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

[kentington]

I agree that it's a right. I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a privilege, as I would call it a benefit. But I think we're on the same page.

I think you meant to say isn't a right, and you just had a typo. I am saying this so that what you typed can't be used out of context.

Drug-testing for a privilege or benefit without cause (in other words, it's not a safety issue or there is an identifiable need for it) violates the individual's privacy. That's why workplaces can drug-test, because there are safety or possibly security concerns. The welfare population is actually estimated to use drugs LESS than the normal populace, so even that idea doesn't hold water.

So, you are saying that requiring the drug-test is an invasion of privacy?
I think this is the point we disagree on. I don't think it is an invasion, because they aren't actually forcing you to get the drug-test but only requiring it for this benefit. I don't see a problem with it, this ensures that our money isn't going into the wrong place. I may be mincing words with the point of "invasion" for privacy, but I think it doesn't apply because the government isn't getting this information about you, but only requiring that you give them this information about you.
I am not debating whether or not they should be requiring the drug-test but whether they are allowed to do it. I am always interested in what the government is and isn't allowed to do.

If they cannot regulate it because of the constitution then they should get rid of it, but that is way way off topic.

Regulate which...the welfare or the drug testing? If you're referring to the welfare...they CAN. Unfortunately, they have not chosen to do so. Don't misunderstand...I'm not some huge welfare-for-all proponent. There are a LOT of problems with the welfare system in the United States, without question. But some form of welfare IS necessary for short-term necessity and likely to include job-retraining.

I was referring to Welfare. If they can't regulate it, they should get rid of it, or if they won't regulate it. I understand your points and I think we are in the same universe with our discussion. We agree on the points of the debate (and unlike a lot of political discussions, we are actually debating the same thing). I agree with the problems in Welfare.
I think we should have Welfare short-term and it should include job-retraining. If they don't want to work then they shouldn't be on Welfare. This should be a stepping stone, and a helpful one. If you can get these people jobs then you get more taxes and it could actually pay for itself in the long term. Heck, cut the job training and schooling in prisons and give it to the Welfare people.
(Tangent I know, don't kill me for it)

On the actual topic:
I don't think it is the governments responsibility to require insurances to provide anything. Just like the government shouldn't be requiring health care. Whether or not it is a good idea to hand out condoms for free or not isn't in this debate.

I think it is a part of this debate, because the original poster MADE it part of this debate. But I agree with you that the two things are certainly different issues and should be viewed separately for the most part.

Ok yeah. OP brought it in so admissible. At least we agree that they are separate issues.
I don't want to debate whether they should be handed out or not though, so I will sit that part out. But I don't think it is the governments place to require insurances to provide it.

BTW, this is my first time using multiple quotes and stuff so it might not turn out the way I intend. Apologies ahead of time.

[comic boy]

Kentingdon
You have stated that welfare is non constitutional but then say that you support a form of short term welfare , which by your reasoning must also be non constitutional . Are you another one like Night Strike who thinks its fine to ignore the Constitution when its doesn't fit your agenda ?

[kentington]

Kentingdon
You have stated that welfare is non constitutional but then say that you support a form of short term welfare , which by your reasoning must also be non constitutional . Are you another one like Night Strike who thinks its fine to ignore the Constitution when its doesn't fit your agenda ?

Nope. I don't believe Welfare follows the constitution. Again, I say I may be wrong I am no expert. Welfare doesn't fit my agenda by any means. It already exists and I think it is a good idea for short-term regulated welfare like I stated. I support the idea of Welfare and if there isn't an amendment of some sort to give the government power over that, then I would suggest a limited power amendment. They have already taken that power into their hands at this point and they claim it is for the people, but we know it is just for votes.

Did I answer it right? I may not have addressed what you said all the way. I am new to debates pretty much and sometimes I don't know if I understand everything or answered it.
I think we should adhere to the Constitution, especially where rights are concerned.

[comic boy]

Am I missing something or is NS maintaining that anything not specifically mandated in the Constitution is unconstitutional

It's a hard-line position, but it's one that does have justification. If you want something added to the Constitution, then get an Amendment to it done.

