Birth Control Question

[TexasTiger 14,226]

TexT......you are so funny. Sure I love to see libs unhappy. Why not? If they are unhappy, I'm likely to be happy. I just find it ironic that when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Obamacare the libs went bananas but when the same SOTUS rules against what they want the go beserk. Kind of hypocritical don't you think?

Only to a simpleton that treats court decisions like football games.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You shouldn't call yourself names.

[TexasTiger 14,226]

You shouldn't call yourself names.

How old are you?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Texan4Auburn.......I didn't mean to touch a sore spot. But do you really think that providing BC, free or not, will solve the problems you talk about?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TexT.....older than you......and obviously a lot wiser.

[TexasTiger 14,226]

TexT.....older than you......and obviously a lot wiser. :big:/>

Just more proof wisdom doesn't always come with age.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

There you go.......we see things differently. How would you know?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

You know, I'm going to say some things here that is gonna hit me with a lot hate and be very unpopular. The way our own military acts, since you showed them as a triumph to keeping women from birth control as part of the ACA, are a perfect example of why birth control for women ,regardless of how it works, should be made available and not withheld.

Stop right there. Nothing that happened the other day at the SCOTUS is keeping women from birth control nor is it being withheld. All that happened is that they decided that the government can't ignore the RFRA and the 1st Amendment in forcing someone else to pay for it. All the same forms of birth control that were available and legal to purchase before the Hobby Lobby case are still available and legal today.

Women are no more being denied birth control by this decision than I'm being denied ham sandwiches because kosher delis won't serve me one.

My understanding is that two forms of IUD's, Ella and Plan B will no longer be available in insurance provided by Hobby Lobby due to the belief by the company they are abortifacients. Least from the articles I read. I also linked another article earlier that shows that some on the far right want to use this as a stepping stone to eliminate abortion period regardless of incest, rape, or harm to mother. I understand they are not eliminating all forms of birth control from their employees. It did contain the suggestion that in these cases where a company could withhold these drugs possibly the federal government could pay for it.

Problem is that Plan B is used by many rape victims who do not report their rape. Date rape is massively under-reported. Now I understand that there will be places that will provide it, such as some of these women shelters that are designed to take in rape victims. Thing is you have to get them in there and that is a very difficult thing to do. I truly view all forms of birth control as a preventive service and at different levels and thus feel they should all be available with no exceptions, just as if I worked for a company that was against blood transfusions due to religion that should not be removed from my coverage for that reason.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Texan4Auburn.......I didn't mean to touch a sore spot. But do you really think that providing BC, free or not, will solve the problems you talk about?

Unfortunately no it won't solve those issues. The military wants those guys to be that aggressive, though with a increase in female soldiers and civilian contractors they have taken some hits and are becoming more serious about the rape issues. Date rape drugs, those seem to be becoming more and more popular. I won't name any names because I can only say its a rumor, but my understanding is there are places at Auburn where entirely different sets of drinks are premade with the drugs in them for easy access and distribution.

What I do believe it does is provides women with a preventive method that is related to their health, which is what the ACA is trying to do. I also believe that in instances abortion is a preventive method for a woman's health, and in the case of Hobby Lobby that would include Plan B. We discussed the social factors previously so I wont mention those again. As we discussed, BC is messed up because historically it falls on the woman, and with the exception of getting snipped the best forms of birth control are the ones that are developed for females.

The reason I support Plan B as a preventive method and believe it should be covered like the rest is due to its use post rape. It prevents conception, or aborts depending on who's side you take. So not only does it stop a forced upon pregnancy ( this pregnancy differently than just unwanted), I also believe that it provides some prevention/intervention in regards to mental health. That being that on top of the rape itself, the victim does not have the further duress of having a life as a result of the rape growing in her for 9 months.

