DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Birth control rant
Pages:   ... [61]
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 1503, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/10/2012 11:17:05 PM · #76
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) You said the ruling concerned Seventh Day Adventists. Wrong.
2) You said Jacobson claimed religious exemption. Wrong.
3) You claim that conscription in the army is a good analogy. Obviously not a good argument.

Right or wrong, how is it the least bit relevant if Jacobson were an Adventist, Lutheran, or Branch Davidian cult member? The Supreme Court made a specific declaration that the state may override religious (or indeed ANY) objection in the interest of the common good regardless of Jacobson's personal reasons. It formed the very basis of their decision to rule in favor of compulsory vaccination. "[a person] may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one's body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities... for the purpose of protecting the public collectively against such danger." Read that statement over and over until it sinks in or, if you continue to attack the straw men of Jacobson's specific religion or reason for objection (neither of which negate the argument), understand that I picture straw men accompanied by the song "If I only had a brain."
02/10/2012 11:19:50 PM · #77
Are you guys really going to go off on the tit for tat. The thing is religion or no religion, birth control is a good thing. The world is crumbling under over population problems. Children are born, hooray, then they starve to death. Very painful, I'm sure. And yes, it even happens in the good ole USA. Like George Carlin said, if you're pre born your fine, once your born, you're fucked.
02/11/2012 12:09:12 AM · #78
Originally posted by Kelli:

Are you guys really going to go off on the tit for tat.

It's what we do, like Tom & Jerry, Wile E. Coyote & the Roadrunner or Sylvester & Tweety. The topic doesn't really matter, and I think some forum readers wait for it like the next edition of Spy vs. Spy.
02/11/2012 12:33:53 AM · #79
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Are you guys really going to go off on the tit for tat.

It's what we do, like Tom & Jerry, Wile E. Coyote & the Roadrunner or Sylvester & Tweety. The topic doesn't really matter, and I think some forum readers wait for it like the next edition of Spy vs. Spy.


That's a rousing affirmative from the Sandbar Branch of the Peanut Gallery. It makes for enjoyable reading of a cold winter night.

R.
02/11/2012 12:51:04 AM · #80
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's a rousing affirmative from the Sandbar Branch of the Peanut Gallery. It makes for enjoyable reading of a cold winter night.

Hehe... I know that I'm absolutely right on this and Jason's off his rocker, and I'm sure that Jason knows he's absolutely right and I'm a doofus (or, as expressed with a modicum of civil discourse, a bullshit liar). Between those two canyon walls of certainty there exists a void of understanding too vast to bridge... and an audience wishing both of us would just jump already. ;-P
02/11/2012 01:09:09 AM · #81
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's a rousing affirmative from the Sandbar Branch of the Peanut Gallery. It makes for enjoyable reading of a cold winter night.

Hehe... I know that I'm absolutely right on this and Jason's off his rocker, and I'm sure that Jason knows he's absolutely right and I'm a doofus (or, as expressed with a modicum of civil discourse, a bullshit liar). Between those two canyon walls of certainty there exists a void of understanding too vast to bridge... and an audience wishing both of us would just jump already. ;-P


I donno' about that last. I've actually learned some interesting stuff over the years through keeping up with these "debates" (ans occasionally participating in them, even). As far as "absolute certainty" goes, I would just observe, gently and quietly, that y'all each have a remarkable facility for generally ignoring whatever valid points the other party advances.

R.
02/11/2012 01:16:49 AM · #82
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

y'all each have a remarkable facility for generally ignoring whatever valid points the other party advances.

We're professionals. Don't try this at home. To be fair, I have acknowledged Jason's valid points over the years. Both of them.
02/11/2012 07:19:36 AM · #83
Eveytime I see a thread on religion I get rembered by this south park episode:

âYou've forgotten what being a Catholic is all about: this book. You see, these are just stories - stories that are meant to help people in the right direction. Love your neighbor. Be a good person. That's it! And when you start turning the stories into literal translations of hierarchies and power, well, you end up with this. People are losing faith because they don't see how what you've turned the religion into applies to them! They've lost touch with any idea of any kind of religion, and when they have no mythology to try and live their lives by, well, they just start spewing a bunch of crap out of their mouths!â

Message edited by author 2012-02-11 07:19:53.
02/11/2012 09:46:59 AM · #84
Originally posted by Kelli:

The thing is religion or no religion, birth control is a good thing. The world is crumbling under over population problems.


