Birth Control and Personal Responsibility

Can I just interject to clarify something... The media is harping on Birth Control, but if you listen to the Catholic Church, you will see that they are concerned about other aspects of "reproductive services," mainly abortion.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, because although abortion isn't a big deal to me, as a business owner I don't want to be forced to pay for things I don't agree with. I should have some say over where my money goes. I don't like to be forced to buy anything.

On the flip side, I look at taxes and realize that I am funding things like gitmo and bombing villages.

I don't know, it is a complex issue.

Making you pay for insurance and making you pay for a Chevy Volt is a terrible leap in logic. A very small minority of people would by a Volt on their own.

Receiving medical care is something that everyone will do at some point in their lives, many do it often. Most people are already insured.

I assume you already purchase health insurance, so it wouldn't effect you.

What it does is make your insurance cheaper by having more people pay in.

The extra people paying in are generally healthy people that will not add much cost. Those healthy people will eventually get older would have eventually bought insurance.

This is similar to social security.

The young pay for the old.

Your payroll tax is a similar intrusion of personal freedom if you are going to go that route.

I Sip with a Lisp wrote:

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, because although abortion isn't a big deal to me, as a business owner I don't want to be forced to pay for things I don't agree with. I should have some say over where my money goes. I don't like to be forced to buy anything.

Does it make a difference to you if you are charged directly for that service you personally oppose or if your employee uses the money that you've paid them and purchases it themselves?

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

It doesn't matter, in this case. An employer can't ignore the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and pay women less than men for the same work, and then say, "well, you don't have to work for us."

Actually a religion can ignore the equal pay act, or any other employment law it wishes. This was decided by the Supreme Court in the last month.

Now, if people are looking for something to be outraged about, that is it.

Government imposing laws on a religion in direct contravention of that religion's values *should* clearly be a violation of the first amendment. Saying a religion can do whatever it wants, regardless of the acts relation to a religion's beliefs, by virtue of simply being a religion is another issue all together.

Man Card wrote:

I am not defending those actions, but you do realize that you are talking about MAYBE 100 men.

Any facts to back up that claim? Sh*t, in my state alone (small population) there were AT LEAST 5 priests that were outed as sex abusers. I'd be more than willing to bet that the number of pedophiles in the Catholic church was far more than 100.

unknown poster wrote:

First step: Get it through that thick skull of yours that people don't choose to have children because of exceedingly small tax benefits.

Second step: Make the slight inference from this fact to the idea that the question is poorly framed.

Hope that helps.

My main issue with this stuff is that conservatives have a double standard. I do actually believe that removal of disincentives do have some effect, but they never want to acknowledge that government and tax dollars have incentivized and removed disincentives from all sorts of conservative behavior that they hold up as examples of being "self-made" when it is really on the back of government subsidy. Suburbs exist because of government policy that helps the middle class and hurts the poor (zoning rules, highway funds, annexation laws, etc.). If you live in a a leafy suburb 40 miles outside of where you work, you have government to thank.

honest question wrote:

Actually a religion can ignore the equal pay act, or any other employment law it wishes. This was decided by the Supreme Court in the last month.

You're referring to Hosanna-Tabor? I'm certain the court's ruling was limited to a religious organization's agency to select religious leaders, and didn't extend to other positions. Roberts' decision says, "we express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or torituous conduct."

It seems clear that this wouldn't apply to a medical technician at a Catholic hospital, for example.

Listen to the Mockingbird wrote:

Ummm...It is not the same as choosing to not wear glasses or take antibiotics. You see, there is this other human being involved who had no say in the matter. So, no, in spite of your desire for simplistic answers, it really isn't the same.

Then that mistake should be aborted. Choosing to not take bc or use bc has consequences, deal with it. You can't be an idiot then act like Mother Teresa when it comes to the consequences of your stupidity.

That is why this thread was and is intended to talk ONLY about the CHILD TAX CREDIT and the EIC steps for number of children. These things are for having children, period, in addition to the various writeoffs and exemptions.

Well, of course conservatives always want to define welfare as "government benefits poor and black people get". If government aid goes to others, it isn't welfare but money well spent. Like the noxious Blake Hurst that writes anti-government screeds with his "I'm just a poor Missouri farmer) schtick for the National Review who it turns out has cashed millions in farm subsidy checks, which he vigorously defends. Why don't we have a free market for food instead of the government picking winners and losers and incentivizing bad behavior?

Brian wrote:

Well, of course conservatives always want to define welfare as "government benefits poor and black people get".

The child tax credit is phased out at an adjusted gross income of $110,000.

Yep, thems some poor people right there, don't know how they manage.

EZ10Miler wrote:

Listen to the Mockingbird wrote:

Ummm...It is not the same as choosing to not wear glasses or take antibiotics. You see, there is this other human being involved who had no say in the matter. So, no, in spite of your desire for simplistic answers, it really isn't the same.

Then that mistake should be aborted. Choosing to not take bc or use bc has consequences, deal with it. You can't be an idiot then act like Mother Teresa when it comes to the consequences of your stupidity.

That is no more relevant than saying, "People should use BC." Sure, people "should" do a lot of things. Lots of these things that people should do however cannot be reasonably forced upon them (pretty sure that 90%+ of Americans abhor China's one child policy and the implementation thereof).

Thus we are left with another human being involved who had no say in the matter.

So, still no, in spite of your desire for simplistic answers, it really isn't the same. And your, "Then that mistake should be aborted" is just one more simplistic "answer".

Azaleas wrote:

[quote]sub3over40 wrote:

I'm not sure of your point. We are in agreement. The healthcare law requires you to buy insurance. This is the biggest intrusion of personal freedom in history. If they can make you buy insurance, they can make you buy a Chevy Volt or anything they choose. You must have misunderstood my post. I apologze if I was not clear.

I was being sarcastic. This is not the greatest intrusion in personal freedom in history. It barely registers.

I should clarify. It is the great intrusion on personal freedom in the United States by a law passed by Congress.