Obama's War On The Church

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1329696090' post='2389679']
my fiancee is currently training me to put the seat down after I use the potty. I don't quite understand why I have to do it--there's just as much chance (if not more) that it will be me going in there to use the facilities, and why should I have to bend down to lift the seat in order to do so? Feminism is lamesauce!
[/quote]

why? just pee in the sink

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1329351744' post='2387731']
Make no mistake.

This HHS mandate is simply a strategic first step, and ultimately the goal is not about contraception, which was never really an issue.

Contraceptives can be obtained cheaply and easily everywhere, and there have been no complaints filed by women against Catholic employers not covering their contraception.

But this is the first step. If Obama and the radical feminist, pro-abort lobby he is beholden to can successfully mandate that all employers must provide insurance to pay for contraception (including pills that are in actuality abortifacients) regardless of the religious beliefs of employers, then they can next require that they cover abortion pills such as RU-486 (since, after all, the courts have declared abortion a "constitutional right"), then dictate that they cover flat-out surgical abortions.

That's not a "slippery-slope" fallacy, but similar to the legal process that led up to Roe v. Wade.


Team Obama knows exactly what it's up to on this one. Don't be fooled; he really is "all that bad."
[/quote]

Actually Soc I think it is about contraception AND abortion. First they will require insurance companies to cover contraception, followed swiftly by abortion, then they will start putting free clinics into the schools to make it more available, then eventually it will be compulsory to take the pill. The goal is population control by whatever means possible.

[add]

I wonder why this is framed as a woman's health issue, isn't the man equal? Arn't men and woman equal? Doesn't it take two to tango?
How is the termination of a pregnancy a health issue in the first place?
Time was (not so long ago) Sex between two unmarried was considered a crime, fornication?

Society use to be a lot more cilivilized, that today ( go figure)

Edited March 4, 2012 by add

[Papist]

If birth control, abortifacient drugs, and sterilization is women's health care why doesn't HHS mandate insurance companies to provide FREE of charge drugs like cholesterol medicine, high blood pressure medicine, and chemotherapy? Those drugs are necessary for women’s health. Is it because this isn't about women’s health care at all? This is the first step in making the Catholic Church irrelevant, in the discourse.

[Anomaly]

The abortion problem and irresponsible sexual encounters will never be remedied until responsibility is demanded of both parties to the sexual encounter. My suggestions:
-Mandatory divulging of who the father may be.
-Mandatory DNA testing.
-Mandatory financial obligation that is accrued regardless of custody rights.

[4588686]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1330959025' post='2396486']
The abortion problem and irresponsible sexual encounters will never be remedied until responsibility is demanded of both parties to the sexual encounter. My suggestions:
-Mandatory divulging of who the father may be.
-Mandatory DNA testing.
-Mandatory financial obligation that is accrued regardless of custody rights.
[/quote]

I don't know what the last one means but the first two are grossly unconstitutional.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330959219' post='2396490']
I don't know what the last one means but the first two are grossly unconstitutional.
[/quote]What is unconstitutional about the first two? It isn't currently legal for parents to neglect, abuse, or abandon their children and falsely claim they aren't theirs.

On the last, parents (sperm or egg donor) are financially responsible for child support, whether or not they have custody and the total sum is owed until it is paid. Something like a student loan that follows you forever.

[4588686]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1330960218' post='2396501']
What is unconstitutional about the first two? It isn't currently legal for parents to neglect, abuse, or abandon their children and falsely claim they aren't theirs.[/QUOTE]

You can;t force a woman to divulge who the father is if she doesn't want to. If she wants to collect child supports and the individual in question denies he's the father then the courts do have legal means to compel donation of genetic materials, but blanket mandatory DNA and paternity naming are illegal.

Right to privacy and all that.

[QUOTE] On the last, parents (sperm or egg donor) are financially responsible for child support, whether or not they have custody and the total sum is owed until it is paid. Something like a student loan that follows you forever.
[/quote]

Why should they be responsible for child support? They are selling their genetic material to a sperm bank or fertility clinic. And individual is buying that material knowing that the individual who sold it has no intention of forming any sort of unit with them or having any connection with any offspring that come from that material. There is no reason they should be responsible for it.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330967204' post='2396539']
You can;t force a woman to divulge who the father is if she doesn't want to. If she wants to collect child supports and the individual in question denies he's the father then the courts do have legal means to compel donation of genetic materials, but blanket mandatory DNA and paternity naming are illegal.

Right to privacy and all that.[/quote]I apologize for not being clearer. If she wants to collect child support from the Government, then she needs to divulge the other responsible party that enabled her conceive.
[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330967204' post='2396539']Why should they be responsible for child support? They are selling their genetic material to a sperm bank or fertility clinic. And individual is buying that material knowing that the individual who sold it has no intention of forming any sort of unit with them or having any connection with any offspring that come from that material. There is no reason they should be responsible for it.[/quote]Again I apologize if my descriptive of 'donor' caused your misunderstanding. I meant the second party to a sexual act that resulted in pregnancy in a figurative sense, not literally an egg or sperm donor from a donor bank.

Generally, conception doesn't happen miraculously. The concept of mutual responsibility for the pregnancy is addressing the male who usually walks away without any responsibilty or consequences, leaving the entire burden of consequences to the woman and the child. With today's technology, it's inexcusable to continue with current primitive practice of releiving the man of any responsibility or disallowing any choice in the fate of their off-spring.

[Papist]

Where's are them people that are always yelling at the Catholic Church to stay out of their bedrooms? I would expect them to be yelling the same at Obama.

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1330980500' post='2396594']
Where's are them people that are always yelling at the Catholic Church to stay out of their bedrooms? I would expect them to be yelling the same at Obama.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? How is mandating that insurance companies cover contraception intruding in an individual's bedroom? You don't have to purchase contraception. If you don't believe in contraception you are free to avoid it. You all are the ones attempting to legally compel archaic sexual ethics.

[MissMaro]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330995032' post='2396689']
What are you talking about? How is mandating that insurance companies cover contraception intruding in an individual's bedroom? You don't have to purchase contraception. If you don't believe in contraception you are free to avoid it. You all are the ones attempting to legally compel archaic sexual ethics.
[/quote]

If we were trying to legally compel non-Catholics to obey Catholic sexual teaching, we'd be fighting to make contraception illegal, not fighting not to have to pay for it.

[4588686]

[quote name='MissMaro' timestamp='1330997529' post='2396701']
If we were trying to legally compel non-Catholics to obey Catholic sexual teaching, we'd be fighting to make contraception illegal, not fighting not to have to pay for it.
[/quote]

I was thinking more about the rights historic support for anti-sodomy laws, current opposition to gay marriage, and attempts to enforce abstinence (and heterosexual) only sexual education.

[MissMaro]

Oops. I forgot that the only modern sin is to disapprove of any sexual sin that people want to commit. Silly me.

[Winchester]

[quote name='MissMaro' timestamp='1331045817' post='2396845']
Oops. I forgot that the only modern sin is to disapprove of any sexual sin that people want to commit. Silly me.
[/quote]
"Disapprove" is not defined as "support the use of violence by the State to prevent".

It's not mere "disapproval" to which Hasan the Secret Muslim, protector of Islam, is objecting. It is the use of threat of violence to prevent and punish those actions.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Winchester