Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A question for the pro abortion people

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 8, 2012, 11:51 p.m. EST by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I honestly don't understand why you are so determined to force, by government edict, religious hospitals to go against their beliefs and provide contraception to patients. What is to prevent the federal government forcing those same hospitals to provide abortions?

134 Comments

134 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Risp (24) 2 years ago

You have to force religious people into new directions. Otherwise we still would be living in medieval times, thinking the world is flat . By the way… most of the time religious people are telling others how to live and think.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I think the purpose of the first amendment was to prevent anyone from forcing religious people to go in any direction but their own.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

Who said the world was flat? Can you state the name of the person?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

People adhere to a religion by choice. Who are you to decide what is right for them? The only religion I know of that forces people to live how they say whether they like it or not is Islam. No one forces me to get up every Sunday and go to church. No one forces me to live my life a certain way,I do it by choice. If you don't believe that's fine but don't try to impose your value system on me.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Actually, Christianity isn't innocent on the forced conversion issue...historically speaking that is.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Once again don't try to impose your value system on me.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

How does one get value system out of historical record?

It should be remembered that the first recorded Christian Church is the Catholic Church, which has a very checkered history.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Lol the first recorded Christian Church is the Apostles. I hate to tell you this but a church is not required to be anything. When I talk to God in the mornings my work vehicle is a church.No arguments on the Catholic Churches problems but then I'm not Catholic. Technically I have no denomination although I was baptized in a Baptist Church. Show me forced conversions to Christianity in the last,let's say,50 years. What's that? You can't? If you choose not to believe in God that is your decision and you have to live with it,not me. I don't force my beliefs on anybody,mainly because I feel God's laws are pretty much common sense. I challenge you to make a valid argument against any of the 10 Commandments. One could do quite a bit worse than to live by God's laws,the 10 commandments. So once again,don't try to thrust your value system on me,I do now and always will feel that the killing(yes KILLING) of an unborn child is a sin and a CRIME.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Once again, historically the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church recognized. Sorry but the Apostles were Judaic.

You are seeking examples of forced conversion in the last 50 years, I was speaking historically which covers a much longer time frame than 50 years, but there are examples which could be viewed as forced conversion within the lesser time frame. Since you are so interested in what I look upon as being within the frame of current events. (I was around and cognizant 50 years ago).

I have intimated no value, merely pointed out historically accepted fact.

But have it your way, history is an attempt to impose values upon others, a history that is merely cited.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Lol youare incorrect. They had been Jews.Once they became followers of Christ they were in fact the first Christians.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

That's fine, you believe what you wish, I'll got with assumed history.

[-] -3 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Kinda like liberals.....

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

When religious people do it though it is through fear. There is no love in fear.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Nice Heritage talking point, zombie.

The tactic is called "Recrimination."

When your opponent totally busts you for something you do, like fascist tyranny, you accuse them of doing it. "I know you are, but what am I?"

You don't have to be bright to follow, so recrimination works for zombies.

[-] 2 points by Opportunity (19) 2 years ago

You really don't know the difference between contraception and abortion? Do you need a dictionary? Contraceptives prevent abortions so why aren't you satisfied? What is so wrong with contraceptives? All i'm seeing here are some very confused religious moonbats. If patients do not want contraceptives, they are free to decline them.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

In the case of the current thing going on with the Catholic Church, it doesn't matter if it's abortion or contraception we're talking about. Both are considered immoral by that religion. The issue also is not about the people deciding to use or not use them. It's about any employer, who happens to be a devout Catholic being forced to violate their religious beliefs by providing those services. This has nothing to do with people deciding on their own what to use or what to do.

As an aside, about half the women having abortions were using contraceptives when they got pregnant. Three quarters reported their partner was using a condom. Apparently they weren't using these methods religiously (pardon the pun).

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

The Catholic Church decided long ago to go into the healthcare business, employing Catholics and non-Catholics in the process of staffing their hospitals. Catholic hospitals are and have been suject to many other forms of government reqirements i.e. OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations, HIPPA (Health Information Privacty and Portability Act) laws, state and local health codes, federal and state labor law, etc. because the hospitals are public institutions. They serve the communities in which they're located. Again, they employ people of all beliefs and very likely people who don't believe in God at all.

Did those hospitals require as a condition of employment that Catholic Dogma, as it affected employee benefits, be adhered to? I would think not. Yes, the rules may be changing and a way should be found for this issue to be settled to the satisfaction of all concerned.

The Constitutional requirement of separation of church and state might be best served by coming at this from the other side. As a matter of conscience Catholic citizens who work for Catholic hospitals may choose to adhere to the dictates of their church. The church should not impose it's will on non-Catholic citizens whom it employs, for that would be a violation of their healthcare rights going forward.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

You're looking at this issue from the perspective of the employee, that's backwards. It's the employer who buys the health coverage, if he or she is a devout Catholic then they are opposed to contraception and abortion on religious grounds and should not be forced to buy it or have it on their policies.

