The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Affordable Care Act and the Religious Exemption (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=272079)

Shanghai Alice January 23rd, 2012 10:18 PM

Eh, I'm an idealist, which is a product of my somewhat optimistic youth.

I'll probably get over it in a few years. I'm already starting to realize how much I openly despise the American political system.


Anyway. Bed.

Oryx January 23rd, 2012 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Kelly (Post 7021360)
You posted while I was typing out my post :P Anyway, emergency contraceptives are strongly believed to not actually work like that, but rather disrupt ovulation or fertilization, not interfere with a fertilized egg.

But the drugs themselves are listed as prohibiting implantation.

Quote:

Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel are used together in this product as an emergency contraceptive (EC) to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. Ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary), disrupt fertilization (joining of the egg and sperm), and inhibit implantation (attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus).

http://www.drugs.com/mtm/preven-ec.html
Quote:

Levonorgestrel is a female hormone that prevents ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary). Plan B also causes changes in your cervical mucus and uterine lining, making it harder for sperm to reach the uterus and harder for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

http://www.drugs.com/plan-b.html
Quote:

ella (ulipristal) is an emergency contraceptive. It works by stopping or delaying the release of an egg from an ovary. Ulipristal may also make it harder for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

http://www.drugs.com/ella.html
It's by no means the primary method of how it works, and your study supports that as well, but considering that all the drugs have that listed as something it does do, I have a feeling it wouldn't get past the FDA without making sure it does what it says it does. To a Catholic it's the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette, even putting aside the fact that contraception is banned in Catholicism as it is, lol.

Mr. X January 24th, 2012 3:31 AM

Just saying, but religion has been preventing progress for a very long time.

Anyway, I see a church interfering with a government as the same as a massive corporation. Each way, they want their own way no matter how many people are screwed over because of it. Arguably, religion doesn't screw people over as bad as corporation does though.

But still, religious objection?

Are you forcing them to use the contraceptive? No.
Are you forcing them to get abortions? No.
Are you the one selling the contraceptive? No.
Are you the one doing the abortion? No.

Your not forcing them to do something, or doing it yourself. So where exactly does Religion have a issue with this?

Final point, don't like how this country is run? Options are : 1) Get over it. 2) Move. 3) Become a politician and change how the country is run.

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 6:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7021348)
And yet they still come up with funds for whatever they need. :/ But that's another topic.



Apologies. I'm tired, and I am, admittedly, starting to skim.


Si.


Well, then the hospital would probably just eat the cost and give them the surgery.

See that's the thing. The Church is faced with the dilemma of "Lay everyone off and reduce our effectiveness in healthcare, or compromise our beliefs and pretty much make it pointless to believe in anything anymore".

Still. I think your argument is invalid because insurance=/=ability to have the surgery. Yes, it helps a lot to be able to pay, but do you honestly think a man that was willing to protest something like this for his beliefs would deny someone surgery if they needed it to save their lives?


And before you nail me with "What if the pregnancy is life-threatening?", there's a whole slew of moral teachings on that, and that's a thread in and of itself. There are times when it is and isn't okay to kill either the baby or the mother to save the other.

But it's never okay to kill because "I don't want it/can't support it". There are charities and shelters (run by the Church, no less!) for such things.


Err, is that clear? I think I answered your question. :/

Yes, most likely the hospital would take them in. They don't reject you. However, they only won't be on the hook if they're homeless. But, I would hope that you're paying your employees enough such that they have a house, and if they have a house, then they do have to pay. And if they can't afford it because you denied them health insurance because it funded something you don't agree with but that they may not have used, then they face the very real possibility of losing their house in order to cover the cost.

How is that good? Or moral for that matter? Put someone out on the street because you wouldn't give them insurance and they had the audacity to get sick.

Esper January 24th, 2012 11:00 AM

I just want to point out a couple of things about contraception.

1) Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that people can just buy contraception, but emergency contraception is not always available even for people paying out of pocket at the drug store. There are scattered cases of pharmacists refusing to sell the pill to people "for religious reasons" and especially if the one looking to buy it is a man.

2) Birth control is often given to women for non-contraception reasons because it can help regulate menstruation and so on. I know someone personally who uses birth control because she gets debilitating periods and some days she wouldn't be able to leave the house because they're so bad. It's simply the best option for her for a number of reasons, not the least being the cost, to use birth control. Point of the story: it would be wrong to deny her this medicine because she happens to work at a Catholic (or whatever) job that is morally opposed to contraception.


