Pro-LIFE Birth Control

H_factor · January 28, 2014, 8:15pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Those who put their own kids lives at risk by ignoring modern medicine and trying to heal everything via prayer? I view having a child who is sick and refusing medical treatment for him/her AS child abuse. Is it my job to do anything about it? I have no idea. Probably not. At the same time I DO think that is abuse. I would be hard pressed to have someone logically prove to me that it is not.
[/quote]

I understand your line of thinking. I also think it’s a borderline slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? If dinner every night is deep fried or fast food is that abuse? You are easily endangering a child’s life. Heart disease, diabetes, etc… there are all sorts of healthy food options available, but the parent choice is to buy fast food. Do we allow the government to force parents to feed their kids certain things?

What if you as the parent smoke in the house, is that abuse? A child could get lung cancer by developing the same habit or from second hand smoke. Do we make smoking in a home illegal? If I’m not mistake smoking in a car with a minor is illegal in MD, is that okay?

Your example warrants discussion, no doubt. I can’t imagine it’s a very large % of the population that’s doing this though. Even still, it’s hard for me to call it abuse. It’s not as if the parents are doing nothing. They are doing what they believe is the right thing to do per their faith. It’s not what you or I believe in, but it is what they believe in. And I don’t think it’s our place, via the government, to step in and make the decision for them. Yes, it is unfortunate a child may suffer because of their parents faith. It’s also unfortunate a child has to suffer because his mom is a crack head or he was born with HIV. That’s life though.
[/quote]

It is a slippery slope, but when a child is denied health care ON purpose by his parents he becomes a victim. That is my opinion and I realize not everyone will share it. If a child is at risk of death and a family doesn’t take them to the hospital and decides to use “Mark” to help him how is that not child abuse?

Is my view infringing on their religious beliefs? Maybe so. I don’t really give a crap. I don’t think a 5 year old should be at risk of death because his parents are religious wackos.

I don’t think we have to do all the stuff you talked about to discuss what to do when a child who is in an emergency situation does not receive care because of faith. To me that is neglect.

H_factor · January 28, 2014, 8:19pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’m small government and even I’m not sure I’m against providing contraceptives to anyone. I do not believe institutions that are morally opposed …[/quote]

Like Catholic business owners?[/quote]

Yes, though I don’t know all the instances or everything as I don’t really follow a whole lot to do with Catholicism. I do not support the government forcing businesses to subsidize something they disapprove of on moral grounds in most instances.

Not all Catholic business owners would be against this, but some certainly are. Those who are morally opposed I would not support.

My views on contraceptives and abortion haven’t conflicted with that at all I don’t believe. I wholeheartedly think what I’m talking about offers a better solution for the long term than just making abortion illegal tomorrow. Mainly because of unintended consequences. [/quote]

But that actually is the political fight. There is no real movement to ban contraception.

Has anyone considered why Knee-dragger might feel the need to put Catholic (and other orthodox systems) doctrine out to people who aren’t even on page one with us? Because that IS under attack. Progressives and the government (Health-care mandate) have made this a political issue.

Tax the orthodox Catholic parents, throw contraception at their kids in a public school.

Catholic parents opt out and deal with the longer distance to a Catholic school, applying for tuition assistance (last year we paid for the tuition of everyone that applied for assistance, in our diocese). Government now discovers this before unknown power–using their sooper-dooper US Constitution decoder rings–to make contraception coverage a mandate. Now Catholics supposedly must provide this coverage in their own schools…
In their own businesses…

Contraception “access” has only become a hot-button because the government, Obama, made it’s move.

[/quote]

I don’t think kneedragger is putting this out about anything political because he never mentions it. He floods the forum with his vortex videos and largely nothing else. He doesn’t usually ask questions, but tells people things. For the most part he just comes up with a subject and finds a vortex video to throw in. This time he at least put a FEW thoughts. Mostly it is pure spam apparently intended to make that company money or something? I have no idea.

It is my position that people with fringe views SHOULD be argued against. Their positions if made popular MAY be very dangerous. I think it is easy for me to point out logically how.

A good example is Jenny McCarthy. She spent so much time trying to convince people not to get vaccines because it may lead to autism. Now she says her kid may not even have it. Fringe views are fine as long as they remain fringe views. Attempting to popularize them is dangerous in some cases. I can’t think of a better way to say it than dangerous.

