Mufasa and Gambit

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So I’m thinking we may be able to come to some sort of understanding.

Would it be fair to say there is a limit to how far religious freedoms should extend?*

Would you guys be in favour of banning the specific method of circumcision (where the mouth is used) as presented in the article?

*Answering yes to this question does not mean you have to change your position on the Catholic contraception matter.[/quote]

I would like a clarification of the practice, certainly. What I mean is I’d want some sort of proof that it’s a real religious practice and not some weirdo getting freaky with a kid.
I do agree their is a line, for instance, female circumcision is just flat cruel. Where as male circumcision can actually server a practical purpose in terms of hygiene.[/quote]

There are doctors who argue that male circumcision is harmfull, just throwing that out there. I for one are against circumcision of children and hope to see( in my country atleast ) that circumcision are only legal for adults, except when it is medical reasons to circumcise a child( it happen for instance that the foreskin are thight on boys and this can be problematic for them, in those cases a medical circumcision can be needed, but as far as I know they try to cut as little as possible, so it isnt necesary the same type of circumcision that jewish and muslim men go trough ).

[/quote]

There are doctors who advocate drinking your own urine. I don’t care about that. Millions of men are circumcised everyday, it really is no big deal. Putting a mouth on it is a little creepy though.
[/quote]

This is getting dumb. Yes you can probably find a doctor to support or condone any medical practise.

But this is why we rely heavily on consensus in the scientific community. What is the general consensus on circumcision performed by a doctor?

142

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I’m leaning that way minus the instance of rape or if the mother’s life is in danger. I just don’t completely understand the arguments as I don’t have a science background.[/quote]

I’m sincerely glad to hear this. You might just end up on my ‘atheists to keep around’ list, if my theocratic takeover of the Americas ever gets off the ground!
[/quote]

I feel the same way. You are a pretty reasonable guy Raj. I actually feel like you’ve become more reasonable recently. I take back my earlier comments suggesting disingenuousness on your part.

As for your comment, you don’t need but the simplest inkling of understanding of science. Here it is: Is it a human life at conception? Yes or no? Repeat this question for any time between conception and birth and see if you can come up with an answer that is anything other than yes.

As I said elsewhere, I will not continue this semi-off-topic line of thought any further here, but would be happy to do so in a related thread if you or anyone else sees it fit.[/quote]

That is what the whole controversy is about in the first place, the definition of when it becomes a human varies depending on how you look at it.[/quote]

No it doesn’t. Start a thread if you want to continue.
[/quote]

Not starting a new thread but this is my last reply.

I’m pretty sure we have different definitions, so by that counter example alone you are wrong.

143

[quote]pat wrote:

Ahh, that’s a slippery slope… BC can cause lots of health issues, harm can and is done by them. So that’s not a valid point.
It’s not a matter of liking it, it’s a matter of forcing an institution, or citizen for that matter, to pay for something it stands against.
BC is not medically necessary. Neither is a boob job, but one is covered the other is not.

If your teeth turn black, but still work, you get to pay for the dentist.

If something isn’t medically necessary and your institution is against it, then why should it have to pay it’s money for it? [/quote]

It’s one thing to say the Church shouldn’t have to provide birth control. However you’re outta your mind if you think there are more demonstrable costs than benefits to providing birth control to people.

It’s not even close.

144

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I’m leaning that way minus the instance of rape or if the mother’s life is in danger. I just don’t completely understand the arguments as I don’t have a science background.[/quote]

I’m sincerely glad to hear this. You might just end up on my ‘atheists to keep around’ list, if my theocratic takeover of the Americas ever gets off the ground!
[/quote]

I feel the same way. You are a pretty reasonable guy Raj. I actually feel like you’ve become more reasonable recently. I take back my earlier comments suggesting disingenuousness on your part.

As for your comment, you don’t need but the simplest inkling of understanding of science. Here it is: Is it a human life at conception? Yes or no? Repeat this question for any time between conception and birth and see if you can come up with an answer that is anything other than yes.

As I said elsewhere, I will not continue this semi-off-topic line of thought any further here, but would be happy to do so in a related thread if you or anyone else sees it fit.[/quote]

That is what the whole controversy is about in the first place, the definition of when it becomes a human varies depending on how you look at it.[/quote]

No it doesn’t. Start a thread if you want to continue.
[/quote]

Not starting a new thread but this is my last reply.

I’m pretty sure we have different definitions, so by that counter example alone you are wrong.[/quote]

What, are ya skeered?

145

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Ahh, that’s a slippery slope… BC can cause lots of health issues, harm can and is done by them. So that’s not a valid point.
It’s not a matter of liking it, it’s a matter of forcing an institution, or citizen for that matter, to pay for something it stands against.
BC is not medically necessary. Neither is a boob job, but one is covered the other is not.

If your teeth turn black, but still work, you get to pay for the dentist.

If something isn’t medically necessary and your institution is against it, then why should it have to pay it’s money for it? [/quote]

It’s one thing to say the Church shouldn’t have to provide birth control. However you’re outta your mind if you think there are more demonstrable costs than benefits to providing birth control to people.

