Posted on 02/10/2012 10:28:01 AM PST by unique1
Agreed...
“Jesus was right. We are the salt of the earth. We need to proclaim our beliefs without reservation.”
Agreed...but we also need to live out our beliefs.
Psalms 1:1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
Thinking of the above verse, why do over 90% of Christian children go to public school? It is within the walls of the public schools that a lot of the “educating” about the new culture is happening.
Ephesians 5:15-16 Be very careful, then, how you live-not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.
For a good look at the public school system I would advice reading “Clergy in the Classroom” by David A. Noebel.
Ephesians 6:12-13 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
“And....the men of today just don’t have the means neccessary to rise up and fight.”
Yes we do...but we need to understand the fight is spiritual at it's core so we need to first put on the armor of God and stand...
Well we can dress like doctors and nurses and religious leaders, and toss all of the liberal toys overboard! What are those? Well we can toss over a bunch of birth control devices-you know- such as:, pills, condoms, shots, books and pamphlets, etc... into the harbor! (Some of this lies in jest; hopefully, I didn’t offend anyone!)
So what? Is it a bad thing? I understood the significance of everything else in your rant. That, I don’t get.
Today there were reports that it definitely is cheaper for insurance companies to offer free birth control (cost about $600) than what it would cost them for an actual pregnancy (thousands). So this will make them money in the long run. I strongly suspect that someone in the industry pointed this out to POTUS before he changed his tune.
If I, as a non Catholic, were working at the only hospital in town, I would be darned annoyed if I could not get the same free services that all my friends working elsewhere were able to get. If I were a Catholic I could choose not to use those free services thus maintaining my religious freedom. While people are saying this denies Catholics their rights, I see it as Catholics denying non Catholics their rights if they work at a Catholic hospital. Suppose you worked for a police department and they told you that you could not keep a gun at home, even though all other citizens in your jurisdiction were allowed to do so? Would you be upset your 2nd Amendment rights were being violated?
I felt the first policy was wrong. I don’t have a specific problem with what I hear about the second policy. I strongly suspect the Insurance Industry signaled they would be happy with it as it will save them money. It has been pointed out that contraception can cost $600 a year, which might be hard for a janitor or nurses aide with 3 children to afford. The more unplanned children poor workers have, the more the rest of us end up paying for in the form of illness, special education needs, crime and imprisonment, etc.
Whether we like it or not, and many don’t, Obamacare was voted for in Congress, free preventive medicine was one of the things approved if I understand correctly. The Constitutional question will be answered during some of the various cases that are being brought before the Supreme Court on this issue.
Which one of my irrelevant questions don’t you want to try to answer?
“They have the right to decline to provde a service which is against their religious beliefs.”
Yes, and this is why Obama responded to the hue and cry by transfering the responsibility for providing these services to the employees’ insurance companies rather than to the hospitals themselves.
I checked back to Comment #28, that started this discussion about blue eyes? and rants, but the Moderator removed it, so can you explain what this is all about in a way that the Moderator will not feel compelled to remove.
In obama’s case, it is an outward sign of drug use. He supposedly doesn’t have any of the diseases associated with the bluish discoloration, but we know he was a heavy drug user.
That was me. When I posted I was extremely angry and I suspect it showed bigtime. I was not very kind to mr. obama, and I still cannot find a kind word for him, so what I really think is probably best left unsaid.
I know nothing about his drug history; however, now that he is President he must have a few sleepless nights. I know that doesn’t do any good for my eyes. I don’t know if fatigue affects colored skin differently, I will have to look more closely at those around me. I know that when a colored person is very ill, they can look greyish.
Where to begin?
“ . . .[I]nsurance companies agreed to this because it costs a lot less to provide free contraception than it does to pay for maternity care, delivery, and family medical care after a child is born.” Really. As simply a practical matter, how difficult is it for ANY woman to obtain contraceptives or contraceptive service; and how expensive is it? The figure is, at this point, $600/yr. An abortion’s cheaper, and it’s a fallback position when the contraceptive fails (NB: 50% of abortions are performed on contraceptive-using females which doesn’t say a lot about the efficacy of some or all contraceptives). The other fallback is childbirth. But how long do you think it’ll take before the fems decide that the OUTCOME’s the guarantee? Meaning that the failed contraceptive requires, requires, mind you, free access to abortion (which by way of this particular piece of executive fiat is also covered by way of the ella pill).