As I mentioned, date rape is a very common thing and is very under-reported. My understanding from what I have heard from professionals in the medical/mental services is that a good amount of women will turn to Plan B in this case, even if on some other form of birth control, and that women that suspect they were drugged regardless of whether they believe they had sex or not will also turn to this drug. And not all women are on birth control, some are not sexually active so they don't participate, or some are actively in the progress of trying to get pregnant. Plan B or Ella are these women's only choice.

I think while crude you have to look at it this way. If a male is raped by a male then the damage is physical and mental. If a woman is raped by a male then the damage is physical, mental, and than there is that third additional possibility. That third possibility is a health issue, possibly physically but I would say almost definitely mentally, that can be addressed and avoided potentially, not that the whole incident is a health issue but I'm sure you get my meaning.

Also when I look at this I am tossing everything out the window except for what possibly are the best things for this victims health, both physically and mentally.

I do understand the arguments, cause there is truth in them, that it just gives people a excuse to be lazy, irresponsible, and whore around at free will...especially given these new ideas coming out about open marriages and the hook up mentality of the millennia generation.

Personally for me, I had one pregnancy scare in my entire life when I was 20, and there were only two options I would consider:1) marry her and do our best to support that child, 2) marry her and if we together believed that we could not support that child then find the best family that would provide it with the best life and let that family adopt it. I hope that lets you see that I'm not just defending the concepts as a oops I goofed, I wanna fee out but from a view of personal and public health. Especially for the woman.

I think it will truly be fascinating to see what happens socially and policy wise if a male version of the pill ever does successfully make it to market.

[TitanTiger 21,219]

My understanding is that two forms of IUD's, Ella and Plan B will no longer be available in insurance provided by Hobby Lobby due to the belief by the company they are abortifacients. Least from the articles I read.

Right...the insurance plans Hobby Lobby provides and pays the lion's share of will no longer cover it. All four methods are still obtainable by any female employee that wants them. If getting paid double the minimum wage but not having those 4 methods paid for by their employer is a deal breaker, there are other places to work. Retail jobs are a dime a dozen.

I also linked another article earlier that shows that some on the far right want to use this as a stepping stone to eliminate abortion period regardless of incest, rape, or harm to mother. I understand they are not eliminating all forms of birth control from their employees. It did contain the suggestion that in these cases where a company could withhold these drugs possibly the federal government could pay for it.

Various groups take any SCOTUS decision and attempt to use it for their aims. For instance, the fear on the right was that if the SCOTUS ruled against Hobby Lobby on this, that there was no legal standing that would prevent the far left from eventually forcing them to pay for abortion procedures and RU-486. If religious freedom wouldn't apply here, there's pretty much no instance it would apply and it would embolden those who wanted full abortion coverage in the ACA from the get-go. That slippery slope worry goes both ways, though I think the latter one I mentioned is far more likely to have happened than your doomsday scenario.

And yes, there is a mechanism where these women can obtain the drugs and the government will pay for them rather than Hobby Lobby...which is how it should have been all along.

Problem is that Plan B is used by many rape victims who do not report their rape. Date rape is massively under-reported. Now I understand that there will be places that will provide it, such as some of these women shelters that are designed to take in rape victims. Thing is you have to get them in there and that is a very difficult thing to do. I truly view all forms of birth control as a preventive service and at different levels and thus feel they should all be available with no exceptions, just as if I worked for a company that was against blood transfusions due to religion that should not be removed from my coverage for that reason.

Plan B is available over the counter for about $10. You don't need a prescription. Have at it. But for methods that people have moral problems with such as potential abortifacient properties, you shouldn't run roughshod over their First Amendment rights just because you think it should be available. And it is still available. Everywhere. The only question that was settled is who has to facilitate and pay for it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Titan.......amazing how many people can't seem to grasp this. Maybe because they don't want to?

[DKW 86 7,892]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

Link please.

[homersapien 12,215]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

I think your Righteous Mind is showing.

Haidt seems to agree with me. I considered that it was just my own biases before, but now I have objective proof.

So you think Haidt supports the highlighted statement?

they (liberals) tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views.

