If little boys could get pregnant..

[skinnay 0]

Would catholics still oppose birth control?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-usa-contraception-catholics-idUSTRE81D21920120214

[shropshire 0]

Buggered if I know.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Another anti religon or lack of respect of others choices thread from a liberal

Go figure

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Buggered if I know.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[wmw999 2,447]

So you'd be OK with a business whose insurance didn't cover blood transfusions? How about if they were the largest employer in town?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So you'd be OK with a business whose insurance didn't cover blood transfusions? How about if they were the largest employer in town?

Wendy P.

What I am ok with or not ok with is not the issue

This is NOT a power the Fed has or should have

No one is denying anyone access to anything if you oppose this nonsense. It is still available and legal to purchase

But to anwer your question? Yes. It is an employer provided benefit. They (the company) can pay for what they choose to pay for and you pay the rest. You don’t like it? Go somewhere else. HC is NOT a right

And this whole employer provided HC benefit started because of Carter sticking his nose into the private sector years ago

Go figure

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,447]

Huh? Employer provided HC benefit started during WW2, when employees were exhorted not to take pay increases "for the war effort." Of course, good employees (yes, in those days largely unionized -- consider the time period) still liked being recognized and rewarded, so insurance started to be covered.

Yeah, it was the government putting on wage and price freezes rather than exhortation during WW2. Lots of exceptions, but policy nonetheless.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Huh? Employer provided HC benefit started during WW2, when employees were exhorted not to take pay increases "for the war effort." Of course, good employees (yes, in those days largely unionized -- consider the time period) still liked being recognized and rewarded, so insurance started to be covered.

Wendy P.

It mainly came about because of Carter imposed wage freezes

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Sorry, Gov imposed wage freezes

http://www.neurosurgical.com/medical_history_and_ethics/history/history_of_health_insurance.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,447]

From your link:

Quote

Employee benefit plans proliferated in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Strong unions bargained for better benefit packages, including tax-free, employer-sponsored health insurance. Wartime (1939-1945) wage freezes imposed by the government actually accelerated the spread of group health care. Unable by law to attract workers by paying more, employers instead improved their benefit packages, adding health care.

I still don't think Carter had anything whatsoever to do with HC benefits or wage freezes.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Huh? Employer provided HC benefit started during WW2, when employees were exhorted not to take pay increases "for the war effort." Of course, good employees (yes, in those days largely unionized -- consider the time period) still liked being recognized and rewarded, so insurance started to be covered.

Wendy P.

It mainly came about because of Carter imposed wage freezes

Huh? Where you getting this? The 1st health care plans began in 1933 or 1935. They were a very standard part of employee compensation packages for large employers long before Carter was President. (You are talking about Jimmy, right?)

The 1st plans were community based and actually set up by hospitals and their docs because the cost of care began to exceed what average people could afford out of their pocket on a pay-as-you-go basis.

They became a way of attracting employees way before Carter.

And yes, in response to the OP; there is much in our society that is the result of the historical treatment of females as a class of humans just below males, and not far above slaves.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[wmw999 2,447]

BTW, the last wage-price freeze in America was under Richard Nixon.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

BTW, the last wage-price freeze in America was under Richard Nixon.

Wendy P.

Yep

I am getting old and my memory is going

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

BTW, the last wage-price freeze in America was under Richard Nixon.

Wendy P.

Yep

I am getting old and my memory is going

Hope you have medical insurance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[funjumper101 15]

Hasn't the input from the Right Wing Conservatives here driven home the points that -

1. They do not care about, or believe in, facts that do not support their opinions.

2. They do not care about truth, honesty, or anything that questions their opinions.

3. They have zero respect for the US Constitution, unless that part they are quoting supports their opinions as to how they think things "should" be.

4. Their hipocrisy extends to all facets of their belief structure. For example, they profess to want minimal government intrusion into personal and private lives. At the same time, they are rabidly anti-choice and anti women in general. Their supposed concern for the welfare of children ends at delivery. After that, the mother and child are on their own.
Another example of the hipocrisy is their unswerving support of the death penalty, decided and carried out by the same incompetent government that they believe can't do anything right.

5. The hipocrisy extends to complete disregard for the first amendment when it comes to religions that they don't like. The prime example of this is the mosque that will be built a few blocks (a very long way in lower Manhattan) from "ground zero".

6. RWCs actually think that a former professor of constitutional law is really a socialist, which to them, is a form of terrifying bogeyman. It is much worse that this person is not fully of white, northern european descent.

Given their complete ignorance of history, and their profound dislike of anyone or anything that questions authority, arguing with those idiots is like trying to reason with a child. They simply do not have the capacity to understand complicated issues, They can deal with black and white issues when they are told what and how to think.

