Religious freedom and contraception

[JoeTheJuggler]

In this sense - the natural state of a healthy human body.

So you're just begging the question, as I thought. In fact, there are any number of legitimate reasons why a woman would like to avoid becoming pregnant. We have the medical technology to achieve it.

Is ED "natural" or "unnatural" even if the man has no interest in impregnating a woman? (This goes to your notion of what comprises "successful intercourse".)

But you would agree that pregnancy is still required for human existence, regardless of any one particular human's desires?

It's certainly not required of all women all the time!

And I know of no contraceptive that makes all women infertile for all time (thus ensuring the extinction of the human race).

Since you're speaking of the continuation of the species, since world population is at 7 billion, do you think fecundity is a problem or a solution? Without contraception, human fecundity would increase dramatically. What do you think is the "natural" world population?

X doesn't want to pay for contraceptives on religious grounds. X refuses to provide insurance for this reason.

You're arguing against a straw man. There is no requirement for X to pay for contraceptives. The mandate only requires them to offer minimum essential coverage to their employees as part of employee compensation.

The question you keep ducking, is it fair to refer to federal minimum wage laws as government's requiring the employer to buy food and clothing for their employees?

Effectively, it's a mandate to pay for birth control.

No it's not. Are minimum wage laws effectively mandates for employers to buy food and clothing?

The mandate offers the employee a choice to do what they wish (and the choice is properly a matter between the employee and the health care professionals involved, not the employer).

 

[Bri]

Ahem.

I don't think Alan Grayson was crying "death panels" or "socialism" in that clip, nor do I think his argument is against a single-payer universal health care system.

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think Alan Grayson was crying "death panels" or "socialism" in that clip

That wasn't my point. My point was that if you want to talk about hyperbolic accusations and a failure to debate the issues honestly, well, you can find plenty of that on the pro-Obamacare side too. Because really, there's no reason to think that accusations of "socialism" are terrible but "Republicans want you to die" are irrelevant.

nor do I think his argument is against a single-payer universal health care system.

Well, duh.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's certainly not required of all women all the time!

Neither is sex. That is an option, you know.

 

[Neally]

If the Constitution forbids something, then it cannot be "overridden" without an amendment to the Constitution.

I guess I'll have fun this weekend then by exercising my constitutional right to yell Fire! in the movie theater. Oh and slandering various people.

Why is there a need for zero out-of-pocket coverage? Contraception is affordable even without it.

Because it's a right! And rights have to be free!

 

[Bri]

That wasn't my point.

But that was the point of the post to which you were replying.

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

But that was the point of the post to which you were replying.

No, it wasn't. Corsair was specifically blaming one side for the failure to have "a thoughtful, rational, evidence-based debate" about health care reform.

 

[leftysergeant]

Because really, there's no reason to think that accusations of "socialism" are terrible but "Republicans want you to die" are irrelevant.

There is a singularly nasty breed of capitalists who would just as soon we died before we started costing them as much as we had paid into the health care system. Simple fact. The death panels were actuially quite well-paid before the health care bill passed.

I would be more comfortable with a move toward socialism than back toward the corporate death panels, as would any really rational and decent human being.

Taking care of each other, even if there is not profit to be made is what sets us apart from the chimpanzees.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't see how it could be any clearer.

1. 1st Amendment prohibits govt from establishing or interfering with religion.
2. 1st Amendment rights can be overridden for compelling government interest.

I have believed these two ideas for as long as I can remember, certainly since I started on this thread. Nothing I've said contradicts these beliefs.

You haven't demonstrated a compelling government interest yet.

You keep fabricating an interpretation of the 1st Amendment by editing out critical words.
It doesn't say 'shall not establish a religion', it clearly says '...shall make no law respecting *an establishment of* religion...'.

That has been so well defined, that things like the Blunt Amerndment and the Arizona bill calling for legislation protecting churches who push their anti-contraceptive doctrine on others, would be unconstitutional. (It has been explicitly extended to apply to states as well).

So your citing the 1st amendment as affording Catholic doctrine special powers outside of its own churches is incorrect, and not in the least useful.

When you want to claim 1.) as an absolute for Catholic doctrine, but claim 2.) as a given for other's religions in the same circumstances, you are flip-flopping.