You disagreed with my generalization that liberals (if anything) show more empathy than conservatives. I presented my case for that while admitting it is indirect since it wasn't as explicit as my memory suggested. (surprise surprise )

Perhaps you need to clarify your point, but I don't see any support for saying one side is generally more empathetic - or receptive - than the other. It seems obvious to me that either side can show a lack of empathy while trying to relate to the other side. That works both ways. This forum is proof of that.

Speaking of which, I don't see much direct "villainization" of the right by the left on this forum. Certainly no more than vice-versa. I do see a tendency to assume the role of victim, which I think reflects a propensity to infer things. (I realize the irony of saying that, as it represents a microcosm of the subject. )

I think part of empathy is not just that you care when another is in trouble, difficulty, or hurting. Part of it is being able to see things from another's point of view. I think Haidt's hypothesis explains it well:

Haidt’s hypothesis is that it is because conservative values are more overlapping than liberals–conservatives have a “thicker” moral worldview that includes all five values, whereas liberals have a “thinner” view that rests on only two variables. Thus, the liberal moral values are constituent part of the liberal views, but not vice-versa. So conservatives can process and affirm liberal moral views and liberals literally cannot understand how someone could be both moral and conservative–the moral values that might be animating a conservative (say, tradition or loyalty) are essentially seen by liberals as not being worth of moral weight. So conservatives who place weight on those values are literally seen as “immoral.”

I will also say, the quality of left leaning posters here overall is not indicative of the overall left leaning populace. You guys are more rational and reasonable. I don't know if it's that your Auburn affiliation screens out the weirdos or just that you're in such a distinct minority it causes you to argue differently than you'd be in a place that was more "your turf." I certainly think the converse is true...the overwhelming majority of conservatives here brings out the worst in some of them.

And no, I haven't read the book. That article was the first I'd heard of it.

Well, maybe you should read the book. At least before telling someone they are "misinterpreting Haidt". :-\

And to attribute YOUR statement above as being consistent with Haidt's findings is absurd and an insult. (I am trying to be empathetic here, but since I actually read the book we are discussing, it's difficult.)

[TheBlueVue 177]

Titan.......amazing how many people can't seem to grasp this. Maybe because they don't want to?

I wouldn't bet that I grasp it all but, I really dont see why HL OR the govt "should" pay for birth control or abortion. Both are personal decisions and neither are an illness. I think the natural tendency among any particular group with a grievance or a "need" is to set forth their reasons why the govt "should" provide for meeting that "need" but, the govt doesn't have any money. Once entitlements are granted it is virtually impossible to rescind them. The entitlement mentality that drives most of these debates is drowning the country in debt that the govt will probably never be able to repay. We have incurred $90 trillion in unfunded liabilities and the question, I think is fair, is, when do we begin to realize that instead of creating new and more public debt we should trying to at least contain its growth rather than contributing to its continued explosion?

[TitanTiger 21,219]

Well, maybe you should read the book. At least before telling someone they are "misinterpreting Haidt". :-\

Well, when someone quotes a fairly self-explanatory passage from Haidt and his experiment, and your take on it is an almost direct contradiction, how else should I take it other than "you're misinterpreting" him? I guess I could say you're partially ignoring some of his statements and experimental results?

Other than that, I'm not going to get into some pissing match here. I'll add the book to my list, but I think your interpretation is at best leaving out a pretty significant finding of Haidt's as cited in the linked article.

[homersapien 12,215]

Titan.......amazing how many people can't seem to grasp this. Maybe because they don't want to?

Because they are not using a practical argument, they are arguing from principle. I explained this in the "Explaining the Liberal Hobby Lobby Freak-out" thread (posts # 18(p.2); 21(p.3); 47,49 (p.6).

As I said then, the practical argument could justify any prejudice if it's acceptable to put the burden of finding an alternative on the subject.

Its subtle - maybe too subtle in your case - but those are two distinctly different arguments.