With regard to health care, the drain on the economy that for profit insurance companies are is something that needs to go the way of Jim Crow laws. It is long past time to get to a national health care system that is not employer dependent. How many entrepreneurs would start businesses if they did not have to deal with trying to get and keep extremely expensive health insurance for themselves and their families? How many people would go for new jobs if they did not have to deal with the issue of health insurance. The current system is a massive drain on, and hindrance to, the economy. Losing 30-45% of revenue to profit seeking companies that only make money when denying all services they can legally get away with is not a recipe for success.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

BTW, the last wage-price freeze in America was under Richard Nixon.

Wendy P.

Yep

I am getting old and my memory is going

Hope you have medical insurance.

Well hello there again kallend. Been a long time since you insulted me here. Welcome back

As for my insurance

Yes, thank you , I do. Includes what the company chooses to provide along with a contribution from me

Thanks for asking

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

So the Federal Gov forcing coverage is covering in the Constitution?

Which enumerated power it that?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shah269 0]

Take it from a guy who's birth country went to shit because those who spoke to and for a higher "father" took over and told everyone what they could do and could not do and systematically killed off any and all human rights any one had so that they could have more power and money....

The only good religious leader...is a dead one.
Hey don't feel bad they think they are going to heaven, please allow me to assist them in meeting their imaginary friend.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Take it from a guy who's birth country went to shit because those who spoke to and for a higher "father" took over and told everyone what they could do and could not do and systematically killed off any and all human rights any one had so that they could have more power and money....

The only good religious leader...is a dead one.
Hey don't feel bad they think they are going to heaven, please allow me to assist them in meeting their imaginary friend.

So you cant answer

Got it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

Would catholics still oppose birth control?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-usa-contraception-catholics-idUSTRE81D21920120214

In fairness to the catholic church, I think they would. To my understanding (as a former Catholic) the argument is based on "natural law", and goes like this:
1. God created humans.
2. In the form in which humans were created, sex is directly related to, and necessary for, reproduction. Since we were created by God, this connection must represent God's design and intent.
3. Separating sex from reproduction is a violation of God's intent.
4. Violating God's intent is a sin.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I have that wrong. Anyway there doesn't seem to be any way to construe that so it would apply differently if boys could get pregnant.

Personally I have never understood why the same logic doesn't apply to other "natural" phenomena, such as disease. If we were "created" in a form that makes us susceptible to heart disease, cancer, infectious diseases, etc why is it OK to use antibiotics/surgery/chemotherapy etc to work against God's plan? As I understand the "logic" the Church uses, we were "created" with the intellect to understand and devise treatments for diseases, so medical treatments don't really violate God's intent. Diseases are just challenges for us to figure out. Jesus cured diseases, so it wouldn't make any sense to say it would be wrong for us to do so as well. But then, we have the intellect to devise methods to avoid pregnancy. So why is it a sin to apply that intellect to birth control, but not cancer? Just one of many things about Catholic theology I don't get.

I'm not saying the Catholic Church should be against medical treatment. I'm just saying they apply one stand to birth control and another to other aspects of "natural law", so there is no logical consistency. Also the position of the church ignores the other roles of sex in long-term relationships, especially in forming emotional bonds that strengthen the relationship. I wouldn't expect the church to put much weight behind the "sex is fun" argument, but surely they could see that strong emotional bonds are important to creating a stable family environment in which to bring children, when (and if) the couple chooses to do so.



Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[BIGUN 1,314]

Quote

Quote

So you'd be OK with a business whose insurance didn't cover blood transfusions? How about if they were the largest employer in town?

Wendy P.

What I am ok with or not ok with is not the issue

This is NOT a power the Fed has or should have

No one is denying anyone access to anything if you oppose this nonsense. It is still available and legal to purchase

But to anwer your question? Yes. It is an employer provided benefit. They (the company) can pay for what they choose to pay for and you pay the rest. You don’t like it? Go somewhere else. HC is NOT a right

And this whole employer provided HC benefit started because of Carter sticking his nose into the private sector years ago

Go figure

While in Church the weekend before last (Roman Catholic), the Bishop's letter regarding the situation and strategy was read. The main issue is having to offer contraception to the Church's employees as part of their health plan and if they _have_ to do that, then they'll have to remove the healthcare plan from their employees.

