If What Goes on in People' Bedroom is None of My Business...

[thegreekdog]

Sorry Scotty, this is the ground I agree with GD on- your argument is flawed.

Given our relative posting histories and how we come out on issues, I probably should have said this kind of thing first: "Sorry Scott, I agree with Symm that your argument is flawed."

[Symmetry]

Sorry Scotty, this is the ground I agree with GD on- your argument is flawed.

Given our relative posting histories and how we come out on issues, I probably should have said this kind of thing first: "Sorry Scott, I agree with Symm that your argument is flawed."

Meh, I disagree with you so often, and you disagree with me so often, that when we agree- well, the argument has to be pretty stupid for us both to agree to disagree.

[thegreekdog]

Sorry Scotty, this is the ground I agree with GD on- your argument is flawed.

Given our relative posting histories and how we come out on issues, I probably should have said this kind of thing first: "Sorry Scott, I agree with Symm that your argument is flawed."

Meh, I disagree with you so often, and you disagree with me so often, that when we agree- well, the argument has to be pretty stupid for us both to agree to disagree.

Fair. You just disagree with Phatscotty a lot more than I do. So it might mean more to him that I disagree with him than if you do. That's what I was trying to get at.

[Woodruff]

Look man, I don't have anything against condoms, but why should any organization be required by law to provide them? It's an unnecessary service (not life and death, except for the fertilized egg perhaps) which anyone can easily access anywhere anyway. When it comes to more controversial forms of contraceptives, it's even more ridiculous for the government to attempt to force a religious organization to provide it when doing so is in direct opposition to that religion's theology and teaching. Yes it is quite definitely anti-religion.

Nope. Sorry, but it's not anti-religious at all. The FACT of the matter is that those hospitals are not there because the religion demands it (this would change everything). Thus, any regulatory requirements put onto those hospitals have nothing to do with the religion itself at all, as long as those regulatory requirements are put onto all hospitals. It astounds me how you guys can't see this.

I find it weird that you're trying to separate Catholicism from hospitals when even a superficial glance at history will show you that Catholics have always operated hospitals as way of helping the world around them--a necessary outworking of their faith.

It is in no way "necessary". It's something they do to aid their outreach and to provide comfort. But it is not at all necessary to their faith.

Are you saying Catholics shouldn't operate hospitals?

Truthfully, I don't care one way or the other. I have no problem with Catholics operating hospitals, as long as they follow the regulations for doing so, like any other hospital.

I fail to understand why the government would choose to use such a minor issue to pick a fight with religious organizations that are doing such a massively beneficial work.

It is the religious organizations picking the fight, not the government. They're the ones fighting the requirement.

I could even agree with you IF there was any real appearance that this law was actually directed at religious hospitals (using the broad law as a cover to go after them or something), but that's simply not the case.

Actually from what I understand, that definitely is the case:
Contraceptives are easy for anyone to get and are not a life-and-death necessity.
Therefore, contraceptives are not a necessary service for religious hospitals to provide.
The government knows Catholics believe contraceptives are sinful.
The government knows Catholic organizations operate many hospitals.
The government implemented a law attempting to force these hospitals to provide contraceptives.

That's quite a convoluted piece of logic to try to paint the government as going after religious hospitals. Sorry, I'm not buying that.

Summary: The government implemented a clearly anti religious law by attempting to force all hospitals to provide contraceptives with no exception for religious hospitals.

Poor logic.

[Woodruff]

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

Says the guy who wants to drug-test people just for being poor.

And what is economic freedom without privacy? What about religious freedom without privacy? Privacy even has a place in healthcare as well. I guess it's kind of a common denominator huh?

Hearing you talk about freedom and privacy is like hearing a vegetarian talk about how much they enjoy eating steak.

It has nothing to do with my sexual habits, and everything to do with schizo freaks thinking they can have it both ways.
In other words, I'm calling them hypocrites. It's the principle...

The irony is palpable. So thick you could cut it with a knife.

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure what the punishment would be for refusing to provide contraceptives, but forcing religious people to provide a service which is expressly against their theology and teaching is definitely oppression of their religious freedom.

No one's forcing them. No one is forcing them to run a hospital. But if they choose to run a hospital, then they are no longer practicing religion, they are running a hospital.

