Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

02/13/2012 02:46:10 AM · #101

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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.

Mmm the meat thing is a bit different. I understand that you don't believe birth control is wrong, but I still think there is the tendency to support groups that are similar to your own. I think the point though is that religious freedom is allowed within certain parameters of what's socially acceptable, as others have said before me.

My thoughts come down to this: There are plenty of things that could be argued as religious "rights" according to religion (death by stoning for example, no female leaders, no blending of fabrics, the usual favorites), but those aren't so cool or important any more, and thus, no one is fighting to make those protected religious freedoms.

Examples of views that have fallen out of social acceptability:
Religion used to prove the world was flat and the center of the universe.
Religion was used to support racism.
Religion used to support sexism.

But some "religious" beliefs are still somewhat socially acceptable, at least among the in group:
Religion used to bash gays.
Religion used to fight abortion and birth control.
Religion used to fight evolution in schools.

But this is the same bible, the same religions, different times, different societies. If you take even an inch step back, you see it has little to do with the "infallible" word of God and a lot to do with Bible dipping to support the current social climate.
It's religion as an excuse to push outdated and sometimes offensive agendas. Then if there is a push back, they can cower and cry "religious persecution!" And make those fighting for equality and knowledge the villains.

scalvert

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/13/2012 08:00:59 AM · #102

Originally posted by escapetooz:

There are plenty of things that could be argued as religious "rights" according to religion (death by stoning for example, no female leaders, no blending of fabrics, the usual favorites), but those aren't so cool or important any more, and thus, no one is fighting to make those protected religious freedoms.

Bingo. Catholic bishops are fighting this as an intrusion on their religious beliefs, however they also don't believe women should hold positions of power. So by the exact same logic, Catholics should not have female candidates available on a voting ballot when some of the millions of dollars they spend lobbying against gay marriage and abortion might accidentally support a woman campaigning for senate. Yet we've elected the current Secretary of State without intruding on religious freedom.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/13/2012 08:33:35 AM · #103

i think the churches should focus their efforts on being a celebration of faith and not using that pulpit to push a social agenda.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/13/2012 12:01:10 PM · #104

Originally posted by escapetooz:

My thoughts come down to this: There are plenty of things that could be argued as religious "rights" according to religion (death by stoning for example, no female leaders, no blending of fabrics, the usual favorites), but those aren't so cool or important any more, and thus, no one is fighting to make those protected religious freedoms.

That's fine. I don't disagree. I did say above quite clearly that I don't think there are no limits on religious expression, but there is a high standard of demonstrable need when it is limited.

The compromise plan seems just fine to me.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/13/2012 12:03:08 PM · #105

Originally posted by scalvert:

Bingo. Catholic bishops are fighting this as an intrusion on their religious beliefs, however they also don't believe women should hold positions of power.

Finish the sentence..."within the church". And even then it's only specific positions of power (i.e. pristhood) You are very much mischaracterizing the Catholic position on the matter.

For example, up until recently the CEO of the regional Catholic hospital system in the area (Peacehealth) was a nun. How does that jive with your statement? Of course, it doesn't.

Message edited by author 2012-02-13 12:06:34.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

02/13/2012 05:04:55 PM · #106

Maybe it was better when women stayed barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen cooking their man's dinner with none of this sacreligious medical voodoo going on under their petticoats.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/13/2012 05:19:35 PM · #107

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

FACT - In the movie, the little girl who sings the solo during the Sperm song is my sister-in-law.

Dawn is at 1:27

Message edited by author 2012-02-13 17:20:54.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/13/2012 05:37:09 PM · #108

ROFLMAO! Lucky you, Simmsy...

R.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/13/2012 06:36:27 PM · #109

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Bingo. Catholic bishops are fighting this as an intrusion on their religious beliefs, however they also don't believe women should hold positions of power.

Finish the sentence..."within the church". And even then it's only specific positions of power (i.e. pristhood) You are very much mischaracterizing the Catholic position on the matter.

For example, up until recently the CEO of the regional Catholic hospital system in the area (Peacehealth) was a nun. How does that jive with your statement? Of course, it doesn't.

Hmmmmmmmmm Doc, you do know that you are comparing apples with road turds with this one right?

Nuns may have occupied some rather high administrative positions withing the church, but the fact remains that decisions of significance rested exclusively with the diocese or archdiocese, depending on the impact of the decision to be rendered.

We must not also overlook the fact that nuns operated hospitals, orphanages, homes for unwed mothers and were a great source for the generation of revenues for the church.

I cannot speak for what transpired in the USA, but in Canada, the various nun organizations were also granted free title to rather significant portions of land in major metropolitan centers on which they paid no taxes whatsoever.

Yes they did occupy positions of great responsibilities... whether those constitutes positions of "power within the church" is something that remains up for discussion.

Ray

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

02/13/2012 07:00:11 PM · #110

Question, is the free birth control meant for every woman in the US or just those with a verifiable financial need?

scalvert

02/13/2012 07:13:04 PM · #111

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Bingo. Catholic bishops are fighting this as an intrusion on their religious beliefs, however they also don't believe women should hold positions of power.

Finish the sentence..."within the church". And even then it's only specific positions of power (i.e. pristhood) You are very much mischaracterizing the Catholic position on the matter. For example, up until recently the CEO of the regional Catholic hospital system in the area (Peacehealth) was a nun. How does that jive with your statement? Of course, it doesn't.

