Mufasa and Gambit

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Can’t have it both ways, Mak. You can’t have the oppressive thug just nail the church and leave you and your cannabis alone. Sorry, bud.[/quote]

Aside from the fact that it’s not nailing the church, why not?

The church dislikes abortion, no? I’m going to assume contraception negates the need for abortion.

I could be wrong though.

Maybe.[/quote]

You’re sidestepping.

You CAN’T have it both ways. Either be a big government guy all the way or go home. Don’t just be a big government guy for the things you happen to like.[/quote]

Things I happen to like? Please. You’re not even trying now. You’re being childishly simplistic, ignoring what I have said over and over in the past - and you know it.

You’re smarter than this.

I’ll make it simple:

  • I dislike abortion. When life begins notwithstanding, I think it’s too grey an area for it to be used the way it is in western society.
  • I think contraception is an effective way of reducing abortion, since it would be childish to assume outright bans would work without sending women to back alleys. You say one abortion is too many, I say one woman going to a shady alley doctor is too many.

If we agree on anything here, it is that insurance should be removed from employment contracts (although I’m agreeing on the proviso pay is increased to reflect this).

Now if you want to suggest viable (i.e. not stupid “hurr durr everyone must agree with my church and I’m totally not the same as the Muslims”) alternatives instead of crying foul about perceived persecution…

222

[quote]Makavali wrote:

That’s why I think Catholic churches should be forced to hire Muslim priests… oh wait.[/quote]

A non-sequitur, but ironically, an excellent reply. Thanks for the reminder that all you’re good for is a laugh. With that in mind, please try to be funnier.

223

[quote]Makavali wrote:
You are such children. Do you actually want abortion rates reduced or do you seriously expect things to work according to your Church doctrine?

Not going to happen.

Grow up. Life isn’t as simple as you make it seem.[/quote]

Well Mak, contraception has never been more varied, available, affordable and never has society been educated on the matter. You what difference it made in the abortion rate? ZERO.

Now how one feels about contraception isn’t the issue here. No matter how much you want to make it an issue, that’s not the issue. The issue is making people who are against shit pay and provide that very shit they are against, by government force.

The whole ‘you’re against contraception’ crap is simply a red herring. I don’t care if they pout contraception in the vending machine at he fucking mall. Don’t make somebody who is against it, pay for it or provide it.
It’s not a critical health matter. If it were that would be a different story, but it’s not. Nobody is going to die if they can’t get some dick.
Further, rubbers. Cheap, effective and never have been covered by insurance. It’s not only birth control, but specific kinds.

224

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Goodmorning everyone.

Milod, thanks for the argument. I had tried to ask this some time ago on this thread and no one would reply. I agree with what you have written.

therajraj, Thanks for your arguments. I’ve found them very sound as well. I’ve enjoyed your posts.

TB and Push, why not respond to my points rather than trying to be sarcastic and funny or commenting on my perceived intellect?

Pat, I posted some data above regarding benefits to society regarding contraception and other women’s health services. If you are interested.

SM, It seems you don’t like the woman’s politics and activism, and so have elected to go after her personally than just attacking her ideas. I understand but I still think it is a horrible thing to do. It reminds me of the way the left attacked Michelle Bachmann.

==============================================================

Catholics are forced to pay for things they don’t like/are against doctrine all the time. Numerous states, for example, have the death penalty paid for by tax dollars. 28 States already have similar healthcare requirements as are now being argued against. I’ve posted data (and others have talked about) the health benefits for women and society. I understand that Catholic leaders don’t like contraceptives despite the majority of Catholic women using them. I also understand that catholic women are bared from higher levels of leadership in the church and I do think there is a connection there. There HAS been compromise from direct to indirect payment, people can argue if it has gone far enough.

I guess, in the end, I am like Milod in that I have a connection to the catholic church but have family issues that make me look at this from the perspective of women’s health. The following is from an article liked to above:

“This is a case of two principles colliding. Catholic institutions are making a principled stand for what they see as the sanctity of life. The administration argues with no less conviction that the well-being of women depends on affordable access to contraception no matter where they work.”

