suspect.
Without getting into the argument again (you can read it in the posts above), I think the debate is purely about the argument of when a human becomes a person and what reasons one uses to defend that position. One could say, "well, God says..." and I understand that argument, but it is not necessary and there is a strong, rational case to say it starts at fertilization (which would then make abortion problematic although not automatically wrong.).
Message edited by author 2012-03-14 01:32:14. |
|