Hmm... so in your fairytale universe, the Catholic Church didn't oppose women's suffrage at all? How nice, 'cause they certainly put up a fight in this one. Of course, with the legal recognition afforded by women's suffrage and the equal rights amendment, gals were eventually able to gain positions of power like your CEO example everywhere except within the church itself. Trivia: when Saudi women are allowed to vote in 2015, Vatican City will be the only remaining nation still forbidding the practice.

scalvert

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

02/13/2012 07:13:46 PM · #112

Originally posted by Melethia:

Question, is the free birth control meant for every woman in the US or just those with a verifiable financial need?

Everyone... and this one of those rare instances where "free" doesn't mean you pay for it elsewhere since it saves the insurance companies money.

Message edited by author 2012-02-13 19:15:56.

frisca

Nikon D70

02/13/2012 07:16:33 PM · #113

birth control pills are just a mix of hormones (essentially) that have uses OTHER THAN preventing conception. I know a few women who use them mainly for the side benefits of clearing up very problem acne. Should those people be exempt too?

Drugs have many uses. Its not the business of an employer to decide what drugs or what uses of those drugs they will cover. If you have a health policy in place, allow it to be in place. Nobody, not even the Pope, should be meddling with an issue as simple as one's own health care.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/13/2012 08:03:22 PM · #114

Big old eye roll at you guys. Oh, yes, women can have some positions that are important, but they don't really count...

I'll leave the usual "religion is the devil" people to their usual ways of thinking. I'm glad the powers that be have chosen a more balanced approach.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

02/13/2012 08:04:51 PM · #115

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... women can have some positions that are important...

That's what he said.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2012 08:17:37 PM · #116

I guess I find it a bit odd that we'd throw in free birth control for everyone! when we have a bit of a deficit problem. I can see how it saves insurance companies money, though.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/13/2012 09:24:00 PM · #117

Originally posted by Melethia:

I guess I find it a bit odd that we'd throw in free birth control for everyone! when we have a bit of a deficit problem. I can see how it saves insurance companies money, though.

Perhaps it is to actoas a slight counterbalance to the fact that almost all insurance these days includes coverage for ED drugs -- perhaps if we got rid of that there would be less need for contraceptives ... BTW: I suspect that Viagra is used primarily for fornication, not procreation -- aren't the bishops concerned about that?

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

02/13/2012 09:29:47 PM · #118

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Melethia:
I guess I find it a bit odd that we'd throw in free birth control for everyone! when we have a bit of a deficit problem. I can see how it saves insurance companies money, though.

Perhaps it is to actoas a slight counterbalance to the fact that almost all insurance these days includes coverage for ED drugs -- perhaps if we got rid of that there would be less need for contraceptives ... BTW: I suspect that Viagra is used primarily for fornication, not procreation -- aren't the bishops concerned about that?

I've never quite understood the whole ED drug thing other than a massive money-maker (which I guess is the point). It's not curing any disease per se, or extending life. Maybe quality of life? If so, why isn't more being done to quell hot flashes and chronic headaches? :-)

02/13/2012 11:55:19 PM · #119

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You missed the whole point. He wasn't discounting those examples, he's saying they wouldn't have happened if the govt. hadn't stepped in and said we had to start treating women as equals. That's the govt's role. If religions had their way, and won the "religious freedom" fight maybe we wouldn't have any of those powerful women.

AKA: The equal rights of people are greater than the rights of religion to discriminate.

This will happen with gay rights eventually too. It's only a matter of time.

02/13/2012 11:56:39 PM · #120

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Well don't you know? Women are the gatekeepers. They are the ones responsible for staying virtuous... those men just can't control themselves! *eye roll*

Good question.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

02/13/2012 11:59:47 PM · #121

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The bishops are concerned with fornication, but ED drugs don't kill another person while the birth control pill does.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

02/14/2012 12:04:37 AM · #122

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps it is to actoas a slight counterbalance to the fact that almost all insurance these days includes coverage for ED drugs -- perhaps if we got rid of that there would be less need for contraceptives ... BTW: I suspect that Viagra is used primarily for fornication, not procreation -- aren't the bishops concerned about that?

The bishops are concerned with fornication, but ED drugs don't kill another person while the birth control pill does.

You seem to be missing some basic anatomy/physiology knowledge here. How is not releasing one egg a month killing, but spilling millions of sperm into a condom, sock, toilet, floor what have you, not killing? Don't spill the seed man... right?

Answer: neither are killing. That's just dumb.

But again as I said. It seems sex rules really only apply to the women. Men get a free pass. Funny how that works.

Message edited by author 2012-02-14 01:00:54.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

02/14/2012 01:24:47 AM · #123

Originally posted by Nullix:

I think you are confusing birth control with the morning-after pill. Or, as escaptooz has suggested, have no idea of basic reproduction.

02/14/2012 02:55:27 AM · #124

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps it is to actoas a slight counterbalance to the fact that almost all insurance these days includes coverage for ED drugs -- perhaps if we got rid of that there would be less need for contraceptives ... BTW: I suspect that Viagra is used primarily for fornication, not procreation -- aren't the bishops concerned about that?

The bishops are concerned with fornication, but ED drugs don't kill another person while the birth control pill does.

I think you are confusing birth control with the morning-after pill. Or, as escaptooz has suggested, have no idea of basic reproduction.

Morning-after pill "killing" is highly debatable.