The Revenge of Sandra Fluke

[AURaptor 1,137]

As long as they pay for it

Should these excluded organizations be allowed to refuse to pay for a hysterectomy because they object on religious grounds?

Reaching pretty far out now

[TitanTiger 21,065]

*SNIP*

Right. And there is a difference in something that is medically necessary but has an incidental side effect vs something that is used for the express purpose of that effect. That distinction may not mean much to you, but it does to some. And it's relevant when you're trying to involve them in the procurement of that thing.

So you do not believe they should be allowed to refuse prescription of these medications to treat something like endometriosis on religious grounds. Good.

Not even the Catholic Church would refuse such a treatment, if medically necessary:

Medical treatments are neither Catholic or not Catholic, per se. What makes their use moral or immoral depends on Catholic moral principles, however. The principle one to consider in these two cases is the Principle of Double Effect. Assuming there is not a better medicine or treatment which does not produce an evil effect, a treatment which has two effects, one good and one bad, may be employed to achieve a good therapeutic result (health, improved health) provided: 1) the action is morally good, or at least indifferent, 2) the bad effect is not directly intended, merely tolerated, 3) the good effect is caused as directly as the bad effect (i.e. the bad is not the means to the good), 4) the good effect is proportionately good to compensate for the bad effect.

So, for example, in the case of endometriosis, IF the best treatment to reduce the tissue growth is to regulate the cycle with a pill which is normally used to prevent conception, 1) the act to reduce the tissue is good in itself, 2) health is intended, not the contraceptive effect, 3) the good effect is as immediately caused as the bad effect, not through it, and 4) the expected good results of reduced pain, health etc. is a proportionate good. It therefore can be justified.

http://www.ewtn.com/...gnu=&recnu=

But of course, that is not what they were being asked to do.

But they have in the past. Remember, Humanae Vitae is less than half a century old. And I'm sure there are a few of the more ridiculous religions out there that still do.

A hypothetical: What if His Holiness released an encyclical announcing "Birth control medication and hysterectomies for any reason are now considered immoral," do you believe these religious objections should still stand?

I believe that is never going to happen. It's just not the sort of thing an encyclical gets written about.

But I further believe that if the government wishes to provide something like this to people, it is more than capable of finding ways not to involve religious organizations at all. And the SCOTUS seems to agree.

[AUDub 11,784]

As long as they pay for it

Should these excluded organizations be allowed to refuse to pay for a hysterectomy because they object on religious grounds?

Reaching pretty far out now

Logical extension of your argument. You said above that people should have to pay for a medically necessary treatment that would result in birth control as an incidental side effect.

[AURaptor 1,137]

That's not the issue at all. Be honest, just this once

[homersapien 12,172]

There's zero weaseling here. I just owned you, and you're not man enough to admit it.

You know what it means when you frequently say you "owned" someone? You didn't. :-\

[homersapien 12,172]

So I should be ok with "slut shaming" because Carville and the Clintons did it too. Duly noted.

It was fine w/ the Clintons did it, but ( and now , by your own admission, YOU called Sandra a slut ! but not when Rush does it ?

See ? You JUST made my case for me !!! You're side are hypocrites ! Phonies ! 100% BSers !

hypothetical, adjective hy·po·thet·i·cal

Simple Definition of hypothetical

• : involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis
  
• : not real : imagined as an example
  

I can't tell if you really don't understand or are just weaseling (again)

[AUDub 11,784]

*SNIP*

I believe that is never going to happen. It's just not the sort of thing an encyclical gets written about.

I don't think that would ever happen either, but there will be another encyclical on birth control and family planning in the future. Humanae Vitae was and is still very controversial within the Church.

But I further believe that if the government wishes to provide something like this to people, it is more than capable of finding ways not to involve religious organizations at all. And the SCOTUS seems to agree.

As long as insurance is so closely intertwined with employment, rulings like this mean the potential that somebody's medical autonomy can be stepped on by their employer is there.

[AUDub 11,784]

That's not the issue at all. Be honest, just this once

So is it yes or no?

[homersapien 12,172]

" Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find " - James Carvill, on Paula Jones.

Where's the outrage ?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA dude I was 10.

Solid attempt at a deflection though

What does YOUR age have to do w/ anything ?

I was speaking of the fake feminists, who ran to Sandra's defense, but let Paula , Monica and all of Bill's sexual targets twist in the wind, as Hillary's Nuts and Sluts ( yep, that's what it was called ) campaign set out to destroy anyone who Bill had slept with who dared to come forward.

But thanks for showing your ignorance a well as your age. I see they go hand in hand on this topic.

Care to identify those people for us or are you just making up a straw man?

[AURaptor 1,137]

You & everyone who bash Rush but let James slide

[AURaptor 1,137]

That's not the issue at all. Be honest, just this once

So is it yes or no?

Not falling for the red herring bait

[homersapien 12,172]

Technically , he was right. As unflattering as it sounds. She wanted others to pay for her to have sex.

She should pay for her own damn contraception

And there it is. We've gone from denial to justification.

Birth control is not an indicator of promiscuity.

