Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'laci green'.
Found 1 result
-
In the majority of cases having sex is a choice. I don't see why the government should have to pay for your personal choices out of their pocket. On the other hand, investing in birth control can keep female assets in working instead of paying child support for the women who do get pregnant from a lack of birth control. I can see a valid economic argument either way. Morally, forcing a company to pay for something optional which contradicts the owner's belief is coercion. What are your thoughts on this? The next part: Blood transfusions that go against Jehovah's witnesses? Antidepressants that go against Scientology? Probably not. These are not accurate parallels. A Jehovah's witnesses has the right to refuse a blood transfusion, as does a Scientologist have the right to refuse anti depressants. To the best of my knowledge neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor Scientologists are demanding that their employers pay for these services which they can refuse. Am I misunderstanding this?