Anyway, on the other topic of "paying for something you're morally opposed to" I could say that we all have things we're morally opposed to that the government does and yet we still pay taxes because most of what the government does is okay for us. I don't really like that answer though.

I agree that at some point a government could be doing something that a person finds so objectionable they can't stand it anymore and should not be made to support it, but I'm not sure where that point is and wouldn't want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. If I were to draw a line in the sand I'd want it to be a line that everyone could see, that is, one not based in subjective beliefs but in objective facts. To use contraception as an example: calling an egg a person is an unsupported belief and the failure of an egg to implant on the uterine wall can't therefore be called murder. (Compare this to, say a newborn baby which can be objectively called a person and the killing of it murder.)

When you start talking in terms of something being morally unacceptable you have to ask how much is it morally unacceptable? Does everything a person finds morally unacceptable have the same weight? If, for instance, I find it morally unacceptable to deny gay couples the right to marry and another person finds it morally unacceptable to allow gay couples the right to marry, how do we solve this dilemma? If the government steps in to support one side or the other someone will feel their morals are being trampled over, that they shouldn't have to support a government that tramples over their morals, and so on.

jpp8 January 24th, 2012 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7021244)
I'm sorry, I really don't understand. I read this thread, and then I read the thread about the Girl Scouts, where everyone's in a tizzy because rights are being violated, and I just can't reconcile them. It seems that it's only okay to violate some people's rights, so long as they have the same views as the special interest group of the month.

People like me? Sorry, but we're high and dry, because butthurt Catholics doesn't make for good news.

That's what I have a problem with. The lovely double standards. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

ITT: My Catholic faith is being persecuted in America.

Is the government or anyone else actively preventing you from practicing your beliefs? Are you actively singled out and harassed because of your beliefs? (And I'm not talking about "hurrdurr he disagrees with my view and called me stupid, I mean ACTUAL harassment.) As a whole, have people of your religion been targeted and physically harmed because of their religion in this county? No? Then what double standard? Your religion oppresses marginalized persons in the name of their beliefs and because the government wants to help those said people reach a better standard of living and acceptance, your "religious" rights are being violated?


On the topic of contraception and birth control, accidents happen. Condoms are not perfect and some will break on occasion. There are even those with skin allergies to the latex and what other material condoms are made of. The contraception and enhancement of males is readily available to all, but women's birth control and emergency contraception is becoming increasingly difficult for them to obtain. Allowing contraception and the like to be covered under healthcare and insurance would oppress no one. Your religion will be completely unaffected.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7022024)
ITT: My Catholic faith is being persecuted in America.

Is the government or anyone else actively preventing you from practicing your beliefs? Are you actively singled out and harassed because of your beliefs? (And I'm not talking about "hurrdurr he disagrees with my view and called me stupid, I mean ACTUAL harassment.) As a whole, have people of your religion been targeted and physically harmed because of their religion in this county? No? Then what double standard? Your religion oppresses marginalized persons in the name of their beliefs and because the government wants to help those said people reach a better standard of living and acceptance, your "religious" rights are being violated?

Absolutely wonderful for the government for putting down my horrific Hell Church, then.

But please, don't make me pay for it. They can do whatever they want, but I see no reason why I should be forced to pay for something I actively disagree with.


However, it's been made clear, and abundantly so, that I honestly need to sit down and shut up because I have, and I mean personally so, oppressed millions of people and probably run their dogs over as well.

I understand. I have no room to protest, and I have no room to argue my beliefs. If I do, I'm probably arguing in support of widespread death and hatred everywhere.

Of course, I don't know how I could've been so blinded. I merely assumed that, because several other threads here concern people being offended that their beliefs were being attacked, that I had the right to voice my opinion.

I see that I am in error, and I will stop trying to stand up for what I believe in. After all, I'm merely getting in the way of everyone else doing the same.

EDIT: Actually, no. Not [/Thread]. I have had one too many Hannibal Lecture this week. One on why I'm a worthless human being, one on how I'm little more than a nuisance to everyone around me, and one on why I need to be quiet about what I believe in. And it's time to make a fool of myself once again, to show everyone why I'm little more than a raving idiot who's a waste of space, just one more time. Because even though I've been told for years that I'm worthless, that I'm stupid, that I'm whatever the hell you want to say, I'm still a human, and I still have a voice. I may stutter, I may stammer, I may be completely and totally unintelligible all of the time, but I still have a voice, even if I can only express it in text.

