drawscore wrote:I think you are misreading something, or are being misinformed. First, the teachings and tenets of the Catholic Church come down against contraception. Last time I looked, Catholicism was a mainstream religion, not a bunch of wild eyed radicals.
dreadnaught3200 wrote: Is it just me, or does it seem fundamentalism is on the rise in every religion these days?
sarobah wrote:As an outsider (i.e. non-American), I would suggest that this “debate” about contraceptives and abortion services is just the latest round in the bizarre fight against universal health insurance (led as usual by that distinguished guardian of human rights and dignity, Rush “I am a drug-addled media whore” Limbaugh).
I like Americans; the US is my favourite country. You guys put people on the Moon! But this obsession with the “evils” of universal health coverage is totally beyond my comprehension. Here in Australia we have had universal health insurance for decades, and believe me, if we have turned into a socialist, atheistic inferno, then I must have slept through the revolution.
swamidfs wrote:sarobah wrote:As an outsider (i.e. non-American), I would suggest that this “debate” about contraceptives and abortion services is just the latest round in the bizarre fight against universal health insurance (led as usual by that distinguished guardian of human rights and dignity, Rush “I am a drug-addled media whore” Limbaugh).
I like Americans; the US is my favourite country. You guys put people on the Moon! But this obsession with the “evils” of universal health coverage is totally beyond my comprehension. Here in Australia we have had universal health insurance for decades, and believe me, if we have turned into a socialist, atheistic inferno, then I must have slept through the revolution.
It is not so much a debate about health care or even about contraceptives and abortion per say as it is to many an attack again religion. The Catholic Church as a religious orginization as a basic belief considers the use of contraceptives and abortion to be acts that are against the natural dignity of the individual- whether that be the sex partner or unborn fetus(which if born become magically human). As a result of their views concerning the act of sex to be something more than a physical exchange for self gratitude, the act of preventing the possibility of pregnancy like the use of a condom is something they do not condone. As a result of "seperating church from state" and under the First Amendment right of freedom of religion, such beliefs by the Catholic Church(and others with similar views) object to Congress telling them to concienciously object to paying for so called health care choices - Like condoms cannot be bought at truck stops and walgreens. Or that Planned (Abortion) Parenthood does not provide services for those without healthcare to cover for the costs.
Throwing Rush as the face of the issue only turns the spotlight away from what makes it a real issue and creates a false arguement in favor of those who want such forced on religious orginizations as a means of influencing anothers belief system by right of law, rather than really explain what the issue really is.
Jason Toddman wrote:Can you imagine what a health care program run by Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or Scientologists (none of whom believe in modern medical practices) would be like if employers could determine what was or was not covered by insurance programs based on their own beliefs? No, health insurance coverage needs to be standardized or it's be a chaotic hodge-podge where no one could ever be sure what is or is not covered, for the same reason traffic laws are standardized everywhere in the country. Any less would be completely unfair to people.
Kyle wrote: I'd think going in to a job for a religious-based organization you'd know the kinds of things they do and don't approve of. I wouldn't go working for a church expecting them to fund an abortion.
Jason Toddman wrote:Kyle wrote: I'd think going in to a job for a religious-based organization you'd know the kinds of things they do and don't approve of. I wouldn't go working for a church expecting them to fund an abortion.
Neither would I. But what about a nurse working for a major metropolitan hospital run by a church, as some (like Mercy Hospital in my own city) are?
Jack Roper wrote:Debate is just one form of communication, one conducive to verbal combat. A much finer form of communication is dialogue, like Socrates in Plato. Then, it is more like two friends walking along a country path discussing life in a serious manner, not talking past or over each other, interrupting and seeking to score debating points. One might think that on a forum of such limited size as this that we could at least all start out in a friendly way, since God knows what the world would think of much of what is written on here re: TUGS.
drawscore wrote:Gawd, I love it when I drive a liberal crazy, and when a liberal can't find a cogent counter argument. "Waahhh! I'm taking my ball and going home!"
Drawscore
drawscore wrote:Well, you espouse liberal thought and theory. And, as the saying goes, "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." Drawscore
drawscore wrote: You have proven one thing though, and that is arguing with an intelligent person can be productive, and one can glean insight from arguing opposing positions. But arguing with an idiot is not productive. It brings one down to the idiot's level, and soon, observers are unable to tell the difference.
Drawscore
drawscore wrote:You keep making my point for me. You are dismissive; you fail to counter my points and arguments; and you try to diminish me as a person. It's not effective, and most observers will see through it.
Drawscore
drawscore wrote: And I never said I like to argue. I said I enjoy debate, and there is a difference. An argument is nothing more than a shouting match. Debate takes intelligent thought and preparation. And I will admit to making a semantic error when I said >>>arguing with an intelligent person can be productive, and one can glean insight from arguing opposing positions.<<< "Arguing" should have been "debating" in both instances where it appears in the phrase.
Drawscore