[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's nothing to suggest this reaches the "tinfoil hat" criteria. It's actually pretty transparent.

That's *exactly* what someone wearing a tinfoil hat would say

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's *exactly* what someone wearing a tinfoil hat would say

Quit thuggin'. What I mean is that I don't think it would have that profound an impact even if it were so. It's an election year and this is what election years are all about. I call it analysis.

[Wiskedjak]

More sluts in Arizona
Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

State Representative Debbie Lesko apparently wants to give employers the "freedom" to know if their employees are using prescription birth control in order to avoid getting pregnant and to be able to fire them if they are, because "we live in America; we don't live in the Soviet Union."

(because this story includes evocation of the Socialist boogyman, I half considering sticking this in the Socialism thread).

[andi*pandi]

So, employers should be able to peek into employee medical records? Has this state rep never heard of HIPAA?

There's something in the water in Arizona.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

So, employers should be able to peek into employee medical records? Has this state rep never heard of HIPAA?

There's something in the water in Arizona.

I don't think it's limited to the water in Arizona.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I personally have no problem with employers or insurance companies refusing to cover the cost of ANYTHING they where willing to give advance notice of.

[Chongo]

Most employers require smokers to pay more for their health insurance. Some will not hire smokers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us...pagewanted=all

[Chongo]

There must be something in the water in the EU. Peter Singer, Virginia Ironside, and now Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are advocating for the ultimate birth control method.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Most employers require smokers to pay more for their health insurance. Some will not hire smokers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us...pagewanted=all

Are you suggesting that employers shouldn't be able to not hire a person because they are a smoker? If so, I agree. If the argument is that smokers are less productive, then that should come out in performance reviews, and the employer can terminate the employee based on productivity rather than smoking. I know many highly productive smokers.

Are you suggesting that employers shouldn't be able to require smokers to pay more for their health insurance? This one I'm not so sure about. I don't think the employer should have a say in it, but the insurance industry is all about risk, and in the auto insurance industry people who engage in riskier driving habits or drive cars that are at a higher risk of being in an accident or costing more to repair are often charged more for insurance. Your article tells us that smokers, on average, cost $3,391/year more than non-smokers in health and productivity costs.

Either smokers should pay more to cover the added cost of their behavior, or the rest of the group covered under that insurance plan shoulders the burden of the added cost. Which do you think is better?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There must be something in the water in the EU. Peter Singer, Virginia Ironside, and now Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are advocating for the ultimate birth control method.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Not sure I see the connection to the topic of this thread, other than an attempt to derail?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

More sluts in Arizona
Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills

Terrible article title, but this practically deserves it's own thread.

Also, WTF is wrong with Arizona? The heat melting their heads?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not sure I see the connection to the topic of this thread, other than an attempt to derail?

Abortion is just another method of birth control, yes/no?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you suggesting that employers shouldn't be able to not hire a person because they are a smoker? If so, I agree. If the argument is that smokers are less productive, then that should come out in performance reviews, and the employer can terminate the employee based on productivity rather than smoking. I know many highly productive smokers.

Are you suggesting that employers shouldn't be able to require smokers to pay more for their health insurance? This one I'm not so sure about. I don't think the employer should have a say in it, but the insurance industry is all about risk, and in the auto insurance industry people who engage in riskier driving habits or drive cars that are at a higher risk of being in an accident or costing more to repair are often charged more for insurance. Your article tells us that smokers, on average, cost $3,391/year more than non-smokers in health and productivity costs.

Either smokers should pay more to cover the added cost of their behavior, or the rest of the group covered under that insurance plan shoulders the burden of the added cost. Which do you think is better?

Are you saying that those who engage in risky behavior should pay the consequences?

[andi*pandi]

If a smoker is productive at work (not taking bazillion smoke breaks) and discreet, how would the employer even know?

MYOB.

I work for a place that bans smoking on premises (that is their property and purview) but am appalled that some companies snoop into their employees lives to find out if they are smokers.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If a smoker is productive at work (not taking bazillion smoke breaks) and discreet, how would the employer even know?