My problem is when people view it that way, but only for things they like. An all-too-common problem.

I cant see the justification , amendments are surely to amend or clarify what is already stipulated.
If one ignores a constitutional edict then sure thats unconstitutional but basing legislation on a point unconsidered previously is a different matter surely. Does everything new have to be physicaly
added to the Constitution to make it lawful , cant see how that would be in any way practical.

[comic boy]

Kentingdon
You have stated that welfare is non constitutional but then say that you support a form of short term welfare , which by your reasoning must also be non constitutional . Are you another one like Night Strike who thinks its fine to ignore the Constitution when its doesn't fit your agenda ?

Nope. I don't believe Welfare follows the constitution. Again, I say I may be wrong I am no expert. Welfare doesn't fit my agenda by any means. It already exists and I think it is a good idea for short-term regulated welfare like I stated. I support the idea of Welfare and if there isn't an amendment of some sort to give the government power over that, then I would suggest a limited power amendment. They have already taken that power into their hands at this point and they claim it is for the people, but we know it is just for votes.

Did I answer it right? I may not have addressed what you said all the way. I am new to debates pretty much and sometimes I don't know if I understand everything or answered it.
I think we should adhere to the Constitution, especially where rights are concerned.

Why do you believe welfare to be unconstitutional ?

[kentington]

Why do you believe welfare to be unconstitutional ?

Well, the constitution doesn't give the government power to take our money and give it to someone else.

So, I see the need for welfare, but I guess it should be charity based then. Instead of even an amendment.
But I see your point about adding an amendment for everything. I guess I was kinda bending the rules unknowingly though.

[Woodruff]

I agree that it's a right. I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a privilege, as I would call it a benefit. But I think we're on the same page.

I think you meant to say isn't a right, and you just had a typo. I am saying this so that what you typed can't be used out of context.

Whoops! You're absolutely correct...typo on my part. Thanks for pointing that out (going back to correct that now).

Drug-testing for a privilege or benefit without cause (in other words, it's not a safety issue or there is an identifiable need for it) violates the individual's privacy. That's why workplaces can drug-test, because there are safety or possibly security concerns. The welfare population is actually estimated to use drugs LESS than the normal populace, so even that idea doesn't hold water.

So, you are saying that requiring the drug-test is an invasion of privacy?

By definition it is, yes.

I think this is the point we disagree on. I don't think it is an invasion, because they aren't actually forcing you to get the drug-test but only requiring it for this benefit. I don't see a problem with it, this ensures that our money isn't going into the wrong place. I may be mincing words with the point of "invasion" for privacy, but I think it doesn't apply because the government isn't getting this information about you, but only requiring that you give them this information about you.
I am not debating whether or not they should be requiring the drug-test but whether they are allowed to do it. I am always interested in what the government is and isn't allowed to do.

That's a compelling argument. But the fact is it comes down to the Fourth Amendment regarding illegal search and seizure. As I mentioned above, without cause, you should not have your person searched...and drug testing is certainly one method for searching your person.

[Woodruff]

this is why written constitution is bad

I can't say I follow that logic, to be honest.

[Woodruff]

I'm sorry you don't understand the definition of "murder". You should try to correct that situation before further embarrassing yourself.

what's my definition of murder? what's yours? how do they differ?

You seem to believe that "murder" involves killing non-persons or that it involves lawful acts, both of which are clearly false.

Charlotte suspect may face additional murder charge in unborn child's death

News 14, Charlotte, NC

Murder Charges Bought in Death of Unborn Child

cnsnews.com - Little Rock, AR

District Attorney to pursue manslaughter charge in shooting death of unborn baby

Las Vegas Review-Journal

Now, I'm not arguing on either side of the issue, but let's all acknowledge that under certain circumstances, the law defines the death of an unborn child to be murder, while in other circumstances, the law determines it to be a legal act.

Whether abortion should or should not be considered murder CAN be debated.

No, it cannot, not as a whole. In other words, taking the entirety of "abortion", it cannot be considered murder. Just like taking the entirety of "killing" cannot be considered murder.