Exactly!

[Phatscotty]

Sorry Scotty, this is the ground I agree with GD on- your argument is flawed.

Given our relative posting histories and how we come out on issues, I probably should have said this kind of thing first: "Sorry Scott, I agree with Symm that your argument is flawed."

It's a work in progress. I just wanted to throw it out here. I depend on you guys! I have a few other awesome ideas, but can't translate them just yet until a see a good example.

[Phatscotty]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

You'll probably have a different opinion when you get to someone else's bedroom.

Did I say that already?

It has nothing to do with my sexual habits, and everything to do with schizo freaks thinking they can have it both ways.

In other words, I'm calling them hypocrites. It's the principle...

Yeah, that's what I'm saying is the problem with your argument. It's not the same thing.

Overall, it's the argument that taxpayers should not be paying for birth control methods. I merely attempted to relate that to the privacy we expect in our bedrooms, through the relationship between consequences and contraceptives of that dirty nasty bedroom sex.

I enjoyed you guys's posts on the topic.

[PLAYER57832]

Awesome job gang!

Just sayin, if you agree what goes on in your bedroom is a private issue, then you should also respect the privacy of other people's and institution's contraceptive privacy.

Tolerance of others is the price you pay for others tolerating you.

It has nothing to do with privacy dude. It has to do with: (1) economic freedom; (2) religious freedom; and (3) healthcare (or the right to healthcare).

Also, I'm a little annoyed that conservatives are using condoms as their poster contraceptive. There are no hospitals giving out condoms as part of a health insurance plan. Ridiculous.

I'm sure we'll part ways on any number of issues, but this is common ground. It's stupid politically, dumb when it comes to healthcare, ignorant and unnecessarily divisive when it comes to religious practice, and really not the place that Catholicism should be making a stand.

The president has already let the Catholic hospitals opt out (like a number of large corporations). So that's done already. And he did it for political reasons; he doesn't want to alienate Catholics that voted for him in 2008. Thus, any continued argument is kind of irrelevant anyway.

I would say it's stupid politically: (1) for the president to maintain that Catholic hospitals must provide for insurance for contraceptives - he's already done something about that because, say what you want about the president, he definitely is not stupid; (2) for Republican candidates who continue to harp on the issue (that won't change unfortunately, despite the opt out).

It's ignorant when it comes to healthcare (because we're not talking about condoms; we're talking about stuff like the birth control pill).

It's not ignorant with respect to religious practice. It's clearly against the tenets of the Catholic faith to use birth control (whether most Catholics use birth control or not). And any requirements are arguably unconstitutional for religious reasons (although I would argue that such requirements are unconstitutional violations of intrastate commerce anyway).

I do agree that it's a bad place for the Catholic Church to take a stand. There's a lot more important stuff for the Church to be concerned with.

Its more than just ignorant health-wise it is endangering the lives of women everywhere, particularly those who, like those in my community have ONLY a Roman Catholic based hospital to go to for care within 30 miles. Its about forcing women to comply with the desires of a fully male-dominated and entirely celibate at that heirarchy. It is just one more example of how the Roman Catholic Church chooses power over love and Christ's real message.

AND, its very much about setting a precedent for declaring that taxes will soon no longer be able to be used for these things, either.. EXACTLY as is the case for abortions.. even abortions that you have yourself stated are legitimate.

[Night Strike]

Its more than just ignorant health-wise it is endangering the lives of women everywhere, particularly those who, like those in my community have ONLY a Roman Catholic based hospital to go to for care within 30 miles. Its about forcing women to comply with the desires of a fully male-dominated and entirely celibate at that heirarchy. It is just one more example of how the Roman Catholic Church chooses power over love and Christ's real message.

Considering that this mandate has exactly nothing to do with the services a hospital provides to its patients, what the heck are you complaining about???

[PLAYER57832]

Overall, it's the argument that taxpayers should not be paying for birth control methods. I merely attempted to relate that to the privacy we expect in our bedrooms, through the relationship between consequences and contraceptives of that dirty nasty bedroom sex.

I enjoyed you guys's posts on the topic.

