Thread: You're damn right I'm anti-Catholic Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027159
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I'm anti-Catholic because five of the six Catholic justices sitting on the United States Supreme Court have decided that privately held companies get to decide what forms of birth control its female employees will be able to get through their health insurance. (LA Times article here.)
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
Harrowing and corrupt, indeed, but you go girl, Ginsberg for limiting the damage.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
It looks to me more a peculiar American implementation of a health plan. It also may underscore the oddness of a society which claims to emphasize liberty and freedom seeming to frequently raise limits on it and to control people. Why on earth a supreme court would even accept such a case is also puzzling.
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm anti-Catholic because five of the six Catholic justices sitting on the United States Supreme Court have decided that privately held companies get to decide what forms of birth control its female employees will be able to get through their health insurance. (LA Times article here.)
Chances are they primarily voted that way not because they are (Roman) Catholic but because they are Republican.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Or because they're male Catholics. The one female Catholic on the court sided with the dissent.

Either way, I still blame the Catholic Church for having idiotic views on birth control and for the wrongs done to women because of them.

[ 30. June 2014, 17:46: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm anti-Catholic because five of the six Catholic justices sitting on the United States Supreme Court have decided that privately held companies get to decide what forms of birth control its female employees will be able to get through their health insurance. (LA Times article here.)
Chances are they primarily voted that way not because they are (Roman) Catholic but because they are Republican.
I'd say it was more because they are stupid, but the two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Ironically, I read somewhere that Hobby Lobby has investments in the drug companies that make the contraception devices they object too and imports much of it's goods from China, a nation well known for their pro-life polices. So whilst they're obviously deeply concerned, they're willing to turn a blind eye if it could hit their bottom line.

Won't be sharing my tourist dollars with them!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
I find it offensive that a group consisting entirely of men dared make a decision about women's health without even one woman joining them! The fact that all of their female colleagues were against them didn't give these patriarchs pause!

I honestly want President Obama to pull an Andrew Jackson and ignore this ruling. It's completely wrongheaded.

And we need an amendment to limit large corporations power since the Supreme Court won't do so.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I wasn't surprised. We've lived through 30 years of rising corporate power (and corporate consolidation) at the expense of anything that can challenge it - namely the state and the individual. Now corporations can micromanage the benefits they give their employees in exchange for their labour.

I wonder when they will tell us what we spend our paycheques on, or where and how we use our vacation time. Heck, they already tell us how (or if) we can spend our free time.

It's absurd that a legal entity can have religious rights which can triumph over flesh and blood human beings, but it's come to that. It's become a corporate world and we just live in it. [Mad] [Waterworks]

[ 30. June 2014, 18:13: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Or because they're male Catholics. The one female Catholic on the court sided with the dissent.

Either way, I still blame the Catholic Church for having idiotic views on birth control and for the wrongs done to women because of them.
It still is a pity you're anti-(Roman-)Catholic because of this.
Only a minority of Roman Catholics (male and female) accept those idiotic views on birth control and an even smaller minority live by them.
Also the overwhelming majority of Roman-Catholics are laity and have no formal influence at all on what the hierarchy in the Catholic Church teaches, proclaims, gets up to, manipulates etc.
Also only half of that Roman-Catholic laity is male.
Lastly the vast majority of Roman Catholic laity worldwide is not Republican. (There is still hope for the world.)

As a Roman Catholic who is unwilling to take the easy way out and leave, I acknowledge to carry a small part of the responsibility for the idiotic views on birth control (and a number of other silly, ugly or even criminal deeds of the Roman Catholic church). But as I explained, as a member of the laity I have extremely limited possibilities to influence matters.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Or because they're male Catholics. The one female Catholic on the court sided with the dissent.

Either way, I still blame the Catholic Church for having idiotic views on birth control and for the wrongs done to women because of them.
How about the owner of Hobby Lobby? Are you against his religion? I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think David Green is a Catholic, is he?
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the owner of Hobby Lobby? Are you against his religion? I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think David Green is a Catholic, is he?
He is not.

