Rob Osborn Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I am not sure why this topic is even up for debate. Why should any private corporation have to pay for birth control? For that matter, taking it further- its ridiculous that they should have to pay for the abortion of one of their employees or family member of that employee. Besides all of the obvious moral implications involved, it should be the absolute right of private companies to say what they will and will not pay for medical wise that does not effect the safety or life of a person. Should private corporations be forced to pay for other such things like sex change operations, sex enhancements, or even lotions and potions too? Completely ridiculous!
Calm Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) ? And Rongo, yes, I would imagine that the morning after pill is used more for convenience than actual emergency, but I guess those who do have an actual emergency and cannot afford the morning after pill are just out of luck.The morning after pill costs between $10 and $50. It may be a hardship for some, but they could offset that by skipping sex for the next month to recoup their loss. Not fun for those used to lots, but one can live without sex, especially for a short time. Edited July 3, 2014 by calmoriah 3
rongo Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 No, calmoriah. They are mindless rabbits, and we absolutely have to cover people's "real emergencies" (ca. $10-$50). Walden is so much smarter than uni-browed, knuckle-dragging TBMs, and he said so. When you think of it in terms of opportunity cost, it makes me mad. If you're panicked in a "sexual emergency," then figure out what has to (temporarily) go so that you can fork out the $10 and "take care of the emergency." The view that this must, must, must be covered and paid for by everybody astounds me. 4
ELF1024 Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 The morning after pill costs between $10 and $50. It may be a hardship for some, but they could offset that by skipping sex for the next month to recoup their loss. Not fun for those used to lots, but one can live without sex, especially for a short time. Wait... live without sex??? That's just crazy talk...
Sleeper Cell Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Yes, I will tell that to the IRS when they try to force me to pay taxes to help fund a war that violates my religious beliefs. Not the same thing. When you pay taxes to the government, it becomes the government‘s money. The government can spend its own money pretty much however it pleases. In this case, the government tried to force the owners of Hobby Lobby to spend their money for something that violated their religious beliefs. Had the government simply paid for the “morning after pill” itself, Hobby Lobby would not have sued -- even though some of the government’s money would have ultimately come from Hobby Lobby’s taxes. The government could have completely avoided this problem, yet still achieved their goal of free morning after pills. One can argue that sometimes religious liberty has to be limited for some compelling overriding purpose -- but, for bureaucratic convenience? Edited July 3, 2014 by Sleeper Cell
Walden Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 The view that this must, must, must be covered and paid for by everybody astounds me. What many people fail to realize is that it is going to be "covered and paid for by everybody," either way, in many cases. We can either help subsidize a "$10-50" morning-after pill, or we can help subsidize the upbringing of a child born to a woman who does not have the means to support that child. Even if that number is small compared to the overall usage rates, the significant costs incurred to raise just one child would cover tens of thousands of pills. Again, Rongo, it would be nice to live in a society where everyone is responsible and thinks ahead and plans accordingly, but you and I both know better. If you'd prefer that the tax-payers be on the hook for the approximately $300K it takes to raise a child rather than a corporation being charged the $25 dollars it takes to prevent that pregnancy, well then, that is exactly what you'll get.
Rob Osborn Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 What many people fail to realize is that it is going to be "covered and paid for by everybody," either way, in many cases. We can either help subsidize a "$10-50" morning-after pill, or we can help subsidize the upbringing of a child born to a woman who does not have the means to support that child. Even if that number is small compared to the overall usage rates, the significant costs incurred to raise just one child would cover tens of thousands of pills. Again, Rongo, it would be nice to live in a society where everyone is responsible and thinks ahead and plans accordingly, but you and I both know better. If you'd prefer that the tax-payers be on the hook for the approximately $300K it takes to raise a child rather than a corporation being charged the $25 dollars it takes to prevent that pregnancy, well then, that is exactly what you'll get.Since when is the cost of raising a future God a bad thing regardless of the cost? 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 So, they are not really employees but rather slaves?Because if the company owns their labor then the company doesn't have to pay them for it. And if the company owns their labor they can NEVER quit.It is rather obvious that you are clueless.Don't for get this classic line, The rich are only rich because they stole the money from the poor. That is the only way to become rich is by stealing it after all.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 What is scarier? The comments in this thread? Or knowing that people making these comments vote too? 1
Sleeper Cell Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) And no ELF1024, unfortunately we cannot "require people to plan ahead, be responsible for their own actions, or even think!," as much as the responsible amongst us would surely like to mandate. I mean seriously, the level of stupidity I see amongst many parents makes me think that there should be some type of license to have a child, but the fact is, there is a lot of stupidity and naivete out there, more than most of us would like to imagine in this great country. I simply propose that as the responsible members of society, we do what we can to ensure that the naive and stupid amongst us who do not "plan ahead, be responsible for their own actions, or even think," are not reproducing at a disproportionate rate compared to the responsible sector. “… and unfortunately, we cannot require people to … be responsible for their own actions …” … But apparently we can require people to be responsible for other people‘s actions. Edited July 3, 2014 by Sleeper Cell 3
ELF1024 Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) What is scarier? The comments in this thread? Or knowing that people making these comments vote too? Knowing that many of these comments are due to a failing education system and are encouraged by television media brain-washing that been successfully pushed out by the ruling powers in the Halls of Government. Edited July 3, 2014 by ELF1024
ELF1024 Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 “… and unfortunately, we cannot require people to … be responsible for their own actions …” … But apparently we can require people to be responsible for other people‘s actions. Like Margret Sanger, the would have no problem making sure that the "undeniably feeble-minded" be sterlized for the greater good. Who they consider to be "undeniably feeble-minded", I'll leave to your imagination... Wow, the level of naivete and ignorance regarding the use of birth control is almost frightening here, though I temper my expectations with the fact that this is an LDS-centric board.