As if there were any doubt, Raptor and Limbaugh are in perfect accord.

[homersapien 12,172]

That's not the issue at all. Be honest, just this once

Did you not effectively say people should have to pay for a medically necessary treatment that would result in birth control as an incidental side effect? (Check posts #41 and #42 before answering.)

Try to be honest just this once.

[AUDub 11,784]

That's not the issue at all. Be honest, just this once

So is it yes or no?

Not falling for the red herring bait

You've already answered.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I did not have to. The issue is about contraception, and who should pay for it. I specifically said the individual should pay for it.

That is the issue. Tacking on meaningless hypotheticals and extrapolations is a futile and wasted effort.

[homersapien 12,172]

You & everyone who bash Rush but let James slide

No one is letting Carville "slide". The subject of the thread is Limbaugh and his Sandra Fluke comments.

I did not have to. The issue is about contraception, and who should pay for it. I specifically said the individual should pay for it.

That is the issue. Tacking on meaningless hypotheticals and extrapolations is a futile and wasted effort.

Weasel.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Haha.

[homersapien 12,172]

That's not the issue at all. Be honest, just this once

So is it yes or no?

Not falling for the red herring bait

You've already answered.

Never ceases to amaze me how Raptor will try to weasel out of something he said, even when you can go back and prove it.

Oh, but he's not actually lying, he's just refusing to admit it, as if there's a big difference.

And he gets mad when someone calls him an habitual liar?

[AURaptor 1,137]

You can try to twist my words all you want. I'm still not playing your pathetic game

[cptau 169]

There were a couple of examples given, but just how many stations are willing to let his show and his listeners go to a competing station in their area?

It's not just Limbaugh. The national advertisers are scared of any negative attention based on what is said on any talk radio show. ESPN will fine, suspend and or fire their on air talent for anything ESPN deems to be politically incorrect.

National business are very afraid of losing market share based on coordinated attack campaigns. The use of social media and automated systems makes it appear to the advertisers and the media that millions of people are objecting when it may be only a few people using automated systems.

Since when did common decency become "political correctness"?

Is refusing to have your business associated with radically misogynistic language really a sign of fear?

Do you have any limit for what should sort of language should be rejected, politics aside?

Common decency? It's not so common anymore as it can differ greatly person to person.

Commentators and celebrities regularly use descriptive terms like NAZI, baby-killer, etc., which are much worse, but they often seem to get away with it. We have political leaders associating with people who say these things. Meanwhile some politicians lack common decency, but it's OK when they are popular or represent a certain cause. You are also more likely to get in trouble for holding certain opinions than using certain words. Having a different or stricter idea about what common decency is can get you in trouble and fired if you're not popular of associated with a cause.

I reject the use of language that is perverted, obscene, etc. Unfortunately people are allowed to use a lot of it in public and mass media.

The point is that national businesses are afraid of any significant negative attention from social media and mass media.

The point is that national businesses are afraid of any negative attention from social media and mass media.

[homersapien 12,172]

That's not the issue at all. Be honest, just this once

So is it yes or no?

Not falling for the red herring bait

"Weasel-lying."

[homersapien 12,172]

There were a couple of examples given, but just how many stations are willing to let his show and his listeners go to a competing station in their area?

It's not just Limbaugh. The national advertisers are scared of any negative attention based on what is said on any talk radio show. ESPN will fine, suspend and or fire their on air talent for anything ESPN deems to be politically incorrect.

National business are very afraid of losing market share based on coordinated attack campaigns. The use of social media and automated systems makes it appear to the advertisers and the media that millions of people are objecting when it may be only a few people using automated systems.

Since when did common decency become "political correctness"?

Is refusing to have your business associated with radically misogynistic language really a sign of fear?

Do you have any limit for what should sort of language should be rejected, politics aside?

Common decency? It's not so common anymore as it can differ greatly person to person.

Commentators and celebrities regularly use descriptive terms like NAZI, baby-killer, etc., which are much worse, but they often seem to get away with it. We have political leaders associating with people who say these things. Meanwhile some politicians lack common decency, but it's OK when they are popular or represent a certain cause. You are also more likely to get in trouble for holding certain opinions than using certain words. Having a different or stricter idea about what common decency is can get you in trouble and fired if you're not popular of associated with a cause.

I reject the use of language that is perverted, obscene, etc. Unfortunately people are allowed to use a lot of it in public and mass media.

The point is that national businesses are afraid of any significant negative attention from social media and mass media.

The point is that national businesses are afraid of any negative attention from social media and mass media.

That's all fine, but I didn't really see any cogent responses to my questions.

Of course a business doesn't want negative attention from their association with such language. But is it really fair to call that "fear" or "political correctness?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Homer- take a breath

[homersapien 12,172]

I did not have to. The issue is about contraception, and who should pay for it. I specifically said the individual should pay for it.

That is the issue. Tacking on meaningless hypotheticals and extrapolations is a futile and wasted effort.

We are talking about what you said in post #42 (in response to post #41). You responded to a hypothetical then, why can't you simple confirm what you said now?

[homersapien 12,172]

Homer- take a breath

Stop weasel-lying and I'll let it go.