Consult wikipedia David_Green (entrepreneur) to determine if he is better or worse [Two face]

[ 30. June 2014, 19:36: Message edited by: opaWim ]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
As a Roman Catholic who is unwilling to take the easy way out and leave, I acknowledge to carry a small part of the responsibility for the idiotic views on birth control (and a number of other silly, ugly or even criminal deeds of the Roman Catholic church). But as I explained, as a member of the laity I have extremely limited possibilities to influence matters.
I don't wish to be harsh here, or to point the finger at you. But this is why the RCC gets away with the shit it does - people don't protest enough or rock the boat.

If, as it is alleged, the vast majority of RC laity don't accept the RCC's teachings on birth control, then stand up and make a fuss until the hierarchy begin to see sense. As long as people still come to Mass and give their money and simply keep quiet about "difficult" subjects, nothing will change and the Powers That Be will carry on peddling rubbish.

The Anglican Communion may be a mess of squabbling brats at times, but at least no-one can accuse us of passive acquiescence!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about the owner of Hobby Lobby? Are you against his religion? I'm not sure what it is, but I don't think David Green is a Catholic, is he?
He is not.

Consult wikipedia David_Green (entrepreneur) to determine if he is better or worse [Two face]
Well, I guess that right-wing Catholics and evangelicals have come together on some issues, haven't they? For example, contraception, abortion, and maybe that socialist Muslim Obama?

I'm happy to be agin all of them, but because they're right-wing, not because they're Catholic or whatever.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I don't know what aspect of their thinking was behind this decision - their catholicism, their republicanism or their utter brain-dead stupidity-ism.

Giving corporations rights as if they were people is wrong. They are businesses, you utter fuckwits.

Letting employers make decisions over womens bodies is abuse you utter fuckwits.

Now sort this out you fucking losers.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Actually, it may not be that bad. The court gave the Obama Administration a way out - a fix that was applied to religious institutions which still mandates ABC coverage but doesn't pass the costs onto companies that refuse to cover it.

Justice Alito wrote:

quote:
[The government] could extend the accommodation that HHS (Dan: Health and Human Services) has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS's stated interests.
There is more about it here: Vox.com: Alito gave Obama some advice on guaranteeing ABC Coverage

Ironically, those who are against companies paying for ABC could pay for it themselves directly through taxes.

[ 30. June 2014, 20:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't wish to be harsh here, or to point the finger at you. But this is why the RCC gets away with the shit it does - people don't protest enough or rock the boat.
I can't but agree with you.
But given the, in my opinion principally wrong, power structure in the Roman Catholic church, I have very limited options.
I can pray, I can voice my objections, I can withhold money, I can support dissident priests who do have influence, but apart from leaving that's about it.

[ 30. June 2014, 20:07: Message edited by: opaWim ]
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Schroedinger's Cat;
quote:
Giving corporations rights as if they were people is wrong. They are businesses, you utter fuckwits.
While as we're seeing here it doesn't always work out well, treating corporations as 'legal persons' does largely work out pretty well and most of the other legal options are clumsy or unworkable in various ways. Of course like real people they need to be under constant scrutiny and restraint when necessary, and there are certainly times when the real people behind the corporate person need to be taken account of so they can't get away with things. (Rusty 1960s legal degree speaking here)
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Schroedinger's Cat;
quote:
Giving corporations rights as if they were people is wrong. They are businesses, you utter fuckwits.
While as we're seeing here it doesn't always work out well, treating corporations as 'legal persons' does largely work out pretty well and most of the other legal options are clumsy or unworkable in various ways. Of course like real people they need to be under constant scrutiny and restraint when necessary, and there are certainly times when the real people behind the corporate person need to be taken account of so they can't get away with things. (Rusty 1960s legal degree speaking here)
Surely there's quite a wide gulf, though, between ascribing 'legal personhood' to a corporation, and anthropomorphising them to the extent that they are understood to have consciences? Which seems to me is what is going on here - 'oh, but the company has a conscientious objection to [presumed] abortifacients', which be taken into account...
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The Anglican Communion may be a mess of squabbling brats at times, but at least no-one can accuse us of passive acquiescence!
I think most members of most churches are in them because they (still) expect some sort of help in relating to God and (hopefully) their fellow humans. Relatively few feel called to try to influence the belief system in that church or the way that church is organized. And I still have to find a church that is without grave faults.