I know that what I believe in is unpopular. I know that there are many, many horrible things in my religion's history, and that, currently, my politics are unpopular because of who's in office right now.

However, I find it totally ironic that, in the same breath people use to tell me that I oppress the downtrodden and minorities, they also tell me to silence myself, to hide what I believe in, to not take a stand. I find it funny that people who can so blindly spew hatred and bile can also accuse me of bigotry and ignorance.

It's ironic, it's so horribly ironic, that the same people who denounce those that hate and blame are the ones who blame me for everything done in the past two thousand years that was even tangentially related to my beliefs.

Friends, let me make one thing clear. I am not a Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone preacher, I am not a skinhead with a shotgun who beats up the neighbor kids, and I am not a cross burning zealot.

I'm just a guy, just one man, who's trying to make his way through life the best he can. Personally, I think that the doctrine of "be good to others" isn't a bad one, and I think that actually taking a stand, actually having a spine, is something to be valued. I deeply apologize for not bringing an army to back me up, for not waiting to state my views until they were wildly popular with guaranteed support. I apologize for bringing controversy, for bringing in a topic that isn't the usual "CONSERVATIVES RAPE AND MURDER TWENTY SEVEN BABIES". I dearly, dearly apologize for that.

Now, with that out of the way, I hope we can resume the topic, keeping in mind that I have never tortured a Moor, nor have I even been to Spain. Neither have I colonized the New World, or wiped out Indians.


...


What is the topic, you ask?

Why, it's simple!

The topic is, "Is it acceptable for the government to require someone to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with?"

Pay for.

Those two words right there would have saved half this topic.

Not use, not see, not look at...

Pay for.


If I need to elaborate further, let me know.


(See? That's jumping down people's throats.)

jpp8 January 24th, 2012 4:36 PM

You do have the right to voice your opinion. And I have the right to tell you that your train of thought is backwards and completely unaccepting of change or progress. That the ideas you "stand for" are outdated and only serve to oppress. You have the right to practice your religion. And I will DIE to protect your right as a human being to practice your religion freely and openly without fear of persecution. I WILL NOT however respect your religion and its ideas which have and continue to oppress a sizable amount of the world's population in the name of "morality".

The premise of taxes in the first place are so that governments can give back to their people. Within the last century, this has come in the form of social security, government funded projects to create jobs, and more. This also means that our tax dollars are used to fund other unwanted projects such as wars, paying foreign debt, and government funded bail-outs. Though these may be against our beliefs and desires, it is what the government feels is the best interest for the people (well, more like corporations in today's government, but in an ideal situation like with this healthcare bill) and no one is exempt from paying taxes for it (well, except for the wealthiest in this country, but again, another thread). The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees your right to freedom of expression which includes practice of religion. It DOES NOT however grant anyone special permissions and exemptions because of their beliefs. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY TAXES regardless of their religious affiliation.

Oryx January 24th, 2012 4:53 PM

It's a fine line tbh. There are religions specifically created to be pacifist, or that hold pacifism as a main tenant of their religious beliefs. Do you feel that they should have the right to choose that their taxes not go to war? It's a highly similar situation in that they would feel war is needless suffering and killing in a similar way to abortion for Catholics.

CapricornPsyche January 24th, 2012 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7022337)
You do have the right to voice your opinion. And I have the right to tell you that your train of thought is backwards and completely unaccepting of change or progress. That the ideas you "stand for" are outdated and only serve to oppress. You have the right to practice your religion. And I will DIE to protect your right as a human being to practice your religion freely and openly without fear of persecution. I WILL NOT however respect your religion and its ideas which have and continue to oppress a sizable amount of the world's population in the name of "morality".

The premise of taxes in the first place are so that governments can give back to their people. Within the last century, this has come in the form of social security, government funded projects to create jobs, and more. This also means that our tax dollars are used to fund other unwanted projects such as wars, paying foreign debt, and government funded bail-outs. Though these may be against our beliefs and desires, it is what the government feels is the best interest for the people (well, more like corporations in today's government, but in an ideal situation like with this healthcare bill) and no one is exempt from paying taxes for it (well, except for the wealthiest in this country, but again, another thread). The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees your right to freedom of expression which includes practice of religion. It DOES NOT however grant anyone special permissions and exemptions because of their beliefs. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY TAXES regardless of their religious affiliation.