This is about how I see it along with “freedom of religion” thrown in for good measure. Personally, I come down on the side of women’s health. I understand others disagree and hope we can do so civilly. [/quote]

How is assuring a woman can get unwrapped dick, with impunity a woman’s health issue? There is not a constitutional provision ensure the right to ride poll with out the risk of pregnancy. Contrarily, many of the side effects of birth control can very much negatively impact a woman’s health.
Then there’s the whole personal responsibility thing. People have to do the right thing sometimes. If you don’t want to get pregnant and you have no way of preventing it, then you shouldn’t fuck. Nobody has a right to risk-free fucking.

Of those supposed 28 states only 2 don’t have exemptions for religious/ conscious based organizations.

Further, none of the above matters in the least. The issue is making people or organizations do things they are against as a matter of law.

225

[quote]pat wrote:

Well Mak, contraception has never been more varied, available, affordable and never has society been educated on the matter. You what difference it made in the abortion rate? ZERO.
[/quote]

What? How did you conclude this?

Contraception has been around since the 60’s. Abortion been legal in the United States since 1973.

226

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Can’t have it both ways, Mak. You can’t have the oppressive thug just nail the church and leave you and your cannabis alone. Sorry, bud.[/quote]

Aside from the fact that it’s not nailing the church, why not?

The church dislikes abortion, no? I’m going to assume contraception negates the need for abortion.

I could be wrong though.

Maybe.[/quote]

If it worked, I’d be all for it, but the numbers flat don’t support it. Contraception is everywhere, it’s availability is high and getting higher, but 1.2 million abortions per year happen despite all that. If your assertion was correct, that number would have dropped significantly as contraception became more and more available, but it hasn’t.
In the end, none of that matters. What matters is the government forcing (or trying to force) organizations to do things they are against…
This time it’s contraception, next time it could be something you do or do not believe in. It’s a slippery slope…

227

[quote]pat wrote:

If it worked, I’d be all for it, but the numbers flat don’t support it. Contraception is everywhere, it’s availability is high and getting higher, but 1.2 million abortions per year happen despite all that. If your assertion was correct, that number would have dropped significantly as [/quote]

You’d have to compare it to a scenario where abortion was legal but contraception was unavailable in relatively modern times. Which you can’t.

For all we know, in the absence of contraception, abortion rates would be 5 million+.

But from observing modern human sexual practises it would be pretty naive to believe contraception has little impact on abortion rates.

228

Actually one more thing.

We can observe contraception’s impact on Sexually Transmitted Disease. There are several studies in the continuation of the reproduction thread that show teaching contraception use drives down sexually transmitted disease rates among teens.

229

735×430 13 KB

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Can’t have it both ways, Mak. You can’t have the oppressive thug just nail the church and leave you and your cannabis alone. Sorry, bud.[/quote]

Aside from the fact that it’s not nailing the church, why not?

The church dislikes abortion, no? I’m going to assume contraception negates the need for abortion.

I could be wrong though.

Maybe.[/quote]

If it worked, I’d be all for it, but the numbers flat don’t support it. Contraception is everywhere, it’s availability is high and getting higher, but 1.2 million abortions per year happen despite all that. If your assertion was correct, that number would have dropped significantly as contraception became more and more available, but it hasn’t.
In the end, none of that matters. What matters is the government forcing (or trying to force) organizations to do things they are against…
This time it’s contraception, next time it could be something you do or do not believe in. It’s a slippery slope… [/quote]

According to this, abortion rates have gone down almost every year since the 1980’s. If your 1.2 million statistic is correct, and it probably is, then that trend is continuing. Not only has the total number of abortions gone down, but given population increases the percentage of women getting abortions is going down. Given the increased immersion to sexually explicit material, the decrease in abortions is fairly shocking to me.