birdog1960 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 seems yall are missing the bigger issue in this debate: conscience. the foudiing fathers appreciated the need for it's protection. it seems some of you are selective as to which founding principles you deem worthy of protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 seems yall are missing the bigger issue in this debate: conscience. the foudiing fathers appreciated the need for it's protection. it seems some of you are selective as to which founding principles you deem worthy of protection. This has 0 to do with individual conscience, it has to do with separation of church and state. Now if you were to say that you believe that the Catholic church should have an INTERNAL debate and discussion over this matter, and how they should move forward, then I could understand that. This isn't the Conservative POV, its the constitutional case. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-overreach--obamacare-vs-the-constitution/2012/02/16/gIQAmupcIR_story.html Read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 This has 0 to do with individual conscience, it has to do with separation of church and state. Now if you were to say that you believe that the Catholic church should have an INTERNAL debate and discussion over this matter, and how they should move forward, then I could understand that. This isn't the Conservative POV, its the constitutional case. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-overreach--obamacare-vs-the-constitution/2012/02/16/gIQAmupcIR_story.html Read it i did. individual conscience regarding religious issues and separartion of church and state are tightly intertwined in this issue. the inclusion of one in the argument doesn't exclude the othewr. can't help it if you can't see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) i did. individual conscience regarding religious issues and separartion of church and state are tightly intertwined in this issue. the inclusion of one in the argument doesn't exclude the othewr. can't help it if you can't see that. No, I did. I said that if you were to make the argument that the church should have this internal discussion, I could understand it, you're the one who is incapable of attempting to see the constitutional argument and respecting the beliefs of the church. Which by definition, makes you an intolerant person on this matter. Edited February 17, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Actually, the blunder was by his parents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 All you liberals love when you can cry about separation of church and state when it suits your needs or feel religion ideology is involved in government but you can't have it both ways. Herr Obama cannot force the church into a position which is fundamentalaly incompatible with their core doctrine by mandating birth control services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Can we talk about the real issue here? Since when is birth control "basic health care?" And if so, why arent boner pills covered? And finally (just a comment)....how the !@#$ does this Marxist have the BALLS to MANDATE health insurance providers cover something 100% and add on all kinds of other stuff that must be covered under "basic" health insurance and then whine that health care is expensive? To paraphrase DC, you are an angry idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Can we talk about the real issue here? Since when is birth control "basic health care?" And if so, why arent boner pills covered? And finally (just a comment)....how the !@#$ does this Marxist have the BALLS to MANDATE health insurance providers cover something 100% and add on all kinds of other stuff that must be covered under "basic" health insurance and then whine that health care is expensive? What he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) All you liberals love when you can cry about separation of church and state when it suits your needs or feel religion ideology is involved in government but you can't have it both ways. Herr Obama cannot force the church into a position which is fundamentalaly incompatible with their core doctrine by mandating birth control services. This makes zero sense. He has not forced the church to do anything...did you miss that part, last Friday? It seems there is a lot of very ignorant people here. You, and RK understand very little about medical insurance. Edited February 17, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) All you liberals love when you can cry about separation of church and state when it suits your needs or feel religion ideology is involved in government but you can't have it both ways. Herr Obama cannot force the church into a position which is fundamentalaly incompatible with their core doctrine by mandating birth control services. i'm against this mandate and for protection of conscience. i assumed that would be understood by including the link. Edited February 17, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 i'm against this mandate and for protection of conscience. i assumed that would be understood by including the link. I wasn't referring to your post just my ramblings This makes zero sense. He has not forced the church to do anything...did you miss that part, last Friday? It seems there is a lot of very ignorant people here. You, and RK understand very little about medical insurance. your not understanding the issue. This is not about insurance its about the constitution. So you deny that Herr Obama is trying to force religious organizations to cover birth control which are fundamentally opposed to their core doctrine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 This makes zero sense. He has not forced the church to do anything...did you miss that part, last Friday? It seems there is a lot of very ignorant people here. You, and RK understand very little about medical insurance. 1) Why should birth control be considered "basic" health care? 2) Why should ED pills NOT be covered under the same premise? 3) How should insurance companies absorb the new cost of offering free contraception without raising cost to the consumer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 All you liberals love when you can cry about separation of church and state when it suits your needs or feel religion ideology is involved in government but you can't have it both ways. Herr Obama cannot force the church into a position which is fundamentalaly incompatible with their core doctrine by mandating birth control services. What if the church thinks they should be allowed to pay less than minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 2) Why should ED pills NOT be covered under the same premise? Medicare covers them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) 1) Why should birth control be considered "basic" health care? 2) Why should ED pills NOT be covered under the same premise? 3) How should insurance companies absorb the new cost of offering free contraception without raising cost to the consumer? One could argue that for some, not having ED pills is almost the same as free contraception. So I guess the Catholic Church should be forced to provide not only ED pills, but maybe a little Spanish fly? Edited February 17, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What if the church thinks they should be allowed to pay less than minimum wage? C'mon Adam. Its obvious that you love the middle of the road, but are you kidding with that false argument ? Let me know when the Church has been teaching about "low wages" for over two thousand years and then we can talk........Jeez. Its not a "birth control" issue..........................its a control issue. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 C'mon Adam. Its obvious that you love the middle of the road, but are you kidding with that false argument ? Let me know when the Church has been teaching about "low wages" for over two thousand years and then we can talk........Jeez. Its not a "birth control" issue..........................its a control issue. . Sorry, but the zealots aren't making laws, no matter how much they desire power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Sorry, but the zealots aren't making laws, no matter how much they desire power. Sorry. but that is a non-response.........................................................lets review. drinkthekoolaid posted "Obama cannot force the church into a position which is fundamentalaly incompatible with their core doctrine by mandating birth control services." You responded with a completely silly strawman about the church and the minimum wage, which was about 360 degrees of the mark of the Government forcing their views on the church (not the other way around) fortunately the US Constitution prohibits this madness. Now you try and change the whole argument ..................with extra large letters to boot.................lol Weak. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If a church is so much against birth control that it cannot support a health care plan that provides birth control for it's employees, why is that church hiring employees that would use birth control in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Sorry. but that is a non-response.........................................................lets review. drinkthekoolaid posted "Obama cannot force the church into a position which is fundamentalaly incompatible with their core doctrine by mandating birth control services." You responded with a completely silly strawman about the church and the minimum wage, which was about 360 degrees of the mark of the Government forcing their views on the church (not the other way around) fortunately the US Constitution prohibits this madness. Now you try and change the whole argument ..................with extra large letters to boot.................lol Weak. . What was the law that said they provide the service? Do they only hire people based on religous belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts