Santorum is a lunatic, Part 10,568

[Sbane]

Hrm? Given that Obama is forcing Catholics to pay for abortion and contraception - Santorum's spot on here.

Contraception yes, but abortion? Cite?

[Sbane]

Birth control is used by 98% of Catholic women.

Maybe if you include NFP, but otherwise there is no way that stat is true. At most 60% or 70% of sexually active Catholic women, but certainly not 98%.

I really don't see how anyone who is against abortion can be against birth control. I really can't comprehend it. Abortion is the taking of a possible life (or a life in the eyes of many). Putting it even close to the same level as contraception is ridiculous. The best way to prevent abortions is greater use of contraception, no doubt about it.

[Sbane]

Birth control is used by 98% of Catholic women. This opposition to basic healthcare based on far-right old-fashioned ideas that the vast majority of the country disagrees with is disgusting. I hope Obama doesn't back down on this.

The state is not in a position to dictate to churches what they must do. I agree that opposition to contraception is absurd, but people have their beliefs and they ought to be respected. Not just that, it's a slippery slope saying the state can start telling churches what to do. Be careful: The pendulum can swing the other way down the road. Do you really want that kind of power in the hands of somebody like Santorum some day?

It is called separation of church and state, not state over church.

Contraception need not be covered for church workers AFAIK. Only for Hospital employees. It's a great thing that the Catholic church is involved in running Hospitals, but it ain't a church.

[Sbane]

Birth control is used by 98% of Catholic women. This opposition to basic healthcare based on far-right old-fashioned ideas that the vast majority of the country disagrees with is disgusting. I hope Obama doesn't back down on this.

The state is not in a position to dictate to churches what they must do. I agree that opposition to contraception is absurd, but people have their beliefs and they ought to be respected. Not just that, it's a slippery slope saying the state can start telling churches what to do. Be careful: The pendulum can swing the other way down the road. Do you really want that kind of power in the hands of somebody like Santorum some day?

It is called separation of church and state, not state over church.

Contraception need not be covered for church workers AFAIK. Only for Hospital employees. It's a great thing that the Catholic church is involved in running Hospitals, but it ain't a church.

Say what you will about the Catholic church, but they do a hell of a better job running hospitals than the government.

LOL ok. Did I even try to do a comparison? Do you know my position on the government providing care, you ignorant fool? A Hospital is a Hospital though.

That being said all providers who have ever worked for the VA love it.

[Sbane]

Birth control is used by 98% of Catholic women.

Maybe if you include NFP, but otherwise there is no way that stat is true. At most 60% or 70% of sexually active Catholic women, but certainly not 98%.

I really don't see how anyone who is against abortion can be against birth control. I really can't comprehend it. Abortion is the taking of a possible life (or a life in the eyes of many). Putting it even close to the same level as contraception is ridiculous. The best way to prevent abortions is greater use of contraception, no doubt about it.

Some types of contraception perhaps, but certainly not all. I have far less problem with condoms or even the pill than the morning after pill. Granted, if that were the compromise I'd have to make to get rid of abortion, I certainly would.

As far as the Guttmacher study, it refers to 98% of highly sexually experienced Catholic women have ever used birth control, which is different than saying that 98% of all (or even all sexually active) Catholic women actively use birth control. I will not believe the latter.

Yes, I would assume the 98% would only be for sexually active women. I don't know why sexually inactive women would be on BCP's, unless they have a disease which requires therapy with BCP's, in which case it wouldn't exactly be birth control.

Morning after pills are not abortions. They do not kill a fertilized embryo. They mostly prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. But there is evidence it can prevent implantation which would be your gripe with it? It's not it's main mechanism of action though. Anyways here is what Clinical Pharmacology tells us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://clinicalpharmacology.com/?epm=2_1

[Sbane]

Birth control is used by 98% of Catholic women. This opposition to basic healthcare based on far-right old-fashioned ideas that the vast majority of the country disagrees with is disgusting. I hope Obama doesn't back down on this.

The state is not in a position to dictate to churches what they must do. I agree that opposition to contraception is absurd, but people have their beliefs and they ought to be respected. Not just that, it's a slippery slope saying the state can start telling churches what to do. Be careful: The pendulum can swing the other way down the road. Do you really want that kind of power in the hands of somebody like Santorum some day?

It is called separation of church and state, not state over church.

Contraception need not be covered for church workers AFAIK. Only for Hospital employees. It's a great thing that the Catholic church is involved in running Hospitals, but it ain't a church.

Say what you will about the Catholic church, but they do a hell of a better job running hospitals than the government.

LOL ok. Did I even try to do a comparison? Do you know my position on the government providing care, you ignorant fool? A Hospital is a Hospital though.

That being said all providers who have ever worked for the VA love it.

Vets deserve better than the service usually provided at VAs. The health care offered to vets is part of the benefits package offered in return for their services provided to America. Not that VAs are bad, but in general they could be better. They certainly will never get better if we open government hospitals to all comers "free" of charge AKA the liberal dream.