But I won't be involved in that argument. Not to mention, the law of the land says that abortion is legal, which means by legal definition, it is not murder. And outside of each individual's personal moral/religious convictions, the only definition that matters IS the legal definition.

Which is at least half of my point.

[Woodruff]

Kentingdon
You have stated that welfare is non constitutional but then say that you support a form of short term welfare , which by your reasoning must also be non constitutional . Are you another one like Night Strike who thinks its fine to ignore the Constitution when its doesn't fit your agenda ?

If I understand him correctly, he's basically saying "I don't think it's Constitutional, but I don't think it's going to go away either. Since it's here to stay, then I support fixing it."

Am I missing something or is NS maintaining that anything not specifically mandated in the Constitution is unconstitutional

It's a hard-line position, but it's one that does have justification. If you want something added to the Constitution, then get an Amendment to it done.

My problem is when people view it that way, but only for things they like. An all-too-common problem.

I cant see the justification , amendments are surely to amend or clarify what is already stipulated.
If one ignores a constitutional edict then sure thats unconstitutional but basing legislation on a point unconsidered previously is a different matter surely. Does everything new have to be physicaly
added to the Constitution to make it lawful , cant see how that would be in any way practical.

I would disagree with you on that. I'm a fairly strict Constitutionalist myself. The Constitution is designed such that it's a fairly big pain in the ass to Amend...that's a good thing. We don't need to be Amending it willy-nilly with the winds of whim. But if something is important enough that it needs to be done, then it should be in the Constitution. Most arguments, however, fall into the realm where things AREN'T explicitly outlined. Even as a strict Constitutionalist like myself, I recognize that there ABSOLUTELY IS validity to concepts such as "providing for the general welfare", for instance. Nothing explictly stated there...just a general term. At that point, it comes down to the Supreme Court's determination of what that means, and I accept their decision on that because that de facto MAKES IT Constitutional. If you're not going to adhere to the Constitution, then for God's sake, why have one?

[kentington]

Kentingdon
You have stated that welfare is non constitutional but then say that you support a form of short term welfare , which by your reasoning must also be non constitutional . Are you another one like Night Strike who thinks its fine to ignore the Constitution when its doesn't fit your agenda ?

If I understand him correctly, he's basically saying "I don't think it's Constitutional, but I don't think it's going to go away either. Since it's here to stay, then I support fixing it."

Thanks, yeah that is what took me five paragraphs and it still didn't say what I meant. I wish I was better with words at times.

I agree that it's a right. I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a privilege, as I would call it a benefit. But I think we're on the same page.

I think you meant to say isn't a right, and you just had a typo. I am saying this so that what you typed can't be used out of context.

Whoops! You're absolutely correct...typo on my part. Thanks for pointing that out (going back to correct that now).

Drug-testing for a privilege or benefit without cause (in other words, it's not a safety issue or there is an identifiable need for it) violates the individual's privacy. That's why workplaces can drug-test, because there are safety or possibly security concerns. The welfare population is actually estimated to use drugs LESS than the normal populace, so even that idea doesn't hold water.

So, you are saying that requiring the drug-test is an invasion of privacy?

By definition it is, yes.

I think this is the point we disagree on. I don't think it is an invasion, because they aren't actually forcing you to get the drug-test but only requiring it for this benefit. I don't see a problem with it, this ensures that our money isn't going into the wrong place. I may be mincing words with the point of "invasion" for privacy, but I think it doesn't apply because the government isn't getting this information about you, but only requiring that you give them this information about you.
I am not debating whether or not they should be requiring the drug-test but whether they are allowed to do it. I am always interested in what the government is and isn't allowed to do.

That's a compelling argument. But the fact is it comes down to the Fourth Amendment regarding illegal search and seizure. As I mentioned above, without cause, you should not have your person searched...and drug testing is certainly one method for searching your person.

Ok point given. I guess it is something I could see the use of, and that isn't the basis of being constitutional.
Also, on another point I was thinking about it. What about the Fifth Amendment, would that apply in this situation as well? Not admitting guilt, but not giving out information about yourself.
My initial thought on it was, they aren't forcing and since it is not the government seeking then it isn't invasion, but it can go either way.
Would it be constitutional if a person convicted of possession and use was required to take a drug-test to receive Welfare?