Any non catholic is free to purchase a rider for their policy or free to purchase these services for themselves. The church asks that those employers that do not wish to buy it be allowed to freely exercise their religion.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No, you have it backwards. The employees (who are adults and legally and morally able to make their own choices) want it. It is insurance. and it is only used if the employee chooses to use it. Insurance companies, in this case, are happy to pay for what is needed, because saves them money. If it is used, as much of it is, for endometriosis or other health issues, that is an obvious saving. Having children costs them more. So, the insurance company offers it free (for their benefit).

98% of Catholics have used it and know they may need to use it again. 99% of non Catholics have used it and agree with the Catholics.

Only people interfering with their lives want it withheld or made prohibitively expensive. Many of the Catholic linked employers already provide it because ALL of their employees want it (demand it) and they need employees. In the US (in 2012) we don't let organizations dictate to adult citizens who are empowered to make any legal choice for themselves, what they may or may not do. Virtue is having the right and power to choose and to do so wisely. Ant Catholic is free to NOT use contraceptives, if their conscience (not their employer) so dictates.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

If I want something, I'm free to buy it, get a rider on my policy. I think it's very different to want it and want someone else to pay for it. Especially if in the process you're asking them to violate their religion.

The use of the pill to treat or prevent conditions other then pregnancy prevention isn't even part of the issue, let's be honest about that. The bishops are not against treating disease, but pregnancy isn't a disease. You can't just ignore the abortion side of this either, it's all one big package.

The bill of rights was written to protect the rights of the minority. It really doesn't matter how many people use or want to use contraceptives, or how many want abortions paid for by their employer. There isn't a vote held on religious principals. It's not a case of sorry bishops, 99% of catholics say you can't believe what you do. You allow them to worship the way they want.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Your point is well taken. Respectfully, I must disagree with you however. Any version of an a la carte healthcare reform would quickly devolve into something totally unmanagable, especially where the insured were concerned I think. Healthcare can be very confusing for individuals as it is now.

Further, I believe there would implications for how healthcare insurers determine what the definition of a pre-existing conditions might be, and who is eligible for coverage.

If I may digress slightly, I'd add that what never fails to make me shake my head in disbelief is the notion held by many that the primary driver of healthcare cost increases are providers - physicians and hospitals. Pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare insurers are to blame in very large part. If and until those industries are brought in line, we'll always have a very big problem.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

So it comes down to a choice, 1) make health insurance an easy one size fits all package for the insurance company and the insured; 2) allow people to exercise freely their religion.

New drugs are expensive to bring to market, many are developed and fail to work well for what they were intended. I think the medical machinery is also adding to the cost, MRI's and all the various scans that can be done today that weren't available 20 or 30 years ago.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I'll say this again: this isn't a question of one's ability to exercise their individual religious freedoms. If one believes taking a contraceptive is wrong based on religious conviction, one won't be required to take it by any Federal Law. This is about a religious intitution that is in a public sector business being required to comply with a public sector law. There's no requirement that Catholic hospitals issue presciptions for those pills to any who might want them.

As was written and asked elsewhere by others, should the publication "The Christian Science Monitor" not be required to offer healthcare insurance altogether for it's employees disipte the fact that Christian Science's dogma allows only for faith healing? It employs people who don't follow the Christian Science faith. There are other examples concerning other faiths and organizations, and I won't cite them all here, but I think you get the gist of this. What then would prevent any employer from utilizing the approach that the Catholic Church is advocating? How would the onslaught of picking and choosing be managed? I don't think it's a matter ease, and individual rights aren't being infringed upon.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I don't know what the Christian Scientists believe, but assuming for the sake of discussion that they are morally opposed to all medical intervention.The Christian Scientist employer should not be forced to pay for someone else to commit what that Christian Scientist considers a sin.

The picking and choosing of what is in a health plan has gone on for decades. I see no reason to subvert the first amendment to make life easier on insurance companies or HHS bureaucrats that would prefer a one policy fits all approach. If an employer offers some evidence that his religious beliefs have been consistent then they should be respected. That is the essence of the first amendment, that government won't interfere with your beliefs.

[-] 0 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Let's say I'm a Mormon, I believe in polygamy and wish to practice polygamy. It's part and parcel to my religion. The government says that it's against the law to have more than one wife at a time. By your thinking then, isn't the government abridging my first amendment rights as a Mormon?

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

That was decided by the Supreme Court, until this issue is settled by the court it's all just opinion. In the end yours or mine doesn't make any difference.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Regarding whether our opinions count, let me just say "we'll see." This thing is probably a fair ways from being over and done. I feel I should add that I have great respect for your thoughts on this and admire the moral fiber you and like-minded others exibit regarding the sanctity of life of the unborn.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Oh don't misunderstand my position on abortion. I'm actually indifferent to the procedure. I would leave it up to a woman and her doctor. I'm speaking out to defend what I see as an encroachment on the first amendment. I'd do the same to support unpopular speech (Limbaugh or Olbermann, neo-Nazi or socialist), or a newspaper's right to publish.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Got it. It's a rights issue and not a moral issue for you. Here again we are both blessed and cursed by a Constitutional amendment in so far as we are trying to apply 18th century perspectives to a 20th and 21st century issue. We don't have the benefit of time travel to be able to bring the authors here, explain the situation and ask for their "ruling", if you will.

