[quote]Sloth wrote:
Below replacement fertility means below replacement fertility. Meanwhile, more and more of the population moves outside of fertile age. And they need either a well-funded nanny state to see them through 1st world lengthened golden years, or a number of children to care for and support them. [/quote]
If you’re anti-immigration, what’s your solution?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Nope. [/quote]
Yep. I’ll repost:
[quote]Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn’t - that’s why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don’t keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee’s compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable. [/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Nope. [/quote]
Yep. I’ll repost:
[quote]Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn’t - that’s why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don’t keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee’s compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable. [/quote][/quote]
…
Pat and I are discussing birth control in general and whether it is good for society or not.
I am saying the church is within it’s rights to not provide birth control, but the church’s stance in general is WRONG.
For some reason Sloth keeps attempting to steer the conversation back to the OP even though we’re already in agreement.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Nope. [/quote]
Yep. I’ll repost:
[quote]Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn’t - that’s why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don’t keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee’s compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable. [/quote][/quote]
Thank you for putting the discussion back on topic.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Nope. [/quote]
Yep. I’ll repost:
[quote]Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn’t - that’s why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don’t keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee’s compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable. [/quote][/quote]
Thank you for putting the discussion back on topic.[/quote]
…
You should consider reading the thread.
I have stated the CC is within it’s right to deny birth control. There’s nothing left to discuss on that front.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Nope. [/quote]
Yep. I’ll repost:
[quote]Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn’t - that’s why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don’t keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee’s compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable. [/quote][/quote]
Thank you for putting the discussion back on topic.[/quote]
…
You should consider reading the thread.
I have stated the CC is within it’s right to deny birth control. There’s nothing left to discuss on that front.
[/quote]
Okay.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have stated the CC is within it’s right to deny birth control. There’s nothing left to discuss on that front.
[/quote]
Okay.[/quote]Apparently you haven’t been paying attention Chris. Once Raj has spoken on something? “There’s nothing left to discuss on that front.”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have stated the CC is within it’s right to deny birth control. There’s nothing left to discuss on that front.
[/quote]
Okay.[/quote]Apparently you haven’t been paying attention Chris. Once Raj has spoken on something? “There’s nothing left to discuss on that front.”
[/quote]
They were under the impression that I supported the decision of forcing the CC to supply birth control. I am not.
If you guys want to discuss the OP got nuts… But you won’t get any disagreement from me.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Nope. [/quote]
Yep. I’ll repost:
[quote]Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn’t - that’s why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don’t keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee’s compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable. [/quote][/quote]
…
Pat and I are discussing birth control in general and whether it is good for society or not.
I am saying the church is within it’s rights to not provide birth control, but the church’s stance in general is WRONG.
For some reason Sloth keeps attempting to steer the conversation back to the OP even though we’re already in agreement.[/quote]
Well in that case, you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter. I have gone back and forth on the issue itself, I can see the arguments on both sides. The method is the big question. Methods that prevent fertilization are better that those that can be abortive. Those that prevent implantation are bad and I am totally against those methods. Those prevent the connection between the sperm and the egg are ok. But it’s a fuzzy line.
If you can take yourself out and put yourself in the church’s shoes for a minute, perhaps you can see the hesitation on making a move. In 2000 years, they’ve never had this problem. So it’s new territory.
You got this new stuff designed for preventing pregnancy, but you have a lot of different ways and a lot of different outcomes. The church’s job is to guide you to get to heaven according to the scriptures. So the rules they set are always going to error on the side of caution.
For instance, I can see perhaps in the future after much examination, the tolerance of say rubbers. The are low risk and prevent conception. The church already approves of ‘Natural Family Planning’ so no matter your take on ‘artificial’ contraception, the church already does approve of having sex without the intention of conception. So the precedence is already set there. But some thing like the pill is far more complicated. If it works as intended, then it’s job is to prevent conception, but it doesn’t always work that way, sometimes it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. That puts it on far shakier ground. A male contraception, like TRT (testosterone replacement, in case you didn’t know what that means) would be a better method because it prevents sperm from even being produced. Now things like the nor-plant and all that shit that prevents implantation will never be approved because it’s an abortificant purely.
What you have to understand about the church is this is a current stance. This is not in the realm of dogma, that gets the ol’ infallibility stamp. This is a stance that could change someday.
We also against most artificial pregnancy methods. If a pill or something helps you get pregnant that’s ok, but you start messing with in vitro fertalization and crap like that and it’s a big no-no. We don’t believe in creating life in a petri dish.
Video by the CFRs.
Of course I agree with the message of this video Chris. We’re on the same side there.