[Night Strike]

....Then neither is the contraception methods, supplies, or the consequences of what goes on in other people's bedroom.

Exactly why you cannot truly object to this medical service being part of insurance.

The people who do object are those wanting to dictate behavior and to claim that their payments for employment give them the right to make very personal decisions for people they employ.

About like years ago when the boss pretty much told you to go to church.. or else. In fact, I can remember those days, to some extent.

WUT?

How about no insurance or individuals pay for someone else's contraception? Insurance providers, even religious ones, already have to provide contraceptive if it's used to treat medical conditions, so the only thing being achieved in this legislation is higher insurance costs and an assault on religion and the first amendment.

The state here is not assaulting your religion. Its simply ignoring it, as it should. And it hardly is suggesting you do not have the right to complain incessantly about it.

You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Forcing a religious business or organization to purchase a product that goes against their beliefs is blatantly prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

[Woodruff]

Would it be constitutional if a person convicted of possession and use was required to take a drug-test to receive Welfare?

My suspicion is that it would be, because now there would be legitimate CAUSE for the search. Granted, I'm not in a position to make that call, so who the heck knows?

Aside from that, I'm QUITE certain there would be considerably less protestation against it.

[Woodruff]

....Then neither is the contraception methods, supplies, or the consequences of what goes on in other people's bedroom.

Exactly why you cannot truly object to this medical service being part of insurance.

The people who do object are those wanting to dictate behavior and to claim that their payments for employment give them the right to make very personal decisions for people they employ.

About like years ago when the boss pretty much told you to go to church.. or else. In fact, I can remember those days, to some extent.

WUT?

How about no insurance or individuals pay for someone else's contraception? Insurance providers, even religious ones, already have to provide contraceptive if it's used to treat medical conditions, so the only thing being achieved in this legislation is higher insurance costs and an assault on religion and the first amendment.

The state here is not assaulting your religion. Its simply ignoring it, as it should. And it hardly is suggesting you do not have the right to complain incessantly about it.

You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Forcing a religious business or organization to purchase a product that goes against their beliefs is blatantly prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You're claiming that it's part of the religion to run a health insurance company? Or part of the religion to run a hospital?

For what it's worth, the government has a great number of laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, most of which I would wager you agree completely with.

[Night Strike]

The current government laws that prohibit some religious activities only revolve on actions taken against other people (prohibiting sacrifices for one). No other law that I'm aware of forces the religious group to take a positive action that goes against their beliefs. All the other restrictions are negative restrictions.

[Woodruff]

The current government laws that prohibit some religious activities only revolve on actions taken against other people (prohibiting sacrifices for one). No other law that I'm aware of forces the religious group to take a positive action that goes against their beliefs. All the other restrictions are negative restrictions.

You didn't answer my questions. Is it because you don't have a good answer for them?

[kentington]

You're claiming that it's part of the religion to run a health insurance company? Or part of the religion to run a hospital?

For what it's worth, the government has a great number of laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, most of which I would wager you agree completely with.

It may be a direct attack on religion, it may not. I believe it is. That is my perspective. So, I will leave the religious part out of it.

Woodruff: Do you think it is ok for the government to require businesses provide anything? ( I don't know how to word it better, but I am referring to the contraceptives).
I personally don't think it's okay.
This reminds me of that lawsuit against e-harmony. This required them to offer services for homosexuals, or did they settle?
Either way the government shouldn't have a hand in it. What if I am a pet groomer and someone wants me to cut their kids hair? (I know this is ridiculous, but it's the first thing that comes to mind).
First, does the government get a say in this?
Second, would you really want the services offered from someone inexperienced in these matters? (i.e. A pet groomer doesn't have experience cutting kids hair, it probably wouldn't look good. E-harmony provides match-making services for heterosexuals and have no experience putting homosexuals together.)