Lots of Roman Catholics rock the boat. Without the most visible of those, quite a few of the highly visible Roman Catholic members of the conservative kind (who when challenged claim to be "just normal Catholics") on this ship would have absolutely nothing to write about.

[ 01. July 2014, 06:43: Message edited by: opaWim ]
 
Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on :
 
Boycott the bastards!! [Mad] Hit them where it really hurts. There are plenty of other craft stores.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Schroedinger's Cat;
quote:
Giving corporations rights as if they were people is wrong. They are businesses, you utter fuckwits.
While as we're seeing here it doesn't always work out well, treating corporations as 'legal persons' does largely work out pretty well and most of the other legal options are clumsy or unworkable in various ways. Of course like real people they need to be under constant scrutiny and restraint when necessary, and there are certainly times when the real people behind the corporate person need to be taken account of so they can't get away with things. (Rusty 1960s legal degree speaking here)
Surely there's quite a wide gulf, though, between ascribing 'legal personhood' to a corporation, and anthropomorphising them to the extent that they are understood to have consciences? Which seems to me is what is going on here - 'oh, but the company has a conscientious objection to [presumed] abortifacients', which be taken into account...
Furthermore, it is only certain aspects of conscience which are applicable. I am struggling to understand all of this, not being American, but the court seems to be saying that other types of conscientious objection, e.g. to vaccination, will not be recognized. Is that right?

So the court is basically favouring some religious views and not others? This seems so bizarre, that I feel I have misunderstood it.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Furthermore, it is only certain aspects of conscience which are applicable. I am struggling to understand all of this, not being American, but the court seems to be saying that other types of conscientious objection, e.g. to vaccination, will not be recognized. Is that right?

So the court is basically favouring some religious views and not others? This seems so bizarre, that I feel I have misunderstood it.
I have not had time to study the opinion(s), but my understanding is that what was held was that if there is another reasonable way to achieve the same result, then a business like Hobby Lobby cannot be required to provide contraceptives in violation of the owners' religious beliefs. Here, there is another way—the same compromise that was worked out so that Catholic hospitals don't have to provide contraceptives.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Furthermore, it is only certain aspects of conscience which are applicable. I am struggling to understand all of this, not being American, but the court seems to be saying that other types of conscientious objection, e.g. to vaccination, will not be recognized. Is that right?

So the court is basically favouring some religious views and not others? This seems so bizarre, that I feel I have misunderstood it.
I have not had time to study the opinion(s), but my understanding is that what was held was that if there is another reasonable way to achieve the same result, then a business like Hobby Lobby cannot be required to provide contraceptives in violation of the owners' religious beliefs. Here, there is another way—the same compromise that was worked out so that Catholic hospitals don't have to provide contraceptives.
Yes, I get that, but none the less, the owners' religious beliefs are clearly being given some weight. I am just asking if all religious beliefs are to be given such a status, or only some? If the latter, how will this be decided - will it be those beliefs which the judges agree with, or those which are felt to be compatible with American values, or what?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I wasn't surprised. We've lived through 30 years of rising corporate power (and corporate consolidation) at the expense of anything that can challenge it - namely the state and the individual. Now corporations can micromanage the benefits they give their employees in exchange for their labour.

I wonder when they will tell us what we spend our paycheques on, or where and how we use our vacation time. Heck, they already tell us how (or if) we can spend our free time.

It's absurd that a legal entity can have religious rights which can triumph over flesh and blood human beings, but it's come to that. It's become a corporate world and we just live in it. [Mad] [Waterworks]
It'll be amazing the number of corporations who suddenly discover religion when they realise it means they can wiggle out of some nasty old laws they're not keen on.

My understanding is that the number of companies who can use the Hobby Lobby ruling as a get out of jail free card on certain things is larger than people realise. Figures I saw quoted said something like 52% of the US population were employed by these kind of companies and some of them were large - Dell, Toys R Us, Koch etc.

