Redefining Contraception as Abortion (Jesus Christ, moral, beliefs, choice, hell)

[Mister Emu]

For people who on religious grounds cannot participate in abortions on the health care side...

[MoonWater]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

For people who on religious grounds cannot participate in abortions on the health care side...

I'm still confused... why would they need any protections? Do you mean like getting help from the church to raise the kid? What could that possibly have to do with contraception? And what do you mean by "health care side"? Are people who don't get abortions at risk for higher premiums or something? I'm sorry but I'm just really confused about this whole issue, I don't even know what "protections" you guys are talking about.

[Comicaze247]

*reads article*

*facepalm*

*has to go put ice on his head for facepalm-ing too hard, will post later*

[Mister Emu]

I'm still confused... why would they need any protections? Do you mean like getting help from the church to raise the kid? What could that possibly have to do with contraception? And what do you mean by "health care side"?

People like nurses and doctors who cannot participate in abortions because of their religion...

[DallasApple]

Originally Posted by lilithu

That's exactly what it is. An attempt to take away women's freedoms lest we get too uppity.

The abortion debate, the contraception debate, the BGLT equality debate, they all center around the same thing, maintaining the old order things where (straight) men were in charge and women were subordinate (and children even more so). The reason why same-sex marriages is so threatening to them is because they present an alternative model, where it isn't clear who's in charge and who's subordinate. The reason why contraception is so threatening is because they know that given an option, many women will no longer be satisfied just being the "helpmeet" men. The genders being equal. Men having to share authority and maybe do housework. Oh, the horror!

Whats the matter??You dont want to be a "helper" to the man??

How about this one(it cracks me up) ..when the man washes dishes or cleans or cooks he says "I help you out!" to the woman..

Love

Dallas

[DallasApple]

Originally Posted by MoonWater

Wait a minute, I'm confused... why do people who wish to not have abortions need protection and what sort of "protections" are they being given and what would be the point in extending those protections to those who don't use contraception? it's not like they're going to be forced to have abortions or use birth control or anything. I'm just confused about this whole "protections" thing. Could someone more informed than I here maybe explain it to me, I really just don't get it.

They are protected from the pit of hell ...

Love

Dallas

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

As I read it, this would extend that protection to those(such as Catholics, and as far as I know we are the only ones that have policy against artificial birth control) who might feel their religion compels them to not be involved with the distribution of such...

But only those types that can work after fertilization, right?

If so, I've got a few issues with that.

First, I think it's inconsistent with other forms of the law. Generally, it's illegal for a person or company to use their market share in one area to "throw their weight around" in another. We saw this in the Microsoft anti-trust suit: Microsoft used its weight in the operating system market to force the choice of PC retailers when it came to other software like web browsers and media players.

Outside large cities, a town may only have a single pharmacy. The way I see it, this law would give permission to people like pharmacists to use the leverage that comes with their market share in other medications and products to control the local market for certain types of birth control medication.

I see this as inconsistent. If it's not okay for Microsoft to engage in this behaviour, why is it okay for a drug store?

Second, I think this is different from abortion in another important regard: time. In the case of an abortion, if one (or even many) doctors refuse to participate in an abortion, the woman still has weeks or even months to find a hospital or clinic where she can procure it. While it's an inconvenience, it doesn't necessarily mean stopping her outright from getting the abortion done (though I realize that for women who can't afford to travel to the nearest big city, it often can be).

In the case of products like the Plan B pill, the window of time when they can be used is much tighter - only a day or two. If a woman can't get it locally, she likely won't be able to get it at all within the window when she should take it.

[MoonWater]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

People like nurses and doctors who cannot participate in abortions because of their religion...

oh, so you mean like there are protections that would prevent a doctor or nurse from getting in trouble at work or getting sued if the refused to help with an abortion because of religious beliefs? And this new law would cause those protections to be extended so that doctors who refused to give out birth control because of religious beliefs also couldn't get in trouble?

[Mister Emu]

And this new law would cause those protections to be extended so that doctors who refused to give out birth control because of religious beliefs also couldn't get in trouble?

Exactly...

In the case of products like the Plan B pill, the window of time when they can be used is much tighter - only a day or two. If a woman can't get it locally, she likely won't be able to get it at all within the window when she should take it.

Do you believe that this should compromis someone's freedom of religion?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

Do you believe that this should compromis someone's freedom of religion?

"Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose."