|
Oae
Santa Cruz, CA
|
planned pregnancies are better for society than a bunch of unplanned pregnancies from financially, emotionally mentally unprepared people. where do you think poverty and crime get their start. obama is right.
|
|
Since: Jul 11
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
sorry catholic fucktards, but paying for the welfare to cover all the children you have that you can't provide for violates my religion....
|
|
Dan
Burlington, WI
|
Sorry, Lilith. You can't compel people to violate their religion. Really, you can't. It's in the constitution.
|
|
Since: Aug 11
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Oae is right!! There should be planned pregnancy. I was brought up cathlic and honestly I can't compare "birth contol" with abortions. It is preventing something. I always think about that baby that wasn't wanted and the mother had him/her and is later abused and grows up with a bunch of emotionl/psycological disorders. On the same token, I believe "Obama Care" is against our constitutional rights. Honsetly - I see people income's have gone from upper middle class to poverty, where are they going to get the money to pay for health care when they are trying to put food on the table?? Obama Care can go fuck itself..
|
|
Since: Jul 11
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Dan wrote: Sorry, Lilith.
You can't compel people to violate their religion.
Really, you can't.
It's in the constitution. fine then no catholic families get welfare and help with childcare.... that was easy
|
|
Since: Jul 11
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Dan wrote: Sorry, Lilith.
You can't compel people to violate their religion.
Really, you can't.
It's in the constitution. since catholic families will no longer get welfare,,, your cathardo charities can now cover their needs... thanks
|
|
Ignatz
Germantown, MD
|
Judged:
1
Lilith_SatansWhore wrote: <quoted text>since catholic families will no longer get welfare,,, your cathardo charities can now cover their needs... thanks Same goes for street walkers who have kids out of wedlock.
|
|
Catholic
Pittsburgh, PA
|
Judged:
2
1
Sorry Carlex if you were brought up Cathlic you should know how to spell it (Catholic). Then again maybe that is a new religion I haven't heard of
|
|
|
“It's all discombobulated!”
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
If only Newt's mother had planned better...
|
|
“It's all discombobulated!”
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
Dan wrote: Sorry, Lilith.
You can't compel people to violate their religion.
Really, you can't.
It's in the constitution. No one's really doing that, Dan. Really, they're not.
|
|
Dan
Milwaukee, WI
|
tha Professor wrote: <quoted text>
No one's really doing that, Dan.
Really, they're not. Sure they are. How would you believe otherwise? Catholic (or other religious group who opposes BC) sponsors/runs some enterprise with employees. Government tells said religious group that they MUST offer BC as part of basic health insurance to all employees. The religious group has not offered that coverage to its employees to date due to their religion teaching otherwise. Now, they're being forced to. This is simple.
|
|
“It's all discombobulated!”
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Sure they are.
How would you believe otherwise?
Catholic (or other religious group who opposes BC) sponsors/runs some enterprise with employees.
Government tells said religious group that they MUST offer BC as part of basic health insurance to all employees.
The religious group has not offered that coverage to its employees to date due to their religion teaching otherwise. Now, they're being forced to.
This is simple. Yes, quite simple. The USE of contraception would still be a matter for the employee to decide. No one is forcing anyone to actually USE contraception, which is the Church's beef. Of course, if the Church tries to prevent its employees from using contraception, they take on the status of an invasive religious cult, and should be further dealt with.
|
|
Dan
Milwaukee, WI
|
tha Professor wrote: <quoted text>
Yes, quite simple. The USE of contraception would still be a matter for the employee to decide. No one is forcing anyone to actually USE contraception, which is the Church's beef.
Of course, if the Church tries to prevent its employees from using contraception, they take on the status of an invasive religious cult, and should be further dealt with. The use isn't the issue. Hasn't been. They cannot facilitate nor promulgate it's use, which offering it employees would entail. Can't make them offer it, as it's against their religious teachings. Cathechism of the Catholic Church, 2370 (excerpted): In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159 There it is. So, making them put BC on offer is telling them they have to facilitate a moral evil.
|
|
“bless the USA”
Since: Apr 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
The use isn't the issue. Hasn't been.
They cannot facilitate nor promulgate it's use, which offering it employees would entail. Can't make them offer it, as it's against their religious teachings.
Cathechism of the Catholic Church, 2370 (excerpted):
In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159
There it is.