While I understand the Church's position on the matter. I don't understand all the hub bub bub. For me, it's as simple as a cafeteria menu. Just cause the fare is out there doe not mean one has to partake from all the options. If your employees are good solid practicing Catholics, they won't exercise that option.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Would catholics still oppose birth control?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-usa-contraception-catholics-idUSTRE81D21920120214

In fairness to the catholic church, I think they would. To my understanding (as a former Catholic) the argument is based on "natural law", and goes like this:
1. God created humans.
2. In the form in which humans were created, sex is directly related to, and necessary for, reproduction. Since we were created by God, this connection must represent God's design and intent.
3. Separating sex from reproduction is a violation of God's intent.
4. Violating God's intent is a sin.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I have that wrong. Anyway there doesn't seem to be any way to construe that so it would apply differently if boys could get pregnant.

Personally I have never understood why the same logic doesn't apply to other "natural" phenomena, such as disease. If we were "created" in a form that makes us susceptible to heart disease, cancer, infectious diseases, etc why is it OK to use antibiotics/surgery/chemotherapy etc to work against God's plan? As I understand the "logic" the Church uses, we were "created" with the intellect to understand and devise treatments for diseases, so medical treatments don't really violate God's intent. Diseases are just challenges for us to figure out. Jesus cured diseases, so it wouldn't make any sense to say it would be wrong for us to do so as well. But then, we have the intellect to devise methods to avoid pregnancy. So why is it a sin to apply that intellect to birth control, but not cancer? Just one of many things about Catholic theology I don't get.

I'm not saying the Catholic Church should be against medical treatment. I'm just saying they apply one stand to birth control and another to other aspects of "natural law", so there is no logical consistency. Also the position of the church ignores the other roles of sex in long-term relationships, especially in forming emotional bonds that strengthen the relationship. I wouldn't expect the church to put much weight behind the "sex is fun" argument, but surely they could see that strong emotional bonds are important to creating a stable family environment in which to bring children, when (and if) the couple chooses to do so.



Don

Why do you expect logic from religion?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you'd be OK with a business whose insurance didn't cover blood transfusions? How about if they were the largest employer in town?

Wendy P.

What I am ok with or not ok with is not the issue

This is NOT a power the Fed has or should have

No one is denying anyone access to anything if you oppose this nonsense. It is still available and legal to purchase

But to anwer your question? Yes. It is an employer provided benefit. They (the company) can pay for what they choose to pay for and you pay the rest. You don’t like it? Go somewhere else. HC is NOT a right

And this whole employer provided HC benefit started because of Carter sticking his nose into the private sector years ago

Go figure

While in Church the weekend before last (Roman Catholic), the Bishop's letter regarding the situation and strategy was read. The main issue is having to offer contraception to the Church's employees as part of their health plan and if they _have_ to do that, then they'll have to remove the healthcare plan from their employees.

While I understand the Church's position on the matter. I don't understand all the hub bub bub. For me, it's as simple as a cafeteria menu. Just cause the fare is out there doe not mean one has to partake from all the options. If your employees are good solid practicing Catholics, they won't exercise that option.

And why do you expect logic from religion?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you'd be OK with a business whose insurance didn't cover blood transfusions? How about if they were the largest employer in town?

Wendy P.

What I am ok with or not ok with is not the issue

This is NOT a power the Fed has or should have

No one is denying anyone access to anything if you oppose this nonsense. It is still available and legal to purchase

But to anwer your question? Yes. It is an employer provided benefit. They (the company) can pay for what they choose to pay for and you pay the rest. You don’t like it? Go somewhere else. HC is NOT a right

And this whole employer provided HC benefit started because of Carter sticking his nose into the private sector years ago

Go figure

While in Church the weekend before last (Roman Catholic), the Bishop's letter regarding the situation and strategy was read. The main issue is having to offer contraception to the Church's employees as part of their health plan and if they _have_ to do that, then they'll have to remove the healthcare plan from their employees.

While I understand the Church's position on the matter. I don't understand all the hub bub bub. For me, it's as simple as a cafeteria menu. Just cause the fare is out there doe not mean one has to partake from all the options. If your employees are good solid practicing Catholics, they won't exercise that option.

True

But since it is mandated to all insurance comanines,
the price will be in the insurance regardless of whether or not you use it

Then subsidized coverage will include all that is mandated so, in effect, the people will be paying for that which Obama said we would not, when the suckers in Washington believed this guy and voted for it

But this is all just an aside

The whole damed thing is unconsttitutional anyway

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>But since it is mandated to all insurance comanines,
>the price will be in the insurance regardless of whether or not you use it

That's true. But that's true of any treatment you don't like. Those premiums pay for Viagra for old white sex offenders, and "racist" drugs like Bidil, and HIV treatment for immoral homosexuals, and acne drugs for vain teenagers. That broad support of treatment, where everyone pays for everyone else's treatment, is how health insurance works.