The same is true of the 2nd amendment. Concerning ",,,the right of the people to keep and bear arms...", the founders couldn't have imagined in their wildest dreams what kinds of arms exist today. We are legally prevented from being able to possess most modern military weapons, right? How then could a revolution succeed if it were an armed conflict? On the other side of this coin, what's the murder rate in this country? Philadelphia's was 20.7 homicides per 100,000 people in 2011.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Single-payer healthcare insurance seems to be the best alternative. Take healthcare insurance out of the hands of employers.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I absolutely agree with you on that. Unfortunately the administration gave up on that without much of a fight.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Very well said.

Now, you will just have to repeat that at least one hundred more times every time the subject comes up.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

TY. Good to have you back, BTW

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thanks.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

the morning after pill is being called contraception now to deceive you. Morning after pill is included in the mandate. either way why should either be in a medical insurance plan? no wonder premiums are thru the roof. Why not include aspirin?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nobody is pro-abortion. Most people are pro-choice.

Contraception, by the way, helps prevent the need for abortion. Those who oppose contraception are the pro-abortionists.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Opposing contaraception seems silly to me but that certainly does not make you pro-abortion.

The real point of the story is that people have a right to oppose contraception whether it is stupid or not. The government should not force their view on people.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

People STILL have the right not to take contraception. This law DOES NOT FORCE A PILL DOWN ANYONE'S THROAT. Not making contraception readily available increases the need for abortion.

[-] 0 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

The goverment is forcing someone to do something. It forces the Catholic churce to provide and pay for something that they belive is a sin to use.

"Not making contraception readily available increases the need for abortion"

That makes NO SENSE at all. How does that increase the need for abortion?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"How does that increase the need for abortion?"

If you can't figure that out, no amount of explaining will make it any clearer. Put two of your brain cells together an let them communicate with each other. Here's a hint: UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

[-] 0 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Like Joe said, a condom costs $0.56

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

This is a women's health issue. Condoms are a man's responsibility, This is not about helping them meet their obligations. It is about allowing women to take care of their own health. And condoms are only partially effective.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Condoms are safer than any other form of contraception.

There is no other form of contrception that reduces risk of STDs.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

They are the least EFFECTIVE form of contraception, with a 17% failure rate.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

I do not see what the effectiveness of contraception has to do with the state requiring the church to provide contraception.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The state is requiring insurance companies to provide free access to it.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

A condom costs $0.56. The pill costs about $15 a month. This whole idea of covering contraception so I can have safe sex for free is rediculous..

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The Pill, which is used for contraception, costs hundreds of dollars per year. Poor women (hospital orderly's, nursing assistants, etc.) often have things like feeding their children, or paying their rent as a priority, and put off buying it. 58% of women use the pill for things other than contraception. 31% use it fro menstrual pain, 28% for menstrual regulation, 4% for endometriosis, and so on.

This law has been around in 28 states, as long as 10 years or more in many of them. Hospitals are not religious organizations. There is no first amendment right being trampled. If a religious body does not like a public policy that affects its members, it is free to try to change it, but it cannot simply opt out of society or claim a special exemption from the law. What's next, Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to provide insurance that provides blood transfusions? Since anyone can be ordained as a minister, every business owner can opt out of providing any coverage claiming special exemption on the basis or religious belief.

This issue is nothing more than a naked partisan tempest in a teapot. It is pure pelvic politics, plain and simple.

[-] 2 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

You can get the pill for $15 for a month supply.

A hospital run by a church is run by a religious organization.

My problem with this is I don't believe the government should be telling us what products we have to buy. This same legislation requires individuals to buy a health insurance policy.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Sorry, I'm not a Libertardian. I believe all people are entitled to health insurance. In order for it to be workable, everyone must participate. Just like taxes, if your want the benefits of civil society, you pay your share just like everyone else.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

"Everyone pays into it to spread the risk"

That is fine but to force someone to buy a product or participate in a program is wrong. If I don't want insurance I should not have to buy it. I will take my chances.

It's like saying everyone in town has to participate and bring something to the pot luck supper even if you don't want to eat anything.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Everyone who drives must have car insurance, whether they need it or not. Unless everyone buys health insurance, it is unaffordable to those left with the smaller risk pool.

And if you don't get health insurance a get into an accident or find you have cancer, the rest of us have to pick up the MORE expensive tab for you when you go the ER.