I suspect that some of people who are currently seeing this as a truimph for freedom of choice will be less than thrilled when:



Tubbs

[ 02. July 2014, 11:46: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
American Shipmates can answer this one but I think it largely is under the Affordable Care Act.
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
American Shipmates can answer this one but I think it largely is under the Affordable Care Act.
Assuming they are it could be the perfect excuse.

A friend of mine has worked most of his life as a missionary for several organizations that had a perfect excuse not to have a pension fund:
Why waste money on a pension when the Rapture was supposed to happen any moment now?
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
Generally speaking, yes, if they have more than fifty employees.

As for whether a corporation could opt-out of providing health care coverage based on a First Amendment argument, I highly doubt it.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
Interesting. I wonder how the Christian Science Monitor handles it?
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
Generally speaking, yes, if they have more than fifty employees.
Not exactly - "Businesses which employ 50 or more people but do not offer health insurance to their full-time employees will pay a tax penalty if the government has subsidized a full-time employee's healthcare through tax deductions or other means."

link

Basically, the government cannot force an employer to provide health insurance - it can only be (very) persuasive by using tax penalties. This is the same mechanism used to persuade individuals to buy health insurance if they are not covered by another plan; the tax penalty is assessed in part to cover the added public expense for treating them in emergency rooms, etc.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The whole "women shouldn't be allowed to have recreational sex, but it's okay for men" always my mind boggle. Who do they think some of these men are actually having recreational sex with ...!
With Sluts! of course. Not with actual women similar to their coworkers, moms, wives, and daughters, but with an entirely different sort of woman called a Slut! And this sort of woman is dirty and immoral, not deserving of health care.

[ 02. July 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
"Closely-held" sluts.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
SCOTUS could use a good liberal purging.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
"Closely-held" sluts.
[Snigger]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The same argument that women shouldn't have contraception because they use it for recreational sex - OMG! - is used to exclude coverage for penis pumps and viagra.
Surely such aids are also required to enable men with erectile dysfunction to have procreative sex? Whilst in practice, that won't happen much, ISTM that there's nothing specific to recreational sex about erectile dysfunction treatment.

By contrast, contraception (qua contraception, rather than the pill as a treatment for certain hormonal or gynaecological issues) is by definition about recreational sex.

ETA: my personal opinion is that contraception, like vaccination, is largely a public health issue, and should be paid for by the government with tax dollars. Health insurance not required.

[ 02. July 2014, 15:07: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Honestly, the whole 'recreational sex' argument sounds like sperm have the consciousness to know whether or not the light at the end of the tunnel is an egg.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The same argument that women shouldn't have contraception because they use it for recreational sex - OMG! - is used to exclude coverage for penis pumps and viagra.
Surely such aids are also required to enable men with erectile dysfunction to have procreative sex? Whilst in practice, that won't happen much, ISTM that there's nothing specific to recreational sex about erectile dysfunction treatment.

By contrast, contraception (qua contraception, rather than the pill as a treatment for certain hormonal or gynaecological issues) is by definition about recreational sex.

ETA: my personal opinion is that contraception, like vaccination, is largely a public health issue, and should be paid for by the government with tax dollars. Health insurance not required.
Okay, then men can only have them if they're in a relationship and have a letter from their partner confirming that these things will only be used for procreative sex. Let's get equal opportunites with this whole recreational sex ban thing!! [Snigger]

Things like this make me thank God that I'm from somewhere with a government provided health service - such as it is!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I think there has been work done which shows that the more often a couple have sex, at any time in the cycle, the more likely they are to conceive at the appropriate time, so there is no (in the right relationship, of course) such thing as purely recreational sex which is not purposed towards procreation. Even if there is no egg currently awaiting fertilisation.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Anyone who thinks that sex is only procreative has never had a dog hump their leg.
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Could a 'closely-held' corporation owned by Christian Scientists or Word-of-Faith types opt out of providing healthcare coverage altogether?!
Is it obligatory for companies in the U.S.A. to provide healthcare coverage for employees?
Generally speaking, yes, if they have more than fifty employees.
Not exactly - "Businesses which employ 50 or more people but do not offer health insurance to their full-time employees will pay a tax penalty if the government has subsidized a full-time employee's healthcare through tax deductions or other means."

