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.
You really don't see the attempt to force all those things on the Catholic Church as more of the same old thing of pushing people around to gain more power for government, do you? I sure am glad that I believe in God so I don't have to argue this kind of crap from where you do.
No. I see it as a way for the people to gain something that would benefit them. And you may believe in God, but not all the people that work at these places of employment do.
Despite what you or anyone else thinks, the church doesn't ask. It simply teaches what it believes, If you want to follow those teachings, its your choice.
No, I don't. The problem is churchists like you don't see how playing "religion card" is technically taking rights away from individuals whose decisions should be their own and their doctors'. Not of you, not of politicians who play the game that you do, and certainly not of priests and preachers.
It's not taking away the rights away. Your acting as if they want it eliminated completely. It's about FORCING people to pay for it.
You don't have the right to force me to pay for your birth control.
Then why does the church condone using the rhythm method? Isn't that trying to prevent procreation? Why isn't using the rhythm method considered immoral?
Does that have anything to do with listening to Luther Vandross or Barry White while getting your freak on?
Erectile dysfunction is considered a medical problem. The ability to get pregnant is not.
Not true. The inability to get pregnant is considered a medical problem. If you can't get pregnant that means one or more of your body parts don't work. If your body parts don't work of course that's a medical problem. Once pregnant a woman's health during that time is also considered a medical problem.
How could you possibly pretend otherwise?
It's just the usual nonsense from the cult of celibate men. Male reproductive issues are held sacred and inviolate while female reproductive issues are either ignored or downplayed. The church is incredibly uncomfortable with women and always has been. Americans should not be forced to cater to that sexism even if the church demands we do.
Then why does the church condone using the rhythm method? Isn't that trying to prevent procreation? Why isn't using the rhythm method considered immoral?
Because it doesn't eliminate the possibilty, and it isn't artificial.
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.
It depends on the type of birth control. Condoms are easily available. But birth control pills and many other types must be obtained through a doctor. If it was available OTC like in Mexico, then this wouldn't be an issue.
Your rationale still doesn't help explain why Viagra IS covered, since it's only about sex, not illness.
I think this whole issue of religious employers being required/or not to provide insurance coverage for BC is ridiculous. I keep saying it: cut out the insurance middleman and go to a single-payer healthcare system! Or at least don't have health insurance tied to the employer - then the Catholic church wouldn't be able to say anything about it.
I don't see any ambiguity. You asked if homosexuals should avail themselves of Viagra. The church teaches that it would be immoral, but the church doesn't ask when a prescription is being filled, if the person is using it is straight, gay married etc.
I don't see any ambiguity. You asked if homosexuals should avail themselves of Viagra. The church teaches that it would be immoral, but the church doesn't ask when a prescription is being filled, if the person is using it is straight, gay married etc.
So how does the church now that a women filling a Rx for the Pill isn't doing so for health reasons and NOT contraceptive reasons? You could have a sworn virgin taking the Pill for health issues like endo or PCOS.
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.