Health care should be right of every citizen. Along with that right, like for everything else in life, comes an obligation. You are forced to pay property taxes that go into public education, whether you have a child or not. That law has been upheld in every state's supreme court in which it was challenged. And the reason is that you benefit from an educated society. Same with health care.

And yes, if you go to a pot luck supper, you must bring something, whether or not you are hungry. If you choose to live here, you must participate in civil society.

But if we actually get back to the topic at hand, which the availability of free contraception for women, it is far more cost effective to provide it than withhold it. The estimated cost of delivery alone is $6000 – $8000 for a low risk pregnancy. The total casts are far higher, ranging, depending on where one lives, from $10,000.00 to $20,000.00. On top of that there is the cost of social services if that child is born to a poor woman. That can EASILY top $100.000.00. Everyone has to pay for that. How much does providing free contraception cost by comparison?

So, if you want to keep more of your money, contraception is better for YOU than not making available to women as easily as possible.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

"Sorry, I'm not a Libertardian. I believe all people are entitled to health insurance. In order for it to be workable, everyone must participate. Just like taxes, if your want the benefits of civil society, you pay your share just like everyone else."

But in this case if you do not want the benefits you still have to have to pay.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's how insurance works. You get a whole package. It's not like a restaurant menu. Everyone pays into it to spread the risk, so everyone's costs are down overall. If the hospitals don't have to pay in, but it is required by law to be covered, everyone outside the church must pay more to the insurance companies to make up the difference they are then required to provide. everyone else has to pay for the Church's discrimination.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Let's try this...FivePercent works for a Gift shop in a Catholic Hospital, the gift shop is a separate business within the hospital, FivePercent is not Catholic and would like the option to include birth control in her insurance plan. Since the Catholic owned hospital (which is not a church) has the right to refuse to offer this provision in it's insurance package and by association the gift shop also has this right. FivePercent is denied this option as a nonCatholic.

Hospitals, gift shops, etc are not churches, the employees are not church employees, all the legalities other hospitals, gift shops etc are required to meet are also required of church owned businesses...business, not church.

It's another one of those non-issues that seem to get all the attention...maybe we should be looking for whatever it is, someone doesn't want us to see.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Yes the Catholic gift shop owner should have the option not to pay for something they believe is a sin. No one should be forced to provide anything for anyone.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

you just said that nobody is pro-abortion, then said that those who oppose contraception are pro-abortion. You contradicted yourself in two sentences.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

They don't realize they are pro-abortion. They are not so consciously. They are simply too stupid to realize that if your curtail availability of contraception you increase the likely hood of abortion. They are too dumb to do the math. It is not a pro-abortion stance they are taking, it is simply idiocy and the inability to connect the dots that is at work.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

so abortion is contraception for idiots?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Abortion is a desperate act of women who feel they have no other choice, you fuck.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

take it easy, i was trying to interpret what you where saying, as you weren't very clear. Don't send the Plan Parenthood mafia after me!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You "interpret" in a way that suits your misogyny. And you have swallowed the Kool Aid regarding Planned parenthood. I suspect you have swallowed more than that, too.97% of what they do is provide health care for poor women. Only 3% is abortions services, which is also a health care matter. But clearly you don't want women - specifically poor women, since the rich have access regardless - to have choices. Instead you want them ruled by men, who develop their morality without having to face the consequences.

And you are too stupid to even begin to understand that.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

i think that you jump to conclusions too quickly., i'm not against a women's right to an abortion it's a decision between a women and her god or conscience. As you say Planned Parenthood accounts for 3% of its services (2009) being abortions but gets roughly 15% (2009) of its income from abortions ($164,154,000 in 2009); so your wording is a little misleading. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I think you come to characterizations too disgustingly. Planned Parenthood is a Mafia? Women have abortions because they're idiots?

Keep playing your distortion games. You're fooling no one but yourself.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

i noticed that you didn't contest that PP gets 15% of its income from abortions, good you are learning something. The 3% you quoted were as a percent of services. Nice trick.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It is the services that are at issue, aren't they? So the 3% percent of abortions pays for 15 percent of the Pap smears and breast exams and other life-saving measures. How is that bad? Nice attempt at misdirection.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

who said it was bad? PP got $164,154,000 in revenues in 2009 from doing 332,278 abortions.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And saved countless women's live in the process. But they're just "mafia" to you, aren't they?

Go fuck yourself. Better yet, fuck your sister, get her pregnant and see what happens.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

what a vulgar comment. Can't take any criticism of Planned Parenthood? No one is going to shut it down, they are powerful, have a lot of influence, hence PP mafia, .

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Name-calling is not criticism. All you do is dissemble and misdirect and lie.

So all power is mafia? That would mean banks are mafia, wall street is mafia, the Koch Brothers are mafia, the CATO institute is mafia, the Republican AND Democratic parties are Mafia. I guess every organization is mafia. But you chose to apply the term only to a women's health service, and nowhere else on these fora have you used the word about anyone else.

That says a lot.