So, making them put BC on offer is telling them they have to facilitate a moral evil. What of an employer who is a Christian Scientist and insists on not paying for anything but prayer for his employees?
|
|
Dan
Milwaukee, WI
|
Kenhunt wrote: <quoted text>
What of an employer who is a Christian Scientist and insists on not paying for anything but prayer for his employees? I believe they are waiting for/asking for some type of exemption from the new mandates. At least, this page link seems to tell us that they are. I have no working knowledge of what Christian Science-based employers do or don't offer now in terms of health care coverage for employees.
|
|
Since: Nov 10
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Kenhunt wrote: <quoted text>
What of an employer who is a Christian Scientist and insists on not paying for anything but prayer for his employees? I think he will be fined too. anyone not following Obama's plan, will be fined. That is scary.
|
|
Since: Sep 08
Placitas, NM
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Sure they are.
How would you believe otherwise?
Catholic (or other religious group who opposes BC) sponsors/runs some enterprise with employees.
Government tells said religious group that they MUST offer BC as part of basic health insurance to all employees.
The religious group has not offered that coverage to its employees to date due to their religion teaching otherwise. Now, they're being forced to.
This is simple. No hospital is a religious or college is a 'group.' They are hospitals or colleges....otherwise they would be a church. NO ONE is forced to use the birth control offered by their insurance policies....Not even the 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women that have used contraceptive methods banned by the church. Nor the 67% of American Catholics disagree with the church teaching that artificial birth control is wrong. Nor do the Catholic voters who do not approve of schools teaching abstinence-only programs in schools. Nor the 6 in 10 (64%) oppose requiring high school sex education programs to only teach abstinence. Although the Catholic voters believe insurance companies should be required to cover and pharmacists required to sell birth control pills. 3/4s of Catholics support requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control pills (75%). Nearly 8 in 10 (78%) oppose allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.
|
|
Dances with Wolves
Baltimore, MD
|
Oae wrote: planned pregnancies are better for society than a bunch of unplanned pregnancies from financially, emotionally mentally unprepared people.
where do you think poverty and crime get their start.
obama is right. No, there are two steps to this equation. Step 1 - I agree with you about unplanned pregnancies, etc. Step 2 - The question of whose responsibility it is to pay for the services associated with these unplanned pregnancies, the individual or the Government? Therein lies the true issue. If I, as a responsible adult, must take it upon myself to make decisions that I will alone have to pay for, perhaps I will make better decisions. If, on the other hand, I don't care because someone else (taxpayers) will foot the bill, I will never be responsible for my actions and will forever be dependent of the finances of others. Obama is wrong. While it is right to educate people on what can happen, it's another thing to allow them to abdicate their own personal responsible because someone else (the taxpayer) will support their bad decisions.
|
|
Dan
Milwaukee, WI
|
Judged:
1
1
PlacitasRoy wrote: <quoted text>
No hospital is a religious or college is a 'group.' They are hospitals or colleges....otherwise they would be a church.
NO ONE is forced to use the birth control offered by their insurance policies....Not even the 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women that have used contraceptive methods banned by the church. Nor the 67% of American Catholics disagree with the church teaching that artificial birth control is wrong.
Nor do the Catholic voters who do not approve of schools teaching abstinence-only programs in schools. Nor the 6 in 10 (64%) oppose requiring high school sex education programs to only teach abstinence.
Although the Catholic voters believe insurance companies should be required to cover and pharmacists required to sell birth control pills. 3/4s of Catholics support requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control pills (75%). Nearly 8 in 10 (78%) oppose allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. A college certainly is an are run by religious (as are hospitals). They are not churches, but they are religious institutions. They cannot be forced to abrogate their First Amendment rights. I don't care if 99.99999999999999% of anyone "supports" it in a poll or not, because it's not relevant.
|
|
“It's all discombobulated!”
Since: Jan 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
2
1
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
The use isn't the issue. Hasn't been.
They cannot facilitate nor promulgate it's use, which offering it employees would entail. Can't make them offer it, as it's against their religious teachings.
Cathechism of the Catholic Church, 2370 (excerpted):
In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159
There it is.
So, making them put BC on offer is telling them they have to facilitate a moral evil. Of course, contraception is NOT a "moral evil," and again, providing healthcare services which happen to include it at the discretion of the employee is not "facilitating or promulgating its use." Particularly since this would be required of any organization with employees. So the Catholic superstition doesn't override the rights of Church employees. Nor does a Church which has committed decades of sexual abuse of children have a moral leg to stand on in regard to birth control.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Sagittarius
