Forcing Catholics to Support Birth Control?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Lots of people are sitting on top of shit loads of wealth all over the world. >>>[/quote]“Lots of people” aren’t claiming to be the one true holy apostolic church and bride of Christ while hording the most monstrous single store of treasure on Earth in direct defiance of the Lord’s command not to do that very thing. [quote]pat wrote:<<< Further, further, this significant wealth is also a savings. The church is the largest in the world it services over 1.2 billion people who are Catholic, it is also the largest charitable organization in the world by a huge margin. It is able to be that because of it’s wealth. >>>[/quote]OUTSTANDING!!! Then you can stop receiving tax payer dollars tomorrow. All the controversy in that regard goes away and we get a tax break to boot. EDITED out that last piece.[/quote]None of that is the point. Nevermind for now.

If the Pope sold the Vatican (read: he can’t, it’s a country owned by the Church Members), the next day we’d build him a bigger palace. Back when I was volunteering at the soup kitchen this summer, I used to ask the homeless people if they’d rather have a mansion or keep the Pope in St. Peter’s Square. Either they’d look at me with bewilderment because they didn’t speak English or they’d yell at me for asking the question.

Further, the Vatican has been running a deficit for years from giving to charity (the Vatican budget is actually about the same size as the Chicago Dioceses’ budget, this massive wealth I haven’t spotted and I purposefully study the Vatican’s finances).

The Pope’s personal allowance is mostly spent on giving to charities. The gifts sent to the Pope also go to charity. I have sent the B16 a 100 Euros on his birthday since I fully joined the Church. I always get a letter back saying that the money was given to a charity of the Pope’s choosing. [/quote]

302

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey Pat,

A while back you had said that you wondered why insurance covers contraception at all since it isn’t necessary. I have your answer.

It turns out there is a net benefit of offering it and saves employers roughly $100/person.

“Spending $235 million on family planning would save $1.32 billion.”

Think about how many Rosaries that could buy. [/quote]

And if you looked at the report, only a fraction of that crap, they claim, would be covered by insurance. Child care, loss of time from work, education, food, diapers, etc. are not things that insurance covers.
Second, the premise that people would have just as much sex, with a higher potential for pregnancy does not necessarily follow. There is no precedence to predict human behavior to be able to make such predictions.

I don’t know if you noticed, but as it stands right now, world wide, with the prevalence of birth control and abortion, at a rate that has never been higher, education on all these matters has never been more, availability has never been higher, the population has never been greater; the birth rate has never been greater.
Seems to me, if all this crap really worked, and I’ll admit is seems logical, why hasn’t it worked? We should have turned the tide on population growth, yet the population has exploded.

I don’t give a crap about some ‘think tank’… The real world obviously doesn’t agree.

Considering you can get Rosaries at $.25, yeah you could get a lot. You could get a lot of Natural Light too, or charcoal brickettes, or Swisher Sweets, a couple of 8-balls, etc.

303

[quote]pat wrote:

And if you looked at the report, only a fraction of that crap, they claim, would be covered by insurance. Child care, loss of time from work, education, food, diapers, etc. are not things that insurance covers.[/quote]

Some of things are covered and it still saves money in the long run.

[quote]pat wrote:

Second, the premise that people would have just as much sex, with a higher potential for pregnancy does not necessarily follow. There is no precedence to predict human behavior to be able to make such predictions. [/quote]

No. Just look at birth rates in less developed countries where this stuff isn’t readily available. Not only that, but it saves the employee (do you care about their interests at all or just the church’s?) will save a ton.

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t know if you noticed, but as it stands right now, world wide, with the prevalence of birth control and abortion, at a rate that has never been higher, education on all these matters has never been more, availability has never been higher, the population has never been greater; the birth rate has never been greater.
Seems to me, if all this crap really worked, and I’ll admit is seems logical, why hasn’t it worked? We should have turned the tide on population growth, yet the population has exploded. [/quote]

No Pat, it has worked. Looking at the average world birth makes absolutely no sense. The availability of sex education and contraception is HIGHLY dependent on geography as are are birth rates. You have to look at countries where this stuff is available like the US and Canada or European.

Birth rates in the US for instance are on a 12 year decline:

Many countries are even seeing a NEGATIVE growth rates like Italy and Japan.