Except, the problem is this is not really about birth control methods.. its not about condoms, for example, which are mostly used by men. It IS about the method used primarily by women and for many more reasons than preventing having a child.

THAT is the real point.

[PLAYER57832]

Its more than just ignorant health-wise it is endangering the lives of women everywhere, particularly those who, like those in my community have ONLY a Roman Catholic based hospital to go to for care within 30 miles. Its about forcing women to comply with the desires of a fully male-dominated and entirely celibate at that heirarchy. It is just one more example of how the Roman Catholic Church chooses power over love and Christ's real message.

Considering that this mandate has exactly nothing to do with the services a hospital provides to its patients, what the heck are you complaining about???

Because it absolutely DOES have to do with the healthcare available in my community. That hospital is a major employer, but also dictates the kinds of procedures that are available.

Money is just the excuse. This is about the Roman Catholic Church dictating women's behavior.. again.

[thegreekdog]

Its more than just ignorant health-wise it is endangering the lives of women everywhere, particularly those who, like those in my community have ONLY a Roman Catholic based hospital to go to for care within 30 miles. Its about forcing women to comply with the desires of a fully male-dominated and entirely celibate at that heirarchy. It is just one more example of how the Roman Catholic Church chooses power over love and Christ's real message.

AND, its very much about setting a precedent for declaring that taxes will soon no longer be able to be used for these things, either.. EXACTLY as is the case for abortions.. even abortions that you have yourself stated are legitimate.

Then the women around you shoudl drive more than 30 miles to get their healthcare (nevermind that we're talking about health insurance and not healthcare and nevermind that there are doctors who will give them the medication - seriously, who goes to a fucking hospital for birth control).

Secondly, there are no legitimate abortions. There are legal abortions. And I'm not keen on paying for legal abortions. I'm fine with tax dollars not being used for abortions.

[Woodruff]

Overall, it's the argument that taxpayers should not be paying for birth control methods. I merely attempted to relate that to the privacy we expect in our bedrooms, through the relationship between consequences and contraceptives of that dirty nasty bedroom sex.

I enjoyed you guys's posts on the topic.

Except, the problem is this is not really about birth control methods.. its not about condoms, for example, which are mostly used by men.

It IS about the method used primarily by women and for many more reasons than preventing having a child.

What I find a bit abhorrent about the situation is that it was a bunch of men on that panel, and no woman was allowed to speak in support of the plan.

[PLAYER57832]

Secondly, there are no legitimate abortions. There are legal abortions. And I'm not keen on paying for legal abortions. I'm fine with tax dollars not being used for abortions.

A woman who has miscarried.. a woman who's life is threatened, not to mention a woman who has been raped

Yep, you are Roman Catholic alright.

[Woodruff]

Secondly, there are no legitimate abortions.

My one big distinction would be those very few situations when the mother's life is at stake. I consider that legitimate. The others all have perspectives to them that, in my view, that make it impossible to consider them legitimate or not.

[PLAYER57832]

Overall, it's the argument that taxpayers should not be paying for birth control methods. I merely attempted to relate that to the privacy we expect in our bedrooms, through the relationship between consequences and contraceptives of that dirty nasty bedroom sex.

I enjoyed you guys's posts on the topic.

Except, the problem is this is not really about birth control methods.. its not about condoms, for example, which are mostly used by men.

It IS about the method used primarily by women and for many more reasons than preventing having a child.

What I find a bit abhorrent about the situation is that it was a bunch of men on that panel, and no woman was allowed to speak in support of the plan.

Women have, but most women are not in favor of this, not really.

Even many who say they are are, like greekdog and phattscotty, missing big pieces of what this really means.

It is most definitely NOT about just health insurance. But.. I am tired of arguing with people who keep arguing "all abortions are wrong" but who immediately dismiss that this includes miscarriages, life-threatening emergencies, etc. AND that "birth control is wrong.. no matter the circumstances".

IF the Roman Catholic church cannot accept modern healthcare practices, then THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN HEALTHCARE.

Jehovah's witnesses are not allowed to start federally funded and state funded hospitals based on their religious beliefs, why should the Roman Catholic church be different?

[PLAYER57832]

Secondly, there are no legitimate abortions.