link

Basically, the government cannot force an employer to provide health insurance - it can only be (very) persuasive by using tax penalties. This is the same mechanism used to persuade individuals to buy health insurance if they are not covered by another plan; the tax penalty is assessed in part to cover the added public expense for treating them in emergency rooms, etc.
That is why I said "generally speaking."
Yes, one can forgo providing health insurance, but in practice, the penalties are financially prohibitive; thus it is extremely unlikely for anyone to choose that option.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I think there has been work done which shows that the more often a couple have sex, at any time in the cycle, the more likely they are to conceive at the appropriate time, so there is no (in the right relationship, of course) such thing as purely recreational sex which is not purposed towards procreation. Even if there is no egg currently awaiting fertilisation.
So that's men in a relationship with women of child-bearing age who confirm that they're trying for a baby ... Anyone who meets those criteria gets free Viagra and penis pumps etc. All other men can either fund it themselves or find another job with an employer who is willing to find it for them.

I'm failing to see how any reasonable person can disagree with this as it's pretty much what FB has been telling me all day is fine for women.

Praise God for the NHS!!! Canonise Bevin now!!!!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Praise God for the NHS!!! Canonise Bevin now!!!!

Tubbs
I think you mean (Aneurin) Bevan, rather than (Ernest) Bevin, especially as they apparently hated each other (probably due to people confusing them for each other). But yes, each time I collect a free prescription, every time I visit the doctors, every time I make a trip to hospital, I am grateful to Nye Bevan and the others who made the NHS possible, whatever its faults.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
I believe that it was Ernest Bevin who, when told that Nye Bevan was his own worst enemy responded: "Not while I'm alive, he isn't".

That said, I'm pretty sure that rather than the anonymous briefings preferred by todays Tribunes of the Plebs, Cabinet disagreements between Bevin and Bevan were settled by the two men hurling stones at one another, the size of which ten strong men of our own degenerate days could barely shift. Or something.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
The words of Lady Julia Flyte from Brideshead Revisited come to mind about all the brouhaha and accusations of a "Popish Plot " on this issue

"Write a letter to the Times ! Get up and make a speech in Hyde Park ! Start a "No Popery" riot, but for goodness sake , Dont bore me about it !"
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Anyone who thinks that sex is only procreative has never had a dog hump their leg.
(Image of a litter of bizarre-looking human-leg/dog puppy hybrid creatures goes here, like a human foot with a puppy's head, tail and feet sticking out of it, scampering out surreally)
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
Chast - you have a very strange mind. (entertaining too).

Huia
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
And don't forget that at least three of them have ties to Opus Dei: Scalia's son is an OD priest, Roberts sends his kids to an OD school, Thomas was returned to the "faith" by an OD priest. Opus Dei is very active among the Catholic GOP politicians and loves to influence them to vote for furthering OD's conception of what Catholic politicians should be doing: remaking the political landscape into a Catholic state as far as they can. And when you have that many of their people in the Supreme Court, you can get a lot done to further that agenda.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Wouldn't be because they are conservative, patriarchal nutters, than would it?
No, no, no, it is because they are Catholic. Lord knows the conservative patriarchal nutters of other religions aren't having wet dreams over the recent decisions.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, the Hobby Lobby owners are not Catholic. I'm not sure what they are, some variety of evangelical? I suppose there is some kind of unholy alliance.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the Hobby Lobby owners are not Catholic. I'm not sure what they are, some variety of evangelical? I suppose there is some kind of unholy alliance.
AIUI David Green, the founder and principal owner, is the son of an Assemblies of God preacher. I assume he belongs to the Assemblies of God.

I doubt that there is any kind of alliance between the Assemblies of God and the Catholic Church.

