So you've probably heard the news. It seems the Obama administration decided christian hospitals "must" provide contraception and morning pills which is against what they belive in. I find it surprising Obama would be so bold. What are your thoughts on this?
Also some of you people mentioned this has nothing to do with the first ammendment. That this has something to do with business. I am repeating myself that these hospitals are christian hospital that believe that killing a baby in a mothers womb is murder. None of these people won't to feel like they have murdered a child.
I am repeating myself that these hospitals are christian hospital that believe that killing a baby in a mothers womb is murder. None of these people won't to feel like they have murdered a child.
Freedom revolves around consent. More on that soon.
So one doesn't have the freedom to say what should and shouldn't be done to their body?
That is NOT anywhere close to what I said. People DO have a right to say what should and should not be done to their body. Other people have the right to decide what they do and do not want to do to other people's body (as long as what they do is consensual).
If a woman wants a contraception, she should have the freedom to have that operation! However, she should NOT be allowed to force a doctor to give her that operation without his consent.
A woman has the freedom to have whatever operation done to her that she wants. A doctor has the freedom to provide whichever services he wants. If a woman (or anyone else) is allowed to force the doctor to provide services that he doesn't want, then he loses his freedom.
Freedom revolves around consent. If a woman consents to having a surgery be done to her, then she must find a doctor who consents to providing said surgery. If the doctor refuses to provide the surgery, then the woman has the freedom to look for someone else.
Freedom revolve around consent. Giving a person the freedom to force doctors to providing surgeries they don't want to provide is only freedom for one of the two parties. The other person, however, does not have the freedom of making his own decision.
The woman should be allowed to have whatever she wants done to her body, but she should not be allowed to actually force someone to do whatever it is she wants to her body.
Well, by that logic, we could call adults "undead corpses" and bury them and study them as much as we like, since they're "undead corpses."
I don't see how this works in his logic anyhow, and I'm on the other side.
We believe life begins at conception
So if the end result of sexual relations was prevented beforehand, say, by the use of condoms, you would be okay by this? After all, nothing was conceived.
No, he believes the first stage of life is at germination. This does not suggest that other stages of life are "shifted" to where being an adult is considered an "undead corpse". It doesn't add up.
No, he believes the first stage of life is at germination. This does not suggest that other stages of life are "shifted" to where being an adult is considered an "undead corpse". It doesn't add up.
Hmm? Oh, it's almost 11. I think I might just be a wee bit tired.
The woman should be allowed to have whatever she wants done to her body, but she should not be allowed to actually force someone to do whatever it is she wants to her body.
Okay, though I'm still not very convinced by this given the doctor should be operating on a professional level rather then a personal one.
We believe life begins at conception. So we consider this murdering an unborn child.
The article you posted shows nothing on infringing religious rights. A woman is able to have access to free contraception, but this doesn't mean she has to accept it. It's just available when she wants to.
The article you posted shows nothing on infringing religious rights. A woman is able to have access to free contraception, but this doesn't mean she has to accept it. It's just available when she wants to.
Now you see how it is in the US. It's always those so-called religious people who causes trouble. Right now for example there's some anti Obamacare ads on TV, especially on Fox TV (retard) and it's sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce which probably comprise some criminals who own an insurance business among this group of terrorists. They are mad at the president for telling them that it's not right to deceive their customers by refusing coverage because they have a pre-existing condition so they ally with religious groups in order to start as many propaganda as possible.
This bill is not about patients/clients. Its about the female employees. The goal of this plan is giving access to free contraception coverage through their employers to most women. Religiously affiliated hospitals and universities will not have to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Insurance companies will probably step in to provide the coverage instead. Anyways, from CNN: "Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage - a continuation of current law."
Frankly, its not a religious issue. Saying to a religious hospital "You need to provide contraception coverage to all your female employees, but only if you really want to, otherwise please don't do it" like a suggestion does not limit said hospitals freedoms. They are still very free to say "No, I don't want to provide contraception". Then maybe an insurance company would come into play and would ask the female employees "Do you want contraception coverage? I know you don't want it or need it, but I have to ask, I am obliged by law". In all likelihood the vast majority of the workers would say "I don't want contraception coverage". And, everything is coming up roses. No contraception, no new expenses.
In my opinion the real questions are: is free contraception a woman's right? Does the government have the right to force companies to pay for the employee's free contraception? And, if no, should the government pay for this good? Finally, isn't this a double standard? Religious institutions don't have to provide free contraception, but all non-religious companies have to. A law, good or bad, is not supposed to be applied only to some specific legal persons, it has to be universal. Equality before the law is one of the most important legal principles.