It’s not even close.[/quote]

That’s not the point. It’s about forcing the church to pay for something that is both medically unnecessary and against it’s stance.
I further find it odd that it’s actually even covered. Any insurance company I have dealt with, they don’t even like to pay for medically necessary shit much less the unnecessary variety. So, in that sense I am a little surprised it’s covered at all.
Having visited several thousand doctors in the past couple of years, I got a taste of that…

146

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Ahh, that’s a slippery slope… BC can cause lots of health issues, harm can and is done by them. So that’s not a valid point.
It’s not a matter of liking it, it’s a matter of forcing an institution, or citizen for that matter, to pay for something it stands against.
BC is not medically necessary. Neither is a boob job, but one is covered the other is not.

If your teeth turn black, but still work, you get to pay for the dentist.

If something isn’t medically necessary and your institution is against it, then why should it have to pay it’s money for it? [/quote]

It’s one thing to say the Church shouldn’t have to provide birth control. However you’re outta your mind if you think there are more demonstrable costs than benefits to providing birth control to people.

It’s not even close.[/quote]

That’s not the point. It’s about forcing the church to pay for something that is both medically unnecessary and against it’s stance.
I further find it odd that it’s actually even covered. Any insurance company I have dealt with, they don’t even like to pay for medically necessary shit much less the unnecessary variety. So, in that sense I am a little surprised it’s covered at all.
Having visited several thousand doctors in the past couple of years, I got a taste of that…[/quote]

Read my post again. I don’t think the church should be forced to provide birth control, but I disagree with the church’s stance on contraception.

There is much benefit in not limiting women’s reproduction and medical choices. I’m not referring to abortion.

148

If ‘accessibility’ is really the concern, why are you asking for others to be forced into paying/providing for them? Why aren’t you asking for over the counter access?

149

Feel free to point out the error. If you can.

150

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

No, by not forcing them to eat bacon, they have the choice not to do so, ergo ensuring they can stick to their zany magic diet.[/quote]

That is absurd - an institution now faces a penalty for adhering to its beliefs (no pork), whether the kids eat it or not. Of course it is a kind of persecution. Be serious.[/quote]

How is it absurd? I can elect to have pork removed from my health insurance.

151

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Ahh, that’s a slippery slope… BC can cause lots of health issues, harm can and is done by them. So that’s not a valid point.
It’s not a matter of liking it, it’s a matter of forcing an institution, or citizen for that matter, to pay for something it stands against.
BC is not medically necessary. Neither is a boob job, but one is covered the other is not.

If your teeth turn black, but still work, you get to pay for the dentist.

If something isn’t medically necessary and your institution is against it, then why should it have to pay it’s money for it? [/quote]

It’s one thing to say the Church shouldn’t have to provide birth control. However you’re outta your mind if you think there are more demonstrable costs than benefits to providing birth control to people.

It’s not even close.[/quote]

That’s not the point. It’s about forcing the church to pay for something that is both medically unnecessary and against it’s stance.
I further find it odd that it’s actually even covered. Any insurance company I have dealt with, they don’t even like to pay for medically necessary shit much less the unnecessary variety. So, in that sense I am a little surprised it’s covered at all.
Having visited several thousand doctors in the past couple of years, I got a taste of that…[/quote]

Read my post again. I don’t think the church should be forced to provide birth control, but I disagree with the church’s stance on contraception.
[/quote]
Which is a-ok. Not many do.

[quote]
There is much benefit in not limiting women’s reproduction and medical choices. I’m not referring to abortion.[/quote]

I don’t see it limited anyway. Full price really isn’t that expensive and it’s fully accessible from a Dr’s pen.
Second, I think the cost benefit analysis of contraception in it’s many forms is actually a wash. I know what you mean, but then you have to way the risks of the medications and methodologies employed. From there, I pretty much see it as a zero sum.

Bottom line, being sexually active carries with it inherent risks no matter where you stand on the many issues surrounding it. But it sure is loads of fun…Where else is making an ugly face considered a compliment.

152

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest. However you split the cost of said pills, there is still a direct contribution from the organization for them. Even if you don’t use them, the price of the pills has to be covered, or the pills aren’t available. That’ basically it.

And since you daughter is on the pill for whatever reason, get a gun, if you don’t have one…Just sayin’… Daddy’s gun is proper birth control.

153

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest.[/quote]

No, they dont.

154

[quote]pat wrote:

From there, I pretty much see it as a zero sum.[/quote]

No, It’s not even close man.

155

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest.[/quote]

No, they dont.

[/quote]

Yes they do.

156

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

No, by not forcing them to eat bacon, they have the choice not to do so, ergo ensuring they can stick to their zany magic diet.[/quote]

That is absurd - an institution now faces a penalty for adhering to its beliefs (no pork), whether the kids eat it or not. Of course it is a kind of persecution. Be serious.[/quote]

How is it absurd? I can elect to have pork removed from my health insurance.[/quote]

THE INSTITUTION CAN’T! AND THAT’S THE ISSUE!!!1111!11ONEONE!

This whole thing doesn’t start with the employee having access or not. It starts with the religious institution being forced to provide for the coverage, even the option. Can you people please at least understand the debate, first.

158

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]milod wrote:
Feel free to point out the error. If you can. [/quote]

The money trail, dude. You pay a fraction of the insurance cost of your benefit, the organization, or in this case the church, pays the rest.[/quote]

No, they dont.

[/quote]

Yes they do.[/quote]

No they dont and, FTR, Milton Friedman is with me.

Pisses me off that people fall for the easiest tricks in the book.

159

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKY1xA36ua8

Ha!

160

Why are you posting about Soc. Sec. Taxes?