I would never deny kneedragger his right to have what I view are very weird beliefs. I will logically fight tooth and nail against keeping those beliefs from becoming more popular as I believe they will lead to negative consequences. Again I may not be right, but I haven’t seen anyone really attack my positions logically on some of the unintended consequences regarding what he is arguing for.

anon50325502 · January 28, 2014, 8:29pm

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Those who put their own kids lives at risk by ignoring modern medicine and trying to heal everything via prayer? I view having a child who is sick and refusing medical treatment for him/her AS child abuse. Is it my job to do anything about it? I have no idea. Probably not. At the same time I DO think that is abuse. I would be hard pressed to have someone logically prove to me that it is not.
[/quote]

I understand your line of thinking. I also think it’s a borderline slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? If dinner every night is deep fried or fast food is that abuse? You are easily endangering a child’s life. Heart disease, diabetes, etc… there are all sorts of healthy food options available, but the parent choice is to buy fast food. Do we allow the government to force parents to feed their kids certain things?

What if you as the parent smoke in the house, is that abuse? A child could get lung cancer by developing the same habit or from second hand smoke. Do we make smoking in a home illegal? If I’m not mistake smoking in a car with a minor is illegal in MD, is that okay?

Your example warrants discussion, no doubt. I can’t imagine it’s a very large % of the population that’s doing this though. Even still, it’s hard for me to call it abuse. It’s not as if the parents are doing nothing. They are doing what they believe is the right thing to do per their faith. It’s not what you or I believe in, but it is what they believe in. And I don’t think it’s our place, via the government, to step in and make the decision for them. Yes, it is unfortunate a child may suffer because of their parents faith. It’s also unfortunate a child has to suffer because his mom is a crack head or he was born with HIV. That’s life though.
[/quote]

It is a slippery slope, but when a child is denied health care ON purpose by his parents he becomes a victim. That is my opinion and I realize not everyone will share it. If a child is at risk of death and a family doesn’t take them to the hospital and decides to use “Mark” to help him how is that not child abuse?

Is my view infringing on their religious beliefs? Maybe so. I don’t really give a crap. I don’t think a 5 year old should be at risk of death because his parents are religious wackos.

I don’t think we have to do all the stuff you talked about to discuss what to do when a child who is in an emergency situation does not receive care because of faith. To me that is neglect. [/quote]

Sure, I can see it being called neglect. I get your argument. I don’t see it as denial of healthcare on purpose. To me (and I don’t agree with this stance) it’s more like different healthcare. Spiritual instead of secular.

Have you thought about the consequences of your stance?

I think the government can easily use this to ignore the 4th amendment. For ex. the neighbors call the police because they know the kid is on deaths door, what do the police do? Kick the door down and take the child.

How about the 2nd. Ex. kid exhibits traits of a mental disorder and the parents don’t believe in modern medicine. Better take the families guns, the kid might hurt himself or someone else.

I don’t want to see a kid die of something easily curable by any means.

Aragorn · January 28, 2014, 8:49pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Those who put their own kids lives at risk by ignoring modern medicine and trying to heal everything via prayer? I view having a child who is sick and refusing medical treatment for him/her AS child abuse. Is it my job to do anything about it? I have no idea. Probably not. At the same time I DO think that is abuse. I would be hard pressed to have someone logically prove to me that it is not.
[/quote]

I understand you line of thinking. I also think it’s a borderline slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? If dinner every night is deep fried or fast food is that abuse? You are easily endangering a child’s life. Heart disease, diabetes, etc… there are all sorts of healthy food options available, but the parent choice is to buy fast food. Do we allow the government to force parents to feed their kids certain things?

What if you as the parent smoke in the house, is that abuse? A child could get lung cancer by developing the same habit or from second hand smoke. Do we make smoking in a home illegal? If I’m not mistake smoking in a car with a minor is illegal in MD, is that okay?

Your example warrants discussion, no doubt. I can’t imagine it’s a very large % of the population that’s doing this though. Even still, it’s hard for me to call it abuse. It’s not as if the parents are doing nothing. They are doing what they believe is the right thing to do per their faith. It’s not what you or I believe in, but it is what they believe in. And I don’t think it’s our place, via the government, to step in and make the decision for them. Yes, it is unfortunate a child may suffer because of their parents faith. It’s also unfortunate a child has to suffer because his mom is a crack head or he was born with HIV. That’s life though.

[/quote]

I tend to agree with you here. It’s a shitty situation all around, there’s no doubt about it. And it does warrent conversation (as opposed to sound biting grandstanding, or legislation) to look at the issue. But it comes down to a very unappealing fact, but a fact nonetheless–There is no perfect win scenario. There never has been and there never will be. Trying to reach said perfect win scenario is what has landed us with almost all the worst government transgressions of all time, not to mention war, killings, and brutality in the name of the greater good. I would argue vehemently that the government should never get involved in parenting unless it is concerning a criminal act–physical, sexual, etc etc. All but the grossest need to be left to the parents precisely because the government has no self control, will never have self-control, and cannot be trusted.

