By Dan Merica, CNN
Washington (CNN) – Religiously affiliated organizations will be able to opt out of providing their employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives under updates to an Obama administration mandate that the Department of Health and Human Services is expected to unveil on Friday, according to two sources.
In March, after an uproar among religious institutions that didn't want to pay for contraceptives, the Obama administration offered several policy suggestions that would require the administrator of the insurance policy, not the religious institution or the insurer, to pay for contraception coverage and invited comment on those proposals.
thinkin of starting a new 'religion' that doesnt support paying taxes or giving health insurance or safe working conditions to people.
not withhold money from employees paycheck or have any contact with IRS
not pay taxes myself
provide no health insurance
show middle finger to any OS-HA inspectores who come
Try vegan – then you can not cover anything that was created with animal testing or animal products – that should be a very profitable health 'insurance'. You might have to cover aspirin, but probably not even that.
Good move. you cant abridge freedom of religion in this country
This sets bad precedent for every single corporation CEO doing any number of things that would affect their employees in the name of their religion.
So a scientologist can say his insurance covers no psych meds, a vegan can say his insurance covers no meds created with animal testing or using animal products (which means that insurance will be quite cheap – they'll cover nothing!).
When you get in business, and intrude yourself inbetween me and my doctor, your religion needs to stay out. Don't like it? Pick yourself another business.
God is East. Satan is west. God is south. Satan is north. *Jeremiah 46:24 The daughter of Egypt shall be confounded; she shall be delivered into the hand of the people of the north. *Isaiah 52:3 For thus saith the Lord, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. (Open up the good book and pray to see the four corners of the world.) *Isaiah 52:6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doeth speak: behold, it is I. *Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. *Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; *Exodus 33:21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Hey, crazy fuck, how's it going?
Christianity home base is Idumea, that would be Turkey *Isaiah 34:5* That is the truth *John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God. *John 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. (Grace will overcome him and the proud people.) *Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. *Psalm 59:12 For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak.
Will religious insurers refuse man-made body parts and limbs? We know god won't heal amputees, but will religious insurers refuse to help them as well, citing "non-OEM" specs?
I hope the Catholics understand that they no longer havea dog in this fight. After all, the Catholics declared, in court, that a fetus is not a person and has no right to life.
Don't be silly, Prime, you know when it comes to a coin toss a Christian will call "HeadsTails" because they play both sides of any coin as it suits them.
I hate it when people lack honesty. Morals are not dsclining in this country.
What is changing is that religion has less influence than it used to.
While the arguement that the religious nut jobs are presenting is all about abortion, the truth is they don't want people to have s e x. THAT is what this is really about. The catholic church does not have any moral high ground to preach from, or any ritght to tell people working for them what they can or cannot do in their own homes. No employer does.
So, I have to ask, what if those medications are prescribed by a doctor for some other reason? (and yes, sometimes they are) What gives these churches the right to decide how a doctor can treat their patients?
Morality is certainly declining, that cant possibly be argued. Divorce rates, children born to unwed mothers, abortion, pornography, you name it. What metric for morality could you possibly be using to claim it isnt in decline?
My partner and I can never get divorced becuase we aren't married – and yet our child has two loving parents raising her in a healthy, happy, stable home.
Marriage is not an indicator of moral behaviour.
@Doc "Marriage is not an indicator of moral behaviour"
=>I didnt say it was, but divorce certainly is
I'll amend my original list to "children born to single parent families"
"Divorce rates, children born to unwed mothers, abortion, pornography"
What reasoned argument ("'cus the bible says so" is not reasoned argument) makes the case that any of these, perhaps with the exception of abortion, is "immoral"?
what's your definition of "morality"?
Morality distinguishes good from bad. Divorce is bad, pornography is bad, single parent homes are bad, abortion is bad.
Are you even going to attempt to argue that any of those is good?
"I'll amend my original list to "children born to single parent families"
Hooray! Apparently Chad no longer sees lesbian couples who have a child using artificial reproduction as "immoral". Progress!
What reasoned argument supports the assertion that divorce, pornography, and single parent homes are "bad". Just labeling something does not make it so.
I'm just playing with you Chad. I'm not really interested in your warped sense of "morality". You've already outed yourself on this blog as a bigot. You're a shining example of how not to be moral. Bigot.