Not taking any smoke breaks, except during break and lunch times mandated by law. That's why you get two breaks and a 30 minute lunch if you work 40 hours. Smoke during that time, not during some special "smoke break." It pisses me off to absolutely no end. I used to work at a place where it seemed like every 15 minutes someone would yell out, "Smoke break!" and half the office would get up and leave, leaving just a handful of us to pick the slack.

I got fed up, so I went outside with them. I grabbed a can of soda and stood out there. My boss came outside and started smoking, then stared at me. He told me he didn't know I smoked, I told him I didn't. He asked me why I was out here, then, and I told him, "Coke break." He got pissed and told me to get back inside and get to work.

I quit a couple days later. Screw 'em. You shouldn't get special treatment to feed a habit while I do your work for you.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If a smoker is productive at work (not taking bazillion smoke breaks) and discreet, how would the employer even know?

MYOB.

I work for a place that bans smoking on premises (that is their property and purview) but am appalled that some companies snoop into their employees lives to find out if they are smokers.

Yep, random blood tests turn up nicotine as well.

Volusia paramedics fired for smoking - News
Workers fired for refusing smoking test - Health - Addictions - msnbc.com

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Not taking any smoke breaks, except during break and lunch times mandated by law. That's why you get two breaks and a 30 minute lunch if you work 40 hours. Smoke during that time, not during some special "smoke break." It pisses me off to absolutely no end. I used to work at a place where it seemed like every 15 minutes someone would yell out, "Smoke break!" and half the office would get up and leave, leaving just a handful of us to pick the slack.

I got fed up, so I went outside with them. I grabbed a can of soda and stood out there. My boss came outside and started smoking, then stared at me. He told me he didn't know I smoked, I told him I didn't. He asked me why I was out here, then, and I told him, "Coke break." He got pissed and told me to get back inside and get to work.

I quit a couple days later. Screw 'em. You shouldn't get special treatment to feed a habit while I do your work for you.

As someone who takes smoke breaks, the five minutes gives me a chance to think about what I'm going to do next. I've had bosses who asked me "what's in those things?" because I'd come back from a smoke break energized and with a plan.

That being said, I don't think you should be denied the opportunity to collect yourself every now and again because you don't suck on the cancer stix.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

"what's in those things?"

You have a dumb boss if he doesn't know nicotine is a stimulant.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Not taking any smoke breaks, except during break and lunch times mandated by law. That's why you get two breaks and a 30 minute lunch if you work 40 hours. Smoke during that time, not during some special "smoke break."

If three cigarettes over 8 hours is adequate for someone, they are likely not a real smoker. I smoke once an hour and wouldn't consider myself a heavy smoker, just average.

That being said, I agree that smoking shouldn't cut into your productivity. My rule for my employees is that smoke breaks are fine so long as I don't see them also taking full 15 minutes breaks. That's how I operate, as well. I'll take five minutes every hour or so in lieu of my 15 minute breaks; I also don't take a full lunch, either.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Are you saying that those who engage in risky behavior should pay the consequences?

Yup. If it can be statistically shown that the behaviour comes with a significantly higher burden on their health care coverage than covered by their plan, then those who engage in that behaviour should pay extra. But, I don't think they should be denied coverage. Are people who have sex without the intent to have children engaging in risky behaviour?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Abortion is just another method of birth control, yes/no?

Not in the commonly understood term of "birth control". Are you equating the use of the Pill or condoms with infanticide?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You have a dumb boss if he doesn't know nicotine is a stimulant.

If you smoke a lot, the stimulant effect gets minimized. If anything, it's more of a stimulant not having one since your addicted nicotine receptors are screaming "feed me".

Likewise, as far as external stimuli are concerned, nicotine actually helps block some of that. The energy I get from a smoke break is from calming my brain down and focusing.

But as I implied, I'm losing focus somewhat in the first place because I want a smoky treat. It's a bit circular.

I should also note I used to weigh 270 pounds. Now I weigh 180. Thanks nicotine!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not in the commonly understood term of "birth control". Are you equating the use of the Pill or condoms with infanticide?

