Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

Boo Radley · Feb 23, 2012

buck said:
That's really besides the point. Whatever the extra price is, a religion that believes and teaches that morning after pills and birth control is not bibilical, should not be required to provide it free of charge - agaisnt their religious beliefs However, I know that prior to my wife's insurance covering it, it was $50.00/month. So, $600.00 per year times however many female employees.

I said the price didn't matter if that wasn't your objection, but you keep bringing it up. And premarital sex isn't supported by doctrine either (though the Bible really doesn't have a book on birth control). Yet, they are willing to deal with that erection problem for the single male. :shrug:

I love word games. But forgetting the games you want to play... why is Obama requiring that they pay for it, if they aren't providing it to people that want it free of charge?

It's not a word game. Birth control is an issue. And frankly, if you use birth control, abortion becomes a non-issue. And most insurance has a deductible, and family insurance usually has the employee pay part of it. I pay 200 a month. Double a few years ago, long before Obama.

I trust you really knew what I was saying, and chose to be purposely obtuse.

All I'm trying to get you to see is that you're making a distinction without a difference.

If there is a church out there that believes that no man should ever have an erection, I would be just as against Obama requiring that they provide free viagra to people that recieve insurance from them.

The churches opposing this largely oppose premarital sex. But it is certain that males who are not married are getting viagra paid for as part of their insurance, and for the purpose of having an erection, allowing them to have sex.

buck · Feb 23, 2012

Boo Radley said:
I said the price didn't matter if that wasn't your objection, but you keep bringing it up. And premarital sex isn't supported by doctrine either (though the Bible really doesn't have a book on birth control). Yet, they are willing to deal with that erection problem for the single male. :shrug:

I have only said that churches and religious orgs should not be required by the government to pay for items that are against their teachings and beliefs. I really have no idea why you don't get that, but whatever. Insurance provides benefits to correct things that are physically abnormal. Viagra is curing a medical problem. Birth control is not correcting (in a vast majority of cases) a medical problem. You have convinced yourself that they are the same thing. They simplay aren't. Now, if you found catholic churches that were paying for condoms, then you would have an apples to apples comparisson. Other then making you feel good, though, comparing Viagra and BC doesn't work. Again, one treats a medical problem. The other (in almost all cases) does not.

The churches opposing this largely oppose premarital sex. But it is certain that males who are not married are getting viagra paid for as part of their insurance, and for the purpose of having an erection, allowing them to have sex.

It's certain? I would like to see the statistics of the number of people that get viagra through their church funded insurnace policy that are unmarried. unlessyou have those statistics you are just making stuff up - kind of like how you insist there are no increased costs to covering birth control. Regardless, and again, medically necessary viagra is providing a cure to a medical problem. Insurance will cover it. Birth control, in most cases, is not curing a medical problem.

j-mac · Feb 23, 2012

taxigirl said:
Every person responds differently to different treatments.

Dodge.

BC pills can control blood pressure and other chronic conditions.

Please provide the frequency, chronic conditions, and out of other available treatments BC pills are chosen instead over other established treatments.

They help prevent cancer.

document please.

I think these are lifesaving measures.

And I think you are really reaching here.

j-mac

j-mac · Feb 23, 2012

Boo Radley said:
We,re not deciding for individuals, rather selectively I might add, what they can have and can't.

Sure you are, you are turning the real objection, and argument on its head which is a common liberal tactic.

j-mac

j-mac · Feb 23, 2012

danarhea said:

Oh please! Can't we grow up a little Mr. 'Conservative'???

j-mac

buck · Feb 23, 2012

BC pills can control blood pressure and other chronic conditions.

They help prevent cancer.

j-mac said:
Please provide the frequency, chronic conditions, and out of other available treatments BC pills are chosen instead over other established treatments.

Since I have my doubts she'll be back, i'll just mention that...

I have a feeling she just did a quick look up, because BC pils have actualyl been shown to lead to hypertension (increased blood pressure). If I had my choice between a beta blocker or a birth control pill to control high blood pressure, I would almost certainly choose the beta blocker.

I've also read that they can increase the risk of certain types of cancer and have no effect on other types. So, I would guess she's probably unintentially making that up too..

Jerry · Feb 24, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Is that really how you see it? A little condescending maybe?

Before I say what I have to say, for those of you who think I bring up military service just to make others feel bad: **** off. Exposure to different cultures adds new information to one's existing world views, so sharing that information is not self-serving.

Boo Radley, think of how many woman you've seen today, how they were dressed, how they carried themselves, consider what they might do for a living.

I've been in Afghanistan for 5 months, and in that time I've only seen two (2) Afghan women, both of whom were wearing the light blue burka (=Taliban, fyi). One was walking about 10ft behind her husband along the side of a road in a bazaar, and the other was in an animal cart towed by her husband's tractor. We see men and boys all the time, but it's very easy to think there are no women in Afghanistan at all. They are invisible. They are not allowed out of the home, they don't have an education, they don't have careers, they don't drive, vote, shop, or come to online forums to debate....let alone sit in committees, ever.

