Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Posted Image

 

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?

Posted

My thoughts are extremely limited on this question.

 

The first thing I'll say is that ever since listening to FDR, I'm not longer swayed by appeals to "equality", because "equality" isn't a moral principle, but rather a desired outcome.  So I always interpret appeals to equality as "because I like it" - which is a non-argument. 

 

The second thing I'll say is that I understand your confusion because I am identically-confused.  Hopefully other people will shed more light on this question.  :)

Posted

Quick Google search surfaced:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/30/326926331/companies-can-refuse-to-cover-contraception-supreme-court-says

 

Some excerpts from the article:

 

It notes that the owners of the "closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception" and that they object to the part of the ACA under which employers are "required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus."

 

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which "provides that the government 'shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion' unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest,"

_______________________________

 

That meme makes it sound like all birth control is being outlawed, when all that's happening is removing the subsidy for it through the A.C.A. and, as a result, the mass theft to pay for that subsidy. It wasn't even an overwhelming majority, it was a 5-4 vote. But, Patriarchy.  :unsure:

Posted

No women are being denied birth control; they're free to buy it at any drug store. Moreover, birth control is not something that insurance needs to cover. The purpose of insurance is to protect people from financial destitution due to a calamity of some kind.

 

This issue is about getting something for free and using the State to force others to pay for it.

Posted

Saw this in my Facebook news feed and facepalmed, especially since the person who shared it was a guy. You know the propaganda has overwhelmingly succeeded in brainwashing when men are openly lining up to bear the burden of women's bad decisions because "white male privilege" in the Supreme Court.

 

The shitty part is that one mandate in Obamacare was overturned because people irrationally believe in sky ghosts more than property rights and the NAP.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.