It’s shitty, and it sucks. And moreover, it’s wrong. But you cannot attempt to fix the emotional heartstring story cases because there’s always more of them–and it always leads to “give us more power to fix this” until there’s nothing more to give, and nothing left to keep. This necessitates the unattractive and difficult but inescapable conclusion that somebody, somewhere, is going to suffer wrong because we as humans are fucked up. The problem is, in order to keep the hallowed concepts of liberty and pursuit of happiness (not attainment of happiness) alive, some problems simply will exist.

I would have crapload of words for those parents you mentioned though H. Many, many angry words. I can’t call it abuse, because abuse is intentional and these parents are idiots who are hurting their kid through ignorance. I am sure they love the kid but they don’t understand life.

Sloth · January 28, 2014, 9:18pm

[quote]H factor wrote:
Again I may not be right, but I haven’t seen anyone really attack my positions logically on some of the unintended consequences regarding what he is arguing for. [/quote]

I don’t think anyone is interested in taking the time. I’m not.

It’s not a position that rises to government intervention (well, not from our side, ironically).
You don’t believe in sin in the first place. Therefore, what is the point in arguing how it is sinful? I might as be arguing about bananas with you. Again, you’re not even on page 1 of the same book with me. There’s a whole bunch of stuff that comes first.
Even if the west does everyone a favor and depopulates itself, I suppose larger-sized, more religious families, will just have to be moved in anyways through massive immigration expansions targeting the mid-east and S.America. Or, they’ll come on their own anyways. Or maybe what youth there are will reject the culture of their forefathers, a massive gray and barren population trying to live out their massively extended lifespans by sucking dry a below-replacement-level-fertility supplied youth work force. Well, so long as me and mine are left to run Popeville (or some such thing) as we see fit…/shrug.

H_factor · January 28, 2014, 9:21pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Again I may not be right, but I haven’t seen anyone really attack my positions logically on some of the unintended consequences regarding what he is arguing for. [/quote]

I don’t think anyone is interested in taking the time. I’m not.

It’s not a position that rises to government intervention (well, not from our side, ironically).
You don’t believe in sin in the first place. Therefore, what is the point in arguing how it is sinful? I might as be arguing about bananas with you. Again, you’re not even on page 1 of the same book with me. There’s a whole bunch of stuff that comes first.
Even if the west does everyone a favor and depopulates itself, I suppose larger-sized, more religious families, will just have to be moved in anyways through massive immigration expansions targeting the mid-east and S.America. Or, they’ll come on their own anyways. Or maybe what youth there are will reject the culture of their forefathers, a massive gray and barren population trying to live out their massively extended lifespans by sucking dry a below-replacement-level-fertility supplied youth work force. Well, so long as me and mine are left to run Popeville (or some such thing) as we see fit…/shrug.

[/quote]

Since men cannot agree on what is sinful then we shouldn’t use religion to make any of our laws.

I believe the Constitution says this and it is the idea behind religious freedom and separation of church and state. After all you, me, people in this thread, hindus, buddhists, etc none of us can agree on sin so let’s use logic and reason to make our laws. We may be able to agree there. If not it’s our only chance.

NickViar · January 28, 2014, 9:25pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
little bit of gray (rape/abuse). [/quote]

Would you mind explaining what makes that a possible gray area? Is there any other situation in which you would possibly allow for the murder of an innocent third-party?

Sloth · January 28, 2014, 9:25pm

[quote]H factor wrote:

Since men cannot agree on what is sinful then we shouldn’t use religion to make any of our laws.
[/quote]

Men can’t agree on private or communal property, either.

Sloth · January 29, 2014, 12:10am

[quote]H factor wrote:
After all you, me, people in this thread, hindus, buddhists, etc none of us can agree on sin so let’s use logic and reason to make our laws. We may be able to agree there. If not it’s our only chance.
[/quote]

Logic and reason can be used to advance anything from communism to anarchism. It depends on those non-countable things, what you value, as to which way/where between one falls.

anon50325502 · January 28, 2014, 9:42pm

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
little bit of gray (rape/abuse). [/quote]

Would you mind explaining what makes that a possible gray area? Is there any other situation in which you would possibly allow for the murder of an innocent third-party? [/quote]

No, there is no other situation I can think of that I would allow for the murder of an innocent third party.

I think it’s a gray area based on the combination of a number of reasons:

1.) Consent was not given for sex.
2.) You can argue that life has started (assuming fertilization has occurred), however, the idea of person hood has floated around here a number of times. I think, in this case, using the morning after pill, while not ideal, is understandable as almost no development has occurred. I don’t think it’s right just understandable.
3.) Not everyone thinks abortion is wrong (even though I do).
4.) What is right and wrong in a situation as horrible as rape is a gray area in and of itself.
5.) This is real life, not some text book with clear cut cookie cutter answers.