[-] -1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

I am certainly pro-abortion to 3rd world countries that do nothing but multiple and take my jobs.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

In that case you are an filthy animal who values money over life. As any woman if she enjoys abortion. Asshole.

And nobody has "taken" your jobs. American corporations have been giving them away. Moron.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

They aren't taking this countries jobs. The corporations and the government are giving them away.

[-] -3 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Has nothing to do with forcing by government edict to do away with core religious beliefs.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Is anyone being forced to take contraceptives? Nope. Hospitals and universities that hire people of all faiths and serve people of all faiths cannot trample on those people's rights under the law. Universities and hospitals function in the public, not religious sphere. They are both dependent on government money. No special exception should, on moral grounds as well as legal ones, be made for them. 28 states don't provide those exceptions, and haven't for many years. Nor need the federal government. This is a manufactured issue exclusively for the purpose of party politics in an election cycle..

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

What's your game Black Sun ? Corporate plant? You're hoping to paint occupy as some loony leftist movement - when will men be responsible for their own sexual actions - if they chose to have sex and be promiscuous then they have to deal with the fact that a woman can choose to end the pregnancy or ward it off with contraceptives - here's a thought - get to know her a bit better know whether you agree or deal with the results - knowing it was in your hands and if you feel it's taking a life then - don't cause life that could be terminated. It's all about responsibility. Close your legs Black Sun - and go back to your board room

[-] 2 points by neonknight (-21) 2 years ago

That's new,a Liberal preaching responsibility.

You just might be a Conservative someday if you open your mind and pay attention.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

It isn't just men. I knew plenty of promiscuous women in my day.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

do tell - did you knock anyone up?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Not that I know of.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Please reply to my answer to you.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Are u serious? You have your talking points/indoctrination all lined up don't you? What do you know about my attitude to sex and pregnancy?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

it's only obvious - I mean certainly woman aren't capable of making the right moral choices so only men can prevent it before the woman can make any such sort of decision about her body or what your sperm might do to it - so again guys just helping you out in case you are worried about abortions - best to keep the peck in check - you can quote that if you like

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Wow. You really do have a lot of hatred. And indoctrination. And I notice you really address nothing I said. You are pathetic. I'm done with you. Go away filth

[-] 0 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

go away corporate plant

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i agree with blacksun

I agree that it is fine to have abortions. it is ok to kill little unborn babies. The real problem with is letting a woman make a decision. that i just cant get my head around

[-] 1 points by Risp (24) 2 years ago

Now I understand why you dont have a girlfriend.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

. . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Why do you do this? Are you 10? Go away.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Why does everyone insist on this being about abortion? It's about choice and who has the right to make it...in this case it's the individual vs other agencies.

The issue seems to be that the individual who is best qualified to make the choice is a woman after consultation with her doctor...

The choice is contraception in the first instance and the choice whether or not to force females to carry a fetus to term no matter the cost to her.

If there were a choice between agencies requiring men to be required to have vasectomies after deposit of viable sperm, I hardly think there would be any discussion. It would be immediately shot down.

Or for men to be required to have a procedure that made erection impossible until such time they were licensed to procreate.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

because the lord knows

the world needs more people

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Should the rest of the world adopt Chinas policy of enforced limits on how many children may exist?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

should we consider letting women decide ?

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

So how would that work? And will they be the sole arbiters of the child's life after it is allowed to live?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

at what age was your first memory ?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

You try to equate contraception with abortion and it is not a valid comparison. Preventing unwanted pregnancy reduces the need for abortions. People who are Pro Women's Lives do not generally want abortion to be used as a form of birth control, but are realistic enough to recognize that people have always had sex, will continue to have sex, and that women have always sought a way to end an unwanted pregnancy, and will continue to do so, even if it puts them in harms way.

A business run by a religious group is still a business. Allowing the religious group to force their religiously based ideals onto those workers who are not of their faith through a business that is not a church is an attack on that persons freedom of religion. Suppose an Islamist based company decided female workers could not seek medical care from male doctors-- I imagine you would scream about those women's rights to not be dictated to by some group of a different faith than their own.

This is why it is important to keep religion, govenment, and business clearly seperated.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

What? I honestly do not understand this argument at all. A hospital does not have beliefs. It is an inanimate object. A collection of materials. This is not worthy of your time and attention. Please fixate on some other matter.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

If you really think that then you don't understand anything in this thread. Go put some more people on welfare. It makes the liberals happy.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

Three words MALE BIRTH CONTROL - when will they develop that ? Men taking and paying for a pill every month - hmmm won't have to worry about impregnating anyone or abortion and you get to pay out of pocket - genious I say ... oh but then there would be no arguments about this huh - because of course it would be covered. Does insurance pay for vasectomies?

[-] 1 points by Algernon (26) 2 years ago

Tell me about it. I went to a Jewish hospital and they made me get circumcised.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Hmmmmmm, I was born in a Catholic hospital, and I was circumcised too.

I hope there's not a conspiracy theory here that involves bigfoot.

