Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, there are. Politics are all about who's on what team.
Rush made it an issue with his "****" remark. The conservatives took that and ran with it, making the entire issue about lifestyle.
Simply stated, you can't have it both ways. You either have accessible birth control covered by insurance or you have rising abortion rates or babies in the welfare system.
Is that so hard to understand?
Rush made it about lifestyle.
Given that prior to the 1960s we didn't have any of that makes it hard to understand, yes. There was no birth control pill, there was no War on Poverty, and there was no rising abortion rate.
What your "either this or that" dichotomy does not address is societal values. If there is a general societal disapproval of something, then people will not do it as much. Yes, it still happens. But record high levels of teenage mothers and illegitimacy happened after accessible birth control, legal abortion, and a welfare system. Not before. Those things are a result of it, not prevented by it. And the existence of those things are in turn contributing factors to an acceptance of irresponsible sex within society. As the saying goes, when you subsidize something you get more of it. Birth control -> sexual liberation -> more sex, even by people not using the birth control that prompted the liberation.
I'm not making a moral judgment here, just stating facts. The idea that people are free to do what they want without judgments about pre-marital sex and being on public assistance being shameful things may outweigh other considerations. But to present a situation where freely available birth control is the answer to millions of abortions and a strained social welfare system is not borne out by history. The problems you attribute to a lack of birth control were actually less prevalent before birth control was invented. The change in attitudes about sex enabled by birth control actually contributed to, not solved, the problems you refer to. Whether good or bad, it's just history.
Given that prior to the 1960s we didn't have any of that makes it hard to understand, yes. There was no birth control pill, there was no War on Poverty, and there was no rising abortion rate.
What your "either this or that" dichotomy does not address is societal values. If there is a general societal disapproval of something, then people will not do it as much. Yes, it still happens. But record high levels of teenage mothers and illegitimacy happened after accessible birth control, legal abortion, and a welfare system. Not before. It is a result of those things, not prevented by those things. Those things are contributing factors to an acceptance of irresponsible sex within society. As the saying goes, when you subsidize something you get more of it. Birth control -> sexual liberation -> more sex, even by people not using the birth control that prompted the liberation.
I'm not making a moral judgment here, just stating facts. The idea that people are free to do what they want without judgments about pre-marital sex and being on public assistance being shameful things may outweigh other considerations. But to present a situation where freely available birth control is the answer to millions of abortions and a strained social welfare system is not borne out by history. The problems you attribute to a lack of birth control were actually less prevalent before birth control was invented. The change in attitudes about sex enabled by birth control actually contributed to, not solved, the problems you refer to. Whether good or bad, it's just history.
Yep in fact many years ago if a couple had a baby out of wedlock they were ostracized so most avoided it. Sure many of the marriages that happened were horrible but compared to what happens today in many cases an improvement. Now we have the societal ills we never had before, including more gangs and higher crime. Having a baby with someone out of wedlock is accepting now matter how many times people do this. We also have higher rates of disease, and divorce.
Yes, this is the reason. The reason BC gets coverage is because it's ridiculous that religion still tries to play such a large part in our society and our government. Slowly but surely our society will push the religious head out of the way and proceed with the morals that America actually possesses based on our conduct, not beliefs. The rules based on equality and the constitutional right of equality free from religious input.
Our funding is not based on individual morals or I wouldn't be funding the heart medication needed because someone ate to many Micky D sandwiches. We pay for all, or we pay for none. We are governed. We are seen equally regardless of religion. The pope doesn't run America. Get over it. IMO, of course.
I've just addressed the same issue on gay marriage. People of certain religious beliefs need to re-read the constitution of the United States. IMO. You don't rule America, only try.
Telling people to read the constitution when they don't support federal government mandating what insurance covers is a little ironic. You're absolutely right that they have no right to force their religious values on anybody. However, in turn, that very same constitution says that the federal government has no right to mandate that birth control be covered by private insurance companies.
So you're correct in saying the constitution doesn't support their reasons for doing what they're doing. But the constitution does support the end result of what they're trying to do (some of them - the ones who want to ban birth control are entirely wrong). It just supports it for different reasoning than they are trying to use.
I see you are my follower. Good maybe you will learn from me and learn that having multiple babies out of wedlock on welfare isn't a good idea.
Maybe one day you'll read the words of Jesus and do what he said, and what he did, rather than what Rush Limbaugh says and does. I doubt it though. I think you're genuflecting to Rush Limbaugh.
Maybe one day you'll read the words of Jesus and do what he said, and what he did, rather than what Rush Limbaugh says and does. I doubt it though. I think you're genuflecting to Rush Limbaugh.
WWJD doesn't sit well with you at all, does it?
Yes I worship Rush he's the man I didn't even know I listened because I don't even know when he's on but according to you I listen because you said so. I probably listen to Glen Beck too and Sean Hannity and all the other conservative radio hosts (though I have no idea when they are even on the air).
I don't know about the others, but most religions don't oppose pain meds or even HIV. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church thinks of HIV medicine but since it is helping with life it is probably ok. I know their issue with birth control is that many forms abort an embryo before it implants in the uterus and that people should be open to life. I don't completely agree but this is their view and must be respected when it comes to financial aspects. I also know many religious organizations require the person to be of the same faith and this is important I think with this issue so it's a non issue.
In addition to what you said about abortion, the Catholic Church has issues with all birth control. The Bible says to be fruitful and multiply. So if you try to prevent pregnancy you are disobeying God.
Yes I worship Rush he's the man I didn't even know I listened because I don't even know when he's on but according to you I listen because you said so. I probably listen to Glen Beck too and Sean Hannity and all the other conservative radio hosts (though I have no idea when they are even on the air).
Okay, so let me see if I'm getting this. You claim to be an independent who sometimes votes Democratic, however, your in all else your views are mostly right wing, with all that entails, including a disdain for the poor, a desire to do away with govt programs for the poor, etc. Correct?
In addition to what you said about abortion, the Catholic Church has issues with all birth control. The Bible says to be fruitful and multiply. So if you try to prevent pregnancy you are disobeying God.
That is true, they believe in what is considered quivering which means have as many kids as God intended though they do allow natural family planning where you use the calendar to know when you can ovulate.
Okay, so let me see if I'm getting this. You claim to be an independent who sometimes votes Democratic, however, your in all else your views are mostly right wing, with all that entails, including a disdain for the poor, a desire to do away with govt programs for the poor, etc. Correct?
Wrong. I have once again never said I was anti poor, in fact I am not even anti welfare. What I am against are those who abuse the system.
NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Such a good Jesus follower! Certainly fit to be teaching Jesus words! Hell yeah!