Sleeper Cell Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 What many people fail to realize is that it is going to be "covered and paid for by everybody," either way, in many cases. We can either help subsidize a "$10-50" morning-after pill, or we can help subsidize the upbringing of a child born to a woman who does not have the means to support that child. Even if that number is small compared to the overall usage rates, the significant costs incurred to raise just one child would cover tens of thousands of pills. Yet it is corporate America that is accused of “knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.” And to think that some people were so naive that they actually gave their lives in defense of religious liberty
Calm Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) What many people fail to realize is that it is going to be "covered and paid for by everybody," either way, in many cases. We can either help subsidize a "$10-50" morning-after pill, or we can help subsidize the upbringing of a child born to a woman who does not have the means to support that child..You really think that someone who refuses to scavenge up $10-50 to go to a pharmacy is going to take the time to go to the pharmacy to get the morning after pill in the first place?Hobby Lobby would apparently prefer to pay to subsidize the child than the abortion no matter how much money is saved.If we always respond to protect ourselves from the consequences of others' behaviour, to minimize the cost to ourselves..that is a rather selfish way of approaching life and delusional IMO as why would anyone bother growing up if someone else is going always clean up your mess so they don't have to and it is easier and cheaper to doit themselves....not good parenthood, IMO; not good citizenship, IMO. Edited July 3, 2014 by calmoriah 4
ELF1024 Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 You really think that someone who refuses to scavenge up $10-50 to go to a pharmacy is going to take the time to go to the pharmacy to get the morning after pill in the first place? For that matter, why would someone that irresponsible even be mindful that they are in danger of becoming pregnant and be proactive about it? That would seem to be a clinic visit some months down the road... and the cost of that is exactly one human life.
USU78 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Posted July 3, 2014 Hobby Lobby would apparently prefer to pay to subsidize the child than the abortion no matter how much money is saved. This is an important point. Hobby Lobby pays the insurance premiums for its employees and their dependents. It's not like they're refusing dependent coverage. It's also not like they're refusing coverage of da Pill and such. To say Hobby Lobby is being cheap and withholding is simply disingenuous.To say Hobby Lobby is compelling moral behavior is simply disingenuous.To say Hobby Lobby is warring on women is simply disingenuous. And to complain that Hobby Lobby is being hypocritical because their 401k invests in companies that make, among other things, morning after pills and such, is to quite miss the point: they are free to invest as they choose; they should be free to refuse to purchase what is repugnant to them; and it's nobody's business but theirs whether they are internally consistent. To criticize them because of their wholly unrelated but completely private corporate investment decisions on behalf of themselves and other plan participants because of an alleged inconsistency with their position on direct purchase of abortifacients through insurance they subsidize is to engage in an ad hominem and highly smartallecky hitpiecery.
Garden Girl Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 What many people fail to realize is that it is going to be "covered and paid for by everybody," either way, in many cases. We can either help subsidize a "$10-50" morning-after pill, or we can help subsidize the upbringing of a child born to a woman who does not have the means to support that child. Walden...There are numerous sources for women to get assistance that would help with the cost of BC... BTW, a woman who does not have the means to raise a child should think about that before she even begins to think about having sex, particularly unprotected sex that could result in an unplanned for or unwanted child. It really is as simple as that... GG 2
carbon dioxide Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 Hate to bust anyone's bubble but it is NOT like you can get the same medication at your local 7-11. More the good reason why the ACA should have been Medicare for all. Say I'm your boss, a JW, and I don't believe in blood transfusions. Does my right to remain true to my religion allow me to decline covering blood transfusions in your medical insurance plan? What if I'm a Christian Scientist, can I decline all medical help but prayer in your insurance plan? Do I decrease your work hours so I don't have to pay for your medical insurance like the Mormon Church did?I suppose one could argue that blood transfusions is not in the same league as contraception. There are many conditions that one needs a blood transfusion to survive. A person can live a full healthy life without contraception. Not the case with blood. I guess we will not know until a case actually happens.
bcuzbcuz Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 What I find to be so great about it is that this guy, who is not LDS, has encapsulated what was at stake in the war in heaven. If we lose our agency we lose our ability to progress.I'm not LDS ??????? Have you been speaking to my bishop? Bcuz this is news to me. However, you seem to speak authoritively about so many things. Who am I to argue.
Recommended Posts