Since when did this topic become a "Conservative Nazi Vs. Liberal Communist" contest...? (not meaning to say all Conservatives and Liberals are like that, that's just how I typically call the regular riff-raff arguments between the two)

Getting back to topic, Since this topic is about forcing people to pay for something they don't believe in, they should change the exempt part of said law, such as if the individual strictly disapproves of their insurance or tax money having to pay for contraceptives and Abortions, then they should have the option to tell the insurance company to not have that an an option for them to pay for or tell the local government(or federal, however it may work) to exempt them from paying said tax.

Basically Speaking, don't make it an absolute requirement for everyone, but make it optional to make someone be exempt from it upon request.

This should be able to cater to Conservatives since they can request to opt out of paying for it, and liberals if they're ok with paying for this, thus not needing to make the request to opt out of said tax.

Mr. X January 24th, 2012 5:17 PM

Ad on to that, but if they opt out of paying then that means that they should not be allowed the benefits of the service either.

You don't want to pay for the full service because you disagree with a small part of it? Fine. But that means you don't get any of the service.

Empoleon144 January 24th, 2012 6:16 PM

Personally, I believe that the Military as it is is much, much worse than adding Abortion to Health Care. The Military should be used in offence sparingly, and should be used to protect the resources we have.

Abortion is perfectly sane option. I believe this, mostly because the more people that are born, the more horrible life will be on this planet, a planet low on resources, a planet where over 5 Billion people live in poverty, and with every new person alive, we have a new hungry mouth there is to feed.

I may be incredibly cynical to some, but I'm just trying to be realistic.

According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

SOURCE

Note that the statistic cited uses children as those under the age of five. If it was say 6, or 7, the numbers would be even higher.)

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 6:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. X (Post 7022404)
Ad on to that, but if they opt out of paying then that means that they should not be allowed the benefits of the service either.

You don't want to pay for the full service because you disagree with a small part of it? Fine. But that means you don't get any of the service.

So, if I pay for everything in healthcare, save for the one thing I disagree with, I should be denied healthcare entirely?

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 6:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022262)
What is the topic, you ask?

Why, it's simple!

The topic is, "Is it acceptable for the government to require someone to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with?"

Pay for.

Those two words right there would have saved half this topic.

Not use, not see, not look at...

Pay for.


If I need to elaborate further, let me know.

If it wasn't something so controversial as abortion, what would be your opinion?

If someone who doesn't make use of cars or the roads but rely solely on the subway and in addition to that is actually anti-car. Deep down they see the car and the road as a destructive force full of pollution, something no one should use. Should their tax dollars go toward upkeep of those very roads?

A little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but it a topic that's popped up in my local area once or twice and I think its a relevant comparison.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7022532)

If it wasn't something so controversial as abortion, what would be your opinion?

If someone who doesn't make use of cars or the roads but rely solely on the subway and in addition to that is actually anti-car. Deep down they see the car and the road as a destructive force full of pollution, something no one should use. Should their tax dollars go toward upkeep of those very roads?

A little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but it a topic that's popped up in my local area once or twice and I think its a relevant comparison.

In that case, if they feel like they're paying for something that they think is actively detrimental to humanity, then they have the right to protest.



inb4 more "but... they aren't using the cars, so why do they CARE?"

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 6:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022536)
In that case, if they feel like they're paying for something that they think is actively detrimental to humanity, then they have the right to protest.



inb4 more "but... they aren't using the cars, so why do they CARE?"

Protesting is one thing. All for it. But, do they have any grounds upon which they can claim exemption? Like the "almost Catholic" organizations?

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 6:51 PM

Hows about the fact that, in the case of Catholic hospitals, the items are contrary to their mission and purpose?

Of course, that raises the question of "Should one employee's lack of protest invalidate the 98% that do have objections?"

TRIFORCE89 January 24th, 2012 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022545)
Hows about the fact that, in the case of Catholic hospitals, the items are contrary to their mission and purpose?

Of course, that raises the question of "Should one employee's lack of protest invalidate the 98% that do have objections?"