I'll further amend my list to "Divorce rates, children born to single parents, abortion, pornography, endorsement of same sex unions"
It's about trying to force women to 'behave' themselves. Guys can have all the sex they want, in or outside marriage (which is nothing but a damn business transaction anyway). But women are whores who need to keep their legs together, and then contraception wouldn't be necessary and neither would abortion.
None of these religious idiots cares about human life. They care about controlling women.
Divorce is forbidden in your church, and only considered immoral because of that. Divorce rates are up because the church is losing influence. It is better than two people who don't get along being unhappy together.
Children born to unwed mothers, or to single parent households, is only considered immoral by you because your church doesn't want single women having s e x. The country is changing and women are now capable of earning money for themselves. Not immoral. Fathers who don't take responsibility of their kids are immoral, but I’m not sure that is the same argument.
Abortion is complicated, and in many cases questionably moral. But we would have to take a closer look at where it is increasing to pass judgment on all of society.
P.orno is not immoral. We could get into a long discussion over what is art, what consti.tutes p.orno, but how much does a woman have to wear to be 'moral'.
The morals I care about are honesty and integrity. Your church is lacking in both.
Shut up, Chad, you can't even figure out what you think morality is.
Why is sm.ut inherently bad?
If a consenting, exhibitionist couple distributes a tape of their rut.ty fun, where is the harm?
Plenty of couples watch and/or make sm.u.tty tapes together.
I'm not so naive as to think that everyone involved in the sm.ut industry is a shining beacon of morality, but not all er.oti.ca is inherently exploitative.
So, Chad still sanctions unwed lesbian couples having children by employing artificial reproduction methods. As I said, progress.
@Doc Vestibule –
None of the things in Chad's list (again, with possible exception of some abortions) are objectively "bad". This is just more of Chad's prejudice and bigotry.
1) Divorce is not inherently bad or immoral. In some cases, it is life saving. In most cases it is sanity saving.
2) Pornography in and of itself is not bad or immoral. Exploitation is, but not all porn is exploitative.
3) Single parent homes are not in and of themselves bad or immoral. Many of us grew up in single parent homes. Most of the people in the churches I used to attend were single parents.
4) Abortion - Wait. You don't want birth control to be used, and you don't want children born to single parents, and you don't want abortion. Can you even see the hole you're putting yourself in? And abortion may not ever be a *good* choice, but sometimes it absolutely is the right and moral one.
Upon further review, apparently Chad now not only endorses lesbian couples raising children, but also gay couples, as long as they're not wed (I assume that's what "union" means in Chadspeak), who adopt.
"Morality distinguishes good from bad. Divorce is bad, por’nography is bad, single parent homes are bad, abortion is bad."
My morality is based on moderated rule utilitarianism. On my as’sessment, morality has declined only if behaviors that increase overall conscious happiness have willfully declined or those that increase overall conscious unhappiness have willfully increased.
So for me the items you list are not that simple. Divorce can be bad or good. When you have a stable home with two parents and children who need support divorce is likely to decrease overall well-being. When you have two people with no kids and an abusive relationship it will increase it...everything else is in between, and it's on a case by case basis. People need to know the research on what really is best for both adults and kids and need to look at it objectively.
Por’nography is trickier. If you go on the definition where por’nography represents a power structure and erotica does not than por’nography is by most definitions a problem. But if you include all erotic material it becomes trickier. We do know that men rate their wives as less desirable after looking at por’n, and probably that's a problem (though I could imagine arguments where it would not be). The same does not appear to hold true for women, though…how would we handle that difference? Por’n produced in ways that risk STDs for the participants, definitely on my calculations a problem. Well regulated por’n...hard to say. Well regulated por’n (or erotica) viewed by single elderly people? Really gets fuzzier.
Single parent homes. I'll agree with you there that the data indicates that single parent homes are not ideal, at least in the US (some other cultures handle the situation differently). On the other hand it beats a home where one parent is an abuser or where the parents have failed repeatedly to be able to stop fighting in front of the kids. So yes, reduce single parent homes where you can, but we still need some cases of divorce and hence single parent homes. Some people who have very strong families can also offer an adequate environment with a single parent, but I agree this will be the minority.
Abortion...not bad in my book except insofar as a common cold is "bad". This gets argued abundantly elsewhere so I won't go into it.