It sounds like the authors of the paper are.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yup. If it can be statistically shown that the behaviour comes with a significantly higher burden on their health care coverage than covered by their plan, then those who engage in that behaviour should pay extra. But, I don't think they should be denied coverage. Are people who have sex without the intent to have children engaging in risky behaviour?

If one is doing so with multiple partners. Birth control makes this much easier. Humanae Vitae made some predictions about wide spread use of birth control.

Have Humanae Vitae's predictions come true?
Theses are two of them

Infidelity and moral decline

The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would "lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." That there has been a widespread decline in morality, especially sexual morality, in the last 25 years, is very difficult to deny. The increase in the number of divorces, abortion, our-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases should convince any skeptic that sexual morality is not the strong suit of our age.

There is no question that contraception is behind much of this trouble. Contraception has made sexual activity a much more popular option that it was when the fear of pregnancy deterred a great number of young men and women from engaging in premarital sexual intercourse. The availability of contraception has led them to believe that they can engage in premarital sexual activity "responsibly." But teenagers are about as responsible in their use of contraception as they are in all other phases of their lives--such as making their beds, cleaning their rooms and getting their homework done on time.

Lost Respect for Women

Paul VI also argued that "the man" will lose respect for "the woman" and "no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium" and will come to "the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion." This concern reflects what has come to be known as a "personalist" understanding of morality. The personalist understanding of wrongdoing is based upon respect for the dignity of the human person. The Pope realized that the Church's teaching on contraception is designed to protect the good of conjugal love. When spouses violate this good, they do not act in accord with their innate dignity and thus they endanger their own happiness. Treating their bodies as mechanical instruments to be manipulated for their own purposes, they risk treating each other as objects of pleasure.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If one is doing so with multiple partners. Birth control makes this much easier. Humanae Vitae made some predictions about wide spread use of birth control.

Have Humanae Vitae's predictions come true?
Theses are two of them

Certainly people who have sex with multiple partners are at a higher risk for increased health costs. But, are you saying a statistically significant number of people who use birth control are having sex with multiple partners? Or, are you saying that because a *few* people who use birth control engage in risky behaviour, all other people who use birth control should be treated as if they to engage in that same risky behaviour?

This war on birth control from the Right is a curious thing ...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It sounds like the authors of the paper are.

Without question. I believe the Catholic Church also holds a similar position, from the other side of the argument. But, I don't see anyone here defending that position. In fact, it was *you* who introduced this [strike]strawman[/strike] story. Unless you say otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you equate the use of the Pill or condoms with infanticide?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This war on birth control from the Right is a curious thing ...

It's the other way around. Obama picked this fight.

Medicaid and Title X already provide contraceptives to low income women who want them. Planned Parenthood is a Title X recipient as well. Many are generic and can be obtained at Walmart and Target for $20 for a 90 day supply

Facts on Publicly Funded Contraceptive Services in the United States
From Guttmacher, PPA's research arm

IS PUBLIC FUNDING AVAILABLE?

• Public expenditures for family planning services totaled $2.37 billion in FY 2010.[7]
• Medicaid accounted for 75% of total expenditures, state appropriations for 12% and Title X for 10%. Other sources, such as the maternal and child health block grant, the social services block grant and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, together accounted for 3% of total funding. [7]
• The joint federal-state Medicaid program spent $1.8 billion for family planning services in FY 2010. The program reimburses providers for contraceptive and related services delivered to enrolled individuals. The federal government pays 90% of the cost of these services, and the states pay the remaining 10%.[7]
• Title X of the Public Health Service Act, the only federal program devoted specifically to supporting family planning services, contributed $228 million in FY 2010. It subsidizes services for women and men who do not meet the narrow eligibility requirements for Medicaid, maintains the national network of family planning centers and sets the standards for the provision of family planning services.[7]
• Even among Title X–supported centers, Medicaid was the largest national source of financial support in 2010. Medicaid contributed 37% of all revenue reported by these centers, and Title X provided 22%. (The remaining 41% came from state and local governments, other federal programs, private insurance and fees paid by clients.[8]
• States spent $294 million of their own funds for family planning services in FY 2010 (in addition to the funding they contributed to Medicaid and block-grant programs through matching requirements).[7]
• When inflation is taken into account, public funding for family planning client services increased 31% from FY 1980 to FY 2010.[7]

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Without question. I believe the Catholic Church also holds a similar position, from the other side of the argument. But, I don't see anyone here defending that position. In fact, it was *you* who introduced this [strike]strawman[/strike] story. Unless you say otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you equate the use of the Pill or condoms with infanticide?

