Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama tells Bishops off

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • juiceweezl
    replied
    So do Catholic priests use birth control when they rape the little boys or what?

    Leave a comment:


  • SMEGMA STENCH
    replied
    Originally posted by Yale View Post
    They're not considering that birth control is used by a lot of women for hormonal therapy, so they should cover it
    My wife is one of them. We pay $36 for a 3 month supply.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    Originally posted by racrguy View Post
    Do you not see the benefits of having birth control covered by insurance?
    Do you see constitutional authority for the federal government to make any mandate of any sort on insurance?

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    Originally posted by Yale View Post
    What about state mandated auto insurance?
    Driving is a privilege you have to take tests and get a license to exercise that privilege. You don't have to get a license to exist (yet) and there is no constitutional power for the FEDERAL government to say a word about insurance of any sort. If states want it, they are empowered under the 10th to enact it but the FEDERAL government lacks that power

    Leave a comment:


  • Vertnut
    replied
    Originally posted by Yale View Post
    What about state mandated auto insurance?
    Poor example. Driving isn't a "right", it's a privilege. If you don't want, or can't afford insurance, don't drive.

    Leave a comment:


  • YALE
    replied
    Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
    Sure. But it should NOT be MANDATORY. Our government has no business telling insurance companies what they MUST cover. Take religion out of it and look at the bigger picture.
    What about state mandated auto insurance?

    Leave a comment:


  • Marss
    replied
    "we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation."



    That sounds like a line from Atlas Shrugged.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vertnut
    replied
    Originally posted by racrguy View Post
    Do you not see the benefits of having birth control covered by insurance?
    Sure. But it should NOT be MANDATORY. Our government has no business telling insurance companies what they MUST cover. Take religion out of it and look at the bigger picture.

    Leave a comment:


  • racrguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Machx2 View Post
    Moral of the story is, women just need to get a job and buy their own birth control. It isn't even that expensive.
    Do you not see the benefits of having birth control covered by insurance?

    Leave a comment:


  • Machx2
    replied
    Moral of the story is, women just need to get a job and buy their own birth control. It isn't even that expensive.

    Leave a comment:


  • YALE
    replied
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    No, they're on the side of the 1st amendment and their religious beliefs. They cannot be on the wrong side with those two things. Religion has been protected since this country's founding and it has always been illegal to force someone to violate their strongly held religious beliefs.
    And anyone can lecture them for anything they want to, under the same first amendment protections. My point is more that they're making a decision that is correct on their own moral grounds, but is basically fruitless from an ethical standpoint. They're not considering that birth control is used by a lot of women for hormonal therapy, so they should cover it. Also, if we're bringing up first amendment protections, it bears mentioning that their refusal to cover birth control under any insurance plan for any (admittedly few) secular employees amounts to an imposition of religious belief onto those employees. By that, I don't mean that they are making those employees believe, but they're making those employees adhere to their relative morality. I personally have a problem with that.

    EDIT: We may not see eye to eye on this one though, bud. My opinion is way more irrelevant than theirs is to them, I just want to get to the heart of the matter.
    Last edited by YALE; 03-07-2012, 11:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    Originally posted by Yale View Post
    Fair enough. They're still on the wrong end of this BC thing, and that's what all this is about.
    No, they're on the side of the 1st amendment and their religious beliefs. They cannot be on the wrong side with those two things. Religion has been protected since this country's founding and it has always been illegal to force someone to violate their strongly held religious beliefs.

    Leave a comment:


  • YALE
    replied
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    To you. To many, it provides hope for an afterlife, a prism to see the world through and a sense of community
    Fair enough. They're still on the wrong end of this BC thing, and that's what all this is about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trip McNeely
    replied
    Who DOESN'T Obama lecture? That's all he does when he stands at his podium. His head is as big as a blimp. Arrogant SOB.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    Originally posted by Yale View Post
    Irrelevant church is irrelevant.
    To you. To many, it provides hope for an afterlife, a prism to see the world through and a sense of community

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X