That would be gross.

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

You were circumcised because your parents requested the procedure to be done.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You were there??

Then that must mean you one of the bigfoots!!!!!

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

No dear, I wasn't there . But I do know that a doctor will not do any procedure without first having written consent from the patient or guardian.

[-] 2 points by Risp (24) 2 years ago

Well argenon, did you hurt your parents and did they want to get even ??? What did you do to them ?? Refused to clean your room ???

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

you lie. jewish hospitals will only do it if the parents request it.

[-] 1 points by Algernon (26) 2 years ago

Uh -- I guess the snark was missed

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

its not providing to patients. its providing insurance coverage to employees. how did you become so mis informed/

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

None of this makes any sense at all because those responsible enough to have an employer who provides medical insurance are generally responsible enough to avoid the need for emergency contraception and abortion. So what is this if not a political statement, that the needs of the non-Catholic women who desire such services, usurp the beliefs of the Catholic who has little need for them?

It's just another example of the kind of idiocy that is prevalent in our society.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

I wish there was a retroactive abortion pill that could be taken by those that support abortion. Wonder how many would agree to it if there mother could force them to take it now.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I can't remember anything before 3

[-] 0 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

By secret government edict, 2970 were murdered on 9-11 in 20 seconds and due process was not provided in one case. FEMA misrepresented the core structure of the towers to NIST after guliani took the plans from the WTC civic center at the NYC department of buildings. When I found this, I realized that most Americans, with their beliefs, support genocide, mass murder and extinction. Even the stupid truthers. Mislead by secret gov agents pretending to be normal people.

http://algoxy.com/conc/fema_deception.html

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I am not pro-abortion - but I'll be happy to answer your question -
Specifically - where did you get the info that religious hospitals are required to "provide contraception to patients"


Now you know who to NEVER trust as a source!


This sounds like Rs propaganda
This has nothing to do with patients
This has nothing to do with providing contraception to anyone It has to do with equal medical INSURANCE for all American employees


Here is a source you can trust: DAVID BOIES, one of America’s leading constitutional experts:

There isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this issue.
First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion.
That is you can’t have the government saying you are going to have to follow certain religious beliefs, and it guarantees free exercise. That means everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer. The minimum wage, safe working conditions, workman’s compensation, age restrictions.
You could have a religion that says we believe that everybody when they are 60 years old must retire. That doesn’t give that religion an exemption. This is just simple labor law. There are all sorts of laws that apply to every employer in this country, and you don’t exempt religious employers just because of their religion.
You are not asking anybody in the Catholic Church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal laws that every employer has to comply with. The law wouldn’t say to a Catholic hospital, that you have got to do these acts that are contrary to religion, perhaps an abortion or something like that. They would, however, say to that hospital, you’ve got to treat your employees consistent with the law. And you’ve got to give him health insurance like you’ve got to give him workman’s compensation.
The NY law, for example, has the same exemptions as the federal law, that is the exemption for church employees, not hospital employees. If a Catholic Church owns a restaurant, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a hospital, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a university, those employees aren’t exempt.

We had a religious-based practice outlawed in this country.
Polygamy was outlawed in the 1878 by the United States Supreme Court because the Constitution has never prohibited Congress or the state legislatures from imposing limits that applied to everybody. In other words, you may have religion that believes in sacrificing animals - that doesn’t mean you are going to get an exemption from the anti-cruelty to animals laws.
As long as you have laws that apply across the board, and they are reasonable related laws the state has the right to impose those and you don`t get a pass just because you form or have a religion that has a sincere belief to the contrary.

Now, this is not a question of freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraception.


THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND FOR 134 YEARS:
The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."


This is why most of religion’s “blue” laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
If you are a sincere Catholic who disagrees with this decision,
I respect your opinion.
But please do not cite political hacks and liars to support your position.
The law of the land is the law of the land.
America is a nation of people, not churches.

[-] 0 points by SpartacusTheSlave (60) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Why didn't your mom abort you?
45% of all black pregnancies end in abortion. This great innovation has reduced crime in urban areas.
All Mexicans are Catholic. We want Catholic hospitals to automatically abort any Mexican babies.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

I'm a conservative. Religious conservative. I dont agree with abortion. However, it is your body and what you do with it is between you and , if you have one, your God.