Moo
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I doubt that there is any kind of alliance between the Assemblies of God and the Catholic Church.
And yet they have so much in common.
Such irony. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Surely such aids are also required to enable men with erectile dysfunction to have procreative sex?
Men with ED tend to be middle-aged to elderly. How many 50+ year old men are having procreative sex?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
^ I think that's part of the point. If you're going to divide women's sexual behaviour into 'procreative' and 'recreational', logically the same should be done for men's sexual behaviour.

[ 07. July 2014, 09:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
seekingsister:
quote:
How many 50+ year old men are having procreative sex?
In theory it's possible, if they can persuade a woman of child-bearing age to have sex with them. Charlie Chaplin, for example, was still fathering children when in his 70s. I wouldn't have thought the Catholic Church would be interested in encouraging the over-50s to trade their wives in for younger models just so they can go on having "procreative" sex, though.

[ 07. July 2014, 10:16: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
seekingsister:
quote:
How many 50+ year old men are having procreative sex?
In theory it's possible, if they can persuade a woman of child-bearing age to have sex with them. Charlie Chaplin, for example, was still fathering children when in his 70s. I wouldn't have thought the Catholic Church would be interested in encouraging the over-50s to trade their wives in for younger models just so they can go on having "procreative" sex, though.
Indeed. And if it's God's will that fertile women do not contravene His desires by using contraception, surely He also doesn't want men with ED going against His plans by using Viagra.

That people can with a straight face shout about paying for hormonal contraception (which has many legitimate uses other than birth control) while insurance plans have funded ED drugs (which not only have no other purposes beyond their use but also increase risk of heart problems among its users) for years is a constant reminder that sexism, not religion, is the problem here.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
seekingsister:
quote:
How many 50+ year old men are having procreative sex?
In theory it's possible, if they can persuade a woman of child-bearing age to have sex with them. Charlie Chaplin, for example, was still fathering children when in his 70s. I wouldn't have thought the Catholic Church would be interested in encouraging the over-50s to trade their wives in for younger models just so they can go on having "procreative" sex, though.
Indeed. And if it's God's will that fertile women do not contravene His desires by using contraception, surely He also doesn't want men with ED going against His plans by using Viagra.

That people can with a straight face shout about paying for hormonal contraception (which has many legitimate uses other than birth control) while insurance plans have funded ED drugs (which not only have no other purposes beyond their use but also increase risk of heart problems among its users) for years is a constant reminder that sexism, not religion, is the problem here.
Indeed. That's why I'm suggesting a solution to the "problem" that's all about equal opportunities and protects all parties from the "sin" of having recreational sex. Down with this sort of thing!

Tubbs
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
Careful now. [Biased]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And if it's God's will that fertile women do not contravene His desires by using contraception, surely He also doesn't want men with ED going against His plans by using Viagra.
Treatment for erectile dysfunction, just like treatment for anovulation, for example, restores a broken part of a person's body to its natural function.

Contraception inhibits the body's natural function.

About the only thing that they have in common is that they are related to sex. Certainly if you begin with the assumption that women who have sex are sluts who deserve everything they get, whereas men are studs who are following their manly urges, you could end up with the conclusion that you want to pay for "male stuff" but not for "female stuff", and clearly that is deeply sexist.

In the specific case of contraception vs ED drugs, you can follow an entirely non-sexist natural law argument, and end up with the same conclusion.

I'm not sure exactly whose position your "God's will" snark above is supposed to mock - it sounds like some kind of uber-Calvinist predestination fatalism. It doesn't much resemble my understanding of the thoughts of either the Catholic church or of the con-evo right.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A joke going the rounds of atheist forums: a corporation with religious beliefs - an imaginary person with an imaginary friend. Well, it made me laugh.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
That people can with a straight face shout about paying for hormonal contraception (which has many legitimate uses other than birth control) while insurance plans have funded ED drugs (which not only have no other purposes beyond their use but also increase risk of heart problems among its users) for years is a constant reminder that sexism, not religion, is the problem here.
Not true. You cannot separate the sexism in the Supreme Court's recent rulings from religion and politics in the US. Religious institutions are perpetuating sexism because sexism is ingrained in their systems, and this is good Republican politics because single women tend to vote Democrat. And if you don't believe me that the right wing of the Supreme Court is pushing a certain kind of religion on us, take it from Justice Scalia: "For in order for capitalism to work -- in order for it to produce a good and a stable society -- the traditional Christian virtues are essential" (source). Trust me, helping single women to have personal freedom and get ahead in life -- things access to birth control really helps -- is not a traditional Christian value in his eyes.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Treatment for erectile dysfunction, just like treatment for anovulation, for example, restores a broken part of a person's body to its natural function.