LOL you should talk to some vets sometimes. But yeah, that level of care cannot be sustained for all Americans. Not without massive tax increases which would cripple the economy.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes they are. They prevent implantation, not contraception. You take them after contraception in order to procure an early term abortion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By the time you take them - the egg has already been fertilized. They take effect after, not before conception.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that were the case you would take them before having sex. We don't call it the 'morning before' pill, do we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the whole purpose of the pill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When you define personhood - as Santorum does, as beginning with contraception - then yes, it procures an early term abortion.

Cite?

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most Catholic institutions do take faith into consideration and try to hire faithful Catholics. This requirement would also apply to nuns who work for various Catholic charities. Terrible optics for Obama not doing the standard opt out clause - where those wishing for a conscience exemption can simply choose not to participate.

I'm not sure why the government should require people to purchase elective coverage. No one has any medical need for contraception.

Um... really? Do you know how many OTHER conditions are treated by the pill?

In fact, I'll help you out...
* Acne
* Severe period pain
* Polycystic ovarian syndrome
* Ovarian cysts
...and plenty more...

Plus women who use oral contraceptives have a much lower rate of ovarian and endometrial cancer...

To be fair Polnut, I do think the Catholic church covers it for those disorders. Correct me if I am wrong though.

[Sbane]

For what? Santorum's position - or the fact that the morning after pill prevents implantation?

You already said so yourself.

Sperm can live in the human body for a long time, believe it or not. That being said the main mechanism of action is to prevent ovulation, you cannot deny that. It may also prevent implantation, but the evidence for that is weaker. As my citation states, it prevents ovulation 70-80% of the time, but is effective 96-98% of the time. Plan B is a gray area, I agree, but it's not straight up killing the embryo like abortion is. Normally implantation fails to occur for many, many different reasons. Nobody ever cares about that though.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for playing. You admit that it prevents implantation, I have a problem with that because I believe that personhood begins at conception.

This is altogether a completely different issue from actual contraceptives (things like condoms), which are prohibited by the Church for use by practicing Catholics.

If people don't want to be Catholic - the solution is really simple. Don't be a Catholic. By the same token, the state should not infringe on the free exercise of Catholic religious beliefs, as Obama is doing here.

That people are justifying Obama's edicts strikes me as self-serving. Rather than paying for contraception that they use, they would rather force the majority of the tax paying population (which has no use or desire for contraception), into payment.

If contraception is so wonderful, then people should have no problems paying for it as necessary. I have no problem with people choosing contraception, but I do have a problem paying for other people to use it when I do not use it or need it myself.

BCP's that need to be taken everyday can get very expensive after a while. They need to be taken everyday even if you only have a sex a few times a month.

I already noted implantation does not occur naturally many, many times after conception. Perhaps we need to craft up some legislation to prevent that as well. You are free to protest against it all you like, but no one will care. You absolutists lost in Mississippi. Mississippi.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and? Why should I be paying for it? I get along just fine without contraception. You want filet mignon every night - great. Does that justify me paying for the steaks?

Who asked you to pay for it? Employers of Hospital workers should pay for it though, whether it be some for profit corporation or the Catholic church. Also it will prevent lives from being lost, if you believe abortion is murder. As someone who is pro-choice only pragmatically, opposition to contraception to me is an tantamount to an endorsement of more abortions.

I don't know when a life starts, but an embryo failing to implant due to natural reasons or due to levonorgestrel is the same to me. If it is a life, then it has been lost in both cases.

Anyways, by including Plan B as something that must be required in the health plans, Obama made a mistake. Plan B only needs to be used once, and thus is not that expensive as opposed to BCP's which need to be used everyday (unless you are a retard and need to use plan B over and over again). There was no need to include it in a health plan. And the Catholic church fighting contraception would have been a losing proposition with church members, not to mention the overall population.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not just hospital workers. It applies to everyone without exception.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're best reply is a Hobbesian choice? No, this only works if you believe that contraception reduces the incidence of abortion AND if you believe that the ends justify the means. First, your premise is flawed, secondly, even if contraception reduced abortion, it still wouldn't be justified.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody is pro choice out of pragmatism. If that were so you wouldn't have to force people to cover abortion and contraception. People are pro choice out of idealism - the desire to shape the world to fit themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it's ok to demolish a building when you don't know if there's someone inside? That's not very good logic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if I were to walk up, mug you, kill you, strip your body and sell the organs to save the lives of 5 others - that's no different then if you died from a heart attack?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so because it's a losing proposition means that they shouldn't fight it. Rubbish. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and protects the rights of Catholics to not pay for contraception.

If Obama wants to ram it through- the constitution also guarantees the right of the people to expel and remove officials who have exceeded their constitutional authority.

First of all, unless you own a business and offer employees health insurance, you don't pay for sh**t.