My one big distinction would be those very few situations when the mother's life is at stake. I consider that legitimate. The others all have perspectives to them that, in my view, that make it impossible to consider them legitimate or not.

I essentially agree.

HOWEVER, the biggest problem is that most people in this debate do not even realize that its not just that situation, but also many miscarriages that are counted as abortions. AND, no one is working to include that as an exception.

AND.. the incident to which I have referred was in a Roman Catholic hospital and the lack of care I received IS the same k ind of thing women today must deal with. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

And, this just makes it worse. Once a hospital, other institutions are allowed to refuse to even provide health insurance, then how long, truly before they make even getting it difficult. ALL doctors have to be affiliated with a hospital. Doctors doing ANY kind of abortion are already censored, find nurses unwilling to work with them.. even the D and C after miscarriages.

This is not a small issue, it is not about true religious freedom and it very much is just one speck on a giant iceberg of impinging on other people's rights using religion and payment as the excuse.

[thegreekdog]

Secondly, there are no legitimate abortions. There are legal abortions. And I'm not keen on paying for legal abortions. I'm fine with tax dollars not being used for abortions.

A woman who has miscarried.. a woman who's life is threatened, not to mention a woman who has been raped

Yep, you are Roman Catholic alright.

Secondly, there are no legitimate abortions.

My one big distinction would be those very few situations when the mother's life is at stake. I consider that legitimate. The others all have perspectives to them that, in my view, that make it impossible to consider them legitimate or not.

Yeah, sorry - I should have been clearer. Those are distinctions for me as well.

Player, you're getting rather nasty lately. Everything alright?

[john9blue]

If the nazy party was operating hospitals, and they refused to treat anyone except white people... would you say it was ok, because "if we force them to treat black people and jews they might close their hopsitals?"

yes

If they had a long history of running those hospitals, would that make it ok?

yeah

So, if the Ku Klux Klan ran a hospital, and refused to treat black people, and they had a long history of running hospitals... would it be OK in your view?

yep

Would it be ok for Jehova's witnesses to run a hospital, and then refuse to do blood transfusions?

yup

Would it be ok for the Amish to run a hospital and treat everything with leeches?

of course, because i'm not enough of an asshole to not want people to be voluntarily treated by those who don't happen to share my beliefs.

i'm surprised that people didn't get angrier at natty about writing this. think about what he's implying here.

[thegreekdog]

Overall, it's the argument that taxpayers should not be paying for birth control methods. I merely attempted to relate that to the privacy we expect in our bedrooms, through the relationship between consequences and contraceptives of that dirty nasty bedroom sex.

I enjoyed you guys's posts on the topic.

Except, the problem is this is not really about birth control methods.. its not about condoms, for example, which are mostly used by men.

It IS about the method used primarily by women and for many more reasons than preventing having a child.

What I find a bit abhorrent about the situation is that it was a bunch of men on that panel, and no woman was allowed to speak in support of the plan.

Women have, but most women are not in favor of this, not really.

Even many who say they are are, like greekdog and phattscotty, missing big pieces of what this really means.

It is most definitely NOT about just health insurance. But.. I am tired of arguing with people who keep arguing "all abortions are wrong" but who immediately dismiss that this includes miscarriages, life-threatening emergencies, etc. AND that "birth control is wrong.. no matter the circumstances".

IF the Roman Catholic church cannot accept modern healthcare practices, then THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN HEALTHCARE.

Jehovah's witnesses are not allowed to start federally funded and state funded hospitals based on their religious beliefs, why should the Roman Catholic church be different?

How do you propose the Catholic church gets out of the healthcare business?

And, again, how many women get their birth control (whether medically necessary or not) from a fucking hospital?

[Symmetry]

Just as a heads up, birth control does not equal contraception and neither are the same as prophylactics. Terms are getting thrown about pretty interchangeably here, and while some do fulfill one or more functions, they're not always interchangeable.

Jehovah's witnesses often oppose standards of birth control such as cesarean sections if they involve blood transfusions.

Catholic leaders have been known to oppose the prophylactic effects of condoms because of their contraceptive effects.

Contraceptive care covers a wide range of stuff- from surgery, through medication, and into stuff that can be purchased widely.