 

[Bri]

I guess I'll have fun this weekend then by exercising my constitutional right to yell Fire! in the movie theater. Oh and slandering various people.

Does the Constitution forbid the government from making laws prohibiting you from yelling "fire" in the movie theater or slandering people?

My understanding is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution doesn't forbid the government from making laws prohibiting those things (hence laws prohibiting those things are not unconstitutional).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, it wasn't. Corsair was specifically blaming one side for the failure to have "a thoughtful, rational, evidence-based debate" about health care reform.

Upon re-reading Corsair 115's comment, I'll concede you might be right and you had a valid point. I didn't read it that way initially.

-Bri

 

[tyr_13]

Neither is sex. That is an option, you know.

Neither is running, or walking for that matter. They are also optional, so why should I have to pay for a foot saving procedure? Why should my employer have to pay for one? Just get a wheel chair.

'Sex is optional' is a weak argument, and it's only a moral one at that. People aren't going to stop having sex, so the costs of that action often get transferred to society. As a society we can choose to pay a lesser cost, or make a moral stand (that the majority of the people don't even support) about sex. It hurts more than it helps. Drinking alcohol is optional, so why pay for liver transplants?

Sex is one of the most basic human drives, to treat it like having a candy bar is markedly short sighted. No matter how much you preach to people, they'll still do it. Why not take the way that can actually help, deal with reality, and stop with the ideology?

 

[Ziggurat]

There is a singularly nasty breed of capitalists who would just as soon we died before we started costing them as much as we had paid into the health care system. Simple fact.

First off, it's not a simple fact, it's an assertion for which you have provided no evidence. But more directly, that's not even what Grayson, a man who put the lives of ordinary citizens at risk because of his own sense of entitlement, was claiming.

Taking care of each other, even if there is not profit to be made is what sets us apart from the chimpanzees.

No, it really isn't. Chimpanzees are quite social, and they don't do anything for profit.

 

[crimresearch]

I guess I'll have fun this weekend then by exercising my constitutional right to yell Fire! in the movie theater. Oh and slandering various people.


Because it's a right! And rights have to be free!

Again, a fake Constitutional claim.

Nowhere does it prohibit anyone from yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater... as long as there is a fire.

Once someone starts lying, as in yelling 'Fire!' when there isn't one or defaming someone with untrue and harmful assertions, making a 'freedom of speech' argument is as irrational as claiming that rape is protected by 'freedom of association'.

What is ironic is that several posters have pointed out the logical, and perfectly legal way for churches or religious people to be free to live by their own tenets. but that keeps being ignored in favor of simply making bogus arguments propped up with ridiculous fallacies.

 

[RandFan]

'Sex is optional' is a weak argument, and it's only a moral one at that. People aren't going to stop having sex, so the costs of that action often get transferred to society.

The difference between idealism and reality. AKA biting your nose to spite your face. Unwanted pregnancies lower productivity and the costs of pregnancy is passed onto the insurance company and/or society.

Enact a small change now or pay a lot latter. How is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither is running, or walking for that matter. They are also optional, so why should I have to pay for a foot saving procedure? Why should my employer have to pay for one? Just get a wheel chair.

If you want to compare abstaining from sex to abstaining from walking, go ahead. But that's not what you're doing. You're comparing abstaining from an activity to losing a body part. That's not at all the same. Starting with the fact that the loss of a body part is an irreversible condition. Sex and walking are temporary activities.

And damned straight I shouldn't be forced to pay for your running shoes.

'Sex is optional' is a weak argument, and it's only a moral one at that.

No, it's got nothing to do with morals. It's a purely practical one. If you cannot afford to engage in an activity in the manner in which you want to engage in it, then you can simply refrain from doing so. If you can't afford to buy contraception, then don't have sex. If you can't afford to buy a bike helmet, then don't ride your bike on the street. These activities are not necessary. You are perfectly capable of waiting until you can afford them. And they're both cheap, so even if it's currently unaffordable, it's not like anyone will be doomed to never being able to obtain them.

People aren't going to stop having sex

Why not? If they can't afford birth control, why wouldn't they?

so the costs of that action often get transferred to society.