However, I'm against YOU using MY taxes for abortion. It is YOUR body and YOU need to pay for the abortion and you should not force ME to pay for it. Go ahead, have the abortion but YOU pay and we can remain friends. One last comment. If you dont want the baby how about aborting it the moment you know you are pregnant? Abort it while it is very early in the development stage. For the life of ME, how any person with a heart decide to have an abortion nearing the 9th month while the babys head is coming and trying as hard as it can to take its first breath of air on earth,,,,,,,, is far beyond anything I can think of. Know its brain is being SUCKED out at that moment in time disgusts me to the point of throwing up. I could not look a woman in the eye knowing how little she thought about that child which would lead me to ask how much she could love ANYONE. If she can stick a probe in a babys neck, she can stab you in the back too. But go ahead,,, I would not stop you,,, but I would if you use my money to do it. Have a nice day.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

whoa - first off abortion stops after three months unless there are serious birth defects which is what partial birth abortion is and that has a time frame as well - the humane way to end a pregnancy in which the child would suffer upon being born. Aside from which the right has no problem with fertility clinics dis-guarding embryos or corporations that pollute and cause birth defects that cause babies to suffer. Importantly - I don't believe in war, but my tax money goes to that. Funny how the right doesn't mind killing people when they get older or people in the third world starving after American companies run around there doing land grabs forcing them off their land in conjunction with despot regimes into the cities where they can no longer sustain themselves. If you value life so much how can you disregard the fact the we are trying to save humanity from suffering? How can you not join this movement?

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

The country you live in was founded and has reference to the common defense. It has direct reference to funding wars. The purpose of our first income tax was to fund war. There is NO mention about abortion or funding abortion. Whether you like it or not America was founded on war. I would not tell you to leave the country you were born in,,, ,but sorry for you,,,, this is what America is about. So you really cant toss your rights against my rights when it is clearly referenced in our founding documents. (people leave the club they belong to if they dont like the rules)

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

It was also founded on slavery - so you think it still should be? But on the subject - you likely forgot to mention the federal reserve - taxes weren't supposed to fund that either ... war was supposed to be fought only in the face of imminent and direct threat and corporations weren't supposed to have the same rights as a person.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

You are still a slave today. You are not allowed to own your own property, the government owns it. I know what you would reply to my comment and you would be wrong. Just fail to pay taxes on YOUR PROPERTY and see who takes it way from you,,,,,, the government.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

Why does everyone think occupy is for higher taxes? - to say we want a new tax on the rich is ridiculous we just feel that we shouldn't be being taxed at a higher rate than the wealthy because we don't have special loop-holes lobbied into the tax system. If I'm going to pay I think you should pay - and I think that a fair tax would be a flat tax with no deductions 10 percent and no exceptions... no headquartering overseas (corporations cost the people more with their higher electric for all their extreme lighting and road construction and widening to accommodate traffic to them plus shipping goods overseas - and causing the prices of our resources to go up - so I believe they should have to pay taxes not hide overseas.) There should be a cost of doing business in the world's largest consumer economy. I think that would be fair. I also don't believe in property tax, or sales tax. One thing I think is that landlords should be taxed a higher percent to deter them from doing land grabs in the US (I don't believe housing should be a market). I hate welfare fraud - I don't enjoy seeing jerk ass people with 3 carriage loads of meat while I check out with my Ramen noodles, and I believe the elderly should be taken care of with healthcare and social security. There is common ground between all things. I'm open to ideas and common sense. We need to stop appointing blame and start wiping the slate with people who will take action. We also need to start caring about people again - I don't like the way this country feels right now. It's thick with frustration and resentment and hostility. This isn't a sports game you can't pick a side like you would pick a team - you need to pick out points of logic and go from there. One other point is right now I feel the government is a corporation - I see no distinction the politicians are simply the puppets...(I see no distinction) If this is the case then who is really taxing you? Who is really regulating small business (to drive out and eliminate the competition, who is really profiting from welfare and EBT card expansion (especially when people have stopped buying as much as they used to). Don't count on the media - the "government " aka corporations now have they're own propaganda machine... we're being used. That's what this movement is about. There is also a very big goal to divide and conquer - because united they can't stop us. They're diverting attention and it's working. Think about that paradox of the media aka corporations propagandizing, that the government aka corporations is robbing you blind and to defeat them you need to vote in the people they advocate on behalf of. Hmmm - strategically it's simplistic and to my amazement people are buying it? They're saying - Don't hate us - hate us? - genius They've diverted blame away from themselves by blaming themselves. Republicans and Democrats are the same enemy at the helm. They just want to have a scapegoat. I don't know Republicans had like 8 years to attack welfare abuse - what happened to that. And Democrats-construction my ass - didn't contractors have their day in the sun - how many mega-contractors can benefit from our money as they move at a snails pace and hire just enough workers to stretch things out as long as they can, meanwhile they're either related to the politician or the politician will work for them after he serves his time. Puts a whole new meaning on public servant doesn't it? Pitchforks my friends !!!!