I was on a convoy a few weeks ago that stopped for a Key Leader Engagement (American officers talking to village elders). A married couple in a room started arguing, I don't know what about. The husband started beating her, one of our SGTs who's a cop in back in the states started to make his way over there and was stopped by our convoy commander, saying "this is their culture, we have to ignore it". Needless to say, non of the Afghan men at the meeting even flinched when the strikes landed. She has no future if she runs away and if she resists the beating she is executed for dishonoring her family.

So, when I see women back in the states complaining that some random comity didn't have a woman on it, I think of how lucky those women are to be free enough to complain at all, to have rights under the law to then think those rights are being violated, to have men in their culture willing to consider their grievance, and to know that they are in a culture where women regularly hold positions of real authority.

Yes, that is really how I see it.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2012

Jerry,

I appreciate your response. And while I know we should all remember we can find worse. The old saying about not having no shoes but met a man with no feet has a lesson. But, at the end of the day, he still had no shoes.

While I don't argue anyone here has it worse than anyone anywhere, that still doesn't mean there are not problems to address. The fact that other women have it worse is really more the pity. The battle for equality is still on going, and still world wide, with better and worse, but ongoing.

And that is how I see.

Again, I did appreciate the full response.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2012

j-mac said:
Sure you are, you are turning the real objection, and argument on its head which is a common liberal tactic.

j-mac

Yes, reasoning will do that. Things are always clearer when you don't have to think. Just know.

:coffeepap

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2012

buck said:
I have only said that churches and religious orgs should not be required by the government to pay for items that are against their teachings and beliefs. I really have no idea why you don't get that, but whatever. Insurance provides benefits to correct things that are physically abnormal. Viagra is curing a medical problem. Birth control is not correcting (in a vast majority of cases) a medical problem. You have convinced yourself that they are the same thing. They simplay aren't. Now, if you found catholic churches that were paying for condoms, then you would have an apples to apples comparisson. Other then making you feel good, though, comparing Viagra and BC doesn't work. Again, one treats a medical problem. The other (in almost all cases) does not.

These are not Church employees. Not Clergy. They are at schools and other organizations. People who believe differently, have other views. Which is what separates them from the Church or clergy. Insurance is merely compensation. How the person uses it is up to the individual. Insurance, like the pay check, is spent by the employee and not the employer.

And Yes, the comparison works. You may talk yourself around it, but both involved a use that most churches object to, and both have other medical uses, and one is allowed and the other isn't.

It's certain? I would like to see the statistics of the number of people that get viagra through their church funded insurnace policy that are unmarried. unlessyou have those statistics you are just making stuff up - kind of like how you insist there are no increased costs to covering birth control. Regardless, and again, medically necessary viagra is providing a cure to a medical problem. Insurance will cover it. Birth control, in most cases, is not curing a medical problem.

Not exactly what I said, but as single males to get viagra, and single males do work for the church, would you argue ti doesn't happen?

buck · Feb 24, 2012

Boo Radley said:
And Yes, the comparison works. You may talk yourself around it, but both involved a use that most churches object to, and both have other medical uses, and one is allowed and the other isn't.

One is providing a solution to a medical abnormality. The other is not. One is definetly being used contrary to the church's teachings (morning after pill and contraceptions). the other may possibly be used contrary to the church's teachings. The two situations are completely different. However, I realize you have convinced yourself that they are the same. So, i'll just let it be.

Anyway, and more importantly, I have now recieved my answer to the orginal question. Stewart actually believes what he said. He was not simply trying to fool his audience.

Not exactly what I said, but as single males to get viagra, and single males do work for the church, would you argue ti doesn't happen?

Yes, I will argue that no single males that work in a religious insitution are getting viagra. Please prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

BTW, with all of the lawsuits regarding this issue and separation of church/state, the SC will almost certainly end up deciding the issue. Eventually we will know for certain who was right.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2012

buck said:
One is providing a solution to a medical abnormality. The other is not. One is definetly being used contrary to the church's teachings (morning after pill and contraceptions). the other may possibly be used contrary to the church's teachings. The two situations are completely different. However, I realize you have convinced yourself that they are the same. So, i'll just let it be.

Anyway, and more importantly, I have now recieved my answer to the orginal question. Stewart actually believes what he said. He was not simply trying to fool his audience.

Your focus on the word abnormality has no meaning. Medicine is not limited to only abnormality. It also deals with prevention. The issue is moral objection, using something that the could be used for an objectionable reason. Both treat other conditions. One is denied regardless. Both can be used for morally objectionable reasons. Only one is denied regardless.

Yes, I will argue that no single males that work in a religious insitution are getting viagra. Please prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

BTW, with all of the lawsuits regarding this issue and separation of church/state, the SC will almost certainly end up deciding the issue. Eventually we will know for certain who was right.

Yes, the SC will likely settle it. Based on the reasoning used in their last ruling, Churches may be disappointed.

I find your absolute unlikely concerning use, but I'll see if I can something.

VanceMack · Feb 24, 2012

Huh...when I first saw this thread I thought it was a thread about the movie Blazing Saddles...

buck · Feb 24, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Your focus on the word abnormality has no meaning. Medicine is not limited to only abnormality. It also deals with prevention.