So, are people now less inclined to act in such a way as to increase overall happiness? What we're really asking (on my morality, or ethics) is “Are people more selfish now than previously?” For that I think we see conflicting evidence. Likewise for overall happiness levels (in the US the happiness seems to have remained even, but with fluctuations in subgroups: blacks slightly happier, whites less happy than 50 years ago).
Well done; however, you're applying reason, which will be deflected by Chad's prejudice and bigotry.
You're giving this way too much thought. It's so much easier just to point your finger at a behavior and label it – bad...bad...good...bad...good – you see how easy that is?
Sarcasm, of course. Nice post, by the way.
Chad is abso100%lutely right!
"What metric for morality could you possibly be using to claim it isnt in decline?"
I find it's easiest to label the foods I don't like morally corrupt. Sometimes I'll give them a a bit of justification in the background, but usually I just call them good or evil. Really, I'm not joking...I do do that. :)
Well, we are assured pork and shellfish are immoral.
Excellent, they're both on my list already.
Don't you just love Chad's relative worldview...ahhh, the Christian way...to change with the tide of time, but always claim that their God is timeless, never-changing...
When we're together, he's always changing positions...but he tells all of his co-seminarians that he only does the missionary....
Take your rather feable mind back 100 years or so. The state of communications between people was what exactly, attempt a guess? Morality was probably about the same, we just did not get to share with the rest of the world as y ou share your ignorance with your fellow posters every day. You may want to trash your bible babble and read some real history of the world.
How convenient that Christians claim the decline in morality and yet their presence in the world has done nothing to stem or turn the tide.
And the Chad's and Tophers of the world have never been all that good at history...just consider the morality of child labor in the US when the Industrial Revolution was in full swing (one of the numberless examples of the horrors of past moral "decline")
But Christians only care about zygotes and men having se x with men...
BTW, Chad, don't we have a date tonight?
Beyond politics and religion and only for the new members of this blog. For all others, please use your scroll bar.
The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.
All businesses in the US should have to follow the same regulations. Religious organizations are businesses. The BOR's apply to individuals, not businesses. If you don't personally, as an individual, believe in the use of birth control then don't use it. What amazes me is how many religious folks appear to be more anti-birth control, and anti-s ex, then they are pro-life. Birth control reduces abortions – period. S ex is a primal function. If you believe God created men/women then you have to accept that God's formula for man/woman included this primal drive. Suppression of s ex drive leads to things like, I don't know....priests m ol est ing kids. Embrace s exuality as part of life – you might be less up t ight ;-}
@Thoth : The BOR's apply to individuals, not businesses.
Then why did the Supreme Court rule otherwise (on campaign contribution limits)? Maybe you just don't understand our Consititution.
@Live – ....or....I,like the majority of Americans disagree with the partisan interpretation by certain SC Justices. It's no secret what motivated the BOR's. You can choose to ignore it. No one can make you be right.
The 1st Amendment protections of and from religion is broader than you suggest, I believe. Congress may not act in any way that affects the right to free exercise of one's religion. Requiring a religious organization to act in a way inconsistent with its members' honestly held religious beliefs violates the free exercise clause, properly interpreted.
@NClaw – while your interpretation is the accepted norm I simply disagree – which is my right. IMO taxing a business, and requiring it to follow the same regulations as any other business creates a level field for business. It also in no way restricts individual freedom of belief, and I would ask you to explain how it would. If an individual holds religious beliefs that birth control is wrong, then don't use it. Why should any religious business presume to hold a singular view for all? To expand, just look at Christianity – even the various denominations don't agree with each other. How can you argue that a single business can speak for all of them, when they can't even agree amongst themselves – even at individual churches you have ideological differences.
You posted: @NClaw – while your interpretation is the accepted norm I simply disagree – which is my right. IMO taxing a business, and requiring it to follow the same regulations as any other business creates a level field for business. It also in no way restricts individual freedom of belief, and I would ask you to explain how it would. If an individual holds religious beliefs that birth control is wrong, then don't use it. Why should any religious business presume to hold a singular view for all? To expand, just look at Christianity – even the various denominations don't agree with each other. How can you argue that a single business can speak for all of them, when they can't even agree amongst themselves – even at individual churches you have ideological differences.