Contraception inhibits the body's natural function.
I'm interested that you specify 'a part of' a body in your first sentence above, but plump simply for 'the body' in your second. Am I just a perambulating uterus, then? With my whole body's natural function being to gestate?

In addition, it is worth noting that there is a large chunk of almost every woman's life where the uterus and ovaries have ceased their 'natural' function*, and that this postmenopausal period tends to coincide with the times in life where men begin to experience ED. If menopause is regarded as a 'natural' part of the life-course, could not ED be seen in the same way? In which case, nothing is 'broken'. It's simply coming to the end of its 'natural' life.**

*They still have a pretty significant effect on the body, as anyone who's had a hysterectomy will tell you...

**I am not advocating that therefore no treatment be available, either for menopausal symptoms, or ED, by the way. Simply pointing out that a walking uterus and a walking dick and balls can be regarded as either 'broken' or...I dunno...retired, depending on which lens you use.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I'm interested that you specify 'a part of' a body in your first sentence above, but plump simply for 'the body' in your second. Am I just a perambulating uterus, then?
There was no intent in that particular usage, no. You can replace it with "a part of the body" if you like.

(And it's not just about women, either. An argument about all kinds of contraception would include condoms and vasectomies. In the Hobby Lobby case, the plaintiffs are concerned with particular methods of contraception that they think can cause abortions, where they define an abortion as including inducing the failure of a fertilized egg to implant. My understanding is that in the case of levonorgestrel (Plan B), this is almost certainly a factual error. You can have a religious opinion on what is, or is not, an abortion, but once you've decided what you want to cal an abortion, you don't get to have a religious opinion on whether a particular set of actions induces one.

By construction, anything that might be called an abortion has to occur in a woman's body, so discussions that center on alleged abortifacients rather than on all contraceptives must only be a discussion about women's contraceptives.)

quote:

In addition, it is worth noting that there is a large chunk of almost every woman's life where the uterus and ovaries have ceased their 'natural' function*, and that this postmenopausal period tends to coincide with the times in life where men begin to experience ED. If menopause is regarded as a 'natural' part of the life-course, could not ED be seen in the same way? In which case, nothing is 'broken'. It's simply coming to the end of its 'natural' life.**
Yes, you absolutely could see treatment of erectile dysfunction as a parallel of the treatment of perimenopausal vaginismus, say, or of other peri- or post-menopausal female sexual difficulties.

And all of those treatments would be acting in alignment with the "natural" purpose of the body parts in question.

I am not a great proponent of natural law arguments, and I don't buy the natural law opposition to contraception. But that doesn't make the argument sexist.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Treatment for erectile dysfunction, just like treatment for anovulation, for example, restores a broken part of a person's body to its natural function.
Yeah, but why should we pay for repairing it if you're just going to misuse it again?
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In the specific case of contraception vs ED drugs, you can follow an entirely non-sexist natural law argument, and end up with the same conclusion.
There are numerous studies saying that paternal age is a contributing factor to developmental disorders including autism - some even claim it's more of a contributing factor that maternal age.

JAMA Psychiatry

Nature Magazine

If an older man loses erectile function it is part of the natural decline. What is natural about using drugs to prolong the function and possibly lead to more children with developmental disorders as a result?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Surely such aids are also required to enable men with erectile dysfunction to have procreative sex?
Men with ED tend to be middle-aged to elderly. How many 50+ year old men are having procreative sex?
Some such men are far too busy making dumb Supreme Court rulings.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0