And while this is taking what TGD wrote too literally, a majority of women in the west rely on hospital care to have a degree of control over how they give birth.

Basically, be careful about the terms.

[thegreekdog]

Just as a heads up, birth control does not equal contraception and neither are the same as prophylactics. Terms are getting thrown about pretty interchangeably here, and while some do fulfill one or more functions, they're not always interchangeable.

Jehovah's witnesses often oppose standards of birth control such as cesarean sections if they involve blood transfusions.

Catholic leaders have been known to oppose the prophylactic effects of condoms because of their contraceptive effects.

Contraceptive care covers a wide range of stuff- from surgery, through medication, and into stuff that can be purchased widely.

And while this is taking what TGD wrote too literally, a majority of women in the west rely on hospital care to have a degree of control over how they give birth.

Basically, be careful about the terms.

I thought I mentioned that before that I was annoyed about the use of condoms as the poster child for conservatives and this whole issue; maybe it was another thread.

I know three women who have used birth control to assist with medical problems. All three women received this treatment (the medicine) from doctors and did not go to hospitals.

But, again, the issue is not about whether Catholic hospitals have to give out contraceptives.

[Symmetry]

Just as a heads up, birth control does not equal contraception and neither are the same as prophylactics. Terms are getting thrown about pretty interchangeably here, and while some do fulfill one or more functions, they're not always interchangeable.

Jehovah's witnesses often oppose standards of birth control such as cesarean sections if they involve blood transfusions.

Catholic leaders have been known to oppose the prophylactic effects of condoms because of their contraceptive effects.

Contraceptive care covers a wide range of stuff- from surgery, through medication, and into stuff that can be purchased widely.

And while this is taking what TGD wrote too literally, a majority of women in the west rely on hospital care to have a degree of control over how they give birth.

Basically, be careful about the terms.

I thought I mentioned that before that I was annoyed about the use of condoms as the poster child for conservatives and this whole issue; maybe it was another thread.

I know three women who have used birth control to assist with medical problems. All three women received this treatment (the medicine) from doctors and did not go to hospitals.

But, again, the issue is not about whether Catholic hospitals have to give out contraceptives.

The response was triggered by you using "birth control", but I tried to balance it- people on both sides use the phrase when they mean contraceptive, or occasionally prophylactic. It wasn't aimed at you specifically. It's also possible that your point was just about the situation in the US. I don't know, but most births in the UK involve hospitals- whether that's outpatient care, scans, or actual birth and post-natal care.

I understand that I took you literally, but that's part of the problem with this debate- that stuff that is accepted gets thrown in with stuff that is unacceptable by fanatics. Hence you get the "abortion is murder" people, or the fanatic fringe who don't think condoms are a prophylactic for HIV because they are also contraceptives.

[Phatscotty]

Overall, it's the argument that taxpayers should not be paying for birth control methods. I merely attempted to relate that to the privacy we expect in our bedrooms, through the relationship between consequences and contraceptives of that dirty nasty bedroom sex.

I enjoyed you guys's posts on the topic.

Except, the problem is this is not really about birth control methods.. its not about condoms, for example, which are mostly used by men.

It IS about the method used primarily by women and for many more reasons than preventing having a child.

What I find a bit abhorrent about the situation is that it was a bunch of men on that panel, and no woman was allowed to speak in support of the plan.

Women have, but most women are not in favor of this, not really.

Even many who say they are are, like greekdog and phattscotty, missing big pieces of what this really means.

It is most definitely NOT about just health insurance. But.. I am tired of arguing with people who keep arguing "all abortions are wrong" but who immediately dismiss that this includes miscarriages, life-threatening emergencies, etc. AND that "birth control is wrong.. no matter the circumstances".

IF the Roman Catholic church cannot accept modern healthcare practices, then THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN HEALTHCARE.

Jehovah's witnesses are not allowed to start federally funded and state funded hospitals based on their religious beliefs, why should the Roman Catholic church be different?

How do you propose the Catholic church gets out of the healthcare business?

And, again, how many women get their birth control (whether medically necessary or not) from a fucking hospital?

This issue is not about women. It's about forcing religious institutions to accept insurance who make birth control methods mandatory. That is why you saw a bunch of men, because they are priests and rabbis etc....