Condoms, no. The pill, especially low dose pills that do not prevent ovulation but prevent implantation. perhaps.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Condoms, no. The pill, especially low dose pills that do not prevent ovulation but prevent implantation. perhaps.

Do condoms also not serve to prevent implantation?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do condoms also not serve to prevent implantation?

Fertilization, not implantation, but you already know that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Fertilization, not implantation, but you already know that.

Gotcha.

Preventing fertilization = OK
Preventing implantation = bad

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Gotcha.

Preventing fertilization = OK
Preventing implantation = bad

I don't think I've ever heard of or seen lines drawn this way before... Interesting

[Waragainstsleep]

The line is usually drawn at the moment of conception. Preventing conception is therefore not 'killing' anything but preventing implantation is 'killing' a viable ovum. I'm assuming that is the line Chongo is drawing, its actually very common.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm guessing, at the heart of it, there must be a poll somewhere that says the usual 'guarnteed voter bloc' of women voters isn't as jazzed on Obama as they were during the Hopey-Changey days of 2008, and so along comes: "What scare tactic can we dredge up to scare the panties off all these poor poor helpless victims and get more of them back in our camp?"

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nailed it!

This is why, More people identify as pro life than pro choice.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...one time in 15 years. And it doesn't seem to be a clear trend, either.

Looks like the drop continues.

"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

[Waragainstsleep]

Its just because the pro choicers breed more.

Also a lot of voters are now too young to remember the skyrocketing crime rates that dropped off apparently in tandem with the initial legalisation of abortion.

[ebuddy]

They're either too young to remember the drop in skyrocketing rates of crime or believe genocide isn't the proper approach to crime reduction.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

Don't celebrate yet.

[Chongo]

The Catholic family that owns a Colorado-based company won a court victory in their battle to stop the Obama administration from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, a mandate they say violates their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Hercules Industries, a Denver-based heating ventilation and air conditioning manufacturer that employs nearly 300 full-time workers, got an injunction in federal court which stops enforcement of the controversial Obamacare mandate. The company's lawyers said they needed the injunction immediately because if the mandate is enforced, it must begin immediately making changes to its health plan, which renews on Nov. 1.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/catholic-business-owners-seek-injunction-against-obama-health-care-mandate/#ixzz21rK0tEQQ

@$100 a day per employee, Hercules Industries would be fined $30k a day, $900k a month, and $10.8 million a year in fines.

[subego]

On one hand, I'd prefer for it to be feasible for people to just do whatever they want, but I think the administration makes a good point in that you can't claim religious freedom exempts a for-profit enterprise from commercial regulation.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

On one hand, I'd prefer for it to be feasible for people to just do whatever they want, but I think the administration makes a good point in that you can't claim religious freedom exempts a for-profit enterprise from commercial regulation.

Could you elaborate the basis for this position? I only ask because in that case, Commercial Regulation > 1st Amendment.

There are arguments on both sides.

[subego]

Potential for abuse is what mainly comes to mind.

I'd say commercial regulation clearly trumps the First Amendment. At least, that's been my observation. There is a mechanism in place which gives you more protection under the First Amendment, but you exchange profits for that protection.

I make no claim as to whether that's the best system. As I said, from a philosophical standpoint I'd prefer people to be able to do what they want.

[Waragainstsleep]

Surely the individual employee's religious freedoms should overrule their employers? Otherwise, employers could just found a new religion that is ok with keeping slaves.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Potential for abuse is what mainly comes to mind.
I'd say commercial regulation clearly trumps the First Amendment. At least, that's been my observation. There is a mechanism in place which gives you more protection under the First Amendment, but you exchange profits for that protection.
I make no claim as to whether that's the best system. As I said, from a philosophical standpoint I'd prefer people to be able to do what they want.