How can an individual freely exercise his religion when the church he attends pays for an activity that he (and his church) believes to be against what God teaches? If the free exercise clause is interpreted with even anything close to the strictness the establishment clause is, surely government acting to require a church or relgious organization to do something aginst its teachings is entanglement with religion. What I think this shows is that government has no business getting involved in health care and other business matters. Government is ill-equipped to do this, never does it well or efficiently, and constantly creates legal issues when it does.
I don't see how letting those who voluntarily work for religious organizations and buy insurance from them ought not be allowed to do so free from government interference. If a person doesn't agree with them, let them not work for them, buy insurance coverage from them or associate with them. I am just advocating for freedom.
@NClaw – well I suppose we might find some common ground. IMO all businesses should get out of providing insurance and let individuals purchase their own. Beyond the premiums, there is tremendous admin costs as sociated with maintaining such plans. Unfortunately the Fed requires us to provide something that was once merely a perk or bonus. Which leads to my next point – Insurance is technically part of an employee's compensation so in reality it is the employee, not the employer who is paying for their coverage. This sort of tears down your entire argument about providing something that goes against a groups teachings because it is being paid for by the individual, and the choice to use the product is being made by the individual.
I could understand the ignorance regarding se'x even 50 years ago when the data just wasn't there to show what the physical and psychological benefits of se'x are. But to persist in this kind of thinking you have to ignore the last half century plus of studies....which probably explains why someone was quoting Jung yesterday. They really have to put on blinders to keep up that way of thinking.
What if my religion requires sacrificing virgins? Would you still say the 1st amaendment protects my religious freedoms?
The point is that your explanation is way to basic/simplistic to apply to situations like this/
The common ground might be found by having employers be responsible for paying for health insurance (some sort of credit system) but having the individual be responsible for purchasing their own policy. This makes the cost for health insurance a simple part of their recompense for work. As well, the responsibillity for the decision of what is used is squarely on the individual and the organization has none in that case. Could they theorhetically be paying for those services? Yes, but they would be paying much in the same way that someone who gets paid by them choosed to go buy condoms. It has no bearing on the organization only the individual.
@craniumthedumb, that's certainly one possibility, but you have to have the laws in place to ban discrimination based on age and pre-existing conditions first. Most of that won't happen until next year, and even then it will be incomplete. For anyone with a family member with a chronic illness the employer is still the only way to get insurance.
I do take your point as valid. I would go on to say that discrimination is always a problem. It would be incongruent with the basic idea of Liberty, to not provide protection.
As a Pastafarian priest I demand that my insurance cover all forms of pasta as part of my medical coverage.
Can I get a R'amen?
Why do I consider abortion / birth control to be morally wrong?
1) It stills a beating heart. Almost every abortion occurs after the heart starts beating.
2) Abortion is a symptom of a larger issue – promiscuity.
___ a) While sex is fun, the underlying motivation is self-esteem : Does this person think I'm special?
___ b) Movies, TV and society as a whole, pushes the message that women are not special unless they are "pretty".
___ c) Similar messages are directed to men: They are not special unless they are "strong" or "rich".
___ d) Contrary to popular belief, promiscuity only undermines a person's self-esteem – "They only want to use me."
3) Once taking a life for convenience becomes acceptable in society, then everyone's life is in question.
___ a) Logan's Run (depicting a society where only those younger than 21 lived, while those older died) becomes a possibility. All that is needed is "proper justification".
Huh? Birth control is preventative – ergo no beating heart. How is that morally wrong? Seems like a responsible choice for those that are s ex ua lly active.
Who gives a shat what you think with your cut-and-paste. Come up with something original lie4him.
There is no god, relax and live a good life.
@Thoth : Birth control is preventative – ergo no beating heart. How is that morally wrong?
Read the second point – it is a symptom of a larger issue – promiscuity.
@Honey Badger Dont Care : Who gives a shat what you think with your cut-and-paste.
Hate to tell you, but "cut-and-paste" is not usually applied to one's original work. Since these are MY arguments, they are original work – not cut-and-paste.
You only adressed abortion, not birth control:
"1) It stills a beating heart. Almost every abortion occurs after the heart starts beating."
Do you then have no problem with abortions before the heart stops beating?
Are you a vegetarian who wears no leather?
"2) Abortion is a symptom of a larger issue – promiscuity."
Do you generally believe in banning symptoms? Instead of curing cancer, ban the susequent illnesses?
"3) Once taking a life for convenience becomes acceptable in society, then everyone's life is in question."