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

You just gave examples of penalizing success. We are $15 Trillion and counting in debt to SUPPORT and encourage failures. End of story. Throughout recorded HISTORY,,,,,,,, with richer than rich walking the earth, how did OWS just form a few months ago? I think we hit a level of liberalim around the world that broke the camels backs. You have made your bed.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

you honed right in on that ...so then you're a landlord and you make money counted as capital gains and pay a lower percentage because you were rich enough to invest - isn't that the perfect example of cherry-picking success geared to benefit the wealthy individuals?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

You MISSED the recorded history part. You keep focusing on individual success as being bad. We, you , me, all of us, have a debt of over $15 trillion TODAY that supports a failed,, (FAILED) liberal agenda,,,,, and we continue to support failure. What ever happened in RECENT HISTORY where we hate success? If you want Greece,,,,, your getting close to getting it.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3102) 2 years ago

get rid of the federal reserve if you don't want to be Greece - do you honestly believe that liberal democrats are able to get anything done in Congress ? There was a deficit before Obama took office - you're pitching that he created all this debt? Who says I'm not a capitalist? - I'm just not a corporatist - Communism and Corporatism are the same ends of the horse shoe and there must be balance between socialism and capitalism to prevent government corruption

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I think many of us could argue that our tax dollars are spent on things that oppose our personal religious beliefs. I for one am opposed to paying for wars that are unjustly waged on other countries. I am opposed to war in all circumstances except where a country MUST defend it's citizens in the event of an attack. I am opposed to being forced to pay taxes that are given to others as a credit for having children. I chose not to have children for various reasons but mainly because I cannot afford them and yet, I get no tax credit or deduction for making wise, responsible choices that save others money. I hated paying into group insurance policies where most folks don't take care of themselves and rely too heavily on the benefits to fix what they screw up and I especially hated it when my rate would increase because of others who had kids- high risk. Why should I suffer financially due to their irresponsible lifestyle? The number of unwanted children born in this country is astonishing and sad. Parenting isn't just about making babies. Most of us can do that without having an ounce of regard for a child's well-being. It seems rather hypocritical that anyone would be more concerned about forcing women to get pregnant and yet, no one ever arrests women who are abusing their bodies during their pregnancy by using drugs, drinking, smoking, eating junk food and they don't make sure that parents are providing a good home. I'm not saying they should but my point being that it's ridiculous that we have so many unwanted, abused, hungry, child homicides and poorly educated in this country. The parents lives and well-being are just as worthy of being considered as much as a baby's life given that they must care for the baby. Yet, no one seems to consider that when a parent is forced to be a parent against their will, that the outcomes for the child are grim and hence, the child suffers - in many cases, life long emotional trauma that drives up the cost of care and drives down the quality of everyone's life in America. I completely agree with you about late term abortions. But, I must say that if abortion were not such an issue to begin with, more women would opt for first trimester abortions instead of wasting time trying to hide their pregnancies. This is why early education about choices should be provided without anyone feeling that they are forcing or encouraging someone to have an abortion. Just because I learned about communism in high school doesn't mean that I will become a communist anymore than learning about abortion would cause me to choose one. There seems to be an epidemic of lack of commonsense regarding this and I know it's because of the religious right that are completely delusional and in denial about the real world. Even the most fundamentalist Christians make mistakes. Do you realize how many Christians killed themselves because they were pregnant? We lose TWO lives, not one, when a woman becomes that desperate that she considers coat hangers, back alley doctors or suicide. What many Christians don't realize is that their beliefs regarding the sin of abortion have been fueled by governments throughout history that are in business to promote the increase in populations. It's essential to any civilization's survival that they keep making babies but what governments don't do is promote a sustainable economy that supports the well being of parents and children and that promotes family relations. Governments are too focused on quantity, not quality of human life. Many couples today are opting not to have children and I can't say that I blame them but a human shortage does not work for government. A government that is willing to murder innocent civilians in an unjust war, a government that is willing to execute prisoners in an unjust and flawed judicial system, a government that tortures humans, approves of unsafe foods and medications that harm and kill millions each year, is going to tout that abortion is murder and wrong? This simply doesn't hold up and it's obvious that they are just using religion and God once again to motivate and manipulate citizens.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I'm against my fucking taxes going to god damn fraudulent wars for oil and Wall Street fucking bonus checks! Why go after the little fish when you have whoppers lumbering around in plain sight and shallow water.

Worried about death, hah? What do you to support and protect babies after they are born?? Hmmm?? You do know war and poverty kill way more people than abortion, and you DO PAY for it? Right?

Are there honesty issues here?

Nobody LIKES abortions, they are simply a LEGAL NECESSITY.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

I guess the more liberal brain that can be sucked the better we will be in the future.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Nope there's a new brain defect gene test for Cons, they go first.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

What does this have to do with getting money out of politics...the whole point of Occupy?

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Since when was "getting the money out of politics" (good luck with that) is the whole point of Occupy? Are you the Leader ?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

So you're not doing anything productive on these boards?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

To the contrary, I doubt you even know what "honest" is or means as mired in RW disinformation as your post suggests you are.

In America contraception and abortion is legal, that's ALL America, including religious hospitals. There are no anti-American boundaries or force-fields within the borders of America. If you're looking for theocratic dictatorship try Saudi Arabia.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Includes religious hospitals? Are catholic hospitals forced to perform abortions too? You need to look a little closer at the laws.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Your question will drive the liberals nuts.