So far, none of this relates to the social engineering portion of this mandate. The Obama administration clearly sees child-reduction as a general and individual good regardless of failed theories (Malthus & Keynes come to mind) and in spite of the fact that reduced population, in light of social security, Medicare, and Medicaid concerns, is anything but a general good! And although certain contraceptives may accomplish certain individual “goods” which are more accurately described as desires (fertilization reduction, menopause-problems, etc.), others cause or stimulate cancer. The use of contraceptives is never win-win, never without some unintended consequence (including pregnancy).
What’s the financial logic behind insuring women for something 99% of them (according to the figures we’ve heard) already use? And if 99% of women are already using contraceptives, why is the cost of women’s insurance continually rising? Surely if that many women are avoiding the higher cost of pregnancy, why isn’t that already built into insurance riders? (I’m guessing, but I’d bet it’s because contraceptives aren’t failsafe, and insurance companies can’t know which users will be affected—whether by type of contraceptive or diligence in taking it.) No, insurance rates are not going to drop because of contraceptive-use.
There’s so much more, but let me get to your last point. In case you haven’t picked it up from numerous other posts or elsewhere, NO ONE’s preventing you from using whatever birth control method you’d like. This isn’t an argument about YOUR individual freedom of choice. But, if you go to a Catholic hospital (or attend a Catholic university), you’ll have to pay for it yourself or buy what’s bound to be really cheap or free (if we beleive all the govt. spokesmen) contraceptive insurance. The big argument is about FORCING A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION or AN INDIVIDUAL corporation or person with religious objections TO OFFER something, anything, he or it finds abhorrent or anathema to his/its religious beliefs. It’s exactly the same thing as forcing a religious institution (or individual) to refrain from quoting the Bible, singing hymns, having Christmas displays, wearing crosses or yarmulke, using publicly supplied water for baptisms, writing letters of a religious nature to magazines or newspapers, or appearing on television to advance any particularly religious view. Or forcing them to replace their crucifixes with golden calves! It ABRIDGES THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION.
As to where poor women go for care of already-born children, the Church, without government assistance, has been doing it for centuries. With respect to “unwanted” or unmarried, or teen pregnancies (all of which grew exponentially since the introduction of “the pill”), the Catholic Church and many other religious institutions offer full pregnancy care and adoption services, orphanages, and foster care.
My right to own and carry a firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, yet I can’t carry my firearm, concealed or otherwise, in several U. S. cities. Go figure. I don’t want anything similar to happen with the First Amendment, and I intend to work on what’s been done to the Second.
My right to contraceptive coverage is covered nowhere in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Yet—even if Obamacare is validated by the Court—nothing’s preventing you from buying separate conraceptive coverage (which, as I said before, ought to be REALLY cheap, if the govt’s not lying) if it’s not covered in your employer’s policy. Why would this be any different from any other policy offered up to this point by an employer? Some offer eye and dental care, some don’t. Some offer lasix surgery coverage, others don’t. Some have higher, some lower, deductibles & premiums. If the employer doesn’t offer a particular plan, you handle it otherwise. This isn’t rocket science.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to go into detailed response to your long carefully argued comment. There are several points I would like to correct or inform you of however. The 99% figure does not mean that 99% of women are using contraceptives regularly. I believe the statement is that 99% of women have used it at some time in their entire lifetime. A friend of mine says that whenever she orders a refill of here contraceptive pills, which she pays for, the insurance company manages to misplace the order. This does not happen to other things she orders, so someone is obviously tampering with her paid choice.