Could you not imagine situations in which that regulation is clearly meant to stifle the speech of those very businesses though? i.e., the reverse. As divisive as this country has become, it isn't hard to image either party enacting "commercial" regulation to promote one ideal over another. Infact I just started another thread on this very topic (Chik-fil-a). Though thats an example of local municipalities using zoning permits to stifle Chik-fil-a's speech.

It's clearly not a black or white decision, rather a continuum. What of the employees of the establishment who disagree with the provision? With federally mandated regulation their only option is not to work. They can't even make a go of it on their own, or move to another state thats more friendly to their beliefs.

I sort of see your argument as "If you want to work you have to subscribe to our beliefs" which is direct contradiction to the first amendment. The 1st should be applied anywhere and to all. From both a practical and philisophical standpoint I view "exchanging profits for constitutional protection" to be a sorely misguided notion, even if some mild examples of it exist in today's landscape.

[Chongo]

This where Bishop Lori's "Parable of the Kosher Deli" come into play.

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it The Parable of the Kosher Deli.
Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.
There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community — whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides — expresses its outrage at the new government mandate.

And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork — not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths — because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.

They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle.

They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced — under threat of severe government sanction — to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you.”

It is, after all, the “other white meat.”

Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”

Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following:

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate.

Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe — even if they believe in error — that pork is not good for you should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not — and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.
Does the fact that large majorities in society — even large majorities within the protesting religious community — reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards.

Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.

Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.

Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

So, in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer them a new “accommodation.”

You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer.

But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and to offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept.

And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself.

But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things:

First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers themselves are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.
This story has a happy ending: The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-parable-of-the-kosher-deli/#ixzz220tItnjj

You can add Halal grocery stores and restaurants to list. Can you imagine the uproar in the Muslim community? How about forcing Muslim employees to run the cash registers, thus not only handling pork, but alcohol as well? Wait, Target ran into that problem. We all know how well that went down. Target had to place those employees in areas that would not require them to handle products that would violate the tenets of Islam.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't celebrate yet.

Umm...when they typically expand what the definition of "under certain circumstances" means in other polls, usually the majority of Americans are opposed to abortions that are due to any real elective "choice." As in, a form of birth control.

They don't want them illegal under ALL circumstances. They want a mother who is in a life or death situation to be able to choose to abort to save her own life and other REAL health dilemmas. For the most part, if the definition of "Pro Choice" was strictly defined to mean abortion allowed under most conditions, then the majority of Americans would be solidly "Pro Life" in most all polls. It's the whole "self definition" thing that clouds the issue, and lets those who are pro-abortion make dishonest claims about where the political center is on this issue.

So...if someone wanted to "celebrate" the fact that most Americans disagree with current abortion law that the courts made up, I think that they still can take comfort in the polls.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Umm...when they typically expand what the definition of "under certain circumstances" means in other polls, usually the majority of Americans are opposed to abortions that are due to any real elective "choice." As in, a form of birth control.
They don't want them illegal under ALL circumstances. They want a mother who is in a life or death situation to be able to choose to abort to save her own life and other REAL health dilemmas. For the most part, if the definition of "Pro Choice" was strictly defined to mean abortion allowed under most conditions, then the majority of Americans would be solidly "Pro Life" in most all polls. It's the whole "self definition" thing that clouds the issue, and lets those who are pro-abortion make dishonest claims about where the political center is on this issue.
So...if someone wanted to "celebrate" the fact that most Americans disagree with current abortion law that the courts made up, I think that they still can take comfort in the polls.

You're probably right to point out that this 'certain circumstances' makes the poll too vague to be of much use, but its easy to claim that vagueness supports your view rather then the opposing view, whatever side you fall on.

Do people really think that this (or for that matter every lawmaking decision) should be a matter of majority rules? If you took a poll of "Would you prefer to never pay any taxes ever?" I bet well over 90% of people would say yes. Where would we be if that was how we made all decisions on policies or laws? Just because the majority is how policy makers are elected, doesn't mean it should be the deciding factor on every little detail. If it did, there would be little point in electing leaders at all, we should just decide all political votes with a Facebook poll and be done with it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You're probably right to point out that this 'certain circumstances' makes the poll too vague to be of much use, but its easy to claim that vagueness supports your view rather then the opposing view, whatever side you fall on.