Meat is good, but I wouldn't force a vegetarian to deal in meat because I think it's good.
02/11/2012 10:15:39 AM · #85
so after reading this whole thread....and understanding nothing i just came to the realization that i'm watching the cat in the hat argue with a guy with a bug glued to his nose.......i'm just sayin........
02/11/2012 10:21:22 AM · #86
Originally posted by o2bskating:

so after reading this whole thread....and understanding nothing i just came to the realization that i'm watching the cat in the hat argue with a guy with a bug glued to his nose.......i'm just sayin........


This made me sit here and laugh for a good few minutes. ;D
02/11/2012 10:23:42 AM · #87
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Kelli:

The thing is religion or no religion, birth control is a good thing. The world is crumbling under over population problems.


Meat is good, but I wouldn't force a vegetarian to deal in meat because I think it's good.


This isn't China with their one and done policy. No one is forcing any one to eat the meat. But it's nice to get a steak once in a while when you're not a vegetarian.
02/11/2012 11:59:02 AM · #88
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Kelli:

The thing is religion or no religion, birth control is a good thing. The world is crumbling under over population problems.


Meat is good, but I wouldn't force a vegetarian to deal in meat because I think it's good.


This isn't China with their one and done policy. No one is forcing any one to eat the meat. But it's nice to get a steak once in a while when you're not a vegetarian.


For my example in #51, I would be forced to deal in meat against my vegetarian beliefs.
02/11/2012 12:11:56 PM · #89
Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Kelli:

The thing is religion or no religion, birth control is a good thing. The world is crumbling under over population problems.


Meat is good, but I wouldn't force a vegetarian to deal in meat because I think it's good.


This isn't China with their one and done policy. No one is forcing any one to eat the meat. But it's nice to get a steak once in a while when you're not a vegetarian.


For my example in #51, I would be forced to deal in meat against my vegetarian beliefs.


Not the same thing at all. Period. There is no comparison there. The insurance companies (which should have no religious affiliation at all) are the ones paying & supplying. Where's your conflict?

"The White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible."

Message edited by author 2012-02-11 12:13:51.
02/11/2012 02:06:21 PM · #90
News flash for the uninformed: this whole "controversy" has been U.S. law for over a decade, with Catholic universities, etc. already required to cover contraception. The only new part is extending the existing law to organizations with less than 15 employees and no copay. There was little controversy back then, but when Obama is involved it's time to fire up the fear machine and rally the ignorant masses.
02/11/2012 02:37:51 PM · #91
Originally posted by scalvert:

News flash for the uninformed: this whole "controversy" has been U.S. law for over a decade, with Catholic universities, etc. already required to cover contraception. The only new part is extending the existing law to organizations with less than 15 employees and no copay. There was little controversy back then, but when Obama is involved it's time to fire up the fear machine and rally the ignorant masses.


I don't think I can trust anything you type.

Originally posted by from the article:

Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds


What Obama had proposes allows for no such exemption.

Message edited by author 2012-02-11 14:39:18.
02/11/2012 03:19:22 PM · #92
Originally posted by Nullix:

I don't think I can trust anything you type.

You've ignored basic facts for years, so I wouldn't expect you to consider them now.

Originally posted by Nullix:

Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds

The rest of that quote: "Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sexâthe kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago."

Originally posted by Nullix:

What Obama had proposes allows for no such exemption.

Your personal opinion means squat. Catholic Charities sued the states of CA and NY in 2004 and 2006 arguing that requiring them to include contraception in their health plans would force them to violate their religious beliefs. Both cases went to those states' Supreme Courts, where justices overwhelmingly ruled in favor of the contraceptive requirement, and against the idea that it was an infringement of religious liberty. This was before Obama even ran for president. Nine states with requirements for insurance coverage of contraception have NO religious exemption for employers, and the U.S. Supreme court has declared twice that it didn't need to hear appeals to change that.

Message edited by author 2012-02-11 16:47:44.
02/11/2012 04:12:35 PM · #93
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... Plus it's a ruling that is over 100 years old. Check your sources before you quote off the web...


Not familiar with how laws apply in the USA Doc, but 100 years old or not, the Supreme Court decision would seemingly be the law of the land until such time as it is revisited and a different decision made...NO?