Malthus raised fears of skyrocketing population causing wars and famine. The Chinese responded with a Draconian one child policy. The result is a sustainable population in China and a growing economy. Ruanda’s population grew to an unsustainable level land and resources wise, and the resulting explosion resulted in over 1 million deaths. A large part of the Arab Spring has been driven by unemployment of the exploding youth population in Arab countries, which if they don’t have oil are in big trouble in the future with lack of water and food facing them. Only the agricultural revolution by men such as Borlag and Lundberg prevented major starvation catastrophes starting 30 years ago.
I have no idea where you come up with the statement that contraception is NEVER win-win, without unintended consequences. After 44 years of marriage during which we always used contraception, I had two planned pregnancies, and two healthy sons. Sounds like win-win for us. Also, most women I know use contraception and are mostly happy with it and the results. Enough, I have several days of heavy work to do.
What year is this? 1955?
Thank you for taking the time when you don’t have it. That’s usually hard for me, too.
The “99%” figure comes from Kathleen Sebelius, not from me, and it’s just a small piece of misinformation she spread on the day she spoke in the WH pressroom. She followed it with “98%” of Catholic women USE—not “used” or “have used at some time in their lives,” etc., which might have made the figures slightly more believable.
Malthus was talking of all population, including the UK’s and the rest of the civilized world. Without the western world’s science, manufacturing, free enterprise system and charity, he might have been correct. But those innovations count, as do, as you mention, war and famine and, I’m sure you’d have added, disease. Another factor, believe it or not, is religion. Some religions, especially when linked to governance, fail to accommodate the growth of its people. Think India, China, Japan, and just about all of Africa, and the Middle East. There’s a reason the West succeeded in sustaining its people.
China may find the one-child policy useful for a while, but it’s going to find itself in Japan’s position within this generation. It’s got an additional problem, thanks to abortion, though—and incredibly overweighted male population, which will reduce their reproduction rate even further. As Japan learned, the one-child policy not only doesn’t work in the safety-net society, it doesn’t work in an industrialized society; and China’s on that path. All that’s left for it at the moment is overmilitarization which won’t go to waste.
You were, in one sense, lucky with contraceptives. If the figure put out by several sources (i.e., not solely by Czar Kathleen) stating that 50% of abortions are performed on contraceptive-using women, then I think it’s safe to say that contraceptives (or their users) aren’t always that lucky. But that figure may also reveal that BECAUSE abortion’s available, diligence in following the instructions accompanying contraceptives isn’t always exercised.
Lastly, though, and I hate to go mystical here, you’re obviously content with the children you have; but you have no way of knowing whom you didn’t have.
The Japanese government has never had a "one-child" policy.
Indeed, the Japanese government at all levels positively encourages people to have children; the problem in Japan is that children are a very, very expensive proposition, not that the government thinks that there are too many.
Actually, I wanted a third child, but my husband was a practicing alcoholic (he generally practiced 6 evenings a week), although he never missed a day of work. Everything I earned went to cover basic bills (mortgage, utilities, food) he could not pay, so we could not afford a third child. And believe me, many women who practice contraception, or even abortion, are in a much worse situation.
I would not worry too much about either the Japanese or Chinese situation. When at least 1/4 of the European population was killed by Bubonic Plague, prosperity actually increased in future decades because there was so much abandoned land and property that became redistributed.
As to the 50% abortion/contraceptive failure rate. Consider that many women practice contraception for many years. Let us say from 20 to 45, there are only 5 years when they are trying to get pregnant or carrying a child, this leaves 20 years times 13 months, or 260 months during which they might have a contraceptive failure. Since there are perhaps 5 days a month when pregnancy might take place then there are around 1,300 days when a mistake or mishap might take place. Thus, the failure rate may actually be fairly low given how many opportunities there are for accidents to take place.
It wasn’t called “one-child.” In the late 60s, they did indeed promote child-reduction with birth-control and abortion. We saw the results in the 80s when Japanese industries and even department stores were relying on specialized robots in an attempt to replace the missing labor pool.
You’re quite right though. NOW Japan IS encouraging childbirth, but it’s BECAUSE of their earlier policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.