Prevention of abnormalities. Pregnancy is not an abnormality. It may be unwanted, but that doesn't make it abnormal.

I realize that like any good individual to the political left you want to live in the grey area of what's normal or not, but clearly - pregnancy is a normal human condition following certain activities.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2012

buck said:
Prevention of abnormalities. Pregnancy is not an abnormality. It may be unwanted, but that doesn't make it abnormal.

I realize that like any good individual to the political left you want to live in the grey area of what's normal or not, but clearly - pregnancy is a normal human condition following certain activities.

Again, the use of the word abnormally has no bearing on the issue.

buck · Feb 24, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Again, the use of the word abnormally has no bearing on the issue.

Again, your claim that it doesn't have a bearing on the issue itself has no bearing on the issue. Both the religious leaders and multiple insurance companies have used that exact same argument to not provide contraceptives as part of their coverage. My wife's insurance company used the exact same argument, until her union fought for and was able to get it included as part of the coverage.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2012

buck said:
Again, your claim that it doesn't have a bearing on the issue itself has no bearing on the issue. Both the religious leaders and multiple insurance companies have used that exact same argument to not provide contraceptives as part of their coverage. My wife's insurance company used the exact same argument, until her union fought for and was able to get it included as part of the coverage.

It does to the argument I'm making. You must realize just because you, or the Church for that matter, try to spin something so as to excuse a contradiction doesn't mean it holds water.

And it might be the UNION understood logic better than her insuance company.

j-mac · Feb 25, 2012

Boo Radley said:
These are not Church employees. Not Clergy. They are at schools and other organizations. People who believe differently, have other views. Which is what separates them from the Church or clergy. Insurance is merely compensation. How the person uses it is up to the individual. Insurance, like the pay check, is spent by the employee and not the employer.

You know what else is 'up to the individual'? Where they work....If you don't like the pay of benefits an employer offers, you can work for some other entity.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2012

j-mac said:
You know what else is 'up to the individual'? Where they work....If you don't like the pay of benefits an employer offers, you can work for some other entity.

j-mac

It is true. Same with the pay check. Both provided by the employer and spent by the employee. how much control do you want the employer to have over your compensation?

j-mac · Feb 25, 2012

Boo Radley said:
It is true. Same with the pay check. Both provided by the employer and spent by the employee. how much control do you want the employer to have over your compensation?

To work for any particular company is up to me. If I don't like the pay, or benefits, I find a different company to work for. You know why I say that with confidence, because I have done it before.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2012

j-mac said:
To work for any particular company is up to me. If I don't like the pay, or benefits, I find a different company to work for. You know why I say that with confidence, because I have done it before.

j-mac

Yep. That fixes all problems. Means an employer can do anything, and the worker very little. Like I said, you're loyalites are clear.

Look, people largely like working for places, but that doesn't mean the employer can't be wrong about something. Or that they can't stand up and speak back to the company. Leaving jobs are easier for some and at some times than others. However, that too doesn't mean anything should go for the employer.

buck · Feb 25, 2012

Boo Radley said:
It does to the argument I'm making. You must realize just because you, or the Church for that matter, try to spin something so as to excuse a contradiction doesn't mean it holds water.

But it doesn't matter to everyone elses argument. The clip of the bishop's council (or whatever it was) that Stewart used in that link you provided was addressing this very topic. Sure, Stewart (and you too) were obviously confused by it, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument.

Henrin · Feb 25, 2012

How much power do you actually think you deserve Boo? In this thread people have made the argument that simply because the worker has paid a part(yes only a part and a small part at that) that the worker can say whatever it details even if that makes the other two parties have go with what they want. Do you really think the customer should be able to demand whatever they want from the provider of a service and get it? How does the rights of one party allow the force of action by the other? Care to explain that to me?

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2012

Henrin said:
How much power do you actually think you deserve Boo? In this thread people have made the argument that simply because the worker has paid a part(yes only a part and a small part at that) that the worker can say whatever it details even if that makes the other two parties have go with what they want. Do you really think the customer should be able to demand whatever they want from the provider of a service and get it? How does the rights of one party allow the force of action by the other? Care to explain that to me?

Yeah, I do think the worker can do with his or her compensaion as he or she sees fit. Period. If no one is required to be of a religion, not a pastor, in fact, maybe not even a believer at all, there is no place for anyone to tell them waht they can do within the law with their compensation.

The Church is not forced on anything really. They merely give compensaion for the work done. No one is required to use contraceptions. And I assume anyone who believes as the Church does simply won't use them, making it all moot. The problem arises when the Church can't tell someone who disagrees what to do.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2012

buck said:
But it doesn't matter to everyone elses argument. The clip of the bishop's council (or whatever it was) that Stewart used in that link you provided was addressing this very topic. Sure, Stewart (and you too) were obviously confused by it, but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument.

I can't speak to anyone's willingness to accept flawed logic. But that that still doesn't give it legs. No , neither myself or Stewart is confused. We just know it doesn't hold up.

Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.