I assume you object to the death penalty? (I really do assume that...not trying to make a point. I suspect you are that consistent but want to verify).
Your Logan's run analogy assumes that we have assigned personhood to the zygote/embryo/fetus. Otherwise we're talking about two entirely different things.
@Live4Him, I don't know what area you work in, but in the technology sector "cut and paste" is widely used for all copying, whether one's own work or that of others. A "cut and paste" error in coding is one created by placing a piece of code copied from elsewhere into another bit of code without modifying it appropriately...leading to error. In technical writing it's usually used to indicate lazy work where the text should be presented in a single source way and not repeatedly quoted.
I'm not making a statement on people cutting and pasting stuff repeatedly here, just commenting on the term being common and correct in this context. Personally I get tired of seeing the same things word for word, especially when the authors don't respond to repeated criticism. But I realize the authors of such things think they are reaching a new audience each time and want to get out infor they think is important.
@Saraswati : You only adressed abortion, not birth control:
I was addressing both, but the first point was was focused on abortion.
@Saraswati : Do you generally believe in banning symptoms? Instead of curing cancer, ban the susequent illnesses?
I don't believe that make-up heals the acne on one's face. To cure the acne, one must clean his/her face. The same is true of covering up the symptoms while letting the problem rage out of control.
@Saraswati : Your Logan's run analogy assumes that we have assigned personhood to the zygote/embryo/fetus.
Society once considered blacks as non-persons. Do you agree with everything that a society does?
I would agreen with you.Movies, music, media and the like constantly bombard young children and teens and promote sex as if it were their raison d' etre.
Just look at the divorce rates, average number of partners a person has slept with?
Where is MORALITY?????
@Live – when you consider someone who happens to be s ex ua ly active, and using birth control as 'promiscuous' then you are making a subjective value judgment based on your own perspectives while ignoring the fact that your personal bias does not reflect some universal code of morality. Some people happen to like having s ex.
You're forgetting that xtians have a higher rate of divorce than non-xtians. Where is the morality?
@Saraswati : in the technology sector "cut and paste" is widely used for all copying, whether one's own work or that of others
Only when copying from one document to another. If you want to apply THAT definition, then EVERY post I make is a copy-n-paste. I do this because of the filters on the forum. I don't want to lose my work because of the filters, so this gives me a chance to reword it.
In literary world, the term plagiarism is used to define copying someone's work. In the forum world, this term has been replaced by 'copy/cut-n-paste'.
@Saraswati : just commenting on the term being common and correct in this context.
In context, you're wrong. The context was the original poster copying alleged quotes from a website of a historical figure in American history. IN NO WAY can this be considered his/her original work. My posts (except where I declare a copy-n-paste / quote) is always original.
@Saraswati : Personally I get tired of seeing the same things word for word, especially when the authors don't respond to repeated criticism.
People will ALWAYS object to any position that opposes their views. However, when they use logic fallacies to advance such objection, I'll ignore most of the time. The most common objection on these forums is ad hominems (i.e. personal attacks / mockery).
@Thoth : when you consider someone who happens to be s ex ua ly active, and using birth control as 'promiscuous' then you are making a subjective value judgment based on your own perspectives while ignoring the fact that your personal bias does not reflect some universal code of morality
I prefer to look at the long term impact to such decisions upon their lives. If you've been having sex with your boyfriend and he dumps you or you find him with another woman, how would that make you feel? "Oh, I'm special in his eyes!" Not a chance. "Oh, I'm trash in his eyes!" Absolutely. If he loves you enough to marry you BEFORE sex, then you KNOW he values you and is less likely to "be looking" around.
@Honey Badger Dont Care : You're forgetting that xtians have a higher rate of divorce than non-xtians. Where is the morality?
It's hard to get a divorce when you break up with someone you've been living with. Thus, the divorce rate is lower for those who chose to live with someone rather than marriage.
@Clarke Kensington,Wyoming : Where is MORALITY?????
Now you know what I was thinking? You have posted that same exact diatribe over and over and over again.
Post something original for once. It's like following the teachings in a 2000 year old dusty book that has no meaning. Your cut-and-paste posts have no meaning.