Will an employee at a Catholic hospital necessarily always seek treatment at that very same hospital? Or any hospital employee for that matter, not just Catholic. I don't think there's a guarantee that they will seek treatment where they work. Maybe they commute to work, but in the case of medical need its too out of the way. While the Catholic hospital may not carry these items or perform these procedures (is this protected under this legislation by the way? I'm assuming it is) and may only want to provide insurance for the services the offer, there is no reason their employees can't seek medical service elsewhere that does offer those services - in which case they would require the insurance.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 7:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7022554)

Will an employee at a Catholic hospital necessarily always seek treatment at that very same hospital? Or any hospital employee for that matter, not just Catholic. I don't think there's a guarantee that they will seek treatment where they work. Maybe they commute to work, but in the case of medical need its too out of the way. While the Catholic hospital may not carry these items or perform these procedures (is this protected under this legislation by the way? I'm assuming it is) and may only want to provide insurance for the services the offer, there is no reason their employees can't seek medical service elsewhere that does offer those services - in which case they would require the insurance.

See, that's the alternative being discussed, if the workplaces just threw up their hands and, rather than withholding paychecks for insurance, allowed the employees to purchase the insurance.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms entirely,though.

Mr. X January 24th, 2012 7:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanghai Alice (Post 7022515)
So, if I pay for everything in healthcare, save for the one thing I disagree with, I should be denied healthcare entirely?

If you want to opt out of the program, then you shouldn't get any benefits of the program.

The issue isn't a tax that funds only abortions. The issue is that the tax will provide fund for all/alotof medical procedures and preventive measures, some of which will be ones you disagree with.

Unless it has already been decided, right now, what funds will go where then it will essentially be impossible to determine what percentage of your tax will fund what type of procedure. But currently, funding for insurance is usually variable so the amount of overall funds, and the distribution of those funds will change year to year.

In the end you either have to deal with it, or completely opt out of the program. While your money might not be funding abortions, its still funding a program that supports abortions.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 7:09 PM

Perhaps I was unclear earlier.

It's not so much the tax that's irking me, but more of the fact that insurance companies will be required to offer this. Because everyone is now required to have insurance, everyone will now be required to provide for contraception.

A simple solution would be to allow insurance companies to offer an individual package for conscientious objectors that does not include the offending items. Honestly, I'm clueless as to why our government doesn't simply allow that.

American politics at work, I guess. :/

jpp8 January 24th, 2012 7:31 PM

1. Contraception and other forms of birth control should be made readily available to those who wish to become sexually active. It is a woman's right to her own body. Others, especially those without uteri, have no ground denying women the basic privilege of birth control/contraception. These products are about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care.

2. It's all or nothing. We didn't keep *some* establishes Whites only in order to pander to those who believed that the White man and the Negro could not intermingle. We should not allow the option for people to not pay their fair share for insurance because they find it "objectionable" to their beliefs. People paying for healthcare infringes upon no one's rights.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpp8 (Post 7022589)
These products are about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care.

See, here you have the advantage, because arguing this would require me to use religious beliefs, all of which you would just refute with, "Lol Commienazies are invalid".

Still, contraception, sterilization, and abortion are not "about as offensive as vaccinations, prescription drugs, and facial care". They remove the possibility of human life or, in the latter case, kill human life. Of course, this is not an abortion thread, so the previous sentence was simply my humble opinion.


Quote:

2. It's all or nothing. We didn't keep *some* establishes Whites only in order to pander to those who believed that the White man and the Negro could not intermingle. We should not allow the option for people to not pay their fair share for insurance because they find it "objectionable" to their beliefs. People paying for healthcare infringes upon no one's rights.
We're not asking for an exemption to healthcare entirely. Why must I repeat this?

We're simply asking that our money not go to contraception. It will still receive funding, and it will still be readily available, but we will not be responsible for funding it.

I still fail to see why this is difficult to grasp.

Mr. X January 24th, 2012 8:02 PM

But you will be responsible for supporting a program that enables abortions. While your money might not be funding the abortions, your money is what will help keep the overall program working smoothly.

Shanghai Alice January 24th, 2012 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. X (Post 7022626)
But you will be responsible for supporting a program that enables abortions. While your money might not be funding the abortions, your money is what will help keep the overall program working smoothly.

In that case, the blood is on their hands. Of course, seeing as there were several thousand in Washington freezing to death in the March for Life these past few days, it would be inconsistent to fund abortions while we send groups to D.C. to protest it.

Also, we're Catholics, not anarchists. We want to practice our religion, not bring the government to its knees.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:47 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.