US abortion rates are steadily on the delince as well:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html

Population is exploding in least developed nations where this information and these products are largely inaccessible. You could even make a case that the anti-contraception policy of the Catholic Church has negated a lot of the good work they’ve done in the region.

304

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t give a crap about some ‘think tank’

[/quote]

And herein lies the problem.

You’ve got such tunnel vision when looking at issues. If the Catholic Church agrees then you agree, if they disagree you disagree no matter what anything else says.

This is why you’re fighting this so fervently, it would force you to admit the Catholic Church’s stance is wrong.

305
306

If it’s such a sweet deal, no need for the mandate.

307

[quote]therajraj wrote:

This is why you’re fighting this so fervently, it would force you to admit the Catholic Church’s stance is wrong. [/quote]

It can’t be wrong. There is no universal/absolute rule that contraception must be supplied by insurance, or the employer’s providing the insurance. So, since there is no objective truth as how anyone or any institution must feel about, interact with, are make provision for, contraception, the Church can’t be wrong to those on the outside. It can only be different.

308

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Birth rates in the US for instance are on a 12 year decline:

Many countries are even seeing a NEGATIVE growth rates like Italy and Japan.

[/quote]

Yes, your culture marches to it’s extinction…

309

It is true, with the current decline in US birth rates it is estimated we will be extinct in -6000 years or so.

310

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

This is why you’re fighting this so fervently, it would force you to admit the Catholic Church’s stance is wrong. [/quote]

It can’t be wrong. There is no universal/absolute rule that contraception must be supplied by insurance, or the employer’s providing the insurance. So, since there is no objective truth as how anyone or any institution must feel about, interact with, are make provision for, contraception, the Church can’t be wrong to those on the outside. It can only be different.
[/quote]

No one is arguing they should be forced to supply contraception.

However, based on the evidence it is clear contraception is a good thing for society.

311

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
It is true, with the current decline in US birth rates it is estimated we will be extinct in -6000 years or so.[/quote]

Your culture and prosperity, far sooner.

312

I consider preventing abortion and STDs a worthy goal.

313

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
It is true, with the current decline in US birth rates it is estimated we will be extinct in -6000 years or so.[/quote]

Your culture and prosperity, far sooner.[/quote]

Agreed. We should also worry that blonde hair and red hair are dying out.

We should reinstitute racial segregation in order to prevent this decline. Our prosperity is at risk.

314

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
It is true, with the current decline in US birth rates it is estimated we will be extinct in -6000 years or so.[/quote]

Your culture and prosperity, far sooner.[/quote]

Well if it weren’t for declining birth rates and immigration policies, I would not have been born in Canada.

315

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
It is true, with the current decline in US birth rates it is estimated we will be extinct in -6000 years or so.[/quote]

Your culture and prosperity, far sooner.[/quote]

What does that have to do with birth rates?

316

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
It is true, with the current decline in US birth rates it is estimated we will be extinct in -6000 years or so.[/quote]

Your culture and prosperity, far sooner.[/quote]

What does that have to do with birth rates?[/quote]

317

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
It is true, with the current decline in US birth rates it is estimated we will be extinct in -6000 years or so.[/quote]

Your culture and prosperity, far sooner.[/quote]

What does that have to do with birth rates?[/quote]

Future entitlement obligations, for the masses of elderly, won’t pay for themselves. When you can’t replace yourselves through fertility, you import people who will. Like…oh, I don’t know…with folks who are more religious and who have larger families. Those low to negative fertility rates he was talking about? That’s a dead end.

318

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Simpsons.
[/quote]

This ladies and gentlemen is called 'not even trying."

319

[quote]therajraj wrote:

No one is arguing they should be forced to supply contraception.[/quote]

In reality, they are.

No, it isn’t clear. Self-extinction is a subjective ‘goal.’

320

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
It is true, with the current decline in US birth rates it is estimated we will be extinct in -6000 years or so.[/quote]

Your culture and prosperity, far sooner.[/quote]

Agreed. We should also worry that blonde hair and red hair are dying out.

We should reinstitute racial segregation in order to prevent this decline. Our prosperity is at risk.[/quote]

You’re like arguing with an overdone caricature of a liberal. Culture is culture. Race is race. Save the race card for someone who cares. It’s overplayed, and I’m inoculated at this point.