@Live – again you are making a value judgment based on your individual perspectives. You can't seem to process the fact that not everyone views s ex, or relationships the way you do. You are also using scenarios which only reflect a single situation. There are many folks out there who are not in commited relationships, and have different expectations of partners. You condemn everyone that does not share your ideal world. I happen to believe in marriage, family, etc... but I also recognize that view as 'mine', and not universal. When it comes to s ex IMO it is unfair to pretend there is some universal code of morality; there isn't. People are different – that's just reality.
I've been happily unmarried to and raising a family with the same person for nigh on a decade.
We began a physically intimate relationship almost as soon as we met and have never worried or cared about who we were with in the past. Of course, over the years we've talked about it and shared what we've experienced with other people, but it has never affected love we share and the respect we have for one another.
Tell people not to lie, but lie your azz off.
Tell people that h0 mo se suality is bad, but have all you want with chior boys.
Tell people not to kiII but kiII all you want in the name of your god. (i.e. W and his war with Iraq.)
Copy-and-paste and plagiarism are different things. If people are using them interchangeably that's their error.
L4H: So you are opposed to married couples using contraception in order to maintain a family unit which is within their means?
Contraception is merely a way to avoid unwanted pregnancy - and possibly abortion. Your anti-contraception stance actually facilitates abortion.
I suspect your objection has more to do with your personal desire to control the lives of others than it does with any moral outrage.
@Saraswati : You only adressed abortion, not birth control.
@L4H: I was addressing both, but the first point was was focused on abortion.
No, all three of your points referenced “abortion” or “taking a life” exclusively. Unless one or both of those is used somehow to refer to birth control, you did not address it. I could imagine how you might expand your points to cover birth control, but you have not made that connection.
@Saraswati : Do you generally believe in banning symptoms? Instead of curing cancer, ban the susequent illnesses?
@L4HI don't believe that make-up heals the acne on one's face. To cure the acne, one must clean his/her face. The same is true of covering up the symptoms while letting the problem rage out of control.
That wasn’t my question. Do you think that once you have acne, it is wrong to try to cover it? One could support both medication to treat acne and covering it (assuming, of course, a covering that doesn’t make the condition worse…but I want to continue with your example).
@L4H: Society once considered blacks as non-persons. Do you agree with everything that a society does?
Obviously I do not. Society once considered abortion wrong and I disagree with that. You’re just building a straw many here that you know full well doesn’t exist. All I was doing was pointing out your assumption which we do not all share.
Human beings are sexual creatures. It is a part of who we are. Even in "the good old days" people had sex outside of marriage. It is a primal drive within us. It begins when our bodies are ready to begin making babies. That means around the age of 12 or 13 historically.
Life expectancy hasn't always been what it is today. The imperative was to spread your seed early and often . This is a part of our genetic code still. That is why you will never prevent teenagers from engaging in sexual activity, even if suddenly everyone in the world magically converted to Christianity.
However, everyone isn't Christian. My religion has no compunction against sexuality other than honesty and integrity. I chose to be sexually active. I choose not to have children. Therefore I use birth control (of one variety or another).
Don't think birth control is morally acceptable? Don't use it. Don't think abortion is morally acceptable? Don't have one. Don't dictate to me what is and is not morally acceptable to me.
@Thoth : Birth control is preventative – ergo no beating heart. How is that morally wrong?
Read the second point – it is a symptom of a larger issue – promiscuity."
@Live- do you consider married couples to be promiscuous? Or do you not realize that the large majority of married couples do use birth control of one form or another. Also, more women then you realize use birth control for medical reasons and that can actually improve their chances of conceiving when they're ready. I wouldn't have my daughter today if I hadn't been on birth control from the age of 16 due to ovarian cysts. I know many would like the world to be black and white, but the reality is that it's mostly grey.
Once a the needs of a god are deemed more important than the basic needs of human, the religion is in trouble. When the needs of the high clergies are deemed more important than the basic needs of human, the religion is in the dumpster.
Sex is not necessary for survival. So, birth control isn't necessary either.
Nonsense, you moron. Just because you never get any doesn't mean others have to suffer.
'Se-x is not necessary for survival'. Huh!?
Damocles, ssshhh! Maybe they'll die out sooner!
Oh right right, my bad. Carry on with not procreating.
@Damocles : 'Se-x is not necessary for survival'. Huh!?
Not for the individual.
You're all forgetting that to people like lie4him that means se-x with choior boys.