[homersapien 12,215]

Well, maybe you should read the book. At least before telling someone they are "misinterpreting Haidt". :-\

Well, when someone quotes a fairly self-explanatory passage from Haidt and his experiment, and your take on it is an almost direct contradiction, how else should I take it other than "you're misinterpreting" him? I guess I could say you're partially ignoring some of his statements and experimental results?

Other than that, I'm not going to get into some pissing match here. I'll add the book to my list, but I think your interpretation is at best leaving out a pretty significant finding of Haidt's as cited in the linked article.

And I am perfectly willing to discuss Haidt's finding as long as we stick to Haidt instead of your (general) interpretation of something taken out of context. (An interpretation which is beyond ironic considering Haidt's intent.)

[Weegle777 78]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

You are tolerant up until my views conflict with yours, then you resort to petty name-calling and high school mob mentality. So you are really more intolerant than tolerant.

[TexasTiger 14,226]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

You are tolerant up until my views conflict with yours, then you resort to petty name-calling and high school mob mentality. So you are really more intolerant than tolerant.

Example? FTR, I have more conservative friends that liberal ones and we get along quite well. When folks come onto a forum like the this to engage in political debate folks are going to disagree. When folks make broad statements, they should be called on them in this context. I have many friends and family that have very different views and voting records from me-- they are good, sincere, well-intentioned, hard working folks whom I respect. If, on occasion, they sweep with too broad a brush, I may rather gently point that out. If they routinely insult me, I spend far less time with them.

[DKW 86 7,892]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

Link please.

Still waiting...

[TexasTiger 14,226]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

I think your Righteous Mind is showing. ;)/> ;D/>

Haidt seems to agree with me. I considered that it was just my own biases before, but now I have objective proof. ;)/>

So you think Haidt supports the highlighted statement?

they (liberals) tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views.

You disagreed with my generalization that liberals (if anything) show more empathy than conservatives. I presented my case for that while admitting it is indirect since it wasn't as explicit as my memory suggested. (surprise surprise :)/> )

Perhaps you need to clarify your point, but I don't see any support for saying one side is generally more empathetic - or receptive - than the other. It seems obvious to me that either side can show a lack of empathy while trying to relate to the other side. That works both ways. This forum is proof of that.

Speaking of which, I don't see much direct "villainization" of the right by the left on this forum. Certainly no more than vice-versa. I do see a tendency to assume the role of victim, which I think reflects a propensity to infer things. (I realize the irony of saying that, as it represents a microcosm of the subject. :)/> )

I think part of empathy is not just that you care when another is in trouble, difficulty, or hurting. Part of it is being able to see things from another's point of view. I think Haidt's hypothesis explains it well:

Haidt’s hypothesis is that it is because conservative values are more overlapping than liberals–conservatives have a “thicker” moral worldview that includes all five values, whereas liberals have a “thinner” view that rests on only two variables. Thus, the liberal moral values are constituent part of the liberal views, but not vice-versa. So conservatives can process and affirm liberal moral views and liberals literally cannot understand how someone could be both moral and conservative–the moral values that might be animating a conservative (say, tradition or loyalty) are essentially seen by liberals as not being worth of moral weight. So conservatives who place weight on those values are literally seen as “immoral.”

I will also say, the quality of left leaning posters here overall is not indicative of the overall left leaning populace. You guys are more rational and reasonable.

Perhaps it's your perception of those to the left of you that is skewed?

I disagree with the far-right views that dominate the modern Republican Party and get cast as ultra-liberal here. I don't identify with the far left. More folks identify as moderate:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx

"Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number."

Typical David, thinks he's making a point when he's missing one.

Here's one link I've already provided. You used to be fond of pointing out how right wing media had a far bigger market than left wing media. Third, read this forum.

[DKW 86 7,892]

This forum isnt necessarily a slice of America.

I dont think one source of media is necessarily more popular just based on identification.

I guess i just wanted to see if you really believed that because i read and am told that Demographics are swinging toward the Dems and will soon totally devastate the Right.

http://cdn.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/06/pdf/voter_demographics.pdf

[TexasTiger 14,226]

This forum isnt necessarily a slice of America.

