Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, I assume you are talking about the church, the reason is, the church teaches that sex without the possibility of procreation is immoral. Oral contraceptives prevent procreation, Viagra, does not. It is fairly straight forward.
Should the church insurance plan allow for Viagra for single men, or gay men, or men whose wives are unable to bear children?
If a couple wants to have kids but the man has ED, it's a physical health issue. You ONLY use contraceptives to have sex for fun, not to reproduce.
You're ignorant. Contraceptives are often used for health reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
and women won't die from NOT taking BC pills either. Get it? Viagra fixes a physical problem, BC pills are so women can **** whoever and whenever they want.
Using birth control pills helps women reduce their risks of reproductive cancers. Viagra just lets men have sex. Both should be covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
No, it's so they can have sex AT ALL, even to reproduce. What grade are you in? Do you even know what Viagra is and does, what it's used for? How about the pill, do you even know what that is and what it is used for? One is used so you CAN reproduce, the other is used so you CAN'T reproduce. There is a huge difference when it comes to religious orgs. That's all this is about, forcing religious orgs to provide something they don't believe in. That's ALL this entire thing is about. Religious orgs aren't against reproduction, they are against abortion and contraceptives. Do you understand better now? Nobody is talking about banning BC, just forcing religious orgs to provide it is the only controversy.
Would you stop nattering on about birth control pills?
People have corrected your ignorance and you're still spouting it.
I did not take the pill so I have sex. I took it so I wasn't in pain. A group of celibate men whining about it still can't change that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
No it does not. Women can still have sex without taking anything, men with ED OBVIOUSLY can't. Let's see, one can and one can't, which does more for whom again?
I was in so much pain each month from endo. You can't possibly imagine the relief I felt as a seventeen year old on the pill.
Funding one but not funding the other is ignorance and hypocrisy.
Let the insurance companies pay for those uses for that pill but don't force them to provide the morning after pills or those used for population control. This all started when our President and his people notified Catholics that they had to do these things although it was against their teachings. Don't you see what is actually going on here?
I guess I will have to take this to the Religion forum.
WHY? That's what insurance coverage is for. Maybe people should start paying cash for having babies, why should that be covered, but avoiding pregnancy is not?
It should be covered because the costs associated with having a baby are very high for many reasons. That and the act of giving birth is a legitimate medical procedure. Sex is not.
Anyway, insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover unnecessary items like birth control. Birth control is readily available for all and an individual doesn't have to have sex. You want "sex insurance", fine. Then look for an insurer who willingly offers coverage for BC. They shouldn't be forced by the government to offer it.
I can see the argument for CERTAIN medical conditions to have BC covered but the majority of people wouldn't need it for these conditions. That plus there are other medical options for these other medical conditions.
My boss is a Jehovah's Witness and doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Can he keep my insurance from covering my hemophilia treatments simply because he finds it immoral?
It's employment, not slavery, or a serfdom. Your employer's moral believes have no bearing on how you use your paycheck or benefits, and certainly should have zero say in your medical treatment.
Honestly, if a religious employer wants to have such far reaching control over their employee's health, maybe they should only hire people who strictly follow their beliefs so there's no conflict...
No, they don't. They use those benefits for tax deductions, and advertise benefits to hire employees. If they've got a problem with how an employee chooses to use the benefits or income given to him/her, they should be stripped naked and chased around.
Why does Obamacare provide for taxing employers who choose to not buy insurance for their employees? Why are many of them weighing the "fine", really a tax, against what it costs to provide what they do? Somehow I don't think you are looking at this one beyond what lefties think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
