![]() |
Welp I feel officially ignored. I know you mentioned that it's not about the tax, but the point is analogous anyway. There are religions such as Jainism that believe in avoiding death at all costs, to the point that they filter their water excessively so they don't accidentally kill tiny life forms by drinking them, and their religious leaders sweep the ground they're about to walk on so they don't accidentally step on any bugs and kill them. They're all vegetarians and avoid eating root vegetables, since you can take the leaf or fruit of a plant without killing the plant, but not the root. Say a group of these people were practicing in the United States. Do you think they should have the right to keep their tax money from being used in wars? How far does this extend? What about the Westboro Baptist Church, should they be able to make sure their taxes don't go towards anything that may help the LGBT community because it's against their beliefs?
Although to be honest, I'm not sure I understand the whole issue here, maybe I'm just not really that versed on how the insurance works. But isn't it how it works that the employee buys the drug, and then the company pays for it? Wouldn't the logical solution be to hire only practicing Catholics? While that is unfortunate for non-Catholics that currently work at a Catholic institution, it does seem like a solution that would be viable. I would just like to point out in addition that there are instances in which birth control is used as a medication beyond its main purpose, I've known a lot of people that have. |
1. No, I don't have the advantage because of your religion. I have the advantage because of facts. Abortions of unborn fetuses, especially those in the first trimester, is just a removal cluster of cells. ALL cells have potential for human life. All of them. Exfoliation? Killing cells with potential for human life.
2. As Toujours pointed out, your beliefs shouldn't entitle you to a special privilege of dictating companies as to where their funds can and cannot be invested. Government should ensure equal opportunity for its citizens, not pander to beliefs of entitlement. |
1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse.
This is not a thread for abortion, however. 2. In that case, why was there a big flareup when Sharia Law got taken out? I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none. Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned. Anyway. @Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"? And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes. Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed. 1. But I believe that unborn fetuses are to be treated as human life. See, we could have this discussion forever and ever. You say the facts are that there is no life, I beg to differ. I cannot definitely say, "Look, there's the life gene!" (mainly because Genetics Does Not Work That Way), and you cannot do the inverse. This is not a thread for abortion, however. 2. In that case, why was there a big flareup when Sharia Law got taken out? I think you're right, though. The government should allow absolute openness for all viewpoints, and cater to none. Therefore, let's cease federal aid, let's cut the scholarships, and let's remove race from the equation entirely. We should all be given blank slates and an even playing field, and our viewpoints be damned. Anyway. @Toujours: However, there are many non-Catholics working at Catholic institutions. Is it morally justifiable to fire everyone and throw them on the street because of "Lolsorry guys!"? And yes, birth control has other uses. My sister takes birth control pills for medical purposes. Of course, I believe that the government really does need to stamp out this "pregnancy" disease thing, and I honestly wish that our mothers would have agreed. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If we allowed people to opt-out of paying taxes if the Government is going to use that money for things they consider are morally wrong, lots of people would not pay for most of them. More money for them!
No, seriously. I'm a pacifist, so give me back the army fund percentage. And the money which is used to murder fully-born-and-alive people sentenced to death penalty. And I don't believe in police so give me that part back. And I have my kid homeschooled and so on and so on. I feel I'm repeating already existing arguments but our taxes go in a full package which the Government uses for whatever they feel fit. One part from my taxes is given to the Catholic Church (here in Spain) and hell if I disagree and protest against it. But I wouldn't stop paying my taxes for that. That's not how it works. The result of your plan? The State would have seriious funding problems, and social services would be greatly damaged. Because you aren't the only one who sees how their taxes are being used to pay something that's morally wrong for them. And, if we allow you to cheat the system, we'll have to allow everyone to. It's a good way to take a Government down, though, denything them money based on moral grounds. |
Quote:
And yes, all taken from George Carlin's '96 show. But the questions that he asked still apply to today. 2. So, its OK for your sister to take pills that prevent the medical condition known as Pregnancy, but its wrong for anyone else to? Unless you are referring to other medical conditions, in which case your arguments against birth control pills being bad pretty much goes out the window. Even then, it matters not the condition because even IF its being used for something else, the fact is that it's still birth control which is meant to stop the creation of life. |
Quote:
And there may not be a funeral over a miscarriage because usually that's something you keep private. I don't have any personal experience with this, but generally people feel shame and embarrassment. Even that early on in your pregnancy you don't announce generally, because there is the possibility of a miscarriage. And even then, the parents do grieve for a while. Because it is on the way. It's like if you order something from Amazon. You've paid for it, it's yours, but it hasn't arrived yet. It exists but it hasn't arrived yet. And maybe it'll get lost along the way. Don't count all your chickens until they've hatched.... to bring your analogy full circle. |
If you want to be with the program, but not have your money go to contraception, would you still be okay paying the same amount as people who do want contraception?
