Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Politics Permanently Broken?

   
The problem there is that this is a case where 'choice' can manifestly impact other peoples rights and their incomes. Aside from the issue of herd immunity, there's the simple fact that paying $25 bucks a month more onto the top of the pile now can save the system from having to pay much more down the line for even a relatively uneventful, if unwanted, birth. I can concede that some choice can be allowed without breaking a medical system (witness France), but at the same time it benefits society to provide a standard minimum of care so as to lessen the burden on the system of those that legitimately can't afford to pay for choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
If you mandate one thing is free without deductibles, etc there really isn't much standing in the way of everything else going the same direction.
That's a slippery slope argument.

Quote:
Limited government issues aside, if I were buying an insurance plan I'd choose to take contraceptive coverage because it saves money in the long run. It's the smart choice. But that's the key word, it's my choice on whether or not to take it. It's not dictated to me from Washington.

You might not agree with me, and that's fine, but hopefully you can at least see where I'm coming from.
I do see where you're coming from, but I think it is within the rights of a government to determine that women's reproductive health needs to be protected on a federal level. What is being mandated is that everyone have equal access to it. Individuals retain the right to take the actual contraceptives or services or not, but insurance companies and employers no longer have the right to deny those services.

In my opinion, that is exactly the right and purpose of government. We can agree to disagree on this issue, and if this is a central tenet of the conservative party then they can work to repeal it. That work, IMO, shouldn't be accomplished through political grandstanding and theater.

This isn't a religious issue. It's a women's health issue, and people of religion can choose to not participate if they so choose, but women who happen to work for employers of religion who do wish to participate may now do so. That's freedom of choice, and that freedom of choice should be protected on a federal level along with other minority protections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlictoatl View Post
That's a slippery slope argument.
Not really. I'm just pointing out it's not likely to be the last time the government uses it's mandate powers. Not linking some big chain of events together.
The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.
OT

Quote:
but insurance companies and employers no longer have the right to deny those services.
And I think they should have the right to choose how the compensate their employees. Customizing a healthcare plan included.

Quote:
This isn't a religious issue.
On that we can agree. I see it as far more of a limited government issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlictoatl View Post
Why should she be denied free access to it, when that is the new standard of healthcare across the nation?
Fixed. This standard of health care has been around for at least 2-3 decades, and was first introduced over 40 years ago. That's not "new," and while the extreme religious right has only recently gotten involved (in a major way), conservatives have been protesting it for years, despite the drop in associated health costs and improvement in women's health (evidenced by 98% of women using birth control at some point in their lives).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeek said
I'm getting tired of beating my head up against a brick wall here, so I think I'm done here. I only hope that real world experience will educate you more than I have been able to.
and he wonders where I got the impression of "liberal scum" in his posts...

Whatever your opinion of AlterNet, this article raises a very important point that sheds some additional light on the subject of women's sexual freedom. The main point of the article is that effective contraception has destroyed the social contract that existed between men and women for the past all-of-history-before-it. It's a fundamental change for humanity, and we really shouldn't be all that surprised that people rail against it and will likely continue to for some time.

As a side note, if you think no one is railing against contraception and it's just liberals and feminazis getting in a twist about nothing, Personhood USA is doing a bangup job of getting personhood bills into Republican controlled state legislatures all over the place right now. These laws do not exempt hormonal contraception, or even IVF or other fertility treatments. They do require a 12 year old girl raped by her father to carry the child to term, though, and also will get women killed as life saving abortions won't be allowed, either. Virginia is about to put one into law, in addition to their mandatory object rape before abortion law (I guess they decided to do both 'just in case'), as is Oklahoma.

Although it's not about contraception, if you're interested, Texas already has the mandatory object rape before abortion law, and it has been challenged in court, but the challenge has so far failed and may be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

More Republican spontaneous righteous anger (and ignorance): http://bostonherald.com/news/columni...rum_laid_bayer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Santorum, meanwhile, has promised as president to condemn any sex, including sex within marriage, not done to make a baby. “One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is ... the dangers of contraception.” He says it could reduce sex “to the point where it’s simply pleasure.”

Republican Lynne Blankenbeker, at a hearing this week, tried to reassure married couples fearing the cost of birth control without coverage. You have “two affordable choices, one being abstinence and the other being condoms,” she said. “If you decide you want to get pregnant you can refrain from abstinence.”

At the same hearing, state Rep. Jeanine Notter claimed birth control pills can cause estrogen to build up in the air and cause prostate cancer.

Former acting Gov. Jane Swift, a Republican, required health insurers to cover contraception as a gender-equity issue. You can’t deny women while covering men’s vasectomies and even ... Viagra. Mitt Romney made no move to change that law.
Nice to see the hue and cry has finally got up! I mean, it only took a black man facing re-election to bring it out...

I'd be really curious to see the author's source for the Santorum quote. That sounds like something out of The Onion, and would be too good to be true, if true.

This is my favorite part:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Up in ever wackier New Hampshire, ultra-conservatives have just discovered that their Catholic institutions have been required to cover birth control costs for a decade now. Who knew? I didn’t know either, frankly, that since 2002 Massachusetts — like 20-plus other states — has also required Catholic institutions from Boston College to St. Elizabeth’s to cover birth control, too. Where was the hysteria about religious liberty then? Apparently — and purely coincidentally, I’m sure — the hysterics waited till Barack Obama entered the picture. Now New Hampshire legislators, and half the country, are outraged. Outraged!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlictoatl View Post
I'd be really curious to see the author's source for the Santorum quote. That sounds like something out of The Onion, and would be too good to be true, if true.
Google suggests this interview, but I have to admit I'm not eager to watch a 45-minute interview with Rick Santorum.

More uninformed statements from candidate Santorum: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ZeNR_blog.html





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status