Let me be clear, I am talking about (best case) immediate use of the morning after pill and (worst case) an abortion as soon as pregnancy is detected. Not 3 months into the pregnancy. I think it’s wrong. However, I won’t judge in this situation or one like it.

I’m not sure why you’re asking, I thought a fetus was trespassing to you?

smh_23 · January 28, 2014, 9:45pm

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
little bit of gray (rape/abuse). [/quote]

Would you mind explaining what makes that a possible gray area? Is there any other situation in which you would possibly allow for the murder of an innocent third-party? [/quote]

Yes. Say a villain brutalizes you and then finds a way to attach an innocent person to your blood supply. Say this innocent person will need to stay attached to you for nine months, at which time–with great pain, the possibility of the physical mutilation or at least alteration-for-the-worse of your genitals, and the possibility, however slim, of your death–the innocent person will be disconnected from you.

I would detach myself from the innocent person and regret their murder, which was really at the hands of the villain.

anon50325502 · January 28, 2014, 9:50pm

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
little bit of gray (rape/abuse). [/quote]

Would you mind explaining what makes that a possible gray area? Is there any other situation in which you would possibly allow for the murder of an innocent third-party? [/quote]

Yes. Say a villain brutalizes you and then finds a way to attach an innocent person to your blood supply. Say this innocent person will need to stay attached to you for nine months, at which time–with great pain, the possibility of the physical mutilation or at least alteration-for-the-worse of your genitals, and the possibility, however slim, of your death–the innocent person will be disconnected from you.

I would detach myself from the innocent person and regret their murder, which was really at the hands of the villain.[/quote]

Much more eloquently put my friend.

smh_23 · January 28, 2014, 10:28pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
little bit of gray (rape/abuse). [/quote]

Would you mind explaining what makes that a possible gray area? Is there any other situation in which you would possibly allow for the murder of an innocent third-party? [/quote]

Yes. Say a villain brutalizes you and then finds a way to attach an innocent person to your blood supply. Say this innocent person will need to stay attached to you for nine months, at which time–with great pain, the possibility of the physical mutilation or at least alteration-for-the-worse of your genitals, and the possibility, however slim, of your death–the innocent person will be disconnected from you.

I would detach myself from the innocent person and regret their murder, which was really at the hands of the villain.[/quote]

Much more eloquently put my friend. [/quote]

Thankee good sir, though I don’t think that any sentence can be called eloquent if it includes the phrase, “alteration-for-the-worse.”

Abortion in the case of rape is indeed a gray area. I am not among the people who consider it a shocking affront that some people are opposed to it–I understand that in a world of rigid and dogmatic religio-moral absolutes, there are rules to which no exception can be applied. That said, I am decidedly in favor of making sure that the government cannot tell a woman not to rid her womb of her rapist’s child.

NickViar · January 28, 2014, 10:57pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
little bit of gray (rape/abuse). [/quote]

Would you mind explaining what makes that a possible gray area? Is there any other situation in which you would possibly allow for the murder of an innocent third-party? [/quote]

No, there is no other situation I can think of that I would allow for the murder of an innocent third party.

I think it’s a gray area based on the combination of a number of reasons:

1.) Consent was not given for sex.
2.) You can argue that life has started (assuming fertilization has occurred), however, the idea of person hood has floated around here a number of times. I think, in this case, using the morning after pill, while not ideal, is understandable as almost no development has occurred. I don’t think it’s right just understandable.
3.) Not everyone thinks abortion is wrong (even though I do).
4.) What is right and wrong in a situation as horrible as rape is a gray area in and of itself.
5.) This is real life, not some text book with clear cut cookie cutter answers.

Let me be clear, I am talking about (best case) immediate use of the morning after pill and (worst case) an abortion as soon as pregnancy is detected. Not 3 months into the pregnancy. I think it’s wrong. However, I won’t judge in this situation or one like it.

I’m not sure why you’re asking, I thought a fetus was trespassing to you? [/quote]

Are you talking about the morning-after pill or abortion? I may be wrong, but I believe the morning-after pill prevents pregnancy from occurring.

Consent has nothing to do with the creation of a separate life.
Again, I believe the morning-after pill prevents pregnancy.
Obviously(as do I)
Not really(in this scenario, at least). If my wife was raped, and her rapist died before he was caught, I can’t imagine wanting her rapist’s wife punished.
That’s why it may be best to leave this question up to the individual/s involved and not the government.

I don’t believe I have ever said a fetus was trespassing. I believe I said legally banning abortion could lead to not being allowed to deal with a trespasser(I may be forgetting). What I said, if I’m not mistaken, is that I oppose abortion in any and all cases. If I didn’t say it, that is 100% what I believe.

anon50325502 · January 29, 2014, 3:23am