I dont think one source of media is necessarily more popular just based on identification.

I guess i just wanted to see if you really believed that because i read and am told that Demographics are swinging toward the Dems and will soon totally devastate the Right.

http://cdn.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/06/pdf/voter_demographics.pdf

Demographics may swing toward Dems, or at least away from Repubs, but most Dem voters I know are not rabid leftists-- many used to vote Republican.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

My understanding is that two forms of IUD's, Ella and Plan B will no longer be available in insurance provided by Hobby Lobby due to the belief by the company they are abortifacients. Least from the articles I read.

Right...the insurance plans Hobby Lobby provides and pays the lion's share of will no longer cover it. All four methods are still obtainable by any female employee that wants them. If getting paid double the minimum wage but not having those 4 methods paid for by their employer is a deal breaker, there are other places to work. Retail jobs are a dime a dozen.

I also linked another article earlier that shows that some on the far right want to use this as a stepping stone to eliminate abortion period regardless of incest, rape, or harm to mother. I understand they are not eliminating all forms of birth control from their employees. It did contain the suggestion that in these cases where a company could withhold these drugs possibly the federal government could pay for it.

Various groups take any SCOTUS decision and attempt to use it for their aims. For instance, the fear on the right was that if the SCOTUS ruled against Hobby Lobby on this, that there was no legal standing that would prevent the far left from eventually forcing them to pay for abortion procedures and RU-486. If religious freedom wouldn't apply here, there's pretty much no instance it would apply and it would embolden those who wanted full abortion coverage in the ACA from the get-go. That slippery slope worry goes both ways, though I think the latter one I mentioned is far more likely to have happened than your doomsday scenario.

And yes, there is a mechanism where these women can obtain the drugs and the government will pay for them rather than Hobby Lobby...which is how it should have been all along.

Problem is that Plan B is used by many rape victims who do not report their rape. Date rape is massively under-reported. Now I understand that there will be places that will provide it, such as some of these women shelters that are designed to take in rape victims. Thing is you have to get them in there and that is a very difficult thing to do. I truly view all forms of birth control as a preventive service and at different levels and thus feel they should all be available with no exceptions, just as if I worked for a company that was against blood transfusions due to religion that should not be removed from my coverage for that reason.

Plan B is available over the counter for about $10. You don't need a prescription. Have at it. But for methods that people have moral problems with such as potential abortifacient properties, you shouldn't run roughshod over their First Amendment rights just because you think it should be available. And it is still available. Everywhere. The only question that was settled is who has to facilitate and pay for it.

I wouldn't consider it a Doomsday scenario, it actually has a strong push, but most likely will never happen. As you stated yourself the abortion belief is just potential. It definitly will not terminate a current pregnancy though. I even read stuff that says research indicates that other oral contraceptives besides Ella and Plan B also have the potential of working in the exact same manner of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

Plan B is also more like $48 dollars on average across the country not 10 dollars though.

So if I were a doctor and a patient came in that appeared to be having chest pains, the man is 100lbs overweight lets say, and I ask him do you exercise.. he says no, I ask him what his diet is like.. and it is incredible poor and gluttonous by his description. He then goes into cardiac arrest and his wife starts screaming do something and I look at her and cite Proverbs 23:20-21, 1 Corinthians 6:19, and 1 Corinthians 6:20 (these are the favorites for arguing obesity as a sin in the bible) and state as a Methodist I believe this condition has been brought on by a lifestyle that is in disagreement with my religion, thus there is nothing I can do. I also do not get him another doctor because providing any aid to this condition would be against my religion. He dies. You would have zero issue with that under the first amendment.

[TitanTiger 21,219]

Where your scenario falls short is that no one is objecting to providing certain drugs because people that use them might be sinners. They are objecting because of what the drugs actually do or have the potential to do. Not to mention, the equating of a man on his death bed in cardiac arrest with someone that wants to have sex without getting pregnant is a tad extreme.