So yeah. I find it hard to see how someone could want to be part of a program, like health insurance, that includes things they object to, like contraception. Even if your money doesn't go directly to paying for the pill or condoms it's still going to pay for something like cancer screening and that will free up money to go to contraception. The bottom line doesn't change. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am pro-choice, but with restrictions. I am not anti-abortion. And I am certainly not against contraception. However, for the reasons I already discussed in my previous post I'm not fond of abortion after the first trimester, with the exception being for situations like emergencies, complications, health reasons, etc. And very much against partial-birth abortions. That you're killing a baby in one room, but in the room next door trying to save a baby of the same age who was born prematurely is just mind-baffling. I see abortion as serving a medical purpose. But, if you want it to use it just as contraception, I think an abortion should be the last resort; but that's their choice if they choose to do it. Personally, I think adoption is the better alternative as your last resort, but I don't want to deny them that option either. But, to continue this analogy game... Yes, they should be able to cancel or return her order. But, within the parameters. Most retailers have a return and cancellation policy. Return within the first 30 days, for example. Or cancel your order before it ships. So... continuing with this analogy, if you're going to abort - do it during the first trimester, not after. That's your window of opportunity. But, we're drifting from the topic of the thread now. Which, to reiterate... my stance was that they shouldn't be exempt, no. |
Quote:
Of course, it's the 'regret and resolve' part that usually gives Catholics trouble. |
Quote:
|
Given the number of priests that were on the news in the last few years for molestation, it seems like they don't even follow the words that they preach. Arguably though, this stuff is what happens when you tell a person to repress any and all sexual urges that they have. Sooner or later, some of them will stop repressing them and seek whatever release they can get.
The ones in the news though are just the ones we know of. Odd's are, the corruption reaches much further then is currently known. |
Hi you guys there's more news on this!
Obama announces birth control compromise Thoughts? I find it pretty agreeable and agree with the idea that if people still aren't happy with it they seem to be "advocating for a system where religious groups could actually bar all their employees from taking birth control, regardless of who pays for it". But I'd like to see if any people who aren't quite as liberal as me agree with that. The article mentions that a few Catholic universities have come out supporting it already as well. |
Great compromise. Personally, I don't think there needed to be one and that whiners should have shut up about their "religious freedoms" that they didn't seem to care about when 28 states already had laws like this on the books, but that's just me. I mean, when you get all these tax breaks from the government because you're a religious institution you're still playing in the secular world and have to play by some of its rules. Can't have it both ways.
Aaaaaannnnnnddddd........There's a bit more to add to this news. Mitch Mcconnell, leading Republican in the US Senate, is supporting a proposed law that would allow any employer to exclude covering any birth control they wanted to based on "moral grounds." Yeah. First it was all up in arms about religion being trampled over (which I think was just a political stance anyway) and when Obama finds a clever way around that to make everyone happy (except insurance agencies, probably) they can't let him have his victory and need to spin it into something that still vilifies him as an anti-religious crusader who forces you to do something against your morals. |
I'm sure this has already been brought up, but I'm fundamentally opposed to the way money in the military is spent. I don't like that my tax money is being spent on wars we have no real place in. Where can I sign up to bump down my payments? (I'm neither American, nor a tax payer, but this is more for the sake of argument)
|
Quote:
I don't know, the compromised wasn't needed, but whatever works I guess. As long as more people have access to health care. Quote:
|
Last I saw on this issue, some kind of compromise was reached, IIRC. I'll have go look an the details, but I vaguely remember a court backing up the President on this.
|
The Constitutionality of the American Affordable Healthcare Law
American Heathcare Law heads to Supreme Court http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-SJ011_LINEUP_G_20120325195102.jpg Quote:
Anyways if the Individual Mandate does get struck down, it takes away any viable "Market-oriented" reform for the Healthcare field. In my opinion it was a seriously short-sighted attempt to score some political points to target the individual mandate considering the fact that the current system is stuck between Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, not having all of the younger generation in the insurance pool, a patchwork of payment systems that includes thousands of insurance companies, the Veterans Affairs Hospital System, The Native American Reservation health system, Medicaid and Medicare. Anyways, you guys know my position. I support the law etc. But in the end if it does get struck down and the opposition celebrates it only gives alternatives that are very unpalatable to the opposition as it's going to be a more Social Security/Medicare route as our health system becomes thoroughly unsustainable in the near future. |
I don't think it'll get shot down. I think enough judges will pull for it.
Forgive my non-American understanding... but if it doesn't mesh well with that sacred piece of paper why not just ammend it like has been done many times over? |
I've been watching this conversation from the sidelines with some interest for a while now. Although I haven't contributed to the conversation, I feel it necessary to point out this one interesting fact:
Religious run organizations, such as hospitals and schools, object to the taxes they pay to the government going towards allowing women to kill unborn babies. And yet, they do not raise the same objection to their taxes paying for a soldier to go kill a Muslim. I find that very interesting. |
But (Forgive me, I'm misquoting this... I know.) killing a heratic is not murder. Or something. (It was in a movie about the crusades.)
But still, this is how things usually are for them. They want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. I think that this case could easily decide our next president though. If this law is struck down, odd's are that Obama is getting replaced. If it isn't, odds are that Obama will be staying for another 4 years. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:47 AM. |
![]()
© 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.