[Night Strike]

The current government laws that prohibit some religious activities only revolve on actions taken against other people (prohibiting sacrifices for one). No other law that I'm aware of forces the religious group to take a positive action that goes against their beliefs. All the other restrictions are negative restrictions.

You didn't answer my questions. Is it because you don't have a good answer for them?

I don't know for sure of any religious organizations that provide traditional health insurance (although that would make the administration's "work-around" of forcing the insurance to offer the contraceptive instead of the employer a big fail). And I suppose that religious organizations don't have to provide hospitals, but then we probably really would return to the medicinal levels of the 1800s (that liberals like Player always claim conservatives want to go back to). And there are other religious organizations besides hospitals (schools being the largest).

[Lootifer]

You're right NS, the rest of us, the non-religious world, are incapable of supplying healthcare services

[Night Strike]

You're right NS, the rest of us, the non-religious world, are incapable of supplying healthcare services

I'm just saying that there are a LOT of religious hospitals out there. I don't know if they are even a majority of hospitals, but I know they're not an insignificant number, especially in rural areas.

[Lootifer]

You're right NS, the rest of us, the non-religious world, are incapable of supplying healthcare services

I'm just saying that there are a LOT of religious hospitals out there. I don't know if they are even a majority of hospitals, but I know they're not an insignificant number, especially in rural areas.

Oh without a doubt, even in athiest ole new zealand many of our private hospitals have their roots with religious organisations. However it would be crazy to claim that if these didn't exist the healthcare system would be any different than it is now. There'll be doctors and nurse regardless of what they think about before they go to sleep (eg: think about god or think about driving monster trucks).

[BigBallinStalin]

The most economically free country in the world has a government-provided healthcare system. (Hong Kong)

[natty dread]

The most economically free country in the world has a government-provided healthcare system. (Hong Kong)

ZING!

[Woodruff]

Woodruff: Do you think it is ok for the government to require businesses provide anything? ( I don't know how to word it better, but I am referring to the contraceptives).
I personally don't think it's okay.

My opinion is that there may be certain limited circumstances when it is the right thing to do. I don't necessarily know whether contraceptives would fit the bill or not in that regard, but I do believe that circumstances may exist when, for the good of the nation, this is done. Specifically speaking of contraceptives, I would say that in the long run, the fact that people have contraceptives readily available to them is going to bring down the abortion and STD rates significantly...that seems like a pretty major plus to me.

This reminds me of that lawsuit against e-harmony. This required them to offer services for homosexuals, or did they settle?

This is the first I've heard of this, actually. I'm not sure I disagree with E-Harmony being required to offer their services though...

Either way the government shouldn't have a hand in it. What if I am a pet groomer and someone wants me to cut their kids hair? (I know this is ridiculous, but it's the first thing that comes to mind).

I see a difference in that you're NOT TRAINED to cut their kids hair. As well, I have trouble equating pets to kids regulation-wise.

E-harmony provides match-making services for heterosexuals and have no experience putting homosexuals together.)

This is a legitimate point, I think, but also one that can be fairly readily overcome.

[Swimmerdude99]

Can I just say first, Woodruff, I don't always agree with you but I wanted to say thank you for the respectful posts I have seen from you in here. It really speaks volumes to your credibility.

Second. To me the issue here is that to require a religious institution to provide something to people that their teachings don't agree with is shutting down religious freedom. Or at least the faint beginnings of it. And While I am not a catholic myself the issue of tryign to make them provide healthcare that gives contraceptives seems a little unfair. 1) Why don't ALL people have to do this? and 2) it goes against their teachign, and to provide health insurance that provides them to the users of the healthcare isnt making them be hypocritical. (it doesn't matter whether you think they are already or not. No one should be forced to go against their convictions). Essentially they have to encourage the use of contraceptives, instead of being allowed to choose what they provide.

I would think it is unfair if in the same way, a.... say, hindu or muslim restaurant, or maybe a food pantry run by them or something. I don't think that exists, but if it did. Would it be fair to say that they must have pork in their restaraunt or homes? or within their charity? No to them it is something sinful. Why would you force someone to provide something that goes agaisnt their conscience? That is not allowing religious freedom...