Actually, I can dig up some polls that make the "certain circumstances" more clear and supports my claim, if necessary.

Do people really think that this (or for that matter every lawmaking decision) should be a matter of majority rules?

When the Constitution is silent, yes. It should reflect the values of the majority of the people. I don't think it should reflect the values of a few people who where unelected, and likely have little ability to relate to common folk. Not only because I think it's a good idea, but because that's how the founders of our country intended it. I'm pretty sure that they would never have imagined a time when it would be suggested that the document they created was intended to protect people from local governments stopping them from killing their offspring.

If you took a poll of "Would you prefer to never pay any taxes ever?" I bet well over 90% of people would say yes.

But they likely would not elect people to represent them who would forward such a request. While most would PREFER to not have to pay taxes, when it comes right down to it, most know that basic government services require some kind of financial support from citizens. Only a tiny percentage of Americans would actually vote to do away with roads, the military, and other essential services which require taxes.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not everyone can take any oral contraceptive. That's one of the reasons there are different kinds. Again, this is a guess, but I think it's likely that price is only for the cheapest generic brand.

Asking around, the average major metro cost seems about $30 a month for generic.

It's really not. That list showed two generic birth control pills. That said, basic hormonal birth control is not in-patent, and there are a variety of generics available very cheaply. With insurance, pretty much any HBC is going to be about $10 a month - a small price to pay compared to the $20k+ it costs for pre- and post-natal care when you have a baby (not to mention the 18+ years that kid will be insured as a dependent).

I skimmed through this thread and have yet to see anyone talk much about the other reasons why women use hormonal birth control.

Saying "she wants HBC because she wants to have lots of irresponsible sex" is like saying "he has a tattoo because he's clearly a drug-addicted degenerate who belongs in prison" or "she wants to own a firearm for the purpose of committing murder".

I was on hormonal birth control from the age of 16 until about...five months ago? I used several different types of the Pill, as well as the patch (Ortho-Evra) and the implant (Implanon). When I went on birth control, I was still living the life of a staunchly conservative Christian and had decided I wasn't going to do anything physical with a guy (including kissing) until I was married.

No, I went on birth control to try and mitigate the debilitating cramping and heavy bleeding I was suffering every single time I had a period. It was to the point that I was missing school and work because of how bad my periods were. There are a lot of women who choose to use HBC to deal with the myriad side effects that come with periods - and there are plenty of women who use certain types of HBC to avoid periods altogether. While the guys here in the 'NN community might think "oh, that's stupid", you have no idea what it's like to have periods. I'm pretty sure if YOU were bleeding, tired, moody, crampy, and smelly for a week (or more) every month, you'd probably be looking for a way to lessen the impact, too.

When I did start having sex, being on HBC was a good safety net, but I was also already educated on the importance of protecting against STDs. Condoms were mandatory in my book - not to mention that I wasn't exactly slumming around, banging anything that moved. It's a little judgmental to assume that a non-married woman on birth control is a slut, don't you think?

I don't recall any part of Obama's health care reform containing a mandate that Catholics or anyone else be required to take birth control. This whole topic has turned into another "hot" issue that is serving the all-important purpose of distracting the public from the real issues we need to focus on, like economic reform, Social Security, and the future of the country's financial stability. In fifty years, that shit's going to matter a hell of a lot more than whether or not Anthem ended up covering that $10 copay for a woman's birth control.

[subego]

I'm not sure what you are referring to with "it", so therefore also don't know what "it" is not.

I mentioned there are reasons to take BCPs other than knockin' the boots, but that was back on page one. I want credit.

[Chongo]

Since July 25th was the anniversary of Humanae Vitae, here are the predictions that came to pass.

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That's it. But it's pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it's probably never been as salient as today.
Today's injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

General lowering of moral standards

A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy

The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.

Government coercion in reproductive matters.

(Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#ixzz222BxW3HV

[subego]

Translation: since some people abuse freedom, we'd prefer no one had it.