Ray
02/11/2012 05:03:04 PM · #94
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

y'all each have a remarkable facility for generally ignoring whatever valid points the other party advances.

Originally posted by scalvert:

We're professionals. Don't try this at home. To be fair, I have acknowledged Jason's valid points over the years. Both of them.

I don't care who you are.......That's Funny!!!!
02/11/2012 06:31:46 PM · #95
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... Plus it's a ruling that is over 100 years old. Check your sources before you quote off the web...


Not familiar with how laws apply in the USA Doc, but 100 years old or not, the Supreme Court decision would seemingly be the law of the land until such time as it is revisited and a different decision made...NO?

Ray


Quite true Ray. I was mainly talking about the fact he took something someone wrote on the Internet (ie. the case had to do with Seventh Day Adventists and religious objections) and run with it without vetting the source. The fact it is 100 years old just says that, ya, there has been time for it to have been overruled so we must be aware of that as well. I mentioned that specifically for the comment about joining the army which seems obsolete, but the bull kept crashing through the china shop.

The frustrating thing is how Shannon operates. He grabs quotes off the net without looking into them. He either hopes they really do support him or you are too lazy to look into them yourself. Once he was directed to the actual case he either read it (and ignored the fact it was not about religious exemption) or he just ctrl-f'd the word "religious" and once again grabbed a quote that seemed to serve him without checking the context. Either method is inexcusable to debate (but not rhetoric). At that point I had to get vulgar with him.

Message edited by author 2012-02-11 18:37:37.
02/12/2012 11:22:27 PM · #96
So if my religious beliefs include NEVER going to a doctor, I can opt out of giving my employees any health insurance at all? Sweet.

Doc as usual you seem to be missing the point because you agree with the situation. Would people be so keen if a Muslim employer wanted exceptions to the rules for their employees because of their religion regardless of if their employees agreed or were also Muslim?

Well as we saw with the Mosque fiasco... the answer is no from the sorts of the "religion trumps govt." mindset. What they really mean is "Christianity trumps govt it's our right!(PS the rest of you can go F yourselves.)"

The outcry is far overreaching. This is not an infringement on religious rights. It's trying to stop them from infringing on the rights of others. People have a right to get the same things covered as their non-religiously employed counter parts. It doesn't matter how cheap you think the pills are. That's not the point. When people start to pick and choose what they think other people should be doing based on their own religion, it's OVER THE LINE.

Message edited by author 2012-02-12 23:24:37.
02/13/2012 02:02:48 AM · #97
To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not agree with their religion, but I will defend to the death their right to practice it. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, doesn't matter to me.
02/13/2012 02:05:19 AM · #98
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not agree with their religion, but I will defend to the death their right to practice it. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, doesn't matter to me.


Well then you are a head above most. I think a lot of people say that but when push comes to shove, it's not really how it goes.

But personally... wouldn't you be upset if your employer was a religion you didn't subscribe to and that managed to deny you rights of some sort? I would be.
02/13/2012 02:07:57 AM · #99
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not agree with their religion, but I will defend to the death their right to practice it. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, doesn't matter to me.


Follow up question: What about religions that are not commonly accepted or altogether created by the individual? How would a person without the power of religious groups and advocates go about getting their rights addressed? Seems like in most cases these folks are SOL.
02/13/2012 02:11:26 AM · #100
Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not agree with their religion, but I will defend to the death their right to practice it. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, doesn't matter to me.


Well then you are a head above most. I think a lot of people say that but when push comes to shove, it's not really how it goes.

But personally... wouldn't you be upset if your employer was a religion you didn't subscribe to and that managed to deny you rights of some sort? I would be.


Let's recall we're talking about a principle I don't even agree with. My wife was on birth control for twenty years and I now have a vasectomy (BTW, NOT covered by my regular old non-religious insurance). So I'm defending the Catholic church more on the religious freedom principle than on any sympathy for their position.

I guess it depends on what the right was that was being denied. $4 prescription not for free? Hard to see how I would be so upset as to try to overturn a longstanding idea in this country (the right to freedom of conscience). I interviewed for residency down in Loma Linda at the Seventh Day Adventist hospital there and I knew the cafeteria wasn't going to be serving meat. I bet there would have been days where I would have complained under my breath, but I would have understood.
Pages:   ... [61]
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:37:12 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:37:12 AM EDT.