Even if se'x weren't believed to increase life expectancy (which it is), do you really want to support only medications that improve life expectancy and not other aspects of quality of life (which se'xual frequency is known to increase under normal conditions)? Missing half your jaw?...sure you can survive without it on a lovely liquid diet. No need to cover it. Disfigured in an accident? Nope, reconstruction not covered. Child born with a non-fatal birth defect? Not covered.
However, we know fully well that se'xual frequency improves many aspects of health that impact not only well-being but life expectancy:
Web MD benefits of se'x:
(remove the quotes in above link)
Recommendation for increased se'x as a prescription:
Numerous studies linking se'x and health, happiness:
As an individual, I do think that the good times that my parents had that brought me into the world were necessary for my individual survival.
Then you should buy your own condoms and pills if your work for them. How about a little personal responsibility?
Poltergeist: Contraception IS personal responsibility. It can get expensive, however, and some may not be able to afford it without insurance. That is why it is foolish when religious business owners do their best to undermine the means of personal responsibility. Keep in mind, many women who use birth control are married and are very responsibly trying to keep their family at a size which is within their means.
"Then you should buy your own condoms and pills if your work for them. How about a little personal responsibility?"
Se'x (most non-controversially within a committed relationship) is an activity known to have numerous physical and psychological health benefits. A medication is used to prevent this healthy activity from yielding an unwanted pregnancy along with its significant increased risks of very real medical complications. This SAVES both enrolled members and the insurance companies money as well as promoting better health for the couple engaged in this activity.
Employers who identify as Jehovah's Witness will try to opt out of paying for organ transplants.
Scientologists won't want to pay for psychological drugs.
I suppose Christian Scientists won't have to provide any insurance at all – just prayer.
What a fun legal precedent!
So, you disagree with Obama's leadership?
It would not matter if doc vd disagreed with Obama, doc is not an American it is a useless pos from a third world nation trying to pretend it is an American. Whether it agrees or not does not matter in the least it has no voice here and is apparently unwanted there. There's your sign.
tbt/captain azzhole: who cares where anyone lives, you fvcktard?
The only kind of "trickle-down" that actually works:
"Douglas" degenerates to:
"pervert alert" degenerates to:
"Taskmaster" degenerates to:
"Ronald Regonzo" degenerates to:
"truth be told" degenerates to:
"Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
"tina" degenerates to:
"captain america" degenerates to:
"just sayin" degenerates to:
"nope" degenerates to:
"!" degenerates to:
and many other names, but of course I prefer to refer to this extreme homophobe as
the disgruntled ex Evangelical Fortune Cookie Co. "writer".
While I think he is a far more diplomatic president than Dubya, I hardly think he is the saviour of America.
I cringed for America's freedom when he re-authorized the draconian Patriot Act, for example.
What a leap from "Jehovah's witnesses won't pay for organ transplants" to "you disagree with Obama's leadership?"
I think I will identify as Rastafarian so the government can pay for me and my employees' marijuana.
So I can claim that my company – Widgets-R-Us no longer has to pay for some medications? My version of a god has told me that fundamentalist Christians should NOT be using my insurance money to pay for statins and metformin. Hyperlipidemia and Type II diabetes are diseases of poor life-style choices most of the time. My version of a god says he wants these nutters to become vegans. If these guys want to committ gluttony, let them pay for their own damn pills.
If government got out of the health insurance business people could choose their own health insurance in a free market, and insurance companies that provided good coverage with benefits people wanted, at a reasonable price would succeed. Those who did not do so would fail. Religions that don't allow organ transplants, for example, would lose those who don't believe in that limitation. Those who do believe could practice their religion as they see fit. Why is freedom such a difficult concept for so many to understand?
The evidence has shown that insurance companies, when unregulated will do anything they want to screw policy holders.
Why not a single payer universal system like the rest of the civilized world.
Too many people don't work as it is. Single payer, EBT cards, section 8. Those of us who work can't afford much more.
Pray without ceasing in 2013
Prayer changes things
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL". Perhaps the following book can help you cope with the problem of repeating unfounded assertions:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
Condoms are available over the counter for less than 50 cents/each. Make the Pill (type dependent on doctor’s evaluation) available over the counter and there will be no more debate. Planned Parenthood can offer deep discounts for those who say they cannot afford said protection.