The requirement does not extend to church employees, but institutions run by the church like Universities and Hospitals are covered by the requirement.

Contraception does prevent abortions since many of those people would choose to have an abortion if they got impregnated due to lack of contraception. And if abortion was illegal, they would go the illegal route which not only ends the life of the fetus but in many cases the life of the mother and in even more cases leaves her infertile and incapable of having children in the future. So yes, you can be pragmatically pro-choice. Don't know if that is the best way to describe it, but that's my stand on the issue.

Oh and Plan B does not kill embryos. Preventing implantation (which has not even been proven yet but that doesn't matter for your absolutist brain of course) is not the same as killing an embryo. Much, much better than killing the fetus after the nervous tissue has started developing.

[Sbane]

Trying to make a big deal about contraception use is the dog that don't hunt.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not single payer, sir. It's an individual mandate. Everyone is required to pay for contraception.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It covers any and all church employees who are involved in these institutions. There, again are nuns that are falling under the mandate. There is significant overlap between those employed by the Church and by these institutions. Not to mention the fact that the law is outright unconstitutional in restricting religious freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

The Church has already said that we are not going to comply.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, not so. Contraceptive use has increased the abortion rate. Abortions today are far higher than they were in the past. Contraception is not perfect, and when contraception fails, couples are far more likely to undertake Abortion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rate today is 10x what it was. Dr. Nathanson himself has testified before congress that doctors prior to legalization performed illegal abortions much the same as they do now. What has changed is that there is significant government support for abortion and the entire industry and legalization has opened the floodgates.

As for complications - do you really want to enter this debate? There are plenty of complications arising from legal clinics which in most states are not required to undertake inspections commenserate with their status as surgical clinics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are you forcing people who disagree with you to fund things that you believe in? Isn't that contrary to pragmatism? It squares up straight with idealism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It kills unborn children.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just like killing an infant is not the same as killing an adolescent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So when does life begin? Where is this bright line between ok and not ok to kill?

You see I don't have a bright line. Abortion is a very yucky issue with no bright lines for me. In the end abortions will always continue to happen. We can either provide a safe environment for them or have them be performed in a back alley somewhere. Abortions are one of the safest procedures when performed in a proper setting, but complications can arise like in any medical procedure. I would prefer abortions be done as early as possible. And preventing implantation would be even better. And even better than that would be TO PREVENT OVULATION WHICH IS WHAT PLAN B DOES ACCORDING TO MEDICAL LITERATURE. ANY ADDITIONAL EFFECTS ARE UNKNOWN BUT MAY INCLUDE PREVENTING IMPLANTATION. And preventing implantation ain't killing something. It's not comparable to real abortions, but perhaps you aren't aware of what real abortions entail. And you think contraception leads to more abortions? LOL is the only response worthy of that statement.

This is a complicated world, my friend. Get used to the gray.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you're comfortable making a life or death decision here based on that uncertainty? I'm not. If we don't know then we shouldn't be doing them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were never done in back alleys. They were done by DRs in clinics prior to legalization. Doctors like Nathanson who did plenty under both regimes testified to this fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite false. Abortion even in a 'safe' setting is riskier than the alternatives. Rather then making the mother safer - the mother is better off giving birth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does that matter? Do you believe that a more developed fetus is a person, but a lesser developed one is not?

If there's not bright line - then there's nothing yucky about abortion through all nine months.

See - I think you do have a bright line.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what, pray tell is a real abortion? When does the child become a child that you can abort?

There is no one line, don't worry. But it's obviously better to abort a mass of cells with no neurons (so it can't feel pain), than a fetus that can feel pain. If there is any line I am willing to draw, it might be around there. But it's not as if I am completely opposed to any abortion performed after that time frame. So yeah, no line but it's preferable abortions be done as soon as possible.

A "real" abortion is actually directly killing the fetus or embryo. Plan B does not do that. It POSSIBLY could stop implantation, which would lead to the mass of cells being ejected from the body. It doesn't feel anything, and that happens all the time even without the use of that drug. It's not considered a miscarriage. But Plan B stops ovulation. That is what is accepted in medical literature and there is no reason why we should believe anything to the contrary. If you would like to rewrite it, I recommend you get a medical degree and do the appropriate research.

[Sbane]

BTW, breastfeeding also causes changes in the uterine lining. It makes perfect sense of course, but some masses of cells (which is a life, supposedly) might get excreted without a chance to implant. I suppose we should ban breastfeeding too....it's not like a baby necessarily needs to be breastfed to survive.

[Sbane]

BTW, breastfeeding also causes changes in the uterine lining. It makes perfect sense of course, but some masses of cells (which is a life, supposedly) might get excreted without a chance to implant. I suppose we should ban breastfeeding too....it's not like a baby necessarily needs to be breastfed to survive.

Generally women tend to be infertile when they're breastfeeding.

Yes, because of the same hormonal changes caused by Plan B......let's not forget it's main mechanism of action. Stopping ovulation!