Perhaps that's why: because you're doing your best to remove consequences from actions.

That is a self-defeating and doomed project. And it's unnecessary, especially in this case where birth control really is affordable.

Drinking alcohol is optional, so why pay for liver transplants?

Interesting question, but too bad you didn't actually think a little deeper about the answer: we frequently don't pay for liver transplants for alcoholics, precisely because of their alcoholism. In fact, we frequently don't even let them get a transplant, even if they can afford to pay for it themselves.

Plus there's the little bit about liver transplants being unaffordable for many people, whereas birth control is affordable to pretty much anyone with a job. Which is the population in question here, obviously.

Sex is one of the most basic human drives, to treat it like having a candy bar is markedly short sighted. No matter how much you preach to people, they'll still do it.

People eat too. It's more expensive, more necessary, and an even more primal human drive. And it's a medical necessity too: nobody can survive without it, regardless of their choices. But nobody else pays for my food, I have to buy that for myself. Why is contraception more important than food? Because you're treating it like it is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unwanted pregnancies lower productivity and the costs of pregnancy is passed onto the insurance company and/or society.

So let's just stop having babies.

 

[eeyore1954]

People eat too. It's more expensive, more necessary, and an even more primal human drive. And it's a medical necessity too: nobody can survive without it, regardless of their choices. But nobody else pays for my food, I have to buy that for myself. Why is contraception more important than food? Because you're treating it like it is.

Your insurance company should pay for healthy food for you. Because it will cost society in the long run if you don't eat healthy.

RandFan says

Unwanted pregnancies lower productivity and the costs of pregnancy is passed onto the insurance company and/or society.

Enact a small change now or pay a lot latter. How is that so difficult to understand?

Eating the wrong foods lower productivity and the cost is passed onto the insurance company and/or society.
Enact a small change now or pay a lot later. How is that so difficult to understand?



What is wrong with people having personal responsibility for their actions?
If people want to do something what is wrong with expecting them to pay for it? It is not about "sexual" morality or people hating women.

 

[theprestige]

Oh really? I guess that's why I've been violently ill for the last month and will probably be so until the end of the first trimester.

So? I get tired if after I've been awake for a while. My muscles get sore after a run. But wakefulness and running are not illnesses.

 

[tyr_13]

If you want to compare abstaining from sex to abstaining from walking, go ahead. But that's not what you're doing. You're comparing abstaining from an activity to losing a body part. That's not at all the same. Starting with the fact that the loss of a body part is an irreversible condition. Sex and walking are temporary activities.

And damned straight I shouldn't be forced to pay for your running shoes.

Except that's not what's being compared. What's being compared are medical conditions related to the activities. So that's just one big fail.

No, it's got nothing to do with morals.

Then why is it a religious freedom question? You can't have it both ways.

It's a purely practical one. If you cannot afford to engage in an activity in the manner in which you want to engage in it, then you can simply refrain from doing so. If you can't afford to buy contraception, then don't have sex. If you can't afford to buy a bike helmet, then don't ride your bike on the street. These activities are not necessary. You are perfectly capable of waiting until you can afford them. And they're both cheap, so even if it's currently unaffordable, it's not like anyone will be doomed to never being able to obtain them.



Why not? If they can't afford birth control, why wouldn't they?



Perhaps that's why: because you're doing your best to remove consequences from actions.

That is a self-defeating and doomed project. And it's unnecessary, especially in this case where birth control really is affordable.



Interesting question, but too bad you didn't actually think a little deeper about the answer: we frequently don't pay for liver transplants for alcoholics, precisely because of their alcoholism. In fact, we frequently don't even let them get a transplant, even if they can afford to pay for it themselves.

Plus there's the little bit about liver transplants being unaffordable for many people, whereas birth control is affordable to pretty much anyone with a job. Which is the population in question here, obviously.



People eat too. It's more expensive, more necessary, and an even more primal human drive. And it's a medical necessity too: nobody can survive without it, regardless of their choices. But nobody else pays for my food, I have to buy that for myself. Why is contraception more important than food? Because you're treating it like it is.

What a load of deflection. People don't stop having sex, the costs are transferred to society, what you advocate does increase harm all around.