Or better yet, put a pack of condoms and a box of Pills in cereal boxes. Unfortunately, that would not ensure the condoms and/or Pills would be used. Based on Guttmacher Insti-tute data, said condoms and/or Pills are currently not being used as they should. (one million abortions/yr and 19 million cases of S-TDs/yr because either the daily Pill was not taken or a condom stayed in the pocket.)
Maybe selling Pill-enriched sodas??? Hmmm?
Condom-fitted briefs for men?? Hmmm?
A pill to temporarily reduce the se-x drive?? Hmmm??
The door is open for other ideas!!!
Your recommendations may get us through the birth control problem, but they miss the real danger in such a law. If one medication or treatment can be excluded on religious or ethical grounds the courts will ultimately rule anything can be excluded. You can't make special processes to cover every single non covered treatment, In the meantime the law specifying this one exemption yet again stands up a single religion as deserving of preferential treatment. It will of course be ruled as such a preference by the courts, but that's yet more millions of dollars wasted.
More spam from the self-important twit Unreality.
Beyond politics and religion and only for the new members of this blog. For all others, please use your scroll bar.
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
Disgusting. Next we havee opt out for religious insurers who oppose blood transfusions, medicines tested on animals, treatment of women by male providers, any medicines at all. This is preferential treatment of one religion over all others, period. Disgusting, and only allowed by the stupidity and bias of both the US voters and the representatives they put in office.
Sad but true.
Stupidity is one and ethics they dont want to swallow the talking snake.
Billions of dollars wasted defending the talking snake.
It is a shame.
Eh, maybe if they opt out of all that and just pray for cures, it'll thin the herd a bit.
So you would prefer to force everyone to accept what you believe is true? The basic ideas of Liberty are in direct conflict with forcing everyone to think as you do. Finding the path that is acceptable to both sides is the only way forward.
"So you would prefer to force everyone to accept what you believe is true? The basic ideas of Liberty are in direct conflict with forcing everyone to think as you do. Finding the path that is acceptable to both sides is the only way forward."
No one has said anything about forcing everyone to think "as I do" or in anyway think the same thing. No one has even suggested people not express their opinions. But there is a huge difference between freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of action. You can, for instance, think that wealth should be redistributed and you can write about it to your hearts content. But you can't march into a bank and steal the money and spread it arond without going to jail. We have accepted norms of behavior which have been determined to be best enshrined in law. I may not agree with the distribution of wealth, but I have to comply and play by the rules. We don't make exceptions because someone thinks that bank robbery is the right thing to do and allowing a little is a convenient way to get votes.
The world is wrestling against grace and truth? *Genesis 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: *Genesis 48:21 And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. *Psalm 77:15 Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah. *Genesis 39:4 And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand. *Genesis 39:21 But the Lord was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison. *Luke 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. *Luke 23:21 But they cried, saying Crucify him, crucify him. *Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. *Revelation 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
What did we do for it back in the day of the cave aye ??? What about humans that work for them but dont believe ?
Check your god(S) at the cave enterance before entering.. No god(s) required for studying humans..
updated 1 hour 55 minutes ago
Jan. 29 2013
Scientists have unearthed and dated some of the oldest stone hand axes on Earth. The ancient tools, unearthed in Ethiopia in the last two decades, date to 1.75 million years ago.
Ancient DNA reveals humans living 40,000 years ago in Beijing area related to present-day Asians, Native Americans January 21, 2013
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-ancient-dna-reveals-humans-years.html#jCp
kev: your scripture has no bearing on the laws of the land.
Christ our Lord rode an ass colt into Jerusalem? *Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: (*Revelation 21:12*) *Job 39:19 Hast thou given the horse strength? *Psalm 32:9 Be ye not as the horse, or as a mule, which have no understanding: *James 3:3 Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; *Genesis 36:24 this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father. *Revelation 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: *Genesis 49:16 Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.
Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. Religious people always want special treatment that they don't deserve.
"Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia."
Why not just leave religious people alone? Why should anyone be able to interfere with their freedom? If you don't agree, then don't associate with them. Government is into too many people's business.
A for-profit business is not a religious individual. A for-profit business is subject to the laws and regulations that govern for-profit businesses, no matter the religion of the owners. This sort of exception-making simply opens the door for others to claim their right to subvert the law. If the law doesn't apply to all, it is an unfair law.
"Why not just leave religious people alone?"
When religious people stop trying to impose their belief's in to the public square or the private life of